about the Ferrocell (ferrolens)

[Selfsimilarity]

Agreed.

But all these vortices you show are irrotatioanal.

In a rotational vortex angular speed increases as you go further away from the vortex eye.

The period of circulation is therefore the same for every ring trajectory.

Also if the vortex on a magnet were rotational the inverse cube law with distance would not apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex

EM

How do you interpret the video I posted above where the iron cylinder does not create a vortex under current but it does with a neodym magnet?

Wouldnt this lead to an understanding of magnetic vortecies also spinning, as current is present in both setups therefor cant be responsible for the observed spin, but the magnet is making the difference, responsible for the spinning water bubbles in the experiment. Any explanations for the observed phenomena?

[bistander]

Definition of magnetic field

✓For these reasons many books and publications on magnetism either do not give definition at all or use similar definition as given above in this article. Typical examples are quoted in the table below.

Publication Definition of magnetics field
Richard M. Bozorth
Ferromagnetism5) A magnet will attract a piece of iron even though the two are not in contact, and this action-at-a-distance is said to be caused by the magnetic field, or field of force.
Soshin Chikazumi
Physics of Ferromagnetism6) Generally a region of space in which a magnetic pole experiences an applied force is called a magnetic field.
David C. Jiles
Introduction to Magnetism and Magnetic Materials7) One of the most fundamental ideas in magnetism is the concept of the magnetic field. When a field is generated in a volume of space it means that there is a change of energy of that volume, and furthermore that there is an energy gradient so that a force is produced which can be detected by the acceleration of an electric charge moving in the field, by the force on a current-carrying conductor, by the torque on a magnetic dipole such as a bar magnet or even by a reorientation of spins of electrons within certain types of atoms.
Magnetic field
Encyclopaedia Britannica8) Magnetic field, region in the neighbourhood of a magnetic, electric current, or changing electric field, in which magnetic forces are observable.
Tai L. Chow
Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective9)S.K Gupta
Electro Magnetic Field Theory10)V.A.Bakshi, A.V.Bakshi
Electromagnetic Field Theory11) The region around a magnet within which the influence of the magnet can be experienced is called magnetic field.
✓

✓---✓ Copied from: Magnetic field [Encyclopedia Magnetica]

I thought the article was good but incomplete.

Just information.

bi

[Iamnuts]

Example.

How do you interpret the video I posted above where the iron cylinder does not create a vortex under current but it does with a neodym magnet?

Wouldnt this lead to an understanding of magnetic vortecies also spinning, as current is present in both setups therefor cant be responsible for the observed spin, but the magnet is making the difference, responsible for the spinning water bubbles in the experiment. Any explanations for the observed phenomena?

https://youtu.be/d5Nr3aMxQ0Y

The first simple motor explains it, I think

John

[Selfsimilarity]

Hey John,
how does that explain anything? it just shows the same effect.
The video i was refering to was

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaMf1aq6Njg

The question remains why there is spin to be observed in:
magnetism +electric current

and no spin with iron cylinder + electric current.

As electric current is present in both experiments, the observed spin must be an effect solely of the magnetic field independent of electric current. Electric current just make it visible due to water hydrolysis creating bubbles. Therefore i would dare to conclude that magnetic fields do not seem to be static but spinning. To go further, the magnetic field is two spins in opposed rotations forming an opposed spin equilibrium as observable with ferrocell or hurricane dynamics, as i elaborated in earlier posts.

[bistander]

Hope John doesn't mind

The vid, first demo, is interesting.

http://www.energeticforum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2Fd5Nr3aMxQ0Y

Looks like the homopolar principle of Faraday disc.

Self's video: The iron cylinder is not magnetized so brings no magnetic field to the experiment. The magnet obviously does have a magnetic field, which is static. The rotation of the liquid occurs due to Lorentz forces on the charges moving in the liquid along with the bubbles in that static magnetic field.

Regards,

bi

[Iamnuts]

This will tax your brains!!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8811&ved=2ahUKEwjAy8KxzaPeAhXHAMAKHZ8XBwUQFjAeegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2mLrvFjhsPDFptfQE05Jm3

[Iamnuts]

Forces.

https://youtu.be/nRDVm5rn_2A

[Selfsimilarity]

The vid, first demo, is interesting.

http://www.energeticforum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2Fd5Nr3aMxQ0Y

Looks like the homopolar principle of Faraday disc.

Self's video: The iron cylinder is not magnetized so brings no magnetic field to the experiment. The magnet obviously does have a magnetic field, which is static. The rotation of the liquid occurs due to Lorentz forces on the charges moving in the liquid along with the bubbles in that static magnetic field.

Regards,

bi

Well bi, by holding the point that the permanent magnetic field is static, you remain in the realm of the standard model's 4%, not being able to tap the 96% dark that is predicted but never found. We miss a huge amount of energy in our current understanding (dark energy)... Nothing is static in the universe, and the ferrocell shows you exactely that. What you call static is two magnetic waves, overlapping in such a way that standing wave patterns appear. Look at the image above, there is obviously 2 spins with opposed spin orientation, which create the standing magnetic wave, WHICH IS NOT STATIC Magnetic dynamics is fundamental and im very convinced that its correct understanding can replace the "dark" 96% predicted by standard model, accounting for the missing energy understanding.

