Cause and Effect in Electro-Magnetic systems

[Allcanadian]

This is a continuation of discussion in a previous thread -- Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera.

I will repost some of the material and others can do the same if they want.

Ah the motor/generator dilemma, I have found fundamentally it is both a motor and a generator simultaneously by design. The applied Emf acts in one direction (a motor function) as the induced Emf acts in the opposite direction (a generator function). We call this phenomena self-induction and Tesla went to great lengths to reduce it's effects such as his "Coil for Electromagnets", pat # 512340.

It is not common knowledge but under the proper conditions his coil acts as a pseudo-delay line. The inter-turn capacitance acts just like a very large number of individual series inductors with parallel capacitors per unit length. Thus we have a condition where the applied Emf charges the inductors (a motor function) while the induced Emf (a generator function) charges the capacitance. The induced Emf or generator function becomes latent or "hidden" thus the reason why Tesla claimed the self-induction of his coil was cancelled ... because it was in effect under the proper conditions.

It is my belief that if the induced Emf (a generator function) could be momentarily turned to some degree to simultaneously act in the same direction as the applied Emf ( a motor function) all hell might break loose,lol. Fundamentally something much change in a very fundamental way otherwise we are simply repeating what we know does not work.

The first problem you will encounter when seeking an answer to what a magnetic field is fundamentally is that there isn't one. You see there is no accepted concept as to "what" the magnetic field is in reality because they do not know. Think about that, in this day and age all of the best physicists say they do not know, this is not because they are dumb it is because they are very intelligent.

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that we will never make real progress until we understand the most basic forces which dictate everything fundamentally. I spent years searching and in all that time I found only one answer. They say the field is Quote: Virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. Which is a polite way of saying they have literally no idea what it is or where to even start.

So I did what I always do, I found my own answers for myself based on accepted principals, that is what we know but have yet to fully understand in the proper context. As it turns out the concept is relatively simple and easy to understand, I believe the truth is always simple in it's nature. You see everyone is looking for a mystery particle or a specific related phenomena because we are self-centered and believe the universe revolves around objects or our thoughts. Our mind has deceived us and started filling in the gaps with things based on past experience which must be rationalized and make sense even if it is not true.

Now imagine a lake covered in waves, we see large rolling waves of low frequency, medium waves distorting the larger ones and still smaller waves of high frequency riding on top of all the larger waves, I have seen this in nature. We place a small beach ball on the surface and it rises and falls with the larger waves yet oscillates due to the smaller waves simultaneously. The larger the beach ball the less motion because an extremely large beach ball would simply ride on top of all the waves.

We can apply this same principal to fields however there is no magic particle nor singular related phenomena. When we create a magnet we align the atoms forming magnetic domains which changes the natural resonant frequency as we know everything is in oscillation. This is not unlike trying to hold our beach ball in place which would then become out of time to some extent with not one single frequency of waves but all of them simultaneously ... All of them simultaneously.

Now we can replace our waves of water acting on a beach ball with the whole Em spectrum of waves acting inward on our magnet. Not one Em wavelength but all of them simultaneously which is the primary reason for all the confusion concerning fields. Look closely, are you absolutely sure the magnetic field acts outward from the magnet?. Or has the magnet distorted something already present in the space exterior to the magnet, the distortion growing weaker the further we get from the magnet which we call the inverse square law.

It may be all this hubbub concerning mysterious particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes, all the mind boggling math and endless series of equations could be replaced by a few words to describe the "field" phenomena ---- Electromagnetic phase differential.

Now imagine every star is a beacon emitting massive amounts of Em radiation covering the whole of the Em spectrum. These Em waves diffused, interlocked, filing every space in all the known universe. Then the moment we align some atoms in a material forming a magnet it must hold back the entire universe, pushing back on a universe full of energy wanting to act inward..

Our universe is awesome and if you ever lose that wondrous awe inspiring feeling then you are lost. Look upward and outward, there is your answer.

AC

[erfinder]

Alright AC,

Please establish the foundation, for viewing magnetism. You started it in your reply here... Can you elaborate further, or just completely start from the beginning? I would prefer the latter.

@Hanon1492


The first problem you will encounter when seeking an answer to what a magnetic field is fundamentally is that there isn't one. You see there is no accepted concept as to "what" the magnetic field is in reality because they do not know. Think about that, in this day and age all of the best physicists say they do not know, this is not because they are dumb it is because they are very intelligent.

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that we will never make real progress until we understand the most basic forces which dictate everything fundamentally. I spent years searching and in all that time I found only one answer. They say the field is Quote: Virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. Which is a polite way of saying they have literally no idea what it is or where to even start.

