gravity waves found

[Cloxxki]

@witsend: thanks for the kind words, but no, I am still a 100% consistent arm chair enthusiast. I like to think my utter lack of scientific background nor experience will one day make me pose a random question to hit a magic spark in someone who recognizes it's surprising merit.

[witsend]

@witsend: thanks for the kind words, but no, I am still a 100% consistent arm chair enthusiast. I like to think my utter lack of scientific background nor experience will one day make me pose a random question to hit a magic spark in someone who recognizes it's surprising merit.

LOL. I've been rolling Cloxxki. I'd be a very happy recipient of those 'sparks'. Just not sure what I'll do with them. I'm always busy at something so am slightly beyond the 'arm chair' status. But I tend to a reckless sense of optimism and am always surprised when I find reality keeps intervening. I guess I've just grown way too old to learn better.

Anyway. While I'm disappointed on the one hand - I'm greatly amused on the other.

[Adie123]

Hi Adie - have finally had a bit more time here.


Is there a picture for this? I'd love to see it. I can't quite understand the apparatus.


I agree. But again - I'd LOVE to see exactly those magnet alignments. It would be really interesting.


And again. LOL. Maybe a sketch - or something? I'm intrigued that it can attract in one alignment and do NOTHING in another.

Unfortunatly my webcam doesnt work with the new windows 7 which i installed this week ... old webcam and newest drivers finished before vista release.

Thanks for this. I would LOVE to see this it. We had another member who I thought was going to try and visually describe something like this. Also saw things in vortices and centrifugal forces - I think. Still waiting for that. He actually bought software to use. The difficulty is to describe with words what is much easier to understand in simple drawings. I'm going to try something here myself - one day. But I'll stick to my elementary drawing skills. I'm way to old to learn complicated software. In some rare instances I need to own up to limitations. LOL.

Ive got something running with the physics engine in 3DS Max. Just need some time to finalise it and put it into some meaning of understanding ... Also its not unlike what you may have seen with theories of einsteins space distortion. Which i think centrifugal force is the reason for space distortion.

[gravityblock]

Hi Adie - have finally had a bit more time here.
Is there a picture for this? I'd love to see it. I can't quite understand the apparatus.

I agree. But again - I'd LOVE to see exactly those magnet alignments. It would be really interesting.

A while back I made a video demonstrating this effect. It doesn't have a metal piece on both sides of the magnets as in Adie's setup (assuming I understand the setup correctly), but the principal is the same. A pair of magnets are attached to the same side of a ferromagnetic material with like poles and the ferromagnetic material is attractive on the other side.

When the pair of magnets are attached with opposite poles to the same side of a ferromagnetic material, then the ferro isn't attractive on the other side (assuming the ferro isn't over-saturated). There is no mystery about this effect and is easily explained (the opposite poles creates a return path for the flux and will travel inside the ferro material instead of fully penetrating and leaving the ferro material on the other side with like poles, which causes it to be attractive).

Please correct me if I am wrong about your setup Adie. If need be, I can make a better quality video with a metal piece on both sides of the magnets.

GB

[Adie123]

A while back I made a video demonstrating this effect. It doesn't have a metal piece on both sides of the magnets as in Adie's setup (assuming I understand the setup correctly), but the principal is the same. A pair of magnets are attached to the same side of a ferromagnetic material with like poles and the ferromagnetic material is attractive on the other side.

When the pair of magnets are attached with opposite poles to the same side of a ferromagnetic material, then the ferro isn't attractive on the other side (assuming the ferro isn't over-saturated). There is no mystery about this effect and is easily explained (the opposite poles creates a return path for the flux and will travel inside the ferro material instead of fully penetrating and leaving the ferro material on the other side with like poles, which causes it to be attractive.

Please correct me if I am wrong about your setup Adie.

GB

Your exactly correct about my setup and your vid shows it perfectly. I decided to do a sketch drawing inbetween this and my last post.

[Harvey]

There is much truth we already know regarding magnetism which is indisputable even for the retired artistic experimenter such as many of us are and can be proven conclusively by simple experiments like those carried out by kindergarten children.

1. Magnets have two poles.
2. Like poles repel
3. Opposite poles attract
4. Magnets cause iron to act like another magnet
5. Moving a magnet over a conductor makes current in the wire
6. A motionless magnet next to a conductor does nothing
7. There is a limit to how much iron a magnet can affect
8. Magnetic fields are complete loops - never single ended

Then as we enter grade school we may learn some new things:
9. Magnetic loops of the same polarity never cross or entangle
10. Magnetic loops of the same density always mix regardless of polarity
11. Magnetic loops can be twisted like springs
12. Twisting magnetic loops increases density and can cause shearing by #10
13. Electric motors and generators work because of magnetic fields
14. Radios work because of magnetic fields
15. Electromagnets and permanent magnets work by the same principles
16. Magnetic fields cannot be shielded only re-routed

