Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A Sound Magnetic Base



  • edited November 2014
    The consummation of the principles of a sound magnetic base are found in the Abha coil developed from the Rodin coil principles. The underlying theoretical, spiritual and technological basis is called Vortex based mathematics, but in fact it is an application of modulo 9 geometric analysis careful to model actual phenomenal behaviour. Simply : the opposing flows of rotating waves are frequency modulated. The frequency are typically in the audible range , but do not have to be.

    Randy Powells detailed group theoretic or ring theoretic approach results in additional spaciometric designs and patterns.

    Note, as ed shows if a metal form is filled with magnetic current it exhibits the distinguished polarity, otherwise you do not get a magnet . The detectors only detect south in the north because the magnetic field of the earth is the environmental source of magnetic behaviours on the earth.

    In space polarity does not exist, individual north and south pole magnets or 2 plasmas rotate relative to each other as rotational wave behaviours. Pole densities are called sunspots on the sun, in a lodestone pole densities exist in similar unbarlike patterns, and in fact a bar can be magnetised so that pole densities exist everywhere in the form.
  • Jehovajah,
    magnetic polarity exists everywhere in this universe, with or without Ed. By the way, Ed never
    used the word "field" not for electricity, gravity or magnetism. I believe it's because field is too
    general and vague name for many types of "fields" which in fact are composed of currents
    which occupy space that got the misleading name "fields" by those who could not explained
    the orbital behavior of the "field of power" they where watching and instead they thought it
    "emits" itself out in a Gaussian fashion.

    Now days it's too difficult to go back and admit that or at least check it again without political

    By the way, it's difficult for me to understand why do you think "plasma" is what this universe
    is made from ? and what do you mean by this term ?
  • Tesla's radiant "wave" demonstration

  • edited December 2014
    I include this random link in the hopes that you may illuminate its relevance Barau. The site is my point of interest not this particular video, although I chose it on the basis it looked simple enough to explain the earths rotation in the suns magnetic filaments.

  • edited January 2015

    There are zillions of "perpetual magnetic motor" designs out there on the web. Here is just a couple of such designs:

    Синхронный Магнитный Двигатель "Код Да Винчи"

    Free Energy Magnet Motor fan (Engine) "Free Energy"

    I do not believe that any of it works, or will work. Not because I doubt the feasibility of perpetual magnetic motor per se, but because the inventors of all these "motors" either (1) do not go beyond the flawed conventional understanding of the nature of magnetic field; or (2) simply are not even aware of the most basic properties of magnetic fields.

    For example, the guy in the second link above asserts that he can block magnetic flux in certain directions by his fingers or by plastics! Being virgin and free from the poison of contemporary science education can actually be a plus for an inventor, but ignorance of basic and well-established empirical truths rarely can.

    What is Magnetic Shielding?
  • Ken wheelers latest

  • edited January 2015
    Ken Wheeler makes some interesting points. For example, he is asking an important question: What do the so-called magnetic lines of force, depicted in a typical iron filing demonstration pioneered by Faraday, really mean? And he points out that these lines do not represent the real paths of motion of whatever it is that is moving . I tend to agree with him on this one as far as it goes.

    Faraday's lines of force, I suppose, are the lines around which the real double-helix motion is taking place, i.e. these are simply geometric lines that represent the cores of those winding helical paths of real motion of real stuff (ether). And as such, it would be, perhaps, more appropriate to call these lines magnetic lines of torque rather than magnetic lines of force.

    However, I can't help but think that Ken Wheeler is dead wrong when he claims that magnetic poles are nonsense; it appears (precisely because of his rejection of magnetic poles) that he's got the geometry of ether flow around permanent magnet patently wrong.

    Just look at the enclosed two pictures. One depicts iron filing pattern of a permanent magnet in a real experiment, and the other - a pattern of ether flow around permanent magnet in Ken's head. It does not seem sensible at all to flatly reject the reality behind the well-established and compelling concept of magnetic poles (two clearly separated and precisely located singular points in the first picture), and adopt instead a model which evidently assumes and admits the existence of one singular point only (as clearly seen in the second picture). It does not really matter what the true physical nature of two poles, in the first case, and that of single pivot, in the second case, might be: Ken's model contradicts reality in such profound way that it makes as much sense as the equation 2=1 does.

