The following video shows how magnets are now made commercially.

In the section on Luigi there are resources explaining how it was done in the early 19th century. The process is very similar, although an electromagnetic " stroking" at the end speeds up the process.

Charging a Leyden jar by a magnet has to involve earthing some of the Lenz "currents" induced by moving or stroking with a magnet.

An induction motor is a Leyden jar charged by a magnet ! What this means I am still pondering, and so are those who are not fduped by the current established theory of Electomagnetism

A fundamental issue with electric and magnetic behaviours is the Spaciometry. The quarter turn is a fundamental natural unit, but only if a whole turn is accepted as a fundamental magnitude. In fact in space we have to accept the sphere as the fundamental magnitude.

In that kind of Newtonian reference frame, Newton taught that dynamic absolutes can be distinguished! In other words, in any other reference frame all is relative!

This is of course a Pythagorean principle best expounded by Newton.

In such a reference frame rotation is a fundamental magnitude and radial extension is a fundamental magnitude. Thus the combination of these 2 dynamism gives rise to a vorticular space as being a derived fundamental. We can go further and recognise that space contains infinitely many centres of rotation and extension, and combining these gives us a derived space of arbitrary roulette or trochoidal spaces which synthesise in a shell like convolution at all scales.

In this context, the quarter turn may well be completely distinguished by similar but distinct behaviours..

The real difference in addition to the quarter turn is radial expansion or contraction. It is my contention that radial expansion in such a complex background is distinguished as " electric" behaviour, and radial contraction as " magnetic" behaviour. As these cannot in the above complex vorticular space described above , ever be free of one another, and because they are by definition the same fundamental motive, leads me to conclude that they should never be considered separately or as if one can be demonstrated without the other.

However, as a fundamental primitive of construction the rotating expanding or contracting sphere provides the quarter turn dynamic, not as may be supposed at the equator, but rather at thr tangent planes to the spherical sutgace. Through such a dynamic rotating dis plane, the radial vector represents electric behaviour, while the rotating tangential disc plane represents magnetic behaviours.

When considering magneto electric dynamics therefore no static vectors or vector planes are assumed to dominate, rather a dynamic racial expansion/ contraction idled through rotating tangential disc planes is posited.

Visually I would expect to see surfaces pock marked with spirals of all sizes ascending or descending with the spheroidal surface.

One simple observation makes all the difference! The electric behaviours cancel. The magnetic behaviours do not cancel!

In every capacitor diagram they show equal and opposite charge , when separated, generating a field. But that field cancels! Place any conductor in the field and it picks up no " charge" . The charging by induction experiments show that fields cancel. They also show that fields called electric tension fields are inductive fields.

So if I take an object and rub off its cancelling field, and take it away, I m left with a field that induces a cancelling field in another object. If I touch that object , my inducing field is is cancelled by me , and I cancel the induced field. . But as soon as I remove my touch, the inducing field is no longer cancelled, and there is no cancelling field because I have touched that away.. So the object now has the same inducing field as my initial inducing field. There is no cancelling field to change the situation, unless I introduce one .

However, a magnetic inducing field is not cancelled. An attracting field is induced nearby, while a repelling field results further away.. The attracting fields combine to form a continuous magnetic current.

A current can be encouraged by stroking a magnet with a magnet in the inducing field. This tends to strengthen the magnetic current. If the stroking magnet is correctly aligned, or to weaken if the stroking agent is misaligned..

This demonstrates that magnetic current flows in the conductor, while electric fields cancel or add up at the extremes of the conductor! So charging a Leyden jar would actually be 2 different but related processes. Using an electric field I can induce another field. Using a magnetic field I could induce a magnetic current flow.

Lenz's observation suggests that magnetic current flow induces electric field. But when south and north magnetic currents flow in the same direction, the electric fieds induced cancel each other over an interaction distance.. The electric field oscillates! Between 2 states then cancels.

Magnetic current does not flow in the same direction for both types ! So for this to happen it must be mechanically imposed. Thus if I drop a magnet through a copper pipe the magnetic currents are both falling in one direction, even though they are flowing in opposite directions locally in the bar magnet,

Now we are told to play a game. We are told that nothing can travel faster than light, and the speed of light is the same for every observer. But the relative speeds create a Doppler effect. Well the Lenz law reactions are the Doppler effect of these field moving relative to a conductor.

