Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I was impressed by Ed's matter of fact style. I got distracted a bit by the hero worship, but I soon sorted that out!
I do not think Ed is some Einstein. What Ed is is Einstein's common sense critic! In fact he is Maxwell, Faraday and other illustrious names critic! Ed clearly went back and read Gilbert's work on Magnetim, or a summary of it. Most text books are always years even centuries out of date anyway.
Ed repeats most of Gilbert's essential experiments but updates it with the "electric current " around a copper wire. From this philosophical standpoint it is easy to explain phenomena in terms of Gilbert's magnet corpuscles or monopoles.
I avoid the polar terminology because it is confusing, so I use plasma instead. Gilbert posits 2 plasmas and these circulate in opposition to one another..
I think it is misleading to use a bar magnet as a model of these magnetic plasmas. Both Ed and Gilbert base magnetism on the earths field. A lodestone is a better model of magnetism. For a long time the Royal society had a multipolar Lodestone in its vaults as the magnetic standard..
Recent research by Ivor Catt demonstrates the untenability of Magnetostatics and electrostatics! In other words your 0 is a dynamic equilibrium, not a static one!
Dynamic equilibria are relativistic in nature, and depend on scale, therefore.
Outside of the dynamic centre the plasmas move rotationally relative to that centre. The plasmas move in opposing rotations which are best visualised as intertwining helices. The scale for this is : fractal or scale free. This means at all scales one should find this behavioural phenomenon. Of course as we drop down or expand in scale the dynamic centres shift accordingly. By that I mean, for example , as we drop down in scale a single magnetic system breaks up into many magnetic subsystems of the same kind. Concentrating on one of the subsystem allows us to drop down to the next scale!
These magnetic subsystems should be thought of in terms of lodestone crystals not bar magnets!
Among the competing understandings of what unites the various currents designated by "Esotericism" in the scholarly sense, perhaps the most influential has been proposed by Antoine Faivre. His definition is based on the presence in the esoteric currents of four essential characteristics: a theory of correspondences between all parts of the invisible and the visible cosmos, the conviction that nature is a living entity owing to a divine presence or life-force, the need for mediating elements (such as symbols, rituals, angels, visions) in order to access spiritual knowledge, and, fourthly, an experience of personal and spiritual transmutation when arriving at this knowledge. To this are added two non-intrinsic characteristics. Esotericists frequently suggest that there is a concordance between different religious traditions: best example is the belief in prisca theologia (ancient theology) or in philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy). Finally, esotericism sometimes suggests the idea of a secret transmission of spiritual teachings, through initiation from master to disciple.[9] It should, however, be emphasized that Faivre's definition is one of several divergent understandings of the most appropriate use of the term.
When I read Ed's instructions on the experiments I am tickled by his directness but impressed by his solid experimental method. He uses the earths magnetic system to magnetise conductors using heat generated by a copper conductor/ resistor.
In the thread about Pierre Luigi I have placed many philosophical papers as a resource. One shows how to create very powerful magnets by alignment even as powerful as the lodestone reference of the time. The difference the copper conductor makes is by supplying the plasmas for the process more directly than by drawing them in from the earths magnetic field.
Then Ed goes on to discuss the PMH. It can be or do 4 things he states. Of these 4 things typically 2 the electromagnet and the transformer are the ones commonly known .mthe third as a generator/ motor is known but under different heading: usually Faradays disc motor or generator, which was a complete subversion of Arago's disc!
These are not new concepts but established engineering constructions. The difference was that Ed, like his predecessors before Faraday, explained these in terms of magnetic currents! Because they had a consistent theoretical and philosophical understanding they routinely stored magnetic currents in permanent magnets! This is still done today by placing keepers over the alternating poles of bar magnets or horseshoe magnets.
All Ed did was update the techniques to include so called electricity! These aspects were simply obscured by the prevailing electron theory. Electromagnets are not switched on and off as soe naively suggest. The hysteresis curve demonstrates that a conductor of magneticity becomes saturated with magnetic plasmas. In that case it retains its magnetic behaviours. To switch it off a small reversing current has to be applied. The PMH is a simple demonstration of magnetic current in a magnetic conductor which has not been saturated with magnetic or Gilbert plasmas.
Another key observation is the natural oscillation of a current around a wire passing through a field magnet. We are universally taught that Fleming's rule determines the current direction around a wire. Ed simply shows that is not the case! Wires that pass through an establish magnetic current develop an oscillating magnetic current themselves! In other words Lenz's Law applies to wires as well as copper discs, and this is why Faraday failed to detect anything substantial in his voltaic cell experiments.
Now Ivor Catt has experimental oscilloscope evidence of this dual magnetic current. He can show that an induced voltage spike spreads out ino 2 opposite voltage spikes . The inducing voltage In the active line also spreads into 2 voltages. These are technically retractions of the current through different media.
Using a galvanometer it would be impossible to detect these magnetic phase differences. But as Ed points out, the flash of light consists of 2 flashes so close together as to go undetected.
.