So I did what I always do, I found my own answers for myself based on accepted principals, that is what we know but have yet to fully understand in the proper context. As it turns out the concept is relatively simple and easy to understand, I believe the truth is always simple in it's nature. You see everyone is looking for a mystery particle or a specific related phenomena because we are self-centered and believe the universe revolves around objects or our thoughts. Our mind has deceived us and started filling in the gaps with things based on past experience which must be rationalized and make sense even if it is not true.

Now imagine a lake covered in waves, we see large rolling waves of low frequency, medium waves distorting the larger ones and still smaller waves of high frequency riding on top of all the larger waves, I have seen this in nature. We place a small beach ball on the surface and it rises and falls with the larger waves yet oscillates due to the smaller waves simultaneously. The larger the beach ball the less motion because an extremely large beach ball would simply ride on top of all the waves.

We can apply this same principal to fields however there is no magic particle nor singular related phenomena. When we create a magnet we align the atoms forming magnetic domains which changes the natural resonant frequency as we know everything is in oscillation. This is not unlike trying to hold our beach ball in place which would then become out of time to some extent with not one single frequency of waves but all of them simultaneously ... All of them simultaneously.

Now we can replace our waves of water acting on a beach ball with the whole Em spectrum of waves acting inward on our magnet. Not one Em wavelength but all of them simultaneously which is the primary reason for all the confusion concerning fields. Look closely, are you absolutely sure the magnetic field acts outward from the magnet?. Or has the magnet distorted something already present in the space exterior to the magnet, the distortion growing weaker the further we get from the magnet which we call the inverse square law.

It may be all this hubbub concerning mysterious particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes, all the mind boggling math and endless series of equations could be replaced by a few words to describe the "field" phenomena ---- Electromagnetic phase differential.

Now imagine every star is a beacon emitting massive amounts of Em radiation covering the whole of the Em spectrum. These Em waves diffused, interlocked, filing every space in all the known universe. Then the moment we align some atoms in a material forming a magnet it must hold back the entire universe, pushing back on a universe full of energy wanting to act inward..

Our universe is awesome and if you ever lose that wondrous awe inspiring feeling then you are lost. Look upward and outward, there is your answer.

AC

I got a question or two, but will ask them after you have established the base.

Regards

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

Please establish the foundation, for viewing magnetism. You started it in your reply here... Can you elaborate further, or just completely start from the beginning? I would prefer the latter.

I guess the magnetic field is as good a place to start as any and we could start with a quote by Ampere, I believe.
The magnetic field should be considered as distinct or seperate from the source which created it however any force applied to the field must translate back to the source.

Here we should understand what Ampere is implying without jumping to too many conclusions. The application of force must translate back to the source, yes, but this in no way implies that the field is solely a property of the source which created it, the magnet. In fact there is a good reason as to why he considered it as distinct and seperate.

First the obvious, the magnet is not the magnetic field because the magnet relates to a material property and the field a property of the space exterior to every part of the magnet. A space which we believe is devoid of all matter ... empty. Apparently something has been created in nothing.

Second a magnet need not be a magnet as we know it as a length of wire with an electric current can create a magnetic field and we do not consider the wire a magnet only a means of creating a field. I hope everyone can see the contradiction here and it is not unlike saying I once saw an orange cat therefore everything that is orange must somehow involve a cat.

It is said that the motion of a charged particle produces a field in the surrounding space however it was never implied that the motion of the charge having it's own field was the sole cause of the magnetic field. There is a disconnect between cause and effect because we do not know "what" either field is fundamentally.

Hence we come to the next contradiction, I know everything about a magnetic field ... except what it is. Now how can a person proclaim to understand something and in the next breath admit they do not know what it is?, it is absurd. We may as well just state I understand everything about orange cats except what a cat is?.

This is the basis for open discussion because it is completely unacceptable that anyone should claim to understand a magnetic field but not know what it is fundamentally or even have a guess as to what it is.

On a note of interest, we know there appears to be something present producing a force however a lack of something could produce an equivalent force. We must also contend with Einsteins elevator and conceive that it is not a matter of more or less of something only a change in something already present.

What we need is a simple, clear and concise explanation for what the field is, not what it does nor how it acts... what it is fundamentally.

AC

[boguslaw]

I have theory that magnetic field is a whirl(s) in ether self-sustaining and fractal. I don't know if it has to be 2 vorticies or 4 to create permanent field but it is a closed path running ether.
By fractal I mean I suppose that every magnetic field is contained in larger magnetic field, so in the end of the chain every permanent magnet is a condensation of a magnetic field of Earth. NASA could easily check (by measuring field strength of permanent magnet outside of Earth field) .