This morning I woke with the firm picture of the universal hyperbolic geometric circles in my mind. Norman Wildberger in the video shows how the quadrance of circles in universal hyperbolic geometry vary with the position of a point. The universal hyperbolic geometric quadrants gives a picture of circles in the hyperbolic plane. These circles in three-dimensional represent the kinds of cones and other shapes that occur in space.

These circles are shown in a video which demonstrates that if you put in the formula for quadrance and then attempt to locate all those points with equal quadrance then you get a picture of a circle. This is what you would expect in normal geometry. The circle is that which has equal quadrance. However in the hyperbolic plane these points which are equal quadrance from a fixed point or given pointhave very different boundaries.

As the given point is moving in the hyperbolic plane, the boundaries vary between a circle and the hyperbola. The combined image looks very much like the behaviour of fluid or electromagnetic substances or the ether.

The combined image is the kind of picture that Maxwell drew and called equal potential or equipotential. This is a very strong indication that the geometry of the hyperbolic plane is the kind of geometry that describes the behaviour of moving points in space.

In this case the quadrance represents a kind of Newtonian fluid motive. This Newtonian fluid motive is active according to the law described by the quadrance.

The movement of a rotating forcefield is not described in the electromagnetic theory or literature. The least is not distinguished even though it is described as equipotential is by the Maxwell equations. The reason why it is not distinguished is because it is not understood.

First of all the field that is being described is radial and it is rotating. Secondly the centre of the field is inmmotion. Therefore the description of the effects of the force as the centre Moves is very complicated.

The formula for quadrance in universal hyperbolic geometry By Norman Wildberger, somehow captures this movement very naturally. As the centre is moving in the hypergolic play the circles drawn revealed that kind of combined effect of the motion rotation and the radial expansion.

What happens as the point moves within the circle in the hyperbolic plane and what happens as a point moves outside the circle in the hyperbolic plane isn a good enough distinction to represent or model the behaviour of electricity and magnetism.

It is to be noted that electricity and magnetism Are dynamic forces that move continually. Therefore to represent them by magneto statics and electrostatics is to distort the behaviour of the force fields.

Arago not Oersted discovered the significant relationship between so called electricity and magnetism http://www.nidec.com/en-NA/technology/motor/basic/00028/ It is the fact that magnetic fields are dynamic rotating entities in dynamic equilibrium. This was confused by Faraday as an example of a static field being dragged by a manually rotated one. But the manually rotated one was not measurable until rotated! The accepted explanation involved the new concept of an electric current. But this time, as tere was no obvious lineal or wire direction they were called eddy currents.. The eddy currents were then up posed by Lenz law to generate opposing magnetic fields.

We do not need currents eddy or otherwise. The situation is that rotating magnetic fields exist on conductors and insulators alike. Disturbing these field produce behaviours we have learned to call electric. Rotating these field in dynamic equilibrium is the same as rubbing a cloth or fur through them, and indeed the Wilmhurst machine demonstrates how disturbing these magnetic field generates huge amounts of rotational energy we call an electric spark.

The disequilibriated magnetic rotations gyre and gymbal in the wabe until they can equilibria te again, usually in some larger rotating magnetic field in equilibrium.

The principle aspect of a rotating magnetic field that we call electric is its expansion and contraction. This is always at right angles to its rotational gyre. Arago's experiment also explains the dynamics of Induction in terms of rotating magnetic gyres rather than so called " charges", positive or otherwise.

A clear presentation of standard theory on electric or electrostatic induction.

In the light of the Imhotep Leedskalnin series I have been revisiting the Faraday Lenz law.

My issue is that I have not seen any measurement of the implied current in a closed system with a magnet dropping through. I have seen where a poked magnet is stopped partially through a coil or fully through a copper / aluminium pipe. I all these explanations only one kind of magnetic flux is used. In eds system 2 fluxes or plasmas are used to explain observed behaviour. The flux density at the poles is at a maximum bipolarised state for the 2 flows. Therefore the flux direction changes as each end passes through the col. One would predict a complete reversal of measured responses. This should result in a natural alternating flow.

Given such a flow does Lenz law make sense?

