Understanding magnets - with EFD and the SPM lens

[dyetalon]

This by Steve Bowman, very nice document on how magnets work, attached here for posterity.

And I must say we all gotta get a hold of that Superparamagnetic Lens

Just thought I would provide a link to the updated paper that Steve Bowman has written on "How magnets work": http://www.nanomagnetics.us/Understa...0-2008-1.1.pdf

[amigo]

Thanks for the update.

[Rectified]

[QUOTE=Aaron;10787]One can help cause the other. However, each one can perfectly exist without the other. They are compliments and not opposites.
QUOTE]

Could you guide me to any information on that, I’m unaware of that ever being scientifically proven.
Thanks in advance. Rectified

[Aaron]

voltage without current and current without voltage

Hi Rectified,

Was the context of that about voltage and current existing independent of each other?

If so, any battery with voltage at the terminals is voltage existing with current. In a form being used to do something, voltage potential like an inductive spike ideally is also voltage without current and is therefore "cold."

A permanent magnet is magnetic current at zero voltage so there is current with no voltage.

For example, here is an electromagnet that is charged and connected in such a way that after it is charged, the current continues to remain at several amps constantly forever until the circuit is disconnected and the field collapses giving an inductive voltage spike...but until then..the current exists with zero voltage while the magnetic field is there doing work holding onto a bar with zero other input.
Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03

[Aaron]

voltage without current and current without voltage

Hi Rectified,

Was the context of that about voltage and current existing independent of each other?

If so, any battery with voltage at the terminals is voltage existing without (meant to say without) current. In a form being used to do something, voltage potential like an inductive spike ideally is also voltage without current and is therefore "cold."

A permanent magnet is magnetic current at zero voltage so there is current with no voltage.

For example, here is an electromagnet that is charged and connected in such a way that after it is charged, the current continues to remain at several amps constantly forever until the circuit is disconnected and the field collapses giving an inductive voltage spike...but until then..the current exists with zero voltage while the magnetic field is there doing work holding onto a bar with zero other input.
Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03

There are other systems with current and zero to negative voltage again showing they can each do things on their own without the other.

[Rectified]

Current without voltage? Sorry, I don’t think so.

Hi Rectified,

Was the context of that about voltage and current existing independent of each other?

If so, any battery with voltage at the terminals is voltage existing with current. In a form being used to do something, voltage potential like an inductive spike ideally is also voltage without current and is therefore "cold."

A permanent magnet is magnetic current at zero voltage so there is current with no voltage.

For example, here is an electromagnet that is charged and connected in such a way that after it is charged, the current continues to remain at several amps constantly forever until the circuit is disconnected and the field collapses giving an inductive voltage spike...but until then..the current exists with zero voltage while the magnetic field is there doing work holding onto a bar with zero other input.
Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03

There are other systems with current and zero to negative voltage again showing they can each do things on their own without the other.

Aron

I’m sorry but I see so many struggling to learn, unable to develop correct basic electronics concepts and principles. It’s difficult for many to understand what current is when electronic terms seem to be used out of context. Voltage is defined as the potential difference across a conductor when a current flows. Electromotive Force (EMF) is measured in Volts that causes the flow of electricity from one point to another. Whenever the charge potential moves it can then be measured in Volts, that = amps times ohms. The faster the Voltage moves, the higher the amperage. Even at the microscopic level there is movement

Current = speed.
Voltage = Force
Ohms = resistance

How would you apply Ohms law to your statement? Voltage is a unit of measurement.
When following along on numerous group postings its easy to see by the questions others ask, or the conclusions they perceive from their experiments how important statements made need to be clarified. The wrong analogy forms a learning barrier which can prevent further progress toward understanding. Thanks for the link you provided however it seems to disagree with your statement when correctly understanding what is taking place.
Rectified

[Aaron]

voltage and current

Rectified,

I edited one word in my 2nd sentence in my post...voltage at a battery is the potential withOUT current.

"Voltage is defined as the potential difference across a conductor when a current flows"

Voltage is the potential difference regardless of if there is current is flowing or not. If you measure a 12v battery and it is at 12 volts...you have a 12 volt potential difference between the terminals with zero current flowing in an open loop. If you close this loop with a light bulb, maybe the battery will show 11.5 volts...so you have 11.5 volts of potential difference between the terminals in this closed loop with current flowing. Bottom line is that a voltage can be there with no current.

"Electromotive Force (EMF) is measured in Volts that causes the flow of electricity from one point to another. Whenever the charge potential moves it can then be measured in Volts, that = amps times ohms"

This depends on your definition of electricity...normal "electricity" is made of three components...the positive potential moving over a closed loop from pos to neg terminal...the negative potential moving over a closed loop from the neg to pos terminal...the electrons moving from the copper atoms that make up the wire moving to the positive terminal. The voltage doesn't directly cause the flow of this "electricity"...closing the loop in a typical circuit is what allows the current (electron flow) to flow. Again, you can measure a potential difference from any potential source and the voltage is there whether or not there is any amperage moving or not.

"The faster the Voltage moves, the higher the amperage."

