about the Ferrocell (ferrolens)

[Markoul]

Let's test the above theory

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1gLfdTANtM&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

I also have demonstrated here that at the Bloch axis region of a magnet the flux of the field changes abrupt polarity or else direction of rotation (shown on the above ferrocell photo). Of course not to be misunderstood by anyone, there is actually a very thin narrow line (actual Bloch axis) a few nm thin which acts like a void totally separating and isolating the two pole vortices. There you can't find any flux at any direction xyz. There is a definitive break there in the field!

After this demonstration somebody still saying that nothing special happens at the Bloch wall middle of a magnet and just flat out believing the iron filings imprint of the magnetic dipole field must be quite insane!...



If the above picture was correct we wouldn't be able to measure any vertical flux along the side of a magnet or zero vertical flux at the middle Bloch axis of the magnet!



EM

[bistander]

Bar magnet

...


If the above picture was correct we wouldn't be able to measure any vertical flux along the side of a magnet or zero vertical flux at the middle Bloch axis of the magnet! ...

Magnets and the magnetic field Electric currents create magnetic fields Magnetic fields of wires, loops, and solenoids Magnetic forces on charges and currents. - ppt download

In the diagram above one can clearly see that the B-field vectors will be parallel to the N-S axis at all points on the perpendicular bisector. Along that mid line, the field has no component perpendicular to the N-S axis so measurements of the field in that direction will be zero.

At locations external to the magnet on either side of the perpendicular bisector will have a B-field vector non-parallel to the N-S axis therefore will have a flux component towards or away from the N-S axis.

Below is a field map of a solenoid. Very detailed. And similar to that of the bar magnet. It shows why Ufo's sensor magnet flipped polarity in that video where he was accused of trickery.


From: Ephi - the simple physics simulator

Regards,

bi

[dyetalon]

Magnets and the magnetic field Electric currents create magnetic fields Magnetic fields of wires, loops, and solenoids Magnetic forces on charges and currents. - ppt download

In the diagram above one can clearly see that the B-field vectors will be parallel to the N-S axis at all points on the perpendicular bisector. Along that mid line, the field has no component perpendicular to the N-S axis so measurements of the field in that direction will be zero.

At locations external to the magnet on either side of the perpendicular bisector will have a B-field vector non-parallel to the N-S axis therefore will have a flux component towards or away from the N-S axis.

Below is a field map of a solenoid. Very detailed. And similar to that of the bar magnet. It shows why Ufo's sensor magnet flipped polarity in that video where he was accused of trickery.


From: Ephi - the simple physics simulator

Regards,

bi

Your picture is a computer simulation based on a simple concept set down years ago. It's not accurate in 3-d space.

From wiki:

"The magnetic interaction is described in terms of a vector field, where each point in space (and time) is associated with a vector that determines what force a moving charge would experience at that point (see Lorentz force)".

This is what you see thru a cell, and I've made a similar statement in an earlier comment.

"...Since a vector field is quite difficult to visualize at first, in elementary physics one may instead visualize this field with field lines."

And this statement refers to the computer sim you posted, above.
I'll re-iterate, in elementary physics one may instead visualize this field with field lines. If you look closely, the differences between each pole is not easily distinguished in the computer simulation.

In a real magnetic field, there is a region between N and S where the field reverses. It's called the Bloch wall.
It's a spiral of flux.

It's not a moving wave, but a gradual change of flux angle from 0 to 180 degrees.

If you don't believe me, get a long, thin cylinder magnet and cut it in half.
Make sure you mark the center with red marker or something where you can identify which ends were connected together before you cut it.

Now try and put it back together where it was cut.
Good luck, be careful you might get hurt trying.

Now the wall has 'moved' into both pieces and 'given' each of the magnets their N and S.

The Bloch region is a 'middle' and can't be measured accurately because it is 'twisting' and not any specific polarity (N or S).

You can't see that from the computer simulations based on old concepts.

[bistander]

No reversal

...
In a real magnetic field, there is a region between N and S where the field reverses. It's called the Bloch wall.
...

Thanks for the reply dyetalon.

The magnetic field doesn't reverse in the magnet. The B-field is in the same direction throughout. When the material is fully magnetized, all the microscopic domains are orientated in the same direction. The B-vector of each domain points towards same direction.

Markoul cannot detect Bloch wall so he blames the instruments. I suspect the instruments are working well and he is looking for something which doesn't exist.