In terms of Eds theory Lenz law would hide the possibility of 2 opposing plasma flows in the moving magnet inducing opposing magnetic effects in a coil.. The PMH shows what happens when such magnetic flow is established inside a coil, the flow is perpetuated. Eds PMH is a much fuller description of the moving magnet in a coil behaviour. Once started, no current flows in the coil until the magnetic current path is broken. If we consider the PMH as a magnetic Leyden jar, then the electric current spark must be a magnetic flux outflow. Currently we assume a conversion of magnetism into electricity, because we posit electricity as a fundamental primitive. This is a departure from the Gilbertians philosophy that posited magnetism as the fundamental primitive.

The sole difference in the observed behaviours of the 2 posited fundamentals is that magnetism always rotates a magnetically charged object, while electricity only attracts or repels another electrically charged object. If we split an electrically charged object the parts repel. Something similar happens when magnets are induced from an electric current carrying wire.

Weak magnets are different to strong magnets. So called electric attraction due to triboelectric / magnetic distinctions are very similar to weak magnetic behaviour. On the other hand very strong electric attraction behaves in a similar way to moderat magnetic behaviour. The induced " electric" phenomena include Rotation of materials if they are geometrically shaped to facilitate this.

So an object with a point in an electric experiment may always rotate so the point faces in a particular direction.

This aspect of the relative power or strength in a phenomenon may explain some qualitative differences in the electrostatic Magnetostatic division.

Rotation with radial variation may account for the radial differences between so called electric and magnetic behaviours, especially with regard to induction magnetic and electric.

It is clear that touching a magnet can transfer the opposite property to certain materials. Similarly touching an "electric" object transfers opposite properties.thus one can apparently isolate a charge in a material since the opposite property has been transferred to some place else. In the case of a magnet we cannot isolate the magnetic charge because it flows freely in space, into and out of defined space. Electric charge is not so free in certain dielectric materials.

To isolate a magnetic charge one has to move the different charges apart orders of magnitude faster than so called electric charge, and the effect is extremely short lived. However using intersecting vortices the state has putatively been demonstrated in the behaviours of so called skymions.

Now we do not need a magnetic or electric charge model. We can use a fluid mechanical rotational model, providing we emulate the observed behaviours. Which model one uses is largely an aesthetic choice. For me the fluid mechanical model is preferable because action at a distance is not needed to transmit phenomena. Given a contiguous fractal regional distribution of space as a substance stress deformations can be proposed.

In such a setup rotation becomes the fundamental motion with radial differences intrinsically included by the concept. However the rotation is a great deal more complex than the usual circle analyss! This is why I constantly refer to trochoidal curves.

The connection between trochoids and the Fourier transform is profound and inescapable. The complex connection to the circle and sphere is also profound. It means that if we do it right we can construct a geometrical model of observed behaviours that approximates as well as we care to go. In addition the construction of probability theory is formally related to the unit circle, and thus to Fourier sequences and truncated series.

Leaving the formal definitions to one side, establishing the geometry of the behaviours as real observables allows us to discuss them in a spaciometric way that does not require abstract axiomatic geometries or pure mathematical descriptions and formulae. One can draw and speak of what is happening in terms of observables.

The question " why?" does not now come into this kind of research, in fact it is more of a hindrance. The paramount question is how?

Of course in this regard mechanics becomes dynamic Geometry, and the need for a topological dynamics becomes clear. Curves and curved surfaces plus extensible and nodal relationships are a crucial development in Spaciometry as a foundational descriptive subject/ expertise.

How does a magnet charge a Leyden jar? I think the PMH begins to illuminate an answer to that question. But to simply understand the PMH the plasmas that are underpinning Eds theoretical treatment need to be placed as the foundation of his theory.

An experiment. Line a tube on the inside and the outside by foil. Drop a magnet through the tube while temporarily grounding the outside foil. what happens ? Alternatively place a copper pipe inside a larger copper pipe. Drop a magnet while temporarily grounding the outside pipe , ensuring both pipes are insulated from ground. What happens ?

Now consider making 6 of these and staving the cups inside each the other. How does this differ fom a voltaic cell?

What happens if you charge the inner cup and earth the last one?

