about the Ferrocell (ferrolens)

[bistander]

Good research on the subject

http://www.ferrocell.us/references/M...uid%20Cell.doc

Magnetically Controlled Reflection of a Ferrofluid Cell

Michael Snyder
Department of Physics and Astronomy
102 Natural Science Building
University of Louisville

I liked the way Michael presented in his paper.

And I also liked this one.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/acmp/2017/2583717/

Research Article
Light Polarization Using Ferrofluids and Magnetic Fields
Alberto Tufaile,1 Timm A. Vanderelli,2 and Adriana Pedrosa Biscaia Tufaile1

Regards,

bi

ps. I think part of the problem regarding this topic is the attempt, by some, to prove, or at least show, that the ferrocell depicts the magnetic field when there is no agreement on the definition of magnetic field amongst members here.

[dyetalon]

http://www.ferrocell.us/references/M...uid%20Cell.doc

Magnetically Controlled Reflection of a Ferrofluid Cell

Michael Snyder
Department of Physics and Astronomy
102 Natural Science Building
University of Louisville

I liked the way Michael presented in his paper.

And I also liked this one.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/acmp/2017/2583717/

Research Article
Light Polarization Using Ferrofluids and Magnetic Fields
Alberto Tufaile,1 Timm A. Vanderelli,2 and Adriana Pedrosa Biscaia Tufaile1

Regards,

bi

ps. I think part of the problem regarding this topic is the attempt, by some, to prove, or at least show, that the ferrocell depicts the magnetic field when there is no agreement on the definition of magnetic field amongst members here.

This research has been going on for many years, and we're sloooowly getting somewhere.
I agree with your comment.
The cell is showing us the effect of a magnetic field on moving, micron-sized, twisted cylinders with light passing thru them.

There are not solid answers yet.
The mechanisms responsible are still debatable and open for discussion.

That's why I'm here !

[Markoul]

Case Closed

I could have sworn I posted something yesterday, but I don't see it here now.

Let me repeat:

Please don't make this a thread about magnetism. It's about the cell.
Seeing and describing the visual effects of the cell is one thing, but don't forget the opposite is true- you can use the cell and magnetism to control the direction of light !

Continuing on with my mysterious missing post, I ask:
What happens when you shine light thru a grid of slits?"

I'll extent this question to include cylinders.
Lets assume these cylinders are 150 to 200 um in length.

????

Start by reading this. Even if you don't get the math, the graphics are good.

Magneto-optical Kerr effect in resonant subwavelength nanowire gratings - IOPscience

After you read it, remember they are basing their results on fixed-substrate grids. The 'grids' in a cell are dynamic and in motion.

Instead of their fixed, simple cylinders, the cell makes dual-helix cylinder-shaped thingies that are in motion.


More:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's either a good imitation or a duck



Kikuchi Lines

Timm,

There is nothing really more to prove here.

Mike's microscopy video sealed the deal.

You have little nanoparticles lines, needlles witch work in unison and align with an extrnal magnetic field applied flux and are ****ing reflective to the omnidirectional light when they get polarized by the field lighting it up like a christmas tree and making it visible! Thus the lines you see on the ferrocell ARE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES OR ELSE FLUX OF THIS FIELD!

Ferrocell is 100% correctly and accurately showing the visible image of a magnetic field.

Reflection is the dominant light effect here. All other possible light effects are minor and little to nothing contribute to the end result.

I told you before, Faraday never doubted his iron filings experiment and used it to describe magnetism. So now after 200years an new guy came on the blog to replace grandpa iron filings thus the ferrocell and he is ****ing amazing.


It is not the ferrocell which is wrong BUT the 200 years classical image of a dipole magnetic field iron filings imprint we had in our brain plugged in all this time. Well, it is time to show the world the real thing using your God given invention. We are writing history.

I am not taking for given that the classical magnetic field picture is correct and try to explain what the ferrocell is showing and why it is showing it that way? But rather the fact the ferrocell is showing the correct 2D compressed image of a magnetic field and try to understand from there what the magnetic field would look in 3D Euclidian space.

The debate is over for me.

And yes if it's imitating 100% accurately a duck since I am not interested in eating just looking at, as far as I am concerned it is the duck.


some sidenotes: I think Mike did not use a double microscope slide with the ferrofluid in between. Just a drop on a single slide. If he would had used a double slide that would be perfect since it would emulate the strong Van der Waals forces in a ferrocell and we would not observe any Brownian motion and gravity related motions in the fluid.

kind Regards,

EM

[dyetalon]

Timm,

There is nothing really more to prove here.

