ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Ernst]

Hi Ben,
I'll try to avoid discussion and just respond to your post. If that P's anybody off, just say the word and I am out of here.

Correct, if there is no friction between the compass and the surface it's on, it will indeed move to the magnet in an east-west direction. This is what you see in most video's.

First I did not understand your remark, as I have never seen my compass depart to the East or West. But then I realized you were not talking about the Earth's magnetic field but about that of a nearby magnet. Then for a second I must admit you managed to induce some doubt... very well done! But further analysis reveals the correct answer.
Do you have two bar magnets? If so move them slowly together sideways. You will notice that there is a strong preference to combine in a NS-NS manner instead of sideways.
The sideways attraction occurs mainly because the second magnet distorts the field of the first. This is what your iron ball experiment proves:

A small iron ball will not follow the curved classical lines of force, but moves in a straight line.

I already went into this in an earlier post. The iron changes into a magnet along the lines of force. Next this magnet distorts the original field, but also the magnet created in the ball continuously adapts to its new location in the field.
Proof?
The iron filings do not move to the magnet. They are so small that their magnetic field does not distort the primary magnetic field and therefore they do not experience sufficient sideways force.

Where do you base this assumption on?

Distinti gives you a correct explanation in his video. Why do I think that is correct?
Because it is in line with Faraday's induction law, and mathematically correct.

As I see it, it behaves as two single layer coils. One coil at each end of the magnet.

What happens in the middle of the magnet? Or better, explain what the North coil produces at both ends and what the South coil produces at both ends. And then what happens in the middle?
Next: how is a single layer coil different from those two coils that you see in a permanent magnet? Does that mean there is a way to distinguish between a PM and an EM? (without looking at it of course)

Try a vector analysis of my model and you will see it. As the magnetic field force is an inverse square of the distance, it is probably a very line.

Where is your model?

I am not sure if the earth can be considered as an ideal magnet. The earths magnetic field is notorious for its deviations. In the early days of aviation, there were special magnetic variation maps that helped our aviators to find the right course. It think some of these are still used by survival experts.

So there are ideal magnets and non-ideal ones?
This strikes me as a bit of a poor response, Ben.
I can see where this is going, any magnet that obeys classical theory is not an ideal magnet. An ideal magnet obeys your/Ken's/UFO's theory, but unfortunately ideal things do not exist....
Who said "een beetje jammer"?

I know, but my impression is that UFO appreciates a positive, openminded and respectful discussion. And I agree with him, 'pedantic nay sayers' better start their own thread. They P* me of as well.

What surprises me is that people who do not understand the classical theories sometimes create much more complicated fairy tale theories and cling on to those as if their lifes depend on it. Then everyone who tries to explain the classical theory is a 'pedantic nay sayer', or a government paid shill, and people who do not immediately agree are not open-minded. People dumb eachother down, and create communities of fools, often led by one major fool who is a torrent of flash-words in sentences that no one understands (or some understand in their own way) and actually do not have any meaning. It does not P me off, but it does worry me, and I wonder if this development can not be curved into a more fruitful one.

Have a glass of quantum foam and let's counter-toast on stupidity.

Ernst.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ben,
I'll try to avoid discussion and just respond to your post. If that P's anybody off, just say the word and I am out of here.

Hey Ernst,

You are responding to Ben's Post then giving third opinions which directly points out to the material being presented on this Thread by Me.

Therefore, it is the same BS, except now "you are talking to Ben".

I am NOT going to ignore you, by allowing you to post whatever you want this "new way".

The iron filings do not move to the magnet. They are so small that their magnetic field does not distort the primary magnetic field and therefore they do not experience sufficient sideways force.

Of course the iron filings don't distort magnetic field from magnet, they get INFLUENCED, ATTRACTED and INDUCED by a much stronger field, adopting the shape that magnet will expand to, according to the REAL FIELD surrounding it, which is not shown by iron filings display.

Iron Filings will always group in majority around the stronger regions of magnet, meaning extreme poles ends.
The "arcs" displayed between poles are just magnetic bridges since filings become small magnets by induction/influence from main spatial field.

It really does not requires that much intelligence to dissect/understand this Theory in a few minutes.