All these types of videos about new technologies, free energy, electric or magnetic anomalies reminding me something Einstein once said : "Something like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds".......lol

Instead of research from the beginning they start somewhere in the middle, mixing wires with spinning objects, surround it with laser beams, generated by a hydrodynamic pulsar that shoot yellow plasma and after all that think they discovered new tech or new powers.....lol

You either have to be fool or cheater or naive : Fool, because if you really discovered something important why you put it on youtube ??? go and do something more meaningful than run to tell everyone what you had found. Cheater, because you show a trick and present it as a reality. Naive, because you don't really understand what you are doing.

Nevertheless some videos are very interesting and can teach very important things and thanks Jehovajah for finding many of them and putting them up.

## Comments

In the section on Luigi there are resources explaining how it was done in the early 19th century. The process is very similar, although an electromagnetic " stroking" at the end speeds up the process.

Charging a Leyden jar by a magnet has to involve earthing some of the Lenz "currents" induced by moving or stroking with a magnet.

http://www.learnerstv.com/video/Free-video-Lecture-284-Physics.htm

In that kind of Newtonian reference frame, Newton taught that dynamic absolutes can be distinguished! In other words, in any other reference frame all is relative!

This is of course a Pythagorean principle best expounded by Newton.

In such a reference frame rotation is a fundamental magnitude and radial extension is a fundamental magnitude. Thus the combination of these 2 dynamism gives rise to a vorticular space as being a derived fundamental. We can go further and recognise that space contains infinitely many centres of rotation and extension, and combining these gives us a derived space of arbitrary roulette or trochoidal spaces which synthesise in a shell like convolution at all scales.

In this context, the quarter turn may well be completely distinguished by similar but distinct behaviours..

The real difference in addition to the quarter turn is radial expansion or contraction.

It is my contention that radial expansion in such a complex background is distinguished as " electric" behaviour, and radial contraction as " magnetic" behaviour. As these cannot in the above complex vorticular space described above , ever be free of one another, and because they are by definition the same fundamental motive, leads me to conclude that they should never be considered separately or as if one can be demonstrated without the other.

However, as a fundamental primitive of construction the rotating expanding or contracting sphere provides the quarter turn dynamic, not as may be supposed at the equator, but rather at thr tangent planes to the spherical sutgace. Through such a dynamic rotating dis plane, the radial vector represents electric behaviour, while the rotating tangential disc plane represents magnetic behaviours.

When considering magneto electric dynamics therefore no static vectors or vector planes are assumed to dominate, rather a dynamic racial expansion/ contraction idled through rotating tangential disc planes is posited.

Visually I would expect to see surfaces pock marked with spirals of all sizes ascending or descending with the spheroidal surface.

In every capacitor diagram they show equal and opposite charge , when separated, generating a field. But that field cancels! Place any conductor in the field and it picks up no " charge" . The charging by induction experiments show that fields cancel. They also show that fields called electric tension fields are inductive fields.

So if I take an object and rub off its cancelling field, and take it away, I m left with a field that induces a cancelling field in another object. If I touch that object , my inducing field is is cancelled by me , and I cancel the induced field. . But as soon as I remove my touch, the inducing field is no longer cancelled, and there is no cancelling field because I have touched that away.. So the object now has the same inducing field as my initial inducing field. There is no cancelling field to change the situation, unless I introduce one .

However, a magnetic inducing field is not cancelled. An attracting field is induced nearby, while a repelling field results further away.. The attracting fields combine to form a continuous magnetic current.

A current can be encouraged by stroking a magnet with a magnet in the inducing field. This tends to strengthen the magnetic current. If the stroking magnet is correctly aligned, or to weaken if the stroking agent is misaligned..

This demonstrates that magnetic current flows in the conductor, while electric fields cancel or add up at the extremes of the conductor!

So charging a Leyden jar would actually be 2 different but related processes. Using an electric field I can induce another field. Using a magnetic field I could induce a magnetic current flow.

Lenz's observation suggests that magnetic current flow induces electric field. But when south and north magnetic currents flow in the same direction, the electric fieds induced cancel each other over an interaction distance.. The electric field oscillates! Between 2 states then cancels.