Mike's microscopy video sealed the deal.

You have little nanoparticles lines, needlles witch work in unison and align with an extrnal magnetic field applied flux and are ****ing reflective to the omnidirectional light when they get polarized by the field lighting it up like a christmas tree and making it visible! Thus the lines you see on the ferrocell ARE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES OR ELSE FLUX OF THIS FIELD!

Ferrocell is 100% correctly and accurately showing the visible image of a magnetic field.

Reflection is the dominant light effect here. All other possible light effects are minor and little to nothing contribute to the end result.

I told you before, Faraday never doubted his iron filings experiment and used it to describe magnetism. So now after 200years an new guy came on the blog to replace grandpa iron filings thus the ferrocell and he is ****ing amazing.


It is not the ferrocell which is wrong BUT the 200 years classical image of a dipole magnetic field iron filings imprint we had in our brain plugged in all this time. Well, it is time to show the world the real thing using your God given invention. We are writing history.

I am not taking for given that the classical magnetic field picture is correct and try to explain what the ferrocell is showing and why it is showing it that way? But rather the fact the ferrocell is showing the correct 2D compressed image of a magnetic field and try to understand from there what the magnetic field would look in 3D Euclidian space.

The debate is over for me.

And yes if it's imitating 100% accurately a duck since I am not interested in eating just looking at, as far as I am concerned it is the duck.


some sidenotes: I think Mike did not use a double microscope slide with the ferrofluid in between. Just a drop on a single slide. If he would had used a double slide that would be perfect since it would emulate the strong Van der Waals forces in a ferrocell and we would not observe any Brownian motion and gravity related motions in the fluid.

kind Regards,

EM

I'm certain there is more to this than light reflecting off the particle chains.
An activated cell (magnetism and light) is experiencing a lot more than reflection.
If you do not want to recognize there are much more phenomenon happening that is your prerogative. If you are sure you know, then good for you.
I'm not convinced we are done here.

Dig deeper into how light reacts when it encounters a tiny diamagnetic object. You will find many reactions at work, besides scattering.

I do, however agree with your point of view about Ferrocell vs iron filings.
In order to get traction in this area, we need to present it in such a way that first-time readers aren't shocked and offended by this theory.

To blatantly state 'the Ferrocell shows the true magnetic field' will have to be watered down and palatable for the scientific community.

You can say anything you want here, but scientists aren't even going to read past the title.
Trust me on this. I've been trying since 2004 to get anyone in the science arena's attention. Presentation is everything.

And a side-note about the fluid.
A container of EFH1 ferrofluid will not settle over time due to Brownian motion and the Van Der Waals effect.

Likewise, gravity has no effect on the individual particles, but only on the entire mass collectively.

The coating (surfactant) on the nanoparticles provide the steric values necessary to keep them apart (it's their cute little tails).

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/hu...s/StericSt.htm


From wiki: "These surfactants prevent the nanoparticles from clumping together, ensuring that the particles do not form aggregates that become too heavy to be held in suspension by Brownian motion. The magnetic particles in an ideal ferrofluid do not settle out, even when exposed to a strong magnetic, or gravitational field. A surfactant has a polar head and non-polar tail (or vice versa), one of which adsorbs to a nanoparticle, while the non-polar tail (or polar head) sticks out into the carrier medium, forming an inverse or regular micelle, respectively, around the particle. Electrostatic repulsion then prevents agglomeration of the particles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid

NOW, when Brian adds mousemilk to the mix, he is changing the colloid's fluid density by including an oil with a much lower viscosity than mineral oil (the colloidal in EFH1). The result is a brighter display and obviously a faster response time. Both of these changes are a direct result of lower viscosity and smaller particle size.

I've tried many different colloids over the years, but there always seems to be a drawback (downside) to each one. Of course I don't publish my development notes here at Ferrocell (unless you are one of my collaborators)


By the way Electrostatic Repulsion creates Electrostatic potential...

[TheoriaApophasis]

Timm,
Thus the lines you see on the ferrocell ARE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES OR ELSE FLUX OF THIS FIELD!