I can see where this is going, any magnet that obeys classical theory is not an ideal magnet. An ideal magnet obeys your/Ken's/UFO's theory, but unfortunately ideal things do not exist....
Who said "een beetje jammer"?

You can NOT "ASSume" "where this is going", this what?...this Thread?

This Thread is presented by me, not by Ben, so stop the BS of being "indirect".

I hate that and YES it DOES PISS ME OFF!

What surprises me is that people who do not understand the classical theories sometimes create much more complicated fairy tale theories and cling on to those as if their lifes depend on it.

WHO WILL NOT UNDERSTAND (ON THIS FORUM, ON THIS THREAD) SUCH A LOUSY AND SIMPLE THEORY?

Even an eight years old child would understand it the first time explained.

Then everyone who tries to explain the classical theory is a 'pedantic nay sayer', or a government paid shill.

Like I wrote above, this stupid Theory is so simple, so easy to understand that "someone" coming here to try to explain it to anyone else here...is considered AN INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE...

And IF YOU come here trying to insult others INTELLIGENCE as the thread owner, HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO BE TREATED?


SIMPLE ENOUGH?

and people who do not immediately agree are not open-minded.

That was exactly the FIRST POST I WROTE ON THIS THREAD...

TO ENGAGE YOUR F****** BRAIN WITH YOUR F****** FINGERS, BEFORE THROWING ANY COMMENTS HERE.

BUT YOU HAVE EITHER NOT READ THAT...OR ARE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A PISS OFF CONTEST HERE?.

People dumb eachother down, and create communities of fools, often led by one major fool who is a torrent of flash-words in sentences that no one understands (or some understand in their own way) and actually do not have any meaning.

That is EXACTLY the way I see the rest of the stupids who still believe BLINDLY in such BS as is thies Classic Belony.

It does not P me off,

BUT IT DOES PISS ME OFF YOUR INSISTING ATTITUDE TO F*** HERE!!ERNST.

but it does worry me, and I wonder if this development can not be curved into a more fruitful one.

Have a glass of quantum foam and let's counter-toast on stupidity.

Ernst.

What are U GONNA DO, when it DOES "CURVE" into excellent resulkts yor small brain will NOT be able to discern?

Are U GONNA ask for apologies?

Because they absolutely WOULD NOT be accepted.

You are NOT welcome here, I dont like your sneaky attitude to say things here.

Bistander is NOT in agreement with this theory, but WATCH the way he directs to me.

Then watch the way I address back to him.

Maybe one day you will grow up to that behavior.

But now, like I wrote before...just be a By Stander here.

[Ben2503]

all fools

Hi Ben,
I already went into this in an earlier post. The iron changes into a magnet along the lines of force. Next this magnet distorts the original field, but also the magnet created in the ball continuously adapts to its new location in the field.
Proof?
The iron filings do not move to the magnet. They are so small that their magnetic field does not distort the primary magnetic field and therefore they do not experience sufficient sideways force.

Correct me if I am wrong, so the classical model shows lines of force only correctly when the object in the field are small enough and do not disturb the field?

So there are ideal magnets and non-ideal ones?
This strikes me as a bit of a poor response, Ben.
I can see where this is going, any magnet that obeys classical theory is not an ideal magnet. An ideal magnet obeys your/Ken's/UFO's theory, but unfortunately ideal things do not exist....
Who said "een beetje jammer"?

I wanted to keep the earth magnetic behavior out of this discussion as it differs too much from the magnets this thread is about.
I suggest that if you want to visit the north pole you better not rely on your compass.

What surprises me is that people who do not understand the classical theories sometimes create much more complicated fairy tale theories and cling on to those as if their lifes depend on it. Then everyone who tries to explain the classical theory is a 'pedantic nay sayer', or a government paid shill, and people who do not immediately agree are not open-minded. People dumb eachother down, and create communities of fools, often led by one major fool who is a torrent of flash-words in sentences that no one understands (or some understand in their own way) and actually do not have any meaning.

I don't see any difference in behavior between the 'pedantic nay sayers' and some of the people on this thread. My take on this is:
"Fools think they know it all, the wiseman knows we are all just ignorant fools"

It does not P me off, but it does worry me, and I wonder if this development can not be curved into a more fruitful one.