[Cornboy 555]

Fundamental Problem.

Hello AC, and all, i am a self taught beginner, when it comes to electronics, but i have some friends who are classically trained EE's, and if you ask them, what a magnetic field is, out spurts the babble of continious Equations, they have been taught.

When they are finished, if you say, Yeah i know what you can do to create a field, BUT what exactly is it?? Where does it originate???
will turn them into intelectual jelly, unsure, and unable to answer.

So there has to be a fundamental problem in the teaching at Universities, and trade schools.

What the future holds will surely not be the same ole same ole, i hope.

Regards Cornboy.

[Hrothgar]

They have magnets in space

I have theory that magnetic field is a whirl(s) in ether self-sustaining and fractal. I don't know if it has to be 2 vorticies or 4 to create permanent field but it is a closed path running ether.
By fractal I mean I suppose that every magnetic field is contained in larger magnetic field, so in the end of the chain every permanent magnet is a condensation of a magnetic field of Earth. NASA could easily check (by measuring field strength of permanent magnet outside of Earth field) .

Does NASA have any data public on the decay batteries (they should have magnets in them) in deep space probes as to how well they are performing?

[Allcanadian]

@cornboy555

Hello AC, and all, i am a self taught beginner, when it comes to electronics, but i have some friends who are classically trained EE's, and if you ask them, what a magnetic field is, out spurts the babble of continious Equations, they have been taught.

When they are finished, if you say, Yeah i know what you can do to create a field, BUT what exactly is it?? Where does it originate???
will turn them into intelectual jelly, unsure, and unable to answer.

Lol, yes the question is a showstopper, such a simple question and the correct answer made by intelligent people who do not know is --- I do not know. Which brings us to the question of their motivation, is it to impress others with their memorization skills or is it to seek understanding?.

I'm not here to impress anyone and if I'm wrong, off base or out of line then I would hope someone here would correct me because this is how we all move forward.
Criticism is not a bad thing in my opinion so long as it is constructive and justified, that is all we could ask of each other... consideration.

We don't need to go down that road so let's learn something today. I'm going to try and pose a question every week which will make you think and hopefully add a little perspective to the problems we face. You can use it and it will hopefully have purpose and practical real world applications.


Let's begin.
A long time ago I developed a magnetic bearing which could reduce the load on a shaft to near zero. It is very inexpensive, simple and immediately intuitive as to how and why it works. It is a passive system which utilizes two (2) permanent magnets to fully support the load on a shaft which is stable on all axis. I measured loads up to 100 lb's but there is no actual limit on the load it could support within reason.

There is however one condition, I'm not going to give anyone the answer until at least 3 people take a reasonable guess at the problem, not including my friends who I have told. Simply a guess which requires one to think about how the problem could be solved is all I ask, no right or wrong, a reasonable guess.

AC

[ren]

@cornboy555



Let's begin.
A long time ago I developed a magnetic bearing which could reduce the load on a shaft to near zero. It is very inexpensive, simple and immediately intuitive as to how and why it works. It is a passive system which utilizes two (2) permanent magnets to fully support the load on a shaft which is stable on all axis. I measured loads up to 100 lb's but there is no actual limit on the load it could support within reason.

There is however one condition, I'm not going to give anyone the answer until at least 3 people take a reasonable guess at the problem, not including my friends who I have told. Simply a guess which requires one to think about how the problem could be solved is all I ask, no right or wrong, a reasonable guess.

AC

Hi AC,

Thanks for starting this thread

Id like to ask a few questions for my own clarity if I may?

By load do you mean the physical weight or mass placed on the shaft? Or are you referring to the friction that is normally present in the bearing?

Im fairly certain it is the latter, as this friction is a "load" but I cant help wonder as I read on if Im missing the point. The inclusion of an actual weight (100 lb's) throws me off again, as my preconception immediately jumps to a shaft supporting a weight, like a dumbell for example.

Since the idea behind this thread is to get rid of preconceptions perhaps its best I ask even the seemingly silly questions

Regards

[Allcanadian]

Hey ren

By load do you mean the physical weight or mass placed on the shaft? Or are you referring to the friction that is normally present in the bearing?

Im fairly certain it is the latter, as this friction is a "load" but I cant help wonder as I read on if Im missing the point. The inclusion of an actual weight (100 lb's) throws me off again, as my preconception immediately jumps to a shaft supporting a weight, like a dumbell for example.

Good question, by load I mean the conception of weight on a shaft due to gravity which constitutes a "load" would cease to be relevant and all friction would be reduced to near zero.