EM

nahhhh, thats half the story.

the lines you see and the DARK PARTS you dont see are no diff than the so-called "lines of force" sen using ferrofluid in a VIAL where you see SPIKES and "anti spikes"

also no diff than constructive and destructive interferences from the "double slit experiment"


the interlacing magneto-dielectric field pressures around the magnet are either CONSTRUCTIVE or DESTRUCTIVE


you see LINES of light and LINES of dark,

[Markoul]

By the way Electrostatic Repulsion creates Electrostatic potential...

dyetalon,

There is only one way to tell for sure.

Put a strong magnet close to the ferrocell on top, leave the ferrocell open and measure any voltage across it's surface of the thin film.

Even if it's so, I find it hard any electrostatic net effect to produce a voltage high enough to initiate an measurable significant ion current.

But again I could be wrong.

EM

[Markoul]

nahhhh, thats half the story.

the lines you see and the DARK PARTS you dont see are no diff than the so-called "lines of force" sen using ferrofluid in a VIAL where you see SPIKES and "anti spikes"

also no diff than constructive and destructive interferences from the "double slit experiment"


the interlacing magneto-dielectric field pressures around the magnet are either CONSTRUCTIVE or DESTRUCTIVE


you see LINES of light and LINES of dark,

Agreed.

Nevertheless, the Ferrocell, ferrolens, supercell, supercharged supercell or superdubber supercell is the best tool so far in eons we have in order to

"Unveil the true nature of magnetism"

Don't you agree?


BTW, no one so far answered Markoul's riddle:

There is balloon full with water. Someone is doing a small tear with a knife on the balloon. Water pours out of the balloon.

Question: What is the balloon? What is the water inside the balloon? What is the tear on the Balloon? What is the water pouring out of the balloon? What is the knife? and who is this mother****er holding the knife and making the tear on the balloon?...

EM
p.s. the first who solves the riddle wins a one night stand with the mother****er!...eeeh! I meant wins the knife.

[dyetalon]

nahhhh, thats half the story.

the lines you see and the DARK PARTS you dont see are no diff than the so-called "lines of force" sen using ferrofluid in a VIAL where you see SPIKES and "anti spikes"

also no diff than constructive and destructive interferences from the "double slit experiment"


the interlacing magneto-dielectric field pressures around the magnet are either CONSTRUCTIVE or DESTRUCTIVE


you see LINES of light and LINES of dark,

I'm in agreement with the 'lines of dark'

[TheoriaApophasis]

supercell is the best tool so far in eons we have in order to

"Unveil the true nature of magnetism"
Don't you agree?

NOOOOOOOO


Cause its just a tool,.... and we all know you give a FUKN ape at the zoo a hammer and chisel, hell go around killing other monkeys with it

But if you give a hammer and chisel to an artisan, he might carve out a masterpiece in wood or stone fit for a museum worth millions.



if you show a FERROCELL to a knuckle dragging retard , hell just say. "SO!!!!! hows this gonna get me RICH OR LAID !??!?!?!?!?!!?!?"

[TheoriaApophasis]

I'm in agreement with the 'lines of dark'

from my lecture, on LINES OF FORCE

There are no magnetic LINES of force, these are not “lines”. So-called “lines of force” pertaining to magnetism is a gross perceptually-based error and absurdity. It has absolutely no reality whatsoever. Said “lines” are only the peaks and troughs of the conjugate magneto-dielectric system which are mutually both manifest and anti-manifest as they interplay against each other towards both (the creation of) space and counterspace. This is simplex constructive and destructive interference patterns

The “lines of force” is a nonsense concept and came from Faraday in viewing iron filings above a magnet. The lines are due to constructive and destructive pressure mediation between divergence and convergence of the magneto-dielectric, namely the re-integrating dielectric. There are no lines, and force is qualified as the action of one thing upon another.

The presumed magnetic “lines of force” are ether wake-fronts, both 2-dimensionally circular and extrapolatively curvilinear (to the mass). These endless wake fronts are the genesis of magnitude which begins the measure of same, so conceptualized as time.

Constructive and destructive PHASE due to spatial variance and or displacement depending on the subject observed, be it light or the magneto-dielectric interlacing of a palpable magnetic field of a magnet is the source of the presumed “lines” of force and lack thereof. The absence of light or assumed magnetism is DESTRUCTIVE rather LOSS or self-canceling in the dielectric which TERMINATES IN COUNTERSPACE

Interference observed in the double slit experiment is the exact same thing…..however contrary to mathematicians (falsely paraded as scientists) there are no WAVES of light, since a wave is not a thing, NOR is light a damn particle.