That is entirely up to you.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ufopolitics]

Previous Disruptive Post Response.NOW

Please do take your time to ROFL.
This is the kind of comment that I sometimes also get, and in fact, since I haven't seen Citfta here, there may be a chance that you were actually referring to me.
I would like to explain something to all of you guys who have similar thoughts. I have been on this forum for a number of years now and I am seriously surprised by the lack of understanding of simple highschool physics here. What I have seen more than once is that since people fail to understand some phenomenon they dream up some other explanation which usually includes buzzwords like 'counterspace', 'quantum foam', 'zeropoint' etc.
When you ask the meaning of those words you can not even get a clear, uniform, non-self-contradictory explanation. Only look at what 'counterspace' brought up here.
Eric Dollard, although held in high esteem here, is one example. Ken is another. And also Aaron, I'm afraid. I have spend some time on Eric's work because at first glance it sure looks good, but the deeper you dig into it, the worse it gets. Ken's theories already make a ridiculous first impression, so I see no reason why I would waste my time reading through his 100+ pages of nonsense. But now someone claims he can provide proof in a few video's, I would surely like to see that. For two reasons:
1 - because it is not Ken himself doing the video. If it were Ken, I would a priori assume that watching the video would be a dull, even irritating waste of time and full of childish 'humour'.
2 - if there really is anything that can be said in favour of Ken's theory and it can be presented in 1, 2 or 3 experiments, I would be genuinely happy to see it. That could even be the point where I would change my opinion about Ken and his theories.
Now why am I not making Mo-Gen's à la Gerard Morin or Gans à la Keshe or .... (you fill in the blanks)? I guess that is because my understanding of the underlying principles in 'classical' terms is sufficient to explain what is shown (or claimed in Keshes case). There is absolutely no reason to replicate something like that because I do not see anything unusual. It is no more interesting than connecting a light to a battery and noting that it lights up! Would you replicate something like that?
It is a pity that most free energy claims are based on misunderstanding highschool physics. I sure wish it were different.
I recently saw a video of Jim Murray that I really liked. (there are some that actually do seem to understand what is happening) But then I read how people quote him, put words in his mouth and misinterpret what is shown AND TOLD in the video, .... it is sad.
I am a big fan of Tesla and his work. I know he has found a new source of energy among a few other really great discoveries. This man is truly amazing but here too you see thousands of misinterpretations and an equal number of people who just use his name to get attention for some ridiculous theory that they themselves have dreamt up.
I am replicating his work, because I can see and understand how it works and how valuable it is. And for exactly the same reason I am not replicating most other work.


Ernst.

Above is a Thread You wrote before and I IGNORED IT, as you have noticed...but NOW I will take my time to respond.

Do you really think I CARE if I develop positive results here that will make you happy?..¿?

You should be very stupid and retarded if you think I care if I "please you" or not!

Your Ego sets you up so high...that your fall is gonna be very painful...honestly.

Your Ego height has get you to the point of believing you are the TOP, Max Authority here on Classic BS (on this whole Forum)

And yes, you are pedantic and whatever in your language means the rest.

You have superseded CITFTA.

I guess your frustrations with your previous projects about Wardenclyffe and Tesla has transformed you in this "final product"...I have seen this "Syndrome" before in other members here posting around...so, if it makes you feel better...you are not the only one.

Guess We could call it the "Tesla Coil Syndrome"

Finally, like I wrote before, You lack the Electrodynamic Machines experience , basically in Generators, required to further posts any discussions on this Thread...so, besides pissing off here, you have absolutely nothing else to contribute here.

Did you take the hint?


Good bye Ernst.

[Ben2503]

This is a PM I received from Member Partzman here:




In the video Partzman conducts a very simple and short experiment that I recommend you guys take a look at.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Now that's puzzling

[bistander]

Magnetic viewing film

Hi Ufo,

I found some additional references to support my (and Ernst's) view on the film.

This green magnetic viewing film will become lighter or darker when a magnetic field is applied. It turns dark when the field lines are perpendicular the surface, and it turns light when the field lines are horizontal, i.e., across the surface. If a magnet is placed under it, with one of the poles facing the film, it will show the magnet as dark with a light outline.