Magnetic current does not flow in the same direction for both types ! So for this to happen it must be mechanically imposed. Thus if I drop a magnet through a copper pipe the magnetic currents are both falling in one direction, even though they are flowing in opposite directions locally in the bar magnet,

Now we are told to play a game. We are told that nothing can travel faster than light, and the speed of light is the same for every observer. But the relative speeds create a Doppler effect. Well the Lenz law reactions are the Doppler effect of these field moving relative to a conductor.

These circles are shown in a video which demonstrates that if you put in the formula for quadrance and then attempt to locate all those points with equal quadrance then you get a picture of a circle. This is what you would expect in normal geometry. The circle is that which has equal quadrance. However in the hyperbolic plane these points which are equal quadrance from a fixed point or given pointhave very different boundaries.

As the given point is moving in the hyperbolic plane, the boundaries vary between a circle and the hyperbola. The combined image looks very much like the behaviour of fluid or electromagnetic substances or the ether.

The combined image is the kind of picture that Maxwell drew and called equal potential or equipotential. This is a very strong indication that the geometry of the hyperbolic plane is the kind of geometry that describes the behaviour of moving points in space.

In this case the quadrance represents a kind of Newtonian fluid motive. This Newtonian fluid motive is active according to the law described by the quadrance.

The movement of a rotating forcefield is not described in the electromagnetic theory or literature. The least is not distinguished even though it is described as equipotential is by the Maxwell equations. The reason why it is not distinguished is because it is not understood.

First of all the field that is being described is radial and it is rotating. Secondly the centre of the field is inmmotion. Therefore the description of the effects of the force as the centre Moves is very complicated.

The formula for quadrance in universal hyperbolic geometry By Norman Wildberger, somehow captures this movement very naturally. As the centre is moving in the hypergolic play the circles drawn revealed that kind of combined effect of the motion rotation and the radial expansion.

What happens as the point moves within the circle in the hyperbolic plane and what happens as a point moves outside the circle in the hyperbolic plane isn a good enough distinction to represent or model the behaviour of electricity and magnetism.

It is to be noted that electricity and magnetism Are dynamic forces that move continually. Therefore to represent them by magneto statics and electrostatics is to distort the behaviour of the force fields.

http://www.nidec.com/en-NA/technology/motor/basic/00028/

It is the fact that magnetic fields are dynamic rotating entities in dynamic equilibrium. This was confused by Faraday as an example of a static field being dragged by a manually rotated one. But the manually rotated one was not measurable until rotated! The accepted explanation involved the new concept of an electric current. But this time, as tere was no obvious lineal or wire direction they were called eddy currents.. The eddy currents were then up posed by Lenz law to generate opposing magnetic fields.

We do not need currents eddy or otherwise. The situation is that rotating magnetic fields exist on conductors and insulators alike. Disturbing these field produce behaviours we have learned to call electric. Rotating these field in dynamic equilibrium is the same as rubbing a cloth or fur through them, and indeed the Wilmhurst machine demonstrates how disturbing these magnetic field generates huge amounts of rotational energy we call an electric spark.

The disequilibriated magnetic rotations gyre and gymbal in the wabe until they can equilibria te again, usually in some larger rotating magnetic field in equilibrium.

The principle aspect of a rotating magnetic field that we call electric is its expansion and contraction. This is always at right angles to its rotational gyre.

Arago's experiment also explains the dynamics of Induction in terms of rotating magnetic gyres rather than so called " charges", positive or otherwise.

In the light of the Imhotep Leedskalnin series I have been revisiting the Faraday Lenz law.

My issue is that I have not seen any measurement of the implied current in a closed system with a magnet dropping through. I have seen where a poked magnet is stopped partially through a coil or fully through a copper / aluminium pipe. I all these explanations only one kind of magnetic flux is used. In eds system 2 fluxes or plasmas are used to explain observed behaviour. The flux density at the poles is at a maximum bipolarised state for the 2 flows. Therefore the flux direction changes as each end passes through the col. One would predict a complete reversal of measured responses. This should result in a natural alternating flow.

Given such a flow does Lenz law make sense?

In terms of Eds theory Lenz law would hide the possibility of 2 opposing plasma flows in the moving magnet inducing opposing magnetic effects in a coil.. The PMH shows what happens when such magnetic flow is established inside a coil, the flow is perpetuated. Eds PMH is a much fuller description of the moving magnet in a coil behaviour. Once started, no current flows in the coil until the magnetic current path is broken. If we consider the PMH as a magnetic Leyden jar, then the electric current spark must be a magnetic flux outflow.

