about the Ferrocell (ferrolens)

[Selfsimilarity]

If we would consider to know the electromagnetic field symmetry, then I would wonder, why the ferrocell shows spin patterns in comparison to iron filings.

Currently we think, electrons spin because there is no friction in empty space.
Earth spins because of the impulse from bigbang and then no friction in empty space.

Ferrocell shows spin. This is an extremely important difference to iron filings. How do we understand spin currently in electromagnetic waves? I think we only know sine/cosine EM waves. They do not include spin, but the ferrocell ,using electromagnetic radiation (light) to visualize the field shows spin patterns.

I think using EM waves enables to visualize the EM field symmetry. I therefore would conclude the EM field symmetry is nothing like we thought it is.

Ferrocell investigates *permanent* magnetic with EM (light) -->the resulting observable is a *permanent electromagnetic*? Light only illuminates the structure, as the field is also there in absence of light, but invisible, just like the *dark* predicted by standard model suggests

[Markoul]

If we would consider to know the electromagnetic field symmetry, then I would wonder, why the ferrocell shows spin patterns in comparison to iron filings.

Currently we think, electrons spin because there is no friction in empty space.
Earth spins because of the impulse from bigbang and then no friction in empty space.

Ferrocell shows spin. This is an extremely important difference to iron filings. How do we understand spin currently in electromagnetic waves? I think we only know sine/cosine EM waves. They do not include spin, but the ferrocell ,using electromagnetic radiation (light) to visualize the field shows spin patterns.

I think using EM waves enables to visualize the EM field symmetry. I therefore would conclude the EM field symmetry is nothing like we thought it is.

Ferrocell investigates *permanent* magnetic with EM (light) -->the resulting observable is a *permanent electromagnetic*? Light only illuminates the structure, as the field is also there in absence of light, but invisible, just like the *dark* predicted by standard model suggests

SSML,

The light vortex pattern you see in a ferrocell is guided 100% by the diffraction nanoparticle chains grid induced by an external applied field.

The operational part of light and its polarization in the ferrocell is nothing really fancy similar basically to light bouncing off a mirror (difraction grid).

There are minor magneto optical effects present though with little to no influence to the displayed end result by the ferrocell and its dominant factors of operation.

EM

[bistander]

contradiction

...
The light vortex pattern you see in a ferrocell is guided 100% by the diffraction nanoparticle chains grid induced by an external applied field.
...

...
In this thread here we all say we don't know what the magnetic field looks like in its entirety and we are investigating using all means in hand.
...

Seems like a contradiction.

[Iamnuts]

The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. Wikipedia

[Iamnuts]

The idea of things like “spin” and “vortexes” suggest to me angular momentum.
If there’s angular momentum must there also be energy?
Virtual photons are thought to populate the vacuum, apparently that energy
can be borrowed so long as it’s paid back in the permitted timeframe.
My fraudulent compass, which is 90degrees out, would give a pattern just
like Markoul hankers after.

[bistander]

Misconception

We can see clearly the 90° rotation in the above diagram. The magnetic pole centers are overlaid at the position of the electric charges in the above diagram.
...

This is incorrect. Markoul doesn't know what he talking about. But I hate to discuss magnetic poles because it is the magnetic field which is important. Poles are just a consequence of an arbitrary surface. But there is no way the red lines represent a magnetic field where the poles could lay on the horizontal centerline.

Regards,

bi

[Selfsimilarity]

Hi Bi,

I think you misunderstand when you think we try to explain magnetic fields alone.
They are in ultimate conjugation with the electric.
As the ferrocell uses light, which is electromagnetic, to visualize the field, I think we are observing the electromagnetic field symmetry, not the magnetic, nor the electric.

I think this point to unification. To think there is magnetic without electric or electric without magnetic is incomplete.
Everything is both, namely electromagnetic.
For creation to make sense, we need an energy for things to exist. This would be the electric, and we would need some form of expression (dimensionally), which would be the magnetic.

The electron is thought to be electric. It is moving charge at the end, which must create a magnetic field. So its seemingly electromagnetic, but not as electromagnetic waves currently understood, rather like a standing wave. Electrons magnetic field can be "canceled out" by spin alignment, but does this mean the magnetic is really gone? Or do we simply not yet understand what happens in this particluar situation?

In not understanding i mean the ferrocell showing a different field symmetry than iron filings, one we havent understood yet. With two replusive poles, there is a center forming in between, which is completely hidden in iron filings, pointing towards a point symmetry of the observable field in ferrocell

In addition, ferrocell shows 2 opposed spin patterns. This would fit the currently thought "canceling-magnetic", as two opposed spins seemingly have net zero, but the ferrocell shows that in opposed spin configuration, you have a pattern emerging, a huge visible by eye opposed spin field, which definitely is not net zero.

If we want to understand ferrocell, we have to start to think in an extended form of electromagnetic field symmetry, a unified form of electric & magnetic fields. Its EM(light) at the end that makes the "permanent" field visible in ferrocell.
Couldnt a permanent magnet and its electrons actually be something permanent electromagnetic? Electric and magnetic fields, currently two seperate things connected into one conjugated field symmetry #ferrocell?