WONDERMAGNET.COM - NdFeB Magnets, Magnet Wire, Books, Weird Science, Needful Things

Sometimes also known as Green Magnet Viewing Film, the Film changes colour as a result of interaction with the lines of magnetic field passing through the Magnetic Viewing Film. The Green Magnetic Viewing Film is a thin flexible sheet containing colloidal Nickel flakes suspended in oil as gelatinous microcapsules coated onto the plastic sheet. The nickel flakes, being ferromagnetic, align with the lines of magnetic flux (the magnetic field lines); they can rotate freely because of the gelatinous microcapsules.

Magnetic Viewing Film - e-Magnets UK

Concerning the light lines seen on the viewing film, refer to my recent post and the FEMM of the disc magnet. Notice the graph to the right of it. It breaks down the flux vector into the horizontal component (x comp, purple trace, parallel to the film) and the vertical component (y comp, green trace, perpendicular to the film). So when viewing the film from above, it looks like this:


The y component or green trace is the perpendicular flux through the film. The graph clearly shows it being zero at .25 inches. Hence the light circle of one half inch diameter on the one half inch diameter magnet. The rest of the film is dark because there is perpendicular flux shown by the non-zero values of y.

I took the image of the viewing film from Ben's post #208 video at 8:25 min. BTW, I disagree with the fellow in the video when he claims the light circle on the viewing film is caused by edge currents in the magnet.

That was found here: https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp...nets-are-weird

Towards the bottom of that page there is an explanation and diagram of a small disc on a large one.

The white circle seen on the viewing film around the edge of the disc magnet is due to the flux bending tightly around the edge heading to the opposite pole and not traveling perpendicular upwards to the film.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Distinti gives you a correct explanation in his video. Why do I think that is correct?
Because it is in line with Faraday's induction law, and mathematically correct.

Ernst.

Faraday NEVER WROTE ABSOLUTELY ANY LAW about Induction, get informed, engage brain with fingers.

and mathematically correct.

Faraday barely finished Elementary School Math...that was all he reached.

Faraday Formula was written by James Clerk Maxwell.

All other "Mathematicians" at the time, rejected his Theory, JUST BECAUSE "Lines of Force" could not be expressed through their math equations or may I say "capacity/ability" to find it?.

THAT IS THE REAL HISTORY BEHIND FARADAY'S INDUCTION.

So your ways to "approve" a statement by someone else is completely ignoring the real facts in historical frame.

Let me put it even simpler (numerical, 1,2,3 & 4) form, in case you still don't understand it:

By chronological order:

1- Faraday Discovers Induction.

2- All Math brilliant guys rejected Faraday's Theory for lack of explanation.

3- Maxwell writes a full book explaining it mathematically.

4- Faraday Law is written.

The thing you lack to understand here is that IF Faraday would not have discovered Induction from his EXPERIMENTS...NONE of the rest would have EVER taken place.

Still, according to your above quoted statement ...you consider 4 and 3 the "Key" to "approve" or not to approve Faraday's Induction.


That in my language is called BS!

IDK in Dutch how it is called...plus I don't F Care.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I found some additional references to support my (and Ernst's) view on the film.

Speak for yourself Bistander, you don't need to speak for anyone else.

There is NO OIL in view film, and those are NOT FLAKES EITHER.

I have cut so much view film, and never even felt a greasy touch ever!.

They are PARTICLES, very, very small, microscopic Nickel particles.

And the substance is a very viscous gel., to the point it don't leak when Film is cut.

I have brought in previously, what I consider an AUTHORITY IN VIEWING FILM, with related LINK.

Isn't that enough for you to understand and stop searching for other data?, I mean Internet is full of crap as well...gotta learn how to "FILTER" between reliable sources and BS.

All this brings is more confusion and unnecessary discussion.

Concerning the light lines seen on the viewing film, refer to my recent post and the FEMM of the disc magnet. Notice the graph to the right of it. It breaks down the flux vector into the horizontal component (x comp, purple trace, parallel to the film) and the vertical component (y comp, green trace, perpendicular to the film). So when viewing the film from above, it looks like this:


The y component or green trace is the perpendicular flux through the film. The graph clearly shows it being zero at .25 inches. Hence the light circle of one half inch diameter on the one half inch diameter magnet. The rest of the film is dark because there is perpendicular flux shown by the non-zero values of y.