Actually you don’t need a double slit, only a single needle, not the eye, ie just a BAR , you have the same results

There CANNOT BE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE since magnetism is only the dielectric field in expression from loss of energy or inertia. Where there is one, there is ALWAYS the other

[dyetalon]

dyetalon,

There is only one way to tell for sure.

Put a strong magnet close to the ferrocell on top, leave the ferrocell open and measure any voltage across it's surface of the thin film.

Even if it's so, I find it hard any electrostatic net effect to produce a voltage high enough to initiate an measurable significant ion current.

But again I could be wrong.

EM

There are many ways to tell for sure, but leaving a cell open and using a meter to measure voltage will not work.

It's a process that requires the cell to be free of atmosphere and contained within it's own boundaries. The particles create stresses when influenced by the field and these stresses lead to positive pressures inside the cell.

Look at an open dish of ferrofluid with a magnet is sitting under it.
See the spikes? Imagine the fluid 'trying' to spike, but it can't because it's restricted inside the cell. It's trying to achieve a specific geometric shape due to the forces upon it and the way the cubic structures react (it's called the Rosensweig Instability)

example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlrszoiGzJ4

What I'm referring to is a jump in energy.

"If an atom, ion, or molecule is at the lowest possible energy level, it and its electrons are said to be in the ground state. If it is at a higher energy level, it is said to be excited, or any electrons that have higher energy than the ground state are excited. " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level

With a magnetic field and light, the particles (with the surfactant) go into a another energy state and while excited, kick out an electron (sorry Ken).
It's almost impossible to measure, but a good electron microscope could do it. (yea Ken, I know).

This is a feature of electrostatic potential from dielectrics.
(look it up)

[TheoriaApophasis]

kick out an electron (sorry Ken).

Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla
Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly)

“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.” – N. Tesla

“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” – E. Dollard

“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)


The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.



just playin' with ya Timm, cause i LUV U

[dyetalon]

Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla
Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly)

“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.” – N. Tesla

“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” – E. Dollard

“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)


The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.



just playin' with ya Timm, cause i LUV U

OH you a funny guy

Really, my views on the electron are somewhere inbetween Tesla and status-quo.
Calling it an electron allows me to communicate with other members of the scientific community. If I call is something else, the conversation ends.

I don't subscribe to the 'billiard-ball' concept at all. It's hard to pinpoint a spinning vortex of energy but they can be localized and measured.

Simply stated: A difference of potential (dielectric) is where they come from and their flow (current) is what connects them together.

[mikrovolt]

Ken, Have an enjoyable time in Idaho,
There is always hope for a paradigm shift in magnetism.
Joe

[Markoul]

Why is that?

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwdvh6zRLwQ[/VIDEO]


I always asked my self why a Gauss meter does not measure any flux or very little at the middle of the magnet? Although we know from the ferrocell there is an enoromous amount of flux lines going and passing though the Bloch axis a the middle of the magnet as shown also in this video and also in the figure below:





I believe this is for two reasons:

1) Gauss meters using a Hall sensor are meausing the vertical part of the flux hitting the sensor and not so much the horizontal part of the flux of a magnet. In other words Gauss meters are measuring more at the Z-axis direction.

2) The flux in the Bloch axis of a magnet is squeezed all in a tiny almost 2D plane, therefore flux density is enormous at the middle of a magnet coming from both poles. However, again Gauss meter are designed to measure flux density per a specific and constant surface, thus for example say one square cm. If flux squeezed below that minimum surface area it will not be registered by the meter.

On the other hand, a ferrocell because its nanoparticles are free to move at any direction (6 Dof) is picking up magnetic flux from any direction and has no problem to register and depict the field of a magnet at the middle Bloch region when a magnet is put on its side on the ferrocell.

Finally the reason why Brian is picking up distance wise with the ferrocell first the side field of a magnet and not the poles field is I believe because the geometry of the dipole field consisisting of two torus making up a squezzed sphere meaning the net spherical field is geometricaly more wide and extending more into space at the equator than the poles.

my2cents

EM
p.s. a very sensitive xyz 3-axis magnetometer instaed of a Gauss meter, located at the middle of a magnet and designed to measure at very small areas say on square mm should confirm my above theory.