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
Now I am in a better position to propose a mechanism.
The very first impression is that of a tuned antennae and witicity. See the Iwaszko brothers in this thread to get the gist.
http://magneticuniverse.com/discussion/68/httpwww-antigravity-net-auabout-us-php#Item_23
However as you will see there is a much deeper motive to lifehack2012 post. It is possible that lifehack2012 is a relative or a son of Floyd Sweet. In that case he has a serious phenomenon to draw attention to.
While it is hard to assess this phenomenon by video and so to positively exclude battery or voltaic action it is demonstrable that capacitsvely altered and activated magnets can generate a voltage as a multiplier effect on an incident varying voltage.
The YouTube channel hyiq.org has copious details and research into this issue.
Incidentally you will find the Heaviide transmission line theory of energy current used to explain a ratio called aspect ratio, which models a lump of energy in the same way recently championed by Ivor Catt who is a contemporary of Floyd Sweet.
There is no reality to current flow. However we may say succession or progression occurs about a wire. What is this observed progression?
Suppose you connect a battery to yourself so as to receive a mild shock. Does the shock feel as if it comes from one direction ? If you reverse the leads does that change the shock direction?
Or more safely does a light bulb light up differently as the battery leads are changed?
What we can detect is a change in the rotation of the magnetic field.
Now if we establish that a galvonometer is based on a magnetic interaction , then changing the connections is changing the magnetic interaction. The question is: is there a change in the current flow? Is there a current flow?
Let's look at hydrolysis.
The interaction at the electrodes depends on the connection to the source. Is this an indicator of a current flow ? The theory is that ions travel between the electrodes. We can see how copper plating implies copper flows from one electrode to the other( and vice versa) . However switching the battery round does not cause copper to appear on the other electrode via the battery. Granted the copper plating is reversed , showing the flow of the copper ion has changed.( and vice versa) but this does not imply an electric current .
What we can measure is against change in the magnetic interaction. The motion is entirely explainable by magnetic interaction.
Now the principle Change in a magnetic behaviour is the change in rotationl direction.. The rotation alone is responsible for the motion behaviour of the galvonometer and the copper ion!
Is there actually a current at all?
It is possible a rotational wave , like a twist in a rope travels up an existing structure of plasma around a wire or an inductor or an insulator..
The idea is not that something flows at the speed of light, but that a deformation of the bulk properties of plasma is all that travels and reflects about a conductor, which thus acts as a wave guide.
Eliminating the mental construct of current makes it simpler to understand how a magnetic rotation propagates by a conductor and how conductors attract and repel.
Guides in parallel with the same rotating wave will combine, superpose , constructively interact. Guides carrying waves rotating in contra directions ( in series) will interact destructively in supper position . The consequence is to fill the intervening space with static plasma . The wires thus are subject to sn increase in outward pressure.
The supposed movement of current contributes nothing to this observed rotational behaviour.
However since most scientists, engineers and mathematicians have a dread of philosophy, they have no clue how the issue has been tackled and resolved in general by Hegel! In addition the mathematics for expressing this resolution was developed by Hermann Grassmann in his Ausdehnungslehre 1844, but completely misunderstood because no mathematician was familiar with Hegels philosophy or Dialectical process beyond the Grassmanns, it seems. The irony is that they were all primary educators up to the level of District supervisors. Hermann later became a professor of linguistics being called to Berlin late on in his life. Only in the 1870's did he see his 30 year old work start to recurve recognition!
What changed? Did mathematicians become Hegelian philosophers? No, they just baulderlerized Hermanns system and squashed it into simplistic Aristotelian logics. Consequently modern physics is in turmoil and confusion because they do not know how to resolve this fundamental dichotomy!
Ivor Catt has opened up a new empirical view of so called electromagnetic theory. Current is obsolete. Instead a wave deformation replaces it. This wave he calls the TEM step wave.