I took the image of the viewing film from Ben's post #208 video at 8:25 min. BTW, I disagree with the fellow in the video when he claims the light circle on the viewing film is caused by edge currents in the magnet.

Regards,

bi

In either Iron Filings or Ken's Theory, there are absolutely no straight lines in a magnetic field.

They all curved out to space.

Therefore, the gathering of particles in film is not that drastic/radical, like Parallel or Perpendicular.

It obeys A SMOOTH BLENDING of Darker Shades. And that is what we see there.

Take a look below:

[IMG][/IMG]

North Pole as seen in an Old Scope CRT, both left and right top as the Bottom Right is the SOUTH POLE.

See the difference?

Why haven't you even mentioned anything about the similarity between view film and CRT in the main two magnetic interactions, Repulse and Attract displayed here before by me?


Maybe because you are still looking ON LINE for an answer/explanation?

Don't waste your time...You WON'T find it...except in Ken's Book or Thread.

Ufopolitics

[BroMikey]

Faraday NEVER WROTE ABSOLUTELY ANY LAW about Induction, get informed, engage brain with fingers.



Faraday barely finished Elementary School Math...that was all he reached.

Faraday Formula was written by James Clerk Maxwell.

All other "Mathematicians" at the time, rejected his Theory, JUST BECAUSE "Lines of Force" could not be expressed through their math equations or may I say "capacity/ability" to find it?.

THAT IS THE REAL HISTORY BEHIND FARADAY'S INDUCTION.

So your ways to "approve" a statement by someone else is completely ignoring the real facts in historical frame.



That in my language is called BS!

IDK in Dutch how it is called...plus I don't F Care.

UFO I'm glad we are still friends.
It's about high time, dont ya think?

No but really UFO I learn so much I never knew about the history
as well as the recent science emerging in this field. If we could
get on with this learning experience it would be nice. All of the
disruptions seem to keep you repeating and repeating yourself and
this does not help the classroom one bit.

The thing about a classroom? Yes, the classroom setting needs to
have one instructor such as yourself and if others want to comment
they raise their hand and then when they speak they show the
instructor that they are only asking not telling. Ya see what I mean?

How would it be if all of the followers of a subject all talked at once
right over top of the leader position? So we can't have this kind of
disorder anymore. I'm not saying that others who have opinions must
fall on their knees to input ideas, just that they should show some
respect. When they don't show the classroom any respect I get
boiling mad but I have learned to be patent.

I see I am not alone when it comes to my above statement.

Nice repeats tho, I learned something everytime.

[Ben2503]

mind gym

The thing about a classroom? Yes, the classroom setting needs to
have one instructor such as yourself and if others want to comment
they raise their hand and then when they speak they show the
instructor that they are only asking not telling. Ya see what I mean?

Yo Bro
What if the teacher wants to activate and open your creative mind and asks you to explain this?

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F2JFDpTE_ls[/VIDEO]

What would be your analysis?

Stay cool and best regards,
Ben

[bistander]

Straight lines?

Hi Ufo,

Particles? Flakes? What's the difference? A flake is a flat particle. So what? And your expert and I agree on what causes the lighter areas.

In either Iron Filings or Ken's Theory, there are absolutely no straight lines in a magnetic field.

I have never said there were.

They all curved out to space.

Actually they all curve around and self connect to form closed paths.

Therefore, the gathering of particles in film is not that drastic/radical, like Parallel or Perpendicular.

Yes, I know and have not said otherwise.

It obeys A SMOOTH BLENDING of Darker Shades. And that is what we see there.

Yes and that is what the graph and FEMM image show. Notice the label directly above the graph: Field Strength along the surface of a D82 Disc Magnet. Along the surface is exactly the edge view of the magnetic viewing film as it is laid on top of the disc. The Field Strength is the vector quantity of the curved flux lines as they pass thru that surface (film). No where is it inferred that there are straight lines. The x and y components, or horizontal and vertical, or parallel and perpendicular, are the directional coordinates of the vector at each point on the line (surface or film) represented by the purple and green traces on the graph. The heavy blue trace represents the magnitude of that vector at the respective location.

