It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Encoded Magnets

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

roguetechie
Arb I've been watching correlated magnetics for several years now.


Larry Fullerton was preceded by someone else thinking of this?




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Working on a toy for his grandson, scientist and inventor Larry Fullerton wondered whether coding and correlation theory used for communications in radar signals in the time domain could be applied to magnetic structures in the spatial domain.

He built a prototype to test his theory. It was a pair of encoded magnetic structures designed to produce strong coupling force in only one spatial orientation. It worked.

The name of the company that resulted is Correlated Magnetics Research. Here is an introductory video:



Their website states:


Correlated magnetics is a fundamental breakthrough in magnetics. By combining many magnetic fields, CMR’s patented Polymagnet® technology transforms ordinary magnets into precision-tailored magnetic systems that produce complex functions not possible with conventional magnets. Magnetic functions are created with the world’s first magnetic printer, the CMR MagPrinter®. The MagPrinter creates patterns of small magnetic regions called maxels on rare-earth, ferrite or flexible magnetic materials. Each Polymagnet pattern creates a unique function – demonstrated in videos below.

www.correlatedmagnetics.com...


Thanks to Jason Verbelli of Searl Magnetics for posting his YouTube video bringing this to my attention:



why not use the same method to achieve nuclear fusion.

the biggest problem is proton proton repulsion....the coulomb barrier....right?

so using a combination of electron and protons just like correlated magnets above we could over com the coulomb barrier to nuclear fusion.do you see?

any comments?


nuclear fusion.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 

Antimatter has negative nuclei, but to have a spatial distribution of positive and negative charges in a nucleus would be to have a mixture of matter and anti matter, but I've never seen anything that would suggest a nucleus could contain both protons and antiprotons, and a lot to suggest it can't.

If you try to mix matter and antimatter, well, if you know enough to know what a coulomb barrier is, you probably know what happens. There is no coulomb barrier and it releases even more energy than nuclear fusion because there is annihilation. If that's your goal it's a great energy source except antimatter is currently too expensive to make for economical energy generation, among other problems with it.

Since there's no spatial pattern of positive and negative charge distribution possible within a nucleus as far as we know, it's kind of off topic to this thread about correlated spatial magnetic patterns, even if you extended the concept to spatial electric patterns.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by beckybecky
 

Antimatter has negative nuclei, but to have a spatial distribution of positive and negative charges in a nucleus would be to have a mixture of matter and anti matter, but I've never seen anything that would suggest a nucleus could contain both protons and antiprotons, and a lot to suggest it can't.

If you try to mix matter and antimatter, well, if you know enough to know what a coulomb barrier is, you probably know what happens. There is no coulomb barrier and it releases even more energy than nuclear fusion because there is annihilation. If that's your goal it's a great energy source except antimatter is currently too expensive to make for economical energy generation, among other problems with it.

Since there's no spatial pattern of positive and negative charge distribution possible within a nucleus as far as we know, it's kind of off topic to this thread about correlated spatial magnetic patterns, even if you extended the concept to spatial electric patterns.


i NEVER MENTIONED antimatter.

i was talking about electrons and protons only.normal matter.

proton - proton repulsion is what is stopping nuclear fusion.my idea is to use negatively charged electrons to overcome this repulsion.just like in the above magnets.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 

Electrons aren't in the nucleus, so they can't help overcome the coulomb barrier.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Umm no Larry Fullerton started correlated magnetics some time ago. The fact that Jason Verbelli is barely catching onto this now is actually kind of surprising to me since this has been being discussed on every alt energy site from the lunatic fringe to mainstream for several years now!

For the last 2 or 3 years you've been able to buy sample magnet sets with the different programming from correlatedmagnetics.com and now they are actually selling and leasing the machines to make your own!

The interesting thing is where and who Larry worked with BEFORE he started correlated magnetics though...



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Thank you. I just noticed that Jason's video was uploaded in 2012. It is I that just discovered it.

Maybe our friend Larry Fullerton needed to do something for his grandchild to help balance his former life.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by beckybecky
 

Electrons aren't in the nucleus, so they can't help overcome the coulomb barrier.


you are missing the point.
embed the electrons around the proton in some material around protons.just like the above magnetic printing.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

beckybecky
you are missing the point.
embed the electrons around the proton in some material around protons.just like the above magnetic printing.
Electrons can only occupy certain "orbitals" around the nucleus, based on observation. They are so far from the protons it's mind boggling. Someone made a web page trying to illustrate the distance but I guess people got tired of trying to scroll 11 miles to find the distance to the electron (I don't have the patience to scroll 11 miles on my monitor):

Hydrogen Atom Scale Model

The page had a picture of a proton that was one thousand pixels wide, and a little electron that was only one pixel wide, and they were separated by fifty million pixels of empty space - I worked it out that that was eleven miles if your monitor displayed 72 pixels per inch, not uncommon at the time. You could try to scroll between them and it would take a long time.
Ummm, yeah that would take a long time. The point being, electrons are a really, really, really long distance from the protons when the atomic scale is viewed to scale.

Now if you can figure out a way to get electrons closer to the nuclei you can rewrite quantum mechanics and win a Nobel prize, but we actually imaged the electron orbitals and they matched our quantum mechanical models closely, so it doesn't seem likely our models could be far enough off to allow that.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   

beckybecky
the biggest problem is proton proton repulsion....the coulomb barrier....right?


When I see "Coulomb" posted about I'm reminded of the writings of the non-mainstream thinker and author Walter Russell, author of A New Concept of the Universe. From pages 18 & 19:


IV


THE COULOMB LAW MISCONCEPTION



The Coulomb law statement that opposites attract and likes repel is not true to Natural law.

Opposite conditions ARE opposite conditions. Likewise. they are opposite effects caused by each thrusting in opposite directions. It is not logical to say that opposites fulfill any other office than to OPPOSE. Nor is it