    With such an epic flop in the model, one would expect other problems to pop up in the model at close inspection. Sure enough, there are other serious problems with the model. How many vortices are there in Ken's model - two, four, five, or practically unlimited? Ken does not tell us. But by looking at his illustration, I would assume that he had in mind practically unlimited count of vortices, with layers inscribed inside each other like layers of onion, but in the shape of paraboloid slices rather than dome shaped layers of onion. The motion along the layers of this parabaloid laminate seem to be arranged in such a way that, if we take any two neighboring layers, we would have one with outward spiraling vortex and the other - with inward spiraling vortex. But this kind of motion simply cannot be stable at extremely high speeds of motion assumed for the ether's dynamics. Why not? Because this layer-wise pattern of motion is basically what we call laminar flow in fluid dynamics parlance, but with incomparably more instability than we could possibly imagine in hydrodynamics, for we have layer upon layer with the direction of flow constantly alternating from one layer to the next one.

    That kind of laminar flow of ether medium is highly unlikely. I believe that the motion of ether around the magnet should be more like a turbulent motion; but unlike the turbulence of air or liquid, the turbulence in ether ought to be highly self-organizing (self-regulating might be a better word), as it is evidenced from the highly stable magnetic field we observe around any natural magnet.

    Click on each picture to enlarge it.
  • Device by hyiq

  • @Barau_R_Tour
    Thanks Barau. However I do not have a difficulty with the 2 pictures, other than Ken has made a Visual " typo" regarding the bottom centripetal vortex in the second part of the second image.

    Poles are artefacts of our observation techniques. For example a tornado has 2 poles essentially. Which leads on to your second point. Complex tornadic systems do indeed have the complex laminar flows ken is uncovering. However to specify a precise structure would require more than what you can reasonably expect from one model maker.

    The pattern of interleaving is also more complex than you may think, as evidenced by the iron filings. It is a mistake to join the filings in continuous loops. Observation does not in fact allow that. In the particular image you have chosen the iron filing evidence of the Bloch wall is distinguishable, and can be seen in the body of the magnet as stripy lines.

    Your analogy of laminar flow is misleading you . You should perhaps consider rotational flow ? As you know rotationl flow in fluid dynamics is very intriguing!
  • The ideas derived from researching the device

  • edited January 2015
    @ Jehovajah:
    Poles are artefacts of our observation techniques. For example a tornado has 2 poles essentially. Which leads on to your second point. Complex tornadic systems do indeed have the complex laminar flows ken is uncovering.
    No, tornado does not have 2 poles. Tornado has no poles at all regardless how you look at it - literally or figuratively. Also, there are magnetic fields, and there are ... magnetic fields. What do I mean by that? Magnetic field (electric field as well for that matter) is nothing but a certain and, more or less, stable pattern of complex motion of the ether. However, one pattern can differ profoundly from another depending on circumstances. I mean, so different, with so strikingly differing characteristics of action, that they may appear to the traditional way of thinking of electromagnetism (i.e. in terms of mathematical fields) as different fields altogether. That's all.

    For example, magnetic field for one arrangement can have two (clearly separated, and precisely located) poles like most natural magnets do. But we can easily imagine a different arrangement where magnetic field has - like a tornado - no poles at all. Take a torus and wind a wire tightly all around it without gaps between the turns of the wire, in other words, wind a toroidal coil instead of the usual cylindrical one. Now, pass electric current through the coil. When the current settles down and steady current is established, we'll have a stationary magnetic field inside the coil (perhaps, some outside the coil too, but not sure about that). Can anyone tell me how many poles this magnetic field has, and where those poles are located precisely? It has no magnetic poles! Don't take my word for it, perform the experiment and, please, let us know if you find otherwise.

    On the other hand, take a regular U-shaped magnet with the usual S and N poles. Now, let us say that we could bend the magnet further to turn U-shaped magnet into O-shaped. What would happen then to the poles? Will they disappear? I highly doubt it; in fact, I am quite sure that our O-shaped magnet (a natural magnet in the shape of torus) will still continue sporting exactly two poles. Again, don't take my word for it, perform the experiment and, please, let us know if you find otherwise.

    Poles are not artefacts of our observation techniques, there is more reality to the poles than you may think.

    Now, here is an interesting question: Does the magnetic field in and around Leedskalnin's perpetual motion holder have poles, or it has none?
    Complex tornadic systems do indeed have the complex laminar flows ken is uncovering... Your analogy of laminar flow is misleading you . You should perhaps consider rotational flow ? As you know rotationl flow in fluid dynamics is very intriguing!
    Well, even the liquid rotating in your cylindrical cup of tea (a kind of simplistic tornadic system) exhibits a pattern of laminar flow. But let's slice in our minds the body of that rotating liquid into cylindrical layers of varying radii. All these layers are rotating in the same direction, i.e. the direction of rotation is not alternating from one layer to the next, as it does in Ken's model. Label those layers with numbers 1, 2 , 3 , 4 ... starting from the innermost and on all the way to the walls of the cup. Now, imagine what would have left from your nice laminar pattern of motion if you could somehow reverse the direction of rotation of the layers with odd numbers and make them rotate CCW while keeping the even layers rotating in the original CW direction.