Currently we assume a conversion of magnetism into electricity, because we posit electricity as a fundamental primitive. This is a departure from the Gilbertians philosophy that posited magnetism as the fundamental primitive.

The sole difference in the observed behaviours of the 2 posited fundamentals is that magnetism always rotates a magnetically charged object, while electricity only attracts or repels another electrically charged object. If we split an electrically charged object the parts repel. Something similar happens when magnets are induced from an electric current carrying wire.

So an object with a point in an electric experiment may always rotate so the point faces in a particular direction.

This aspect of the relative power or strength in a phenomenon may explain some qualitative differences in the electrostatic Magnetostatic division.

Rotation with radial variation may account for the radial differences between so called electric and magnetic behaviours, especially with regard to induction magnetic and electric.

It is clear that touching a magnet can transfer the opposite property to certain materials. Similarly touching an "electric" object transfers opposite properties.thus one can apparently isolate a charge in a material since the opposite property has been transferred to some place else. In the case of a magnet we cannot isolate the magnetic charge because it flows freely in space, into and out of defined space. Electric charge is not so free in certain dielectric materials.

To isolate a magnetic charge one has to move the different charges apart orders of magnitude faster than so called electric charge, and the effect is extremely short lived. However using intersecting vortices the state has putatively been demonstrated in the behaviours of so called skymions.

Now we do not need a magnetic or electric charge model. We can use a fluid mechanical rotational model, providing we emulate the observed behaviours. Which model one uses is largely an aesthetic choice. For me the fluid mechanical model is preferable because action at a distance is not needed to transmit phenomena. Given a contiguous fractal regional distribution of space as a substance stress deformations can be proposed.

In such a setup rotation becomes the fundamental motion with radial differences intrinsically included by the concept. However the rotation is a great deal more complex than the usual circle analyss! This is why I constantly refer to trochoidal curves.

The connection between trochoids and the Fourier transform is profound and inescapable. The complex connection to the circle and sphere is also profound. It means that if we do it right we can construct a geometrical model of observed behaviours that approximates as well as we care to go. In addition the construction of probability theory is formally related to the unit circle, and thus to Fourier sequences and truncated series.

Leaving the formal definitions to one side, establishing the geometry of the behaviours as real observables allows us to discuss them in a spaciometric way that does not require abstract axiomatic geometries or pure mathematical descriptions and formulae. One can draw and speak of what is happening in terms of observables.

The question " why?" does not now come into this kind of research, in fact it is more of a hindrance. The paramount question is how?

Of course in this regard mechanics becomes dynamic Geometry, and the need for a topological dynamics becomes clear. Curves and curved surfaces plus extensible and nodal relationships are a crucial development in Spaciometry as a foundational descriptive subject/ expertise.

How does a magnet charge a Leyden jar? I think the PMH begins to illuminate an answer to that question. But to simply understand the PMH the plasmas that are underpinning Eds theoretical treatment need to be placed as the foundation of his theory.

Line a tube on the inside and the outside by foil.

Drop a magnet through the tube while temporarily grounding the outside foil.

what happens ?

Alternatively place a copper pipe inside a larger copper pipe. Drop a magnet while temporarily grounding the outside pipe , ensuring both pipes are insulated from ground.

What happens ?

Now consider making 6 of these and staving the cups inside each the other.

How does this differ fom a voltaic cell?

What happens if you charge the inner cup and earth the last one?

reminding me something Einstein once said : "Something like shooting birds in the dark in a

country where there are only a few birds".......lol

Instead of research from the beginning they start somewhere in the middle, mixing wires with

spinning objects, surround it with laser beams, generated by a hydrodynamic pulsar that

shoot yellow plasma and after all that think they discovered new tech or new powers.....lol

You either have to be fool or cheater or naive : Fool, because if you really discovered something

important why you put it on youtube ??? go and do something more meaningful than run to tell

everyone what you had found. Cheater, because you show a trick and present it as a reality.

Naive, because you don't really understand what you are doing.

Nevertheless some videos are very interesting and can teach very important things

and thanks Jehovajah for finding many of them and putting them up.