I had to revisit certain basic assumptions I had made, that others had fed to me as a child. I went as far back as Galvani and Volta, to the contradiction between 2 fluids and one fluid, between GalvNi and Franklin with Volta in the middle. It was Volta who showed that everything involves electric charge, but that it needs 2 types of formal forces to describe it. He was the dialectic resolution between the 2 camps, but he wass ignored. His theory was ignored and Galvanis electrochemical model was adopted in Europe modified by Faradays ion model, the 2 fluid model. The fluid model invites currents, it makes sense of currents. Maybe Volta did relent his views at the end of his life, but while he still could he promoted a 2 forces acting at a distance model which relied on the "atmospheres" observed and assumed around every object. When any 2 such atmosphere were connected by a third moisture based atmosphere an electric phenomenon was detectable, usually by taste! It became fashionable to say a current flowed in the wire and into bodily tissues, but Volta was not so sure.
We move to Ôrsted, who was philosophically convinced that current did not flow in a wire. His philosophy remarked that this power flowed into and out of a wire from the environment. He did not conceive of currents in the way his contemporaries did, he hunted for a more fundamental interaction and it was revealed to hom by magnetism. His conclusion was that magnetism was the manifestation of a force that flowed around and through the wires, passing in and out.
We move to Ampère. After seeing Arago's demonstration he among all the great minds there accepted a rotational force of magnetism and set out to demonstrate its mathematical laws. Laplace, Lagrange, Biot, Savot, could not believe it. Force for them only could move in straight lines. So Biot proposed a straight line rectangular model to explain Örsteds findings, only Ampère used a circular loop model. This model was the basis of his declaration of an Elrctrodynamic model, before Maxwells Ekectromagnetic model.
But Ampère having proved his case did no more work on the topic. Despite special pleadings his health and his determination lead him to other studies. Ths left the field open for Faraday and on his back Maxwell to propose a thery of Electromagnetism. It was the Maxwellians, intense students of his difficult concepts who eventually redacted them into the modern form drawing on Ampère to provide the glue, but burying Ampères work under Maxwells more conventional force ideas!
But it was not all Maxwells conception that triumphed. Heaviside and Hertz understood Maxwells mathematical flaws and compensated for them by using Ampères model . But that has been forgotten and overlooked in a whelter of mathematical jargon and formulary. Nevertheless Heaviside was no supporter of the current in a wire model. Rather he understood the energy to flow outside the wire.
We move to Catt, a foremost innovator in electronic chip design, and a paramount troubleshooter hired by billion dollar electronic firms to get it right!
Ivor Catt came by degrees to revoke the classical presentation of Elrctromagnetism and to promote the Heaviside Transmission line wave guide concept. His revelations have come to a head in the Wakefield experiments, in which he demonstrates that there is no static charge , but rather a continually reciprocating wave that travels around the elements of an electronic / electric circuit, being diffracted, refracted and reflected like the wave model suggests.
Forrest bishop a collaborator has extended these observations by a preliminary discussion of appropriate units and concepts for this brave new world.
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
There progress is slow, because they need and prefer careful observable data, not theory or hypothesis.nhowever they both understand the fundamental revolution they are the Harbingers of.
The electric Current is an obsolete medieval concept no longer fit for purpose. Instead they propose a step wave. I on the other hand propose a rotating wave , and not one but 2 travelling in opposite directions with all manner of variety of gyres.
Eds twisting magnetic currents seem to me to be a better basis than a mathematical plane wave description. Although the step wave has been demonstrated on the oscilloscope this is quantitative evidence not qualitative description . With my own eyes I have seen the spiralling spark wave travelling around a wire, much as Ed described. It requires better and further analysis using high speed camera and visualisation techniques, the best we are capable of today!
I thought I'm one of the few that search deep back into it, so it's good to see I'm
not alone into that.
One of the best books for that is "A history of the theories of aether and electricity"
by E.T. Wittaker, printed in Dublin 1910. And of course how can we do without
Maxwell writings ? He was definitely a milestone.
In my opinion if Ben Franklin, Volta, Galvani and Coulomb would be born after Ôrsted
and Faraday - the electricity and magnetism branch would look very different, because
magnetism would have a "fair fight" with the electric charge, so to speak.
In other words, investigating the electric charge was much easier then working with
the elusive magnetism which cannot be conducted, accumulated, runs in a wire and
manipulative like it's brother the electric charge.