I studied that article which you coauthored, Light Polarization Using Ferrofluids and Magnetic Fields, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/acmp/2017/2583717/ref/

There were a number of field measurements done with an excellent instrument from Lakeshore. All of that data is consistent with an unidirectional field in the magnet.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

3-d

Iron filings do not flow as easy as the nanoparticles in ferrofluid in liquid but enough to give a good indication of the 3-D shape. So yes, the picture and diagrams which I posted a few minutes ago were 2-D, but easily seen as a "slice" or section of the 3-D shape.

bi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8llkHQtaOlg

[VIDEO]v=8llkHQtaOlg[/VIDEO]

[bistander]

Magnetic field mapping

It's been a long time since I worked in the field (no pun intended) and tools have advanced considerably. You think professionals who build and use this type of equipment would have noticed this stuff going on in the middle of the magnet, like walls, field reversals, vortex, etc. Anyway, some cool equipment.

https://youtu.be/U_KsXUJP7lk

Senis AG | Advanced Magnetic Field Measurement

[VIDEO]v=U_KsXUJP7lk&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

bi

[Markoul]

Iron filings do not flow as easy as the nanoparticles in ferrofluid in liquid but enough to give a good indication of the 3-D shape. So yes, the picture and diagrams which I posted a few minutes ago were 2-D, but easily seen as a "slice" or section of the 3-D shape.

bi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8llkHQtaOlg

[VIDEO]v=8llkHQtaOlg[/VIDEO]

@bistander

As i told you many times before but you can't get it through your skull, iron has a very low magnetic reluctance therefore any iron object of any physical shape will orient itsself only on the path of minimum magnetic reluctance inside o magnetic dipole field thus meaning, it will point to the strongest magnetic potentials (i.e. poles) of the field relative to its position in space inside the magnetic field.

Iron filings point or get attracted to N and S poles (whatever pole is closer to them) and at the middle of a magnet always orient as a compass needle showing the N-S pole axis of the magnet. They can never orient perpendicular to the N-S axis thus the Bloch axis in the middle of the magnet therefore there can not enter there and indicate the flux on that region. In other words because their relative large size and very low magnetic reluctance property the can not fine tune and map correctly the field of a magnet. Thefore giving up a distorted fake image of the field. As I call a shortcircuit magnetic field image.

In a nutshell Fe3O4 iron oxide single domain superparamagnetic nanoparticles are flux (i.e. all possible trajectories and paths of movemet inside the influence of a magnetic force field) field indicators and therefore can effectively used to map the magnetic flux of the field of a magnet whereas iron filings (and any iron object) are pole positions indicators like a compass needle showing N and S Earth poles in space.

Therefore for the last time, iron filings and any maping technologies using them you show as here, are not maping the flux of the field but its minimum magnetic reluctance paths.

You need superparamagnetic nanoparticles in order to map in detail and correctly the flux of a magnettic field thus a FERROCELL.

So please spare us your ****ing iron filings in this discussion here.

Men choose 200 years ago the best material they had at that time to "map" a magnetic field.

Since then magnetic material science and technology has advanced hundred folds with the discovery of ferrofluid and nanopagnetism

To insist that iron filings is the best magnetic field mapping material today is ****ing stupid and so are any companies and scientists using it!

take care,

EM

[Markoul]

It's been a long time since I worked in the field (no pun intended) and tools have advanced considerably. You think professionals who build and use this type of equipment would have noticed this stuff going on in the middle of the magnet, like walls, field reversals, vortex, etc. Anyway, some cool equipment.

https://youtu.be/U_KsXUJP7lk

Senis AG | Advanced Magnetic Field Measurement

[VIDEO]v=U_KsXUJP7lk&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

bi

Good one, BUT NO!

This is maping graphicaly (surface maps) spatial magnetic field strentgh values and not magnetic flux geometry.

http://c1940652.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/...16_Ver.1.6.pdf

EM

[bistander]

Iron filings again

@bistander
...
So please spare us your ****ing iron filings in this discussion here.
...

You're the one who brought it up, again.

...


If the above picture was correct we wouldn't be able to measure any vertical flux along the side of a magnet or zero vertical flux at the middle Bloch axis of the magnet! ...

...
To insist that iron filings is the best magnetic field mapping material today is ****ing stupid and so are any companies and scientists using it!
...

I don't, and never did, insist on using iron filings, and I am unaware of any companies or scientists using it. The thing I find objectionable is when people insist that the magnetic field is grossly misrepresented by the classic iron filings demonstration. That's all it is; just a demo, or experiment, or science history lesson. Any applied science or engineering uses simulation and fundamentals derived from Maxwell's equations and centuries of research and development.

So please drop iron filings.

bi

[dyetalon]

From a recent video of the region we keep arguing about-

"If you move the domain wall around and then the domain wall generates spin waves, that would be a nonlinear effect - which is not what we (or many other papers) observe. We're hoping to research this in more detail in future, and also investigate other graded index profiles to generate and manipulate spin waves".

https://emps.exeter.ac.uk/metamateri...tudies/study4/

I think you will see the correlation with a cell.

[Markoul]

From a recent video of the region we keep arguing about-

"If you move the domain wall around and then the domain wall generates spin waves, that would be a nonlinear effect - which is not what we (or many other papers) observe. We're hoping to research this in more detail in future, and also investigate other graded index profiles to generate and manipulate spin waves".

https://emps.exeter.ac.uk/metamateri...tudies/study4/

I think you will see the correlation with a cell.

here is their ****ing paper:

https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10....RevB.96.064415


This people have never hold on their or did a single experiment with a magnet!. They talking through simulation models and they equations they are taught. They don't have the physical aspect of magnetism and therefore will never decipher it or make novel olbservations.

The only thing they is to feed they litle simulations with imaginary input and watch the predefined outcome from they simulation and included maths.