    If you do it right, you'll get a pretty good understanding of what electromagnetic vortex field is all about. It should be obvious by now that the pattern of ether motion must necessarily, and fundamentally, differ from the pattern assumed in Ken's model.
  • A standard explanation of magnetic properties showing how magnetism is subsumed by electric formulation, that is hidden behind the words . Here the explanation is clear because the electron is set as a magnet ( without clarification),

  • edited January 2015
    I understand your use of the term "poles", however I do not subscribe to it . For example , mass has a scientific definition also, and if I want to be specific in those terms I have no independent freedom to use that term. It is a convention which has its uses and purpose, but being a convention is an agreed artefact. Similarly for poles. Although not common useage Tornadic systems do have a polar structure for which the term pole is appropriate. The point here is semantic , but that in itself is the very point!

    The cup of tea as a tornadic system is too simple to incorporate the interleaving anti rotations , except right at the very initial stirring motion, which is usually dismissed as too complex or turbulent for undergraduate courses in fluid dynamics. The usual practice is to wait until the system has achieved rotational block motion.

    Within a large tornadic system , say the Jupiter red spot, over time this system would achieve block motion, but in powerful complex systems several rotationl centres appear as multiple tornados. These arise because of cylindrical air systems rotating at differing velocities and in Differring directions against each other in an interleaving fashion.

    The stability of a rotational system is legendary, so much so that it is used to control fluid within fluid flows or currents in industrial systems.

    Ostensibly we have 2 choices : base this " electric" power on magnets, or base it on " electric" or charge currents. I do not subscribe to that choice limitation, and am seeking a model which uses Rotation in all it's forms to describe the empirically observed behaviours. At one stage I was convinced Rotation was described only by axial rotation, but now I know that that is not the case. Rotation can be described without the use of axes, making poles a convenient but not fundamental artefact of a model.
  • edited January 2015
    The mechanical models of " waves"

    While very informative, because the presenter grounds his formal wave model in material systems , the wave concept is still tied visually to the Sinusoidal models. The more natural trochoidal system is thus obscured.
  • edited January 2015
    @ Jehovajah
    Although not common useage Tornadic systems do have a polar structure for which the term pole is appropriate. The point here is semantic , but that in itself is the very point!
    Yes, it seems that you and I have completely different understanding of the notion of "pole". In your understanding, pole is more like an indicator of the direction of rotation from one or the other point of view. With this understanding, one cannot speak of the location of the pole: direction of rotation per se does not have a location. On the other hand, pole (in the traditional understanding of the notion, to which I subscribe) always has a precise location - not a formal one, but a real and unambiguous physical location. Pole, in the traditional meaning of that term, is a singularity, i.e. a point of some kind of concentration, the physical reality of which is absolutely undeniable. Your understanding of the notion of magnetic pole does not capture that important fact at all; magnetic pole is much more intricate and rich than you might imagine. That explains, perhaps, why you identify so easily "tornadic poles" with magnetic poles. But they are not equivalent, not even close.

    It is really a bad practice to ascribe to a well-established term (like "pole", or "plasma"), as you tend to do, your own private meaning which is completely different from the traditional meaning of the term. Such practice can be called hijacking of the term, which is absolutely unacceptable for it leads - not surprisingly - to utter confusion and misunderstanding that serves no good purpose.

    I have tried to explain in words why the pattern of ether motion in Ken's model cannot exist referring to its instability. I will try now to do the same with images. Check out the enclosed image. On the right hand side you see concentric layers of vortices with the direction of rotation alternating from one vortex to the next one. Such a sandwich of laminar flows rotating in alternating fashion ("interleaving anti rotations" in your parlance) is not feasible because it does not result in a stable pattern of ether motion.

    The feasible and stable pattern of ether motion in vortices is shown on the left hand side, which identifies a fundamentally different pattern. In essence, this is the type of pattern of which Maxwell famously remarked:
    I have found great difficulty in conceiving of the existence of vortices in a medium, side by side, revolving in the same direction about parallel axes. The contiguous portions of consecutive vortices must be moving in opposite directions; and it is difficult to understand how the motion of one part of the medium can coexist with, and even produce, an opposite motion of a part in contact with it. In (a mechanical) mechanism, when two wheels are intended to revolve in the same direction, a wheel is placed between them so as to be in gear with both, and this wheel is called an 'idle wheel'. The hypothesis about the vortices which I have to suggest is that a layer of particles, acting as idle wheels, is interposed between each vortex and the next, so that each vortex has a tendency to make the neighboring vortices revolve in the same direction.

    On Physical Lines of Force, 1861
    by James Clerk Maxwell
    Click on the image to enlarge it.
Sign In or Register to comment.