At least back then they were not sure which one cause the other, while now it "clear"
the moving charges stands behind every form of magnetism.......
Ed was really a revolutionist that had the courage to stand up and say that there is no
such a thing as Electron and Protons. I'm not suggesting whether he was right or wrong
but that he cut into the chase and explained how magnets could be the electricity that runs
in the wire. In order to get to the "Building Blocks" of matter and energy you have to spare
out most of the elementary particles, unless you try to be fond by physicists and include
all their merchandise of particles and characteristics.
About how electricity runs in the wire. First of all oscilloscope was built based on a certain
knowledge and have a spectrum of results it can show, so I would not consider it as an
objective judge. Second, Ed never showed spiraling sparks around a wire, I think you mix
two observations of one experiments (connecting the two ends of a two soft iron wires)
first is watching the angle which the sparks are flying and the second was watching the
spirals in the hot iron bubble.
In any case the magnetic currents according to Ed runs inside the wire and not around it.
I came to research Ed because of my own research and by RWG research highlighting the PMH. While I admire Ed, I am of course not a believer in his mythology, mostly hyped by those with their own agenda.
Ed the experimenter is accessible and impressive. The conclusions he draws are for the most part consistent with his philosophy and that of a long eastern European tradition of which Nikola Tesla is the prime proponent. The Aether theories are various and numerous, and the book you recommend was also recommended by Eric Dollard. Currently Eric Dollard is the premier researcher in this tradition in my opinion.
To this line of insight I add my own cogitations, right or wrong. I start with Ed not Eric because Ed is nearer to Gilbert's philosophy. Gilbert as you may know is the renowned theoretician on everything magnetic including electric magnetic. Until the 1920's everyone was still using Gilbert's theoretical model. Everything was magnetic, even electricity. It was Einstein who changed the minds of philosophers and promoted Electric magnetism above magnetism primitive. This was because Einstein convinced the doubters that the Electron was real!
Ed held onto the view that these concepts were just models of things we can experience with our senses, not real in or of themselves.
However, if we are to build a good theory we must have a sound base, and that sound base is the magnet!.
However Ed makes clear that the magnet we need at the base is a substance that runs in space with 2 behaviours we call polarity. He then defines 2 types of substance which exhibit this polarity if they run into and out of a material form.
They do not exist only in a magnet. They exist everywhere and at every level as a cosmic force.
Ed is writing in a clear way, but not with sophisticated English. His ideas are clear but not fully exposited. The concept of a magnetic current is meant to stand against and contradict a n electric current. The concept does not feature magnets running in a wire like electricity. It is a combination of the 2 running substances spiralling against each other and spraying out around a wire in every direction. The substance that sprays toward the north in the Aligned experiments forms a north polarity in the fishwire only if it can run into and out of the fish wire along its longer axis. Similarly for the south polarity. Ed gives a specific experiment to demonstrate this.
Thus for me, the idea of a current flowing in a pipe is no longer one I use.
Now Ivor Catt reintroduced what was common electrical teaching in text books as late as 1960, that is the energy that we call electricity flows around the wire not through it. He further demonstrated this by experimental results that make the current theory stumble. However Ivor is not an Ed Leedskalnin Devotee and has explained this in his own words.
My point is that Ed and Ivor describe the same thing , a well known rotational force we call magnetic force. Where Ed is more profound than Ivor is his description of 2 substances flowing at the same time in contra direction, spiralling though each other spraying back out into the surrounding environment. This does depend on several other factors, as the PMH begins to show.
I am certain that Ed has set up a sound basis for magnetic Current, but not for the entirety of magnetism. Further research is ongoing and required.
The spiralling sparks are not recorded by Ed but by a devotee who has recorded them on video in slow motion.
that science is after characterizing nature without knowing what are the building
blocks (matter & forces). This is not my opinion, it is a fact. Every 10-20 years another
elementary particle or force is added. Once it was gravity the electric charge, aether,
magnetism, the atom, light and waves, electrons, photons, protons, radioactivity,
and 30 or so atom builders...... and the chase is on.