Then we may enter into high school and start learning some reasons why:
17. Electromagnetism is a single fundamental force of nature with two faces
18. The reference frame used to measure electromagnetism changes what is measured.
19. A moving wire in a magnetic field develops a dipole electric field
20. A moving charge in any medium whatsoever develops a magnetic field (even by spinning in place)
21. Electromagnetic energy is transferred at the constant known as c
22. The speed of light is not constant but is medium dependent, but c remains constant.
22. The speed of light in a vacuum = c

Then we enter college and we learn some very specific details:
23. Nature always causes a closed surface to net to zero magnetically - x in always equals x out.
24. Electromagnetism is affected by Permeability, Permittivity, Coercivity, Reluctance, Admittance, Conductance, Impedance, Susceptibility of various mediums
25. The vacuum has an electromagnetic impedance of 300 ohms
26. Magnetic flux spreads out in any medium to fill a spherical volume
27. If magnetic flux is constrained the density increases and vice versa
28. Domains in magnetic materials react to magnetic flux at the speed of c
29. Domains have thresholds that must be met before they react
30. Different materials have different magnetic properties such as Ferromagnetism, Ferrimagnetism, Diamagnetism, Paramagnetism etc.
31. All subatomic charges exhibit a magnetic field due to their motion
32. Subatomic magnetic fields can either cancel out or add up
33. External magnetic flux can force subatomic fields to align and add up.

Then we move into post graduate work where new things are still being learned to add to the list of things already known.

But because we know the truth about magnetism already, we find from #23 & #24 that inducing a magnetic flux in a closed loop causes that flux to be retained in that loop.

Therefore, using closed permeable cylinders to get a PMH lock will always fail because the flux already has a closed path of much smaller distance and higher permeability. Try as you wish, it will never, ever lock unless you break the path within the cylinder.

[witsend]

Hello gravityblock. I watched your video. Bit dark - but I think I saw it right. Effectively you're showing that if two Souths (say) are attached to some magnetic material the fields can attract on the other side - and if you take two north souths then it no longer attracts magnetic material. Presumably using just one magnet it would attract on the other side? I've been looking for something small enough to test this and I only have ferrite magnets. I'll check it out in the morning.

When the pair of magnets are attached with opposite poles to the same side of a ferromagnetic material, then the ferro isn't attractive on the other side (assuming the ferro isn't over-saturated). There is no mystery about this effect and is easily explained (the opposite poles creates a return path for the flux and will travel inside the ferro material instead of fully penetrating and leaving the ferro material on the other side with like poles, which causes it to be attractive).

First off I'd say that the ns alignments actually bypass the attached and simply combine their fields. That would argue to less magnetic fields intruding into the material that hold both magnets. Surely? Conversely two souths would stay apart and their fields would be accessible to any proximate magnetic material. So. The same effect - but a different explanation.

[Adie123]

@Harvey - Wow, what schools did you goto... I can remember 1 lesson at the age of about 12 to be about magnets and thats it. I even took physics and electronics but nothing of magnetismn came up.

[Agent.A]

WOW,

im sorry for lack of constructive contribution in this post, but the post above is simply Hilarious !!!

good one Adie123.

[Adie123]

WOW,

im sorry for lack of constructive contribution in this post, but the post above is simply Hilarious !!!

good one Adie123.

hehe, thx :P

i guess my school was crapola. Spent too much time on other parts of physics i guess and not magnets

[gravityblock]

Hello gravityblock. I watched your video. Bit dark - but I think I saw it right. Effectively you're showing that if two Souths (say) are attached to some magnetic material the fields can attract on the other side - and if you take two north souths then it no longer attracts magnetic material. Presumably using just one magnet it would attract on the other side? I've been looking for something small enough to test this and I only have ferrite magnets. I'll check it out in the morning.

First off I'd say that the ns alignments actually bypass the attached and simply combine their fields. That would argue to less magnetic fields intruding into the material that hold both magnets. Surely? Conversely two souths would stay apart and their fields would be accessible to any proximate magnetic material. So. The same effect - but a different explanation.

Yes, with only one magnet, the other side will have a magnetic field and will be attractive. If your using ferrite magnets, then make sure the metal piece isn't much larger than the size of the magnets, because the field will be spread out over a larger area according to the size of the metal and will be weakened, thus the attraction will be lower and may not be noticeable.

In the N/S alignment, the field does not bypass the attached metal piece, but will actually flow inside it. This can be seen when the metal piece is over-saturated and the field will leak through the other side, which will cause attraction.

I'm attaching a simulation showing how the N/S arrangement actually flows inside the material (left half of the image). On the right half of the image, then the field will pass through the other side of the material if another magnet of opposite polarity is on the other side. The piece labeled "disc" in the illustration is a ferromagnetic material.

GB

[Agent.A]

hehe, thx :P

i guess my school was crapola. Spent too much time on other parts of physics i guess and not magnets

harvey can give ya more then some lessons in this area.
be happy, you asked the right master, really, he knows the good stuff.
you'll be up to speed in no time.