With your (or Ken's) theory, what causes the light circle in the view film? Is it a dielectric inertial cylinder?

And regarding the CRT, I don't care for the representation presented with that. I have mentioned before that all these "field viewing schemes" do not display the true field in the magnet or in the magnetic circuit which does useful work in our machines. The magnetic field of a stand-alone magnet or coil held behind a film or cell in space is considerably different than it is in a motor or transformer. What the film or cell shows is mostly leakage flux (non useful). The CRT places the viewing source even further away from the sample and presents a complex interaction of fields from the sample and CRT. It makes pretty patterns, but worthless IMO. I am still undecided about the ferrocell. I understand the viewing film and know what I am seeing with it. Same goes for iron filings.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Particles? Flakes? What's the difference? A flake is a flat particle. So what? And your expert and I agree on what causes the lighter areas.

"My Expert" opinion:

Source:VIEWING FILM FOR DC MAGNETIC FIELDS
A DISCUSSION
By: Vincent A. Ardizzone, EE
Executive President Product Development
Magne-Rite, Inc.

[...]

The film would show the typically darkened areas where each magnetic pole is located but would also clearly reveal a much lighter line where the magnetic fields change polarity.
The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

[...]

Is it that hard for you to understand the difference between "NO FLUX LINES ARE PRESENT AT ALL", versus PERPENDICULAR LINES, as you are thinking wrongfully?

Actually they all curve around and self connect to form closed paths.

Correct, great!!, except the "self connection" is not between poles but from top part of pole to equatorial part of SAME Pole.

[IMG][/IMG]

There are lighter lines where there is no Flux...and right next IS FLUX, in other words, when particles group very compact due to a field perpendicular lines presence, they leave an absence or less populated area which becomes lighter.

The same exact deal takes place between TWO ALIKE POLES, when we approach Two Magnets in Attraction:

[IMG][/IMG]

That center line shows up in the exact Middle Space between Both Opposite Poles.

Yes and that is what the graph and FEMM image show[/U]. Notice the label directly above the graph: Field Strength along the surface of a D82 Disc Magnet. Along the surface is exactly the edge view of the magnetic viewing film as it is laid on top of the disc. The Field Strength is the vector quantity of the curved flux lines as they pass thru that surface (film). No where is it inferred that there are straight lines. The x and y components, or horizontal and vertical, or parallel and perpendicular, are the directional coordinates of the vector at each point on the line (surface or film) represented by the purple and green traces on the graph. The heavy blue trace represents the magnitude of that vector at the respective location.

You keep mentioning FEMM as if it would be "another magnetic field viewing method", when in reality it is NOT!

FEMM is just a MIMIC, a MIRROR COPY about the way Iron Filings display, this Software has been programmed according to iron pattern development around a Filed, is that hard to accept or understand?

If FEMM would have magnetic Sensors, attached to hardware and ran by a specific data reading-interpreting-processing capabilities...then it would be a completely "AUTONOMOUS FIELD VIEWER", but, unfortunately it is NOT.

FEMM is a completely DEPENDENT SOFTWARE from previously "built in data" based on pre-loaded parameters that display according to the User Input data from magnet, electromagnet, shape, number of turns, gauge, Input Currents and Voltage...etc,etc.

With your (or Ken's) theory, what causes the light circle in the view film? Is it a dielectric inertial cylinder?

The same, exact thing that "my Expert" mentioned in first quoted text here:

My Expert says: The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

Regards,

bi

Regards, Bi


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

No line = no perpendicular line

Hi Ufo,

The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

And no perpendicular component of flux means the same thing. That there is no flux line present in the viewing film at the point. There may be parallel lines of flux just below the viewing film, but if there is no perpendicular component then no flux will penetrate the film and a lighter point or line will be seen. We're saying the same thing. I know how the stuff works.

A lighter line on the viewing film does not mean there is zero flux in the space below the film. This is evidenced by the fact that the steel ball travels to the edge of the disc where the flux density is the greatest yet where the viewing film shows a lighter circle. You can see this in the video after 8:25 when he puts the steel ball on top of the film.