It is one of the greatest paradox in our times. Imagine watching earth from Mars with
a telescope that cannot detect living creatures but can describe how building are built
and airplanes can fly without knowing the causes and the motives of who runs this show,
who build them !!! This is why I say that science occupied with characterizing, categorizing,
mathematizing, using systems as quantum mechanic or special relativity or Maxwell equations
or Newton's laws - non of them is using building blocks !!!
Maybe it's my naivety to believe there must be building blocks, but the HLC agree with me
and actually there is no physicist that will say that we have them. So maybe Ed was right
or wrong about the individual magnets, but he was 100% right about the building blocks
paradox.
I was Ed's fan and learned a lot from him. His theory if far from completed especially when
it comes to static electricity, which he gave just a small explanation how it can be connected
to magnetism and I suspect even him could never accomplished this understanding.
Another great paradox is why you Google electrostatic and magnetism and you get one
or two results that actually explain that the two are not connected !!! (out of 1,400,000 that
does not explain why static electricity does not affect a compass for instance).
By the way, I think Einstein just detoured the actual mechanism of magnetism and electricity
with space, time and the speed (and the electric charge as a real unit). He repeated the same
mistake researches did prior and after him - characterizing instead of using the building blocks.
You see, the human mind works in such a way that is easy to manipulate : you show him
that you know how heavy, how fast, what can it do, how it interact with the surrounding,
predict how it will behave, call it a name - and the human mind satisfy and even awarding
you with a Nobel prize. But in fact it's a "partial truth", but who cares ?
Take the electric charge for instance. Can anyone say where this endless radiation or
electric field emanate from it ? How come a point charge can produce this field around
it for 4 million years non-stop ? What kind of mechanism can cause such a phenomena ?
I believe the South and the North pole individual magnets and the Neutral Particle of Matter
could be a good candidates for building blocks, though I suspect they are too elusive for
human being to determine that...... and maybe better stay as is : let humanity explore and
invent new names for particles and forces, not realizing that all are made of the same few
building blocks, so at the end of the day human will stay far enough from the truth while
keep awarding Nobel prizes on discovering nature and formulating mathematics that
describe the behavior of the envelope without knowing what's inside......
A compass needle is affected by an "electrostatic field" . Simply charge a pen by rubbing it and bring it near a compass needle. Why are we not told this? Because it confuses the hell out of kids who are being taught electric charge as different to magnetic poles.
Video-recording of few such experiments are presented below:
Recording 1
Recording 2
Recording 3
Recording 4
Recording 5
Watch carefully, the results are fascinating. The piece of paper is clearly rotating and drifting along the surface of the pen.
On the one hand, it is clear that this rotation is a manifestation of magnetic phenomenon, on the other hand, there is no electric current here to speak of - eddy currents, or something like that - which, according to contemporary physics, is what brings to life magnetic fields to begin with.
In the framework of the prevailing paradigm of electric currents generating magnetic fields, it seems hard to explain the unmistakable manifestation of the presence of a magnetic field in an electrostatic setting.
of steel and not because it is a South or North magnetic pole !!! Check it out.
object (usually will rotate the objects that it's longest axis will face the electrified object,
in such a case this imaginary line will influence the largest "line of matter").
Ed described how it work but it seems that he himself did not understand fully how
this is a magnetic phenomena because the way he explained it there are too many
questions that he did not explain like he did for magnetic currents.
In any case, to figure out why static electricity is a magnetic phenomena is much
harder than to explain why electric current is in fact magnetic current.
The spiraling piece of paper in your videos have to do with the electrified pen edge
trying to get hold of the "maximum substance line" of the paper matter, once it was
polarized.
The difference between a bar magnet and your pen is that a bar magnet have two
magnetic poles at each far end, while at the pen plastic surface there are many magnetic
poles tiny ones, very close to each other and having both South and North poles facing
to the direction of the piece of paper at the same time. Eventually either a group of South
poles or North poles will be stronger than the other group and will attract the atoms of the
paper from their opposite pole. That's why the paper will line up so it's maximum line of
atoms will face the pen.
A bit complicated to explain, but it's a window to gravity and other fields of static electricity.