I have to ask myself, where do we go wrong! These observations are empirical testable and deducuble . When did we lose this common sense approach? The answer I am afraid is hn we let mathematicians and greed loose on these fundamental apprehensions.
I can accept that Ed did not mean electricity he meant magneticity. But that does not run in a wire either. Ed said the plasmas engage in a helical spin dance past each other with plasmas spinning out of and into the wire.
This is a tribomagnetic effect, which means ' frictional/viscous contact of the plasmas are observed as magnetic behaviour
This video shows the tribomagnetic effect involved in a collision. Notice the plasmas eject and interact, but these are split by our terminology into 3 different points of view! The electromagnetic view is usually excluded, leaving the Thermo mechanical view. But the authors claim an electrochemical view!
The simples Gilbert's /Ed's plasma view is thought to simple to explain what is going on. For a modern chemist, physicist, engineer that may be technically true, but for the lay person or the philosopher it is sufficient and general. It is less complex than the electron etc model and more intuitive.
The spiralling helices have a gyre. If the gyres face each other they spiral through each other. If they face away from each other then they are pulled away from each other. If they point parallel/ antiparallel to each other they self organise into a crystalline pattern.
Among the competing understandings of what unites the various currents designated by "Esotericism" in the scholarly sense, perhaps the most influential has been proposed by Antoine Faivre. His definition is based on the presence in the esoteric currents of four essential characteristics: a theory of correspondences between all parts of the invisible and the visible cosmos, the conviction that nature is a living entity owing to a divine presence or life-force, the need for mediating elements (such as symbols, rituals, angels, visions) in order to access spiritual knowledge, and, fourthly, an experience of personal and spiritual transmutation when arriving at this knowledge. To this are added two non-intrinsic characteristics. Esotericists frequently suggest that there is a concordance between different religious traditions: best example is the belief in prisca theologia (ancient theology) or in philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy). Finally, esotericism sometimes suggests the idea of a secret transmission of spiritual teachings, through initiation from master to disciple.[9] It should, however, be emphasized that Faivre's definition is one of several divergent understandings of the most appropriate use of the term.
Arago's disc and tribomagnetism takes many forms, but the principle is the same. Rotate a conductor in the earths magnetic field and see the rotating magneticity couple with other magnetic bubbles.
Faraday's electric current explanation completely obscures the total magnetic behavioural phenomena, and it's implicit link to friction and rotation!
The gyre of these magnetic bubbles is the same. In space there is only one gyre( 3 kinds) but many relativistic views of it. Thus the plasmas appear to have opposing gyres but in fact they have the same. The direction in which a gyre is viewed explains the relativistic north south descriptives.
Without reference to poles we observe attraction and repulsion only. That is a lodestone orients itself, apparently so as to attract. If it is not allowed to reorient then the lodestones have to be pushed together to experience repulsion!
The rules about poles attracting are entirely misleading. The gyres either admit a closer connection by rotation or they do not. Attempting to force 2 gyres together if they are not anti parallel will result in repulsion. Parallel gyres will always repulse.
Do anti parallel gyres attract?
The case is more that the environment around anti parallel gyres pushes them together into closer equilibrium.
Another way to look at it is that the gyres gear anti parallel gyres into closer affinity.
There are perhaps 3 types of gyre: the condensing or inward spiralling one; the fixed radial gyre and finally the expanding or evaporating radial gyre.
In our understanding of magnetism we ignored gyre and went with electricity!
My point is that these empirical evidence records do not confirm existing theory, they provide us with new data to establish new theorie or insights
The description of matter as particles or fragments or corpuscles is well attested to. But what we can now observe is the local dynamics of a corpuscle, or particle. They have behaviours which I simply explain as local rotations. That means to describe the rotation we have to set up a reference frame in the corpuscle and measure the rotations with that reference frame.
While this is a metrical approach, it confirms the fractal nature of fluid rotation. Even if a fluid looks as if it is rotating as one rigid body, in fact we can expect rotation within that rotation at any point we choose.
What that means is that when the sea rolls in onto the beach it does do because that interaction dampens all other rotations leaving the cylindrical rotation onto the beach.
Similarly, when a conducting wire interacts with spacematter or the aether or the Gilbert/ Leedskalnin plasmas the wire dampens all other rotations leaving the rotation around the wire and between the wire.. This energy of rotation is of many frequencies some of which are sufficient to enter ino the lamp and energise lamp light. That this energy is defined as magnetic is not important to me. What is important is that it is all around us and it operates in consistent ways in all materials.
Electricity does not run in a wire it falls upon it from outside and backwashes off it into the surrounding SpaceMatter or cosmic force. When it has the correct frequency it can create sparks and light lamps
The electro Thermo magneto complex is evident, but it takes a while to generate the frequency of rotation for visible " light" : Thermo luminescence!
The theoretical position on these concepts is shifting daily, and mostly in secret because guess who wants to be in a position of commercial advantage?
In any case this article I posted on Arago's disc is more evidence of the mechanical rotation of SpaceMatter being the source of the magneto Thermo electro complex behaviour we currently call Electromagnetism.