And the light line on the viewing film above the middle of a bar or cylinder magnet is due to no flux passing through the film however there is flux in the magnet parallel to the plane of the film. I disagree with your latest diagram.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

And no perpendicular component of flux means the same thing.

Negative Bi,

No Flux Lines means just that...no flux line, no matter if perpendicular or parallel.

That there is no flux line present in the viewing film at the point. There may be parallel lines of flux just below the viewing film, but if there is no perpendicular component then no flux will penetrate the film and a lighter point or line will be seen. We're saying the same thing. I know how the stuff works.

This is not about "penetrating" or "not penetrating" the film.

This is about Gathering/Grouping a higher population of particles in one specific region of film due to Stronger Field Presence make, generate darker areas. However, this does not apply to Repulse Mode though...have you figured out the lighter line ONLY shows up between Opposite Poles and not like poles?

A lighter line on the viewing film does not mean there is zero flux in the space below the film. This is evidenced by the fact that the steel ball travels to the edge of the disc where the flux density is the greatest yet where the viewing film shows a lighter circle. You can see this in the video after 8:25 when he puts the steel ball on top of the film.

And the light line on the viewing film above the middle of a bar or cylinder magnet is due to no flux passing through the film however there is flux in the magnet parallel to the plane of the film. I disagree with your latest diagram.

Regards,

bi

Besides you are all confused here you brought a wrong example about the ball rolling to the edge of magnet...

Think how a Tornado sucks up a House...right from its center highest negative pressure region...then, after House is in starts spinning and where does House goes?...Yes, exactly to the very edge of the Vortex on the very top.

If you were flying on top of a Tornado, with a helicopter holding that House, dump it, where it will go?

Exactly to the vortex edge.

Back on View Film, please realize this film renders THREE Shades of Green, NOT just Two.

1-Darkest Region means Field Presence.

2- Lighter Region, No Field Presence.

3-Normal Shade of film. due to even blended particles per square area (when we "clean" film with another magnet from further away.

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Bistander,

I wanted to keep this particular part of your previous post separate, because I believe it is excellent, about something you wrote further on...

And regarding the CRT, I don't care for the representation presented with that.

You just don't care?!!...

Is that some kind of "Scientific in Denial" expression?...

It means you don't care about the NOBEL PRIZE AWARD WINNER Joseph John Thompson for his outrageous work?

Just one of them...related to our conversation here...:

Experiments on the magnetic deflection of cathode rays by J.J. Thompson

Thomson first investigated the magnetic deflection of cathode rays. Cathode rays were produced in the side tube on the left of the apparatus and passed through the anode into the main bell jar, where they were deflected by a magnet. Thomson detected their path by the fluorescence on a squared screen in the jar. He found that whatever the material of the anode and the gas in the jar, the deflection of the rays was the same, suggesting that the rays were of the same form whatever their origin

I have mentioned before that all these "field viewing schemes" do not display the true field in the magnet or in the magnetic circuit which does useful work in our machines. The magnetic field of a stand-alone magnet or coil held behind a film or cell in space is considerably different than it is in a motor or transformer. What the film or cell shows is mostly leakage flux (non useful). The CRT places the viewing source even further away from the sample and presents a complex interaction of fields from the sample and CRT. It makes pretty patterns, but worthless IMO. I am still undecided about the ferrocell. I understand the viewing film and know what I am seeing with it. Same goes for iron filings.

Regards,

bi

Excellent bold out and underlined statements by you Bi...!!

So, you think that all that "Spatial Spectrum" observed in Magnetic Fields through whatever methods is NOT the one that actually makes a motor or a transformer works?

By the way, did you just forget Generators in that list above?...or was it intentional because you are not sure?

So, according to you...which one IS the actual part of the magnetic field that does the real work?

The one intrinsically attached JUST to the IRON CORES INNER MASS PARTICLES of ANY those Machines?...Which are not reflected by any imaging methods?

Maybe that is why there MUST BE ALWAYS a very CLOSED GAP, when talking about Motors or Generators in your beliefs?

I would love to hear (sorry, I meant read) your answers to all above questions...


Thanks, and I believe your post above contains the best info you have ever produced on this Thread.


Regards


Ufopolitics