To be more specific---

By load do you mean the physical weight or mass placed on the shaft?

Yes

Or are you referring to the friction that is normally present in the bearing?

Yes

AC

[ren]

Ok.

So typing out loud here.

A shaft/rotor experiences friction due to the contacting surfaces AND gravity. So to reduce friction to near zero one would have to minimize contacting points AND negate or reduce the effect of gravity on our device. That is what I see as being implied here. Im going to assume that, since you said it is simple and inexpensive we are not talking about some exotic anti-gravity technology that renders the device weightless, yet through clever but simple design the effects of gravity and friction are near non existent.

Which opens another can of worms. What is Gravity? And how does it tie into magnetism?

100 lbs is a significant weight, and I assume that the two magnets utilized for your design are not excessively large or powerful, so a brute force method is out the window IMO.

Also you say that the effect is present at all points (axis) implying to me that the magnets shape isnt in the form of a block or cylinder, creating lift in a very boring conventional way but rather a self containing structure (somewhat) like the toroid perhaps?

Is our shaft made from a magnetically active material (ferrous) and does it interact with the permanent magnets aformentioned, or is it perhaps a non ferrous material, taking advantage of a paramagnetic effect? Or does it work either way?

Can I ask, by two permanent magnets do you mean a magnet attached to the shaft while the other one is fixed to the supporting structure? If this is the case then if the rotor is supported on either side (i.e traditionally having two bearings) it would require four magnets for the effect (a set on each side of the rotor)?

Regards

[Allcanadian]

@Ren
Good questions and it seems odd that nobody else would even take a guess considering I'm going to give them a means to reduce any "load' to near zero with near zero friction.

It may help to repeat the questions.

It is a passive system which utilizes two (2) permanent magnets to fully support the load on a shaft which is stable on all axis

The trick here is not what is being said it is what everyone believes I have implied which may or may not be true. The first thing the mind does is takes what it sees and hears completely out of context then it complicates it until it bears no relation to reality.

for example I said...

Simply a guess which requires one to think about how the problem could be solved is all I ask, no right or wrong, a reasonable guess.

I asked for a reasonable guess, no right or wrong, thus a reasonably wrong guess would be perfectly acceptable. Take a guess you know is wrong and you win, lol.

Lesson one, the mind and our senses cannot be trusted so we must rethink how we perceive things. I imagine everyone took what I said completely out of context and this is the natural thing to do, we must undo this way of thinking.

Now does anyone have a reasonably wrong guess so I can give you the answer?.

AC

[Beamgate]

@AC:

I'm game.

Sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words.

But, alas, this demonstrates a desirable effect but not the cause!

[citfta]

Hi AC,

You have said the system is passive so I think that means no outside power applied. And you have said only 2 magnets. So I am guessing there may be some other components not mentioned. If the shaft was turning inside a coil then a current could be generated in the coil. If the coil was shorted then the current could be pretty high if the windings were designed to handle the current. With a properly designed coil I believe you could get it to oppose the magnets with enough force to support your load. If the coil completely surrounded the magnet then it would keep the shaft centered. Oh, I forgot to mention the magnet would need to be like a sleeve over the shaft. With a magnet and coil on each end of the shaft. So that is my SWAG. (Sophisticated wild ass guess) for those not familiar with the term.

Carroll

[erfinder]

AC,

So we are meant to fail? We fail because we take what we are provided with out of context? Two magnets and a shaft to be supported by said magnets...there are several possible combinations, multiple configurations, and here is where one begins to get "lost in the sauce" so to speak.

You ask that we take a guess at "the problem", but I'm not seeing where a problem has been illustrated. We are told that the system is passive, consisting of 2 permanent magnets which fully support the load on a shaft, said shaft is stable on all axis. The amount of load is more or less immaterial owing to the fact that you state that there is no limit within reason.

Is the problem that you want us to guess at what the configuration is? If we do that you know we will be here for the rest of the year guessing at the proper layout.

I don't have enough information, however, If I were to guess at the "underlying operating mechanism" of this configuration, I would like to think that its magnetic induction as you highlighted earlier.

Regards

[gene gene]

Hi AC,

I picture a ring magnet affixed to one end of a bronze shaft extending downward through a electromagnetic toroid with a large disc spinning like a gyroscope below. If the disc is magnetic through its thickness, would a pulsed DC in the toroid cause the disc to spin?

wrong is right? Gene

1 electro & 2 permanent thats to many = wrong.

If the ring magnet above was large enough the spin would be caused by this and the lower gyroscopic disc could be bronze also.

Gene