When we speak of electron, we routinely imagine a point charge which is surrounded by electric field with perfect spherical symmetry. But, as far as I know, no one ever proved experimentally that electric field around a stand-alone electron has spherical symmetry. That kind of symmetry seems highly unlikely to me. However, it is an experimental fact that, if we charge a piece of round conducting material, we always get a perfectly symmetrical electric field around the conductor. Why is that? I think that electrons are more like little magnets with north-south poles, and they almost instantaneously arrange themselves on the surface of a conductor like little thorns pointed radially, thus forming kind of bristling hedgehog.
Spinning piece of paper in my demonstrations above is probably the result of the fact that "electron-magnets", being in the process of rearranging themselves slowly on the surface of the pen, have not attained yet the arrangement that "hides" the magnetic field. Slowly - because we are dealing with an insulating material of the pen here; with a conducting material it does not seem possible to reproduce such pirouette dancing.
Coulomb and the second time by a much more accurate experiment by Robert Milikan.
In both experiments the results were "average of many occurrences" and not one definite
result. Up today no one suspect that the erratically behavior of the torsion-balance (Coulomb)
or the oil-drop (Milikan) are a result of a greater and more complex system.....
In fact they had to figure out first the test that you showed and after understanding why
"electrified" object attract every small piece of matter (even water), then go and figure the
positive and negative.
In any case the results of Coulomb were known to him prior to performing those tests which
their average gave the magnitude of the unit charge, because it behave according to the inverse
square law. Recently there was a great debate whether he faked his tests results or he really
attain them and sum their average to get his final conclusion. Even great Maxwell suspected
he new what the conclusions would be before he actually perform the experiments.
The electric point charge is a strange animal which emits and electric field around it with
no apparent emission system but by tiny invisible demons which aloud to exists in order to
promote this textbook theory.
The Electron which was discovered by JJ Thompson is most likely a tiny pieces of matter
which were teared by the heat of the cathode ray tube (which was constructed in a very
strange way of connecting two batteries together.....).
Your picture of electrons set themselves on a surface like thorns is more appropriate for
single magnetic circulations with South & North pole pointing out. According to textbooks
you cannot sit down an electron on a surface of a matter like you mentioned (and they are
right because there is no such a thing called Electron.....).
You see, if you try to make piece between electricity and magnetism, claiming they are
two different phenomena you are heading a barricade that eventually you'll ask yourself
how come they are so similar ?
Psychologically it's very hard to grasp that there is no electricity because that's how we
grew up, educated and the computer screen we are watching right now could not be exited
w/o it...... But this because technological advance which in order to do that you need to
discover the characteristics of nature....... you don't care if they call electrons or magntones
as long as you can do with them the technological revolution - because that's what matter !
The plastic of the pen is not conductive but an insulator and that's why the two magnetic
poles are on the same side. It happen in a capacitor as well, Van de graph generator and any
static electricity phenomena or device.
But it's not the end of the story since there are many unanswered questions yet to come.
Surely you will question this simplistic description. It is not the truth but a model or analogical system. Can I make an experiment that highlights these descriptors that demonstrates behaviours seen in and around a magnet?
It would seem that I can make headway as long as I use some attractive and repulsive media. But then I find nothing is precisely as I have described. I am left with the thing itself, the lodestone crystal with all those intriguing behaviours.
Suppose now I break up a lodestone crystal , will I get a bar magnet? Or rather some fractal relative of the lodestone.?
To me the answer to these questions is to stop believing in man made models and to study the natural ones. This not only to accurately record their behaviours but also learn useful patterns .
The triboelectric series obscures the tribomagnetic series. The way rubbing affects the behaviour of materials and rotation in a local region has to be studied before assigning the concept of a magnet or electric. At the moment one term is a behavioural descriptor based on a location, the other is a material descriptor base on the same observed behaviour. At one time they were thought to best be separated, while Gilbert thought they were best to be brought together. Örsted confirms they are the same kind of interaction, but his peers dis not want to change their settled views.
I think Ed simply chose to go with Gilbert snd Örsted. Ampère tried to modify Gilbert and Örsted so he could write a formula, but essentially he just pointed out the circuit of the currents.
We cannot get much further than that , but we can test 2 fluids To see if that is a useful model, especially if viscosity and density are different in the 2 fluids.