[bistander]

I tried

If we want to understand ferrocell, we have to start to think in an extended form of electromagnetic field symmetry, a unified form of electric & magnetic fields. Its EM(light) at the end that makes the "permanent" field visible in ferrocell.
Couldnt a permanent magnet and its electrons actually be something permanent electromagnetic? Electric and magnetic fields, currently two seperate things connected into one conjugated field symmetry #ferrocell?

Hi Self,

I tried. You think maybe Markoul is the one failing to understand?

ok this one i have to respond

I do think that author's comment about electric/electrostatic field being displayed on the ferrolens is worthy of further investigation.

This alone shows your level of ignorance in any Electronic training and knowledge of basic electromagnetism.

1. How the hell can you produce electricity by a standing immovable magnet!!? without any other movement involved really escapes me?!

2. Fe3O4 oxide nanoparticles are electrical insulators meaning there are not conductors of electricity and electric currents, they are more like rust!! In order to ionize them you would have to have an external electric field applied in the order of hundreds of KV/m!! The same also implies for the carrier fluid inside a ferrocell which is also an electric insulator.

You have proven once more your level of ignorance and unfitness to judge on that matter. Go home and study more...

Regards,

bi

[Selfsimilarity]

Okey, lets say, your both right.

If the electromagnetic field symmetry is different from our current understanding of electric & magnetic field symmetry, then Markoul is right that this will affect our current understanding of magnetic field symmetry, in the same way as it will affect our understanding of electric field symmetry as well, which he didnt mention so far .

and you are right, because its about the electromagnetic field symmetry so talking along about magnetic fields is not sufficient to get the full picture.

Ferrocell is about light, its about electromagnetism how permanent magnetism interacts with electromagnetism.
We are observing an electromagnetic phenomena. No electromagnetic light, nothing to see!

Permanent electromagnetic - Nature's standing spin wave #dark, unless illuminated using light&ferrocell O_O

[bistander]

Right

Okey, lets say, your both right. ...

So are you saying he is right with his comments about the diagram in this post?

We can see clearly the 90° rotation in the above diagram. The magnetic pole centers are overlaid at the position of the electric charges in the above diagram.
...

[Markoul]

This is incorrect. Markoul doesn't know what he talking about. But I hate to discuss magnetic poles because it is the magnetic field which is important. Poles are just a consequence of an arbitrary surface. But there is no way the red lines represent a magnetic field where the poles could lay on the horizontal centerline.

That what classical field view shows apart of the BS vectors N to S convention, is equivalent of the vortex end result analogues to the gravitational pull force for example of a whirlpool vertical suction force but it totally miss to show the vortex spin flow (flux) itself.

As Ken Wheeler describes on his book with a very nice analogy, I quote:

The reason iron dust doesn’t give an accurate model of a magnetic field is that the iron filings are deep ‘in the water’ of the
breaking waves of the magnetic field, as such they show the direction of the magnetic flow, but not its spiral, its vortex nature, which
hydrogen bubbles and pyrolytic graphite (and other mediums) can and do show, since they ‘ride the topmost part of the waves’ of the
vortex magnetic flow. Logically so the iron filings cannot vortex since they themselves become miniature magnets by being
magnetically induced, and are locked in place by becoming themselves polarized. Logically but counter intuitively on the surface, any
3D models of magnetism using iron filings are in fact 2D false representations that cannot demonstrate magnetic field architecture
The entire time we have been using iron filings to model the field architecture of magnets has been completely wrong. You cannot
model field architecture by any substance that can be magnetized. Doing so creates thousands of tiny dust sized magnets themselves
locked into the 2D pressures of the magnetic field geometry, as such this is no indication whatsoever as to the 3D-spatialcounterspatial
magnetic vortex architecture of a magnet or magnetism itself

Ferrocell superparamagnetic nanoparticles can.


Any sensor which is not macroscopic ferromagnetic shows actually the same pattern as the ferrocell even the superconducting (strongly diamagnetic) SQIUD sensor:




hydrogen bubbles forming a vortex over the pole of a neodymium while undergoing electrolysis.
credits: https://ia802502.us.archive.org/31/i...tism1small.pdf

SSML,

I disagree. Magnetism is an omnipresent field disturbed or interact upon by electric charges.

Iamnuts,

Interesting observation and thought.


EM

[Selfsimilarity]

As you are citing Ken, I have one too

>Ken says, there is the di-electric connected to magnetism.
So I think you are not completing the picture when you only think about magnetism. Its connected to the di-electric potential, and therefore also to the electric (when decharged). A decharge of the dielectric is moving charge which always results in electromagnetic fields, not only magnetic fields.

[Iamnuts]

Simple.

You won't get anything much better than this!

https://youtu.be/Mqo86FvLADY

[Markoul]

Quantum field of magnet

[Markoul]

I never said that magnetism is not connected to electric charge but rather that magnetism is not an intrinsic property of the electric charge.

In other words magnetism is not sourced and generated within electrons but is disturbed by them.

The phenomena we call Electromagnetism.

EM