Even in the video you posted about Lorenz Force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRDVm5rn_2A&feature=youtu.be

they come up with the opposed "moving" dynamics: electrons moving from negative to positive (yellow particles), "however" electric current is thought to be moving from positive to negative "illustrated using red particles". (Video 0.30min to 0.50min)

There are more right handed people than left handed people. Earth turns eastwards (to the right), yet there is the other spin too, just in reduced frequency. The opposed spin equilibrium can be applied to absolutely everything in the universe, and ferrocell shows it like never before. Its magnetism dynamics, nothing static after all, nothing dark, as with ferrocell, its illuminated, made visible, these standing waves only seem static when equilibrated. I think their equilibrium is not if both spins are equal like we are used to it in a 50:50 ratio, but if they are in PHI/golden-ratio 1:1.6181033.

[Markoul]

Markoul, im not so sure if its not rotational.
Why else would a iron cylinder not produce a vortex in water when electrified but a neodymironboron permanent magnet does?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaMf1aq6Njg

The difference is the coherent spin present in atoms of permanent magnet. The coherency creates the scaling effect of the field. Every atom is most likely like an electrified permanent magnet, but as spins are non-coherent, the field rests on the size of the atom, only through spin alignment, the spin-field is scaled/amplified into macroscopic size as seen in video or tornado or spiral galaxy.

In a magnet, there must be always 2 spins, 2 opposed spins, one CW and one CCW in an equilibrium. Appearing static when equilibrated (standing wave), moving if non-equilibrated (superimposed waves of standing waves, doppler-effect). If one of the two spins is stronger than the other, it rotates. The larger the spin difference, the faster the motion. Every object in the universe has a dominant net spin of two spins, just like the earth turns clockwise, yet there is counterclockwise motion present at the same time, just in reduced amount in comparison to its main dominant clockwise motion.



Notice the two spins? How one is dominant, yet there is the weaker one present as well? One is "sucking"/aspirating/compressing, the other is radiating/expanding?
Like our breath or our heart, compression - expansion - compression - expansion -->how the toroid pulses. The wave would be from one breath to the next one, this pulse velocity is the frequency, scale through spin coherency is the standing wave's amplitude
Everything in nature works according to this opposed spin equilibrium

SSML,

I really I've lost you here.

Irrotational doesn't mean that it is not rotating.

You better look for the term on the net.

[Markoul]

That's not the ****ing Lorentz force

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXifaqdbLhs[/VIDEO]

[Selfsimilarity]

Ahh I see Markoul,

I looked it up, I really misunderstood the term I thought you ment not-rotating!

Further, Im happy that you agree with the video showing the magnetic vortex that its not the Lorenz Transformation responsible for the spinning dynamics.

[Selfsimilarity]

What do you guys know about Fractality?
We must understand it to be able to fully uncover magnetism

Here is a great video of a scientist studying mandelbrot fractal since 1985.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lTLkxLaHQY

Mandelbrot is the fractal that fits a universe model best.


It has the cardiod, that appears over and over in mathematics integrated into its geometry.

Have a look at min 20 to min 22.
We can see the magnetic poles and their spin-dynamcis on the image on the right.

Love the mandelbrot set

[Iamnuts]

Nice twist.

https://youtu.be/bSIzyk5Mjko

John.

[Iamnuts]

Naked scientist.

So, ignoring quantum theory (because it doesn't generate useful answers) and string theory (because it is too immature), we must fall back on older theories like Maxwell's equations and Einsteins' Relativity.
In theory, the static magnetic field from a magnet extends to infinity (but gets rapidly weaker with distance, like distance4)
From geometry, if you rotate the magnet, the farther parts of the static field will be moving faster than nearer parts.
Special Relativity says that the magnetic field cannot move faster than the speed of light, so the shape of distant parts of it will be distorted.
Maxwell says that if you accelerate a magnetic field (and rotating it is a form of acceleration), you will produce stable transverse electromagnetic waves that separate from the static field, and continue on to infinity (getting weaker with distance, like distance2). Today we identify these waves with photons.
General relativity includes gravitation, and says that the path of photons is bent by the curvature of space, and experience time dilation in gravitational wells (which is equivalent to the blue/red shift described by puppypower).
These gravitational effects are extremely subtle near the Earth, and still hard to spot in the Sun's much deeper gravitational well.
To see a significant impact on a short-range experiment like a spinning magnetic field, you would need to get very close to the event horizon of a black hole.
In this environment, the shape of the near-field magnetic field will be distorted by time dilation.
Some of the emitted photons will go into orbit around the black hole, and some will enter the black hole, never to return.
But lets face it - a lot of our theories become rather uncertain extrapolations near the event horizon of a black hole!
John.

[bistander]

Hysterons

Maybe ferrocells are showing us ferroelectric behavior instead of ferromagnetic.

https://www.sciencealert.com/hypothetical-preisach-ferroelectric-hysteron-particle-discovered