[Adie123]

harvey can give ya more then some lessons in this area.
be happy, you asked the right master, really, he knows the good stuff.
you'll be up to speed in no time.

Roger 10 4

-----------

@witsend - Image below is what im messing about with in 3DS Max. Its the same type of model design to illustrate einsteins theory of space bending, but its not entirely what my theory is..... As this theory and design would draw an object in and then sink to the bottom of the mass. This would show an object approaching and then veer off course and i dont recall anything from documentories or science literature about that. So einsteins theory is flawed with this (imho).



If you can imagine the spheres at the same height as the dark cyan layer. Objects approach, keeping their trajectory until they get within the centrifugal force of the mass, which can be billions of miles depending on the size, core spin, etc of the mass. The centrifugal force will slowly alter the objects path in an ark (same direction of the mass's spin).

The below image is roughly how i perceive the centrifugal force (part of gravities equation).



The flat area of the centrifugal force (red) will pull on objects, just like a whirlepool draws in the surrounding water and other matter in the water. The 2 spikes of the centrifugal force will be much thinner/tighter than this, but i drew them fatter for illustration.

---

I feel ive missed something out but ill finish it there and take any Criticism / questions etc.

regards
Adie


p.s. i hope i/we havnt sabotaged Daves thread. I feel that im trying to add my theory on gravity so everyone can draw their conclusions onto what Daves device has found. My personal opinion is that its not gravity. Although i would love to be proved wrong

[Harvey]

@Harvey - Wow, what schools did you goto... I can remember 1 lesson at the age of about 12 to be about magnets and thats it. I even took physics and electronics but nothing of magnetismn came up.

I'm really sorry that the school system let you down in this area. My first real scientific analysis of magnetism and gravity was in my Grade 3 (8 years old) in a small school at a community known as Red Hill. I was exposed to magnets when I was in diapers, forming meaningless words on my mothers refrigerator with large plastic letters that had magnets in the back. I realized that some of the letters would stick together and some would push away. I recall that my favorites were the ones that would push away and I would lay them on the wood floor and make them slide around. My mom would yell at me for putting them in my diaper but diapers have no pockets what else was I to do. (There is a money maker for you, put pockets on diapers and see how smart your infants really are).

But to give you an idea of what is taught in other areas at different grade levels, here are some links that take magnetism from preschool (age 4) through post graduate. You may notice that there is one there that is an AP course for seniors in high school - this stands for Advanced Placement and is college level physics taught in the final years of high school to give students with those aptitudes an advanced placement in the college curriculum.

Preschool Activities for Small Groups

http://www.ckcolorado.org/units/Kind...ndergarten.pdf

Magnets Lesson Plans - Science Lesson Plans on Magnets - Canadian Elementary School

Magnetism - Lesson Plan Library

High School Magnetism Activities | eHow.com

http://www.myteacherpages.com/webpag...HYSICS%20B.pdf

College Physics: Classical Electromagnetism

USA US Postgraduate Electromagnetic Engineering Courses USA US Post Graduate Studies Programs


Cheers,

[spiralout]

Hi folks,

Lovely thread you got going on here, It's been a pleasure following it for the last month.

The information contained in these pages got me excited enough to the point that I found myself replicating David's device. my first replication was constructed using a bare iron pipe (non galvanized) and although I got the magnetic lock, it didn't exhibit any visual effects. An unusual coolness could be felt while spinning the device, but other than that, it was a no show.
After a few days of toying around with rig no.1, I decided that it would be better to "stick with the recipe" for now and got me some galvanized pipe. Following Davids advice, I charged all the segments individually prior to assembly. I then assembled the all thing with one coil and pulsed it with a 12v battery from my portable drill. Almost immediately after pulsing the device and spinning it a bit, I could notice "something" animating from it! but it was so faint and subtle that I couldn't make up my mind whether I was actually seeing something or is it just the light playing tricks on my eyes. So, I continued to play around with the device, trying different coil arrangements, pulsed it over and over again in order to get the effect clearer, but to no avail. lol, it got to a point where I thought of offering it some food!
Somewhat frustrated from the all thing, I disassembled it and got back to my thinking couch. Then came the report from Bruce which inspired me to give it another try. This time, I told myself, I'll just pulse it twice and try to observe it in as many lighting conditions as possible. Well, for the last five days or so, I've been taking every opportunity I had to just sit and watch the device in different locations and times of the day/night.

And now, for the exciting part of this report. Since I've switched to an observer mode and stopped "Harassing" the device, I've been able to see the effect, AKA "the Lambright glimmer" clearer and clearer! I've showed the device to three other people and all said they notice the effect, one even said that he can see a vortex coming from the middle of the rig which I haven't been able to. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, "OMG! IT'S ALIVE!"

I have a few thoughts regarding this device, but I need to get them straight before I'll post. Also, would someone be kind enough to tell me how can I attach pictures so they appear in my post and not as a link? couldn't figure it out.

hope y'all have a lovely weekend,

N.Madog