And what if their simulation and maths models are wrong? and don't have anything to do with physical reality??

Simulations without physical experimentations are a big BS! I submit. You have to crosscheck the simulation (theory) with the real experimentation data or else you are lost.

I don't understand how PRW journal left a just simulation paper to be published without any experimental confirmation of their BS!...

Cutting through their mathematical gobbledygook, they say that when the Bloch domain of an magnet is excited by an external pulsing magnetic field, microwaves. It is swirling the incident microwaves on Bloch domain wall....

Therefore domain walls are generators of spin.


Nooo!!...really? ....I didn't know that really?? no ****!! Are you serious??!!

EM

[dyetalon]

here is their ****ing paper:

https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10....RevB.96.064415


This people have never hold on their or did a single experiment with a magnet!. They talking through simulation models and they equations they are taught. They don't have the physical aspect of magnetism and therefore will never decipher it or make novel olbservations.

The only thing they is to feed they litle simulations with imaginary input and watch the predefined outcome from they simulation and included maths.

And what if their simulation and maths models are wrong? and don't have anything to do with physical reality??

Simulations without physical experimentations are a big BS! I submit. You have to crosscheck the simulation (theory) with the real experimentation data or else you are lost.

I don't understand how PRW journal left a just simulation paper to be published without any experimental confirmation of their BS!...

Cutting through their mathematical gobbledygook, they say that when the Bloch domain of an magnet is excited by an external pulsing magnetic field, microwaves. It is swirling the incident microwaves on Bloch domain wall....

Therefore domain walls are generators of spin.


Nooo!!...really? ....I didn't know that really?? no ****!! Are you serious??!!

EM

It's not all based on computer simulations, EM.

I sent the University of Exeter two Ferrocells this year. They just didn't mention it in the article

[Markoul]

It's not all based on computer simulations, EM.

I sent the University of Exeter two Ferrocells this year. They just didn't mention it in the article

That's makes it even worst! They had a fine tool to make direct observations and experiments and they didn't even mentioned it in their paper? not even a single photograph?...

Of course not then it would not be accepted by the PRJ....

First of all their simulated figures because they are modeled according to wrong equations are wrong.

There is no gradual change of polarity as they describe it crossing the Bloch domain wall. There is only a North polarity (one half of the magnet) and a South polarity (the other half of the magnet) and the Bloch domain wall separating them with ZERO POLARITY. ITS A VOID AND THE CHANGE IN POLARITY IS ABRUPT AND INSTANT due the totally separated toroidal pole fields.

If any doubt watch my video demonstration. There is more going on on this video than meets the eye. This video actually measures with the magnetometer what we see in the ferrocell thus the two opposite polarity poles separated and isolated by the Bloch domain wall. That what I could not film for you in the video was that as soon I crossed the domain wall polarity reversed instantly and at full scale of the magnetometer.

So polarity is not going like this:

<------- <---- <-- <- -> --> ----> ------->

There is no such thing than less or more polarity on a dipole magnet, it is direction and has only two vectors N and S.

BS! ALERT



I can not accept the above picture to be valid. If the above was correct that automatically implies that there will be flux lines crossing the domain wall and that are going directly from North to South pole and vice versa which is not true since the two poles are completely separated I believe.


but ACTUALLY like this:

<----------------------- . ----------------------->


EM

[bistander]

Wrong

That's makes it even worst! They had a fine tool to make direct observations and experiments and they didn't even mentioned it in their paper? not even a single photograph?...

Of course not then it would not be accepted by the PRJ....

First of all their simulated figures because they are modeled according to wrong equations are wrong.

There is no gradual change of polarity as they describe it crossing the Bloch domain wall. There is only a North polarity (one half of the magnet) and a South polarity (the other half of the magnet) and the Bloch domain wall separating them with ZERO POLARITY. ITS A VOID AND THE CHANGE IN POLARITY IS ABRUPT AND INSTANT due the totally separated toroidal pole fields.

If any doubt watch my video demonstration. There is more going on on this video than meets the eye. This video actually measures with the magnetometer what we see in the ferrocell thus the two opposite polarity poles separated and isolated by the Bloch domain wall. That what I could not film for you in the video was that as soon I crossed the domain wall polarity reversed instantly and at full scale of the magnetometer.

So polarity is not going like this:

<------- <---- <-- <- -> --> ----> ------->

There is no such thing than less or more polarity on a dipole magnet, it is direction and has only two vectors N and S.

BS! ALERT



I can not accept the above picture to be valid. If the above was correct that automatically implies that there will be flux lines crossing the domain wall and that are going directly from North to South pole and vice versa which is not true since the two poles are completely separated I believe.


but ACTUALLY like this:

<----------------------- . ----------------------->


EM

You really don't understand the dipole. Isn't there a physics professor nearby who would explain it to you?

You cannot treat the dipole as if it were two monopoles.

[dyetalon]

Let's compare a recent pix I took of a small linear Halbach Array.
I used one of my new formula cells (509-1) with a RGW light ring:



Compare it to what iron filing do:



The cell shows the top view of the array and the filings show the side view.

Notice the difference? See the similarities?