In a closed loop, the voltage potential is pretty much fixed at a little below light speed and you're not going to change that in a typical circuit. The amperage has nothing to do with the "speed" of voltage as you can have higher or lower amperage in a circuit at the same voltage and the voltage is going to be the same speed. Inversely, you can have a certain amperage with low or high voltage...and again...the speed of the voltage is the same in both cases.

[Rectified]

Aron We are not on the same page yet

"Voltage is the potential difference regardless of if there is current is flowing or not. If you measure a 12v battery and it is at 12 volts...you have a 12 volt potential difference between the terminals with zero current flowing in an open loop. If you close this loop with a light bulb, maybe the battery will show 11.5 volts...so you have 11.5 volts of potential difference between the terminals in this closed loop with current flowing. Bottom line is that a voltage can be there with no current.

You are putting a load on the battery with your meter closing the loop

"Electromotive Force (EMF) is measured in Volts that causes the flow of electricity from one point to another. Whenever the charge potential moves it can then be measured in Volts, that = amps times ohms"

This depends on your definition of electricity...normal "electricity" is made of three components...the positive potential moving over a closed loop from pos to neg terminal...the negative potential moving over a closed loop from the neg to pos terminal...the electrons moving from the copper atoms that make up the wire moving to the positive terminal. The voltage doesn't directly cause the flow of this "electricity"...closing the loop in a typical circuit is what allows the current (electron flow) to flow. Again, you can measure a potential difference from any potential source and the voltage is there whether or not there is any amperage moving or not.

As I previously stated Voltage is a unit of measurment of the EMF. OHMS law! Will reply to this statment with more info soon.

"The faster the Voltage moves, the higher the amperage."

In a closed loop, the voltage potential is pretty much fixed at a little below light speed and you're not going to change that in a typical circuit.

Another misconception.. do the math and you will see

The amperage has nothing to do with the "speed" of voltage as you can have higher or lower amperage in a circuit at the same voltage and the voltage is going to be the same speed. Inversely, you can have a certain amperage with low or high voltage...and again...the speed of the voltage is the same in both cases.[/QUOTE]



Aron

Over the past 50+ years I have had to review countless resumes and conduct interviews when hiring electronic technicians. Many have had simulator misconceptions of electronic fundamentals. When teaching physic, instructors often say they first need to un-teach many students what they had previously learned, do to bad examples and teachers that truly don’t understand electronics and forced to use publications riddled with errors. It always seems harder to except change when ego’s and publishers reputation are involved. As time goes by many use electronic terminology incorrectly or examples that adds to the misconceptions others develop. Understanding electronics will be more difficult for many than it needs to be when fundamentals are not understood correctly. You will be shocked when you learn just how slow current is compared to the speed of light. I will be happy to provide you with more information to consider at a later date but I don’t want to hijack this thread and must get some sleep. With an open mind much can be learned.
Take care Rectified

[Aaron]

current

You will be shocked when you learn just how slow current is compared to the speed of light.

Just on one point here, in normal terms...voltage isn't current...voltage is voltage and electron current is the current or amperage...the electron current, which is rated in amperage is moving at a few inches per hour while the voltage is moving at a little under light speed.

Everything I told you is accurate.

For one, if you are trying to point out to me that I would be shocked to learn how slow current is compared to the speed of light, what is apparent is that you have not understood anything I wrote, respectfully.

[Aaron]

diople and classical fundamental flaws

You are putting a load on the battery with your meter closing the loop

The potential on a dipole is there with or without a meter closing the loop.

Here are 34 fundamental flaws in conventional EM theory:

Flaws in Classical EM Theory 1. Eliminates the Internal EM Inside the
Scalar Potential.
2. No Definition of Electrical Charge or
of Scalar Potential.
3. Equations Still Assume Material Ether
Per Maxwell (Unchanged).
4. Use of Force Fields in Vacuum is False
(and Known to be So).
5. Treats Charge q as Unitary Instead of
Coupled System q=ø(q)m(q).
6. Confuses Massless Potential Gradients
as Forces (See #3, #4).
7. Does Not Utilize Mass as a Component
of Force (See #23).
8. Erroneously Assumes EM Force Field as
Primary Causes.
9. Topology of EM Model Has Been Substantially
Reduced.
10. Does Not Include Quantum Potential or Action
at a Distance.
11. Does Not Include Superluminal Velocity of Inner
EM Components.
12. Does Not Utilize Extended Near-Field Coulomb
Gauge Effects.
13. Does Not Include EM Generatrix Mechanism
For Time Flow.
14. Does Not Unify Photon and Wave Aspects
(Requires 7-D Model).
15. Does Not Include Electron Spin and Precession
(See #19, #24).
16. Treats EM Energy As Existing in "Chunks,"
Instead of as Flow.
17. Confuses Energy and Energy Collection
(See #16).
18. Discards Half of Every EM Wave in Vacuum
(See #22).
19. Erroneously Uses Transverse Vacuum Wave;
It's Quasi-Longitudinal.
20. Arbitrarily Regauges Maxwell's Equations to
Eliminate Overunity Maxwellian Systems.

21. Omits Phase Conjugate Optics Effects
(Which are the Rule in Internal EM).

22. Does Not Include EM Cause of Newtonian
Reaction Force.

23. Erroneously Assumes Separate Force Acting
on Separate Mass.

24. Confuses Detected Electron Precession Waves
as Proving Transverse EM Waves in Vacuum
(Remnant of Old "EM Fluid" Concept).
25. Due to Error in String Wave, Omits the
Ubiquitous Antiwave.
26. Assumes Equilibrium; Not True Unless Include
Vacuum Interactions.
27. Higher Toplogy Required, to Model
Electromagnetic Reality.

28. Lorentz surface integration discards Poynting
energy transport.

29. Has nothing at all to say about form of
EM entities in massless space.
30. Eliminates the infolded general relativity using
EM-force as curve agent.
31. Does not include longitudinal EM wave phase
conjugate pairs as time domain oscillations.
32. Does not include EM mechanism that generates
time flow and flow rate.
33. Does not include time-excitation charging
and decay.
34. Does not include time-reversal zones.

@ T.E.BEARDEN 1999

[Raui]

@ Rectified

There's a difference between the electrostatic phenomenon, magnetism phenomenon and electromagnetic phenomenon. Electrostatic has got to do with your potentials, magnetisim has got to do with your current and electromagnetism is a combination of the two phenomenon.

Think of it like this, I have an electret in a state of equilibrium and a coil of wire which is attached to an incandescent bulb. Nothing happens. If I have a magnet in a state of equilibrium and a coil of wire which is attached to a an incandescent bulb nothing happens either.

If this magnet however is spun the measurements read on your meter are as follows;
Current is proportional TO THE STRENGTH OF THE MAGNET.
Voltage is proportional to the velocity of the magnet.

I don't have an electret to test with otherwise I am sure I could find an analogy to magnetism where the strength of the electret is proportional to the voltage and current proportional to the change in equilibrium of the electret. If anyone doesn't understand what I am saying I'll reword.

Regards,
Raui

[Rectified]

Hi Raui
I understand what you are saying.

The issue I was trying to address with Aron was the statement he made in reference to Voltage and current. I have been in the field of electronics for more than 50+ years and have encountered many that fail to understand Voltage and current accurately. It becomes even more difficult to contribute to a conversation to discuss other issues pertaining to magnetism such as Skin Effect, Fermi Surface, Movable electron versus locked electrons, thermal/quantum random motion speeds etc. It’s not as thou we are disputation Wolfgang Pauli exclusion and conservation of energy hypothesis, Rather just fundamental ohms Law that has been used to send space crafts to other planets and to build millions of circuits by those of us that understand it’s most basic principles.
Take Care Rectified

[Rectified]

Seems like double talk ?

Hi Aron

When corresponding with you it seems as thou I’m talking to two different people.

Did you or did you not say Post #22

The amperage has nothing to do with the "speed" of voltage as you can have higher or lower amperage in a circuit at the same voltage and the voltage is going to be the same speed. Inversely, you can have a certain amperage with low or high voltage...and again...the speed of the voltage is the same in both cases.

And now you say

post # 24

Just on one point here, in normal terms...voltage isn't current...voltage is voltage and electron current is the current or amperage...the electron current, which is rated in amperage is moving at a few inches per hour while the voltage is moving at a little under light speed.

Everything I told you is accurate.

For one, if you are trying to point out to me that I would be shocked to learn how slow current is compared to the speed of light, what is apparent is that you have not understood anything I wrote, respectfully.


I’m sorry that I am unable explain in word that are more helpful to you. My colleague and I have used Ohms law successfully for more years than we care to mention. To say at one point Amperage has nothing to do with speed and then say the electron current, which is rated in amperage is moving at a few inches per hour while the voltage is moving at a little under light speed is makes it more than clear this conversation is futile.

Rectified

[sucahyo]

@Rectified, are you trying to say that current must be accompanied with voltage?

@Aaron, can you give another example of current without voltage, not involving magnet?

Are there any example of current generator or current storage? From any generator example, it is possible to generate very high potential (voltage) with very low current. How do we generate/store very high current without voltage?

[Raui]

Rectified,

While I am not Aaron I might be able to offer a neutral response to what you've said. Folks like Aaron and myself experiment with circuits and effects which are different to what you have most probably worked with for the past 50 years.

I'd say we know just about everything there is to know about closed loop systems, which is what you and every other qualified electrician/EE works with. We however approach circuits with an open loop and a perfect open loop system will almost every time/never be in an equilibrium state.

It is due to this fact the laws of thermodynamics might not hold for 2 reasons, 1 they were formulated before we even discovered the electromagnetic phenomenon and 2 because we are not dealing with a system in equilibrium.

Also why is Ohms Law going to hold when we don't have current? Your used to dealing with circuits that utilize electricity and magnetic compnents (the electromagnetic phenomenon) whilst most of us deal with purely an electrical phenomenon.

Hope this clears any misunderstanding up. Also I might point out to you that I don't have am only 17 and don't have a thorough education on what science currently accepts which I suppose is advantageous to me as I am not bound by the laws that you are. This has allowed me to investigate other phenomenon and not just pass it off because it breaks the 'known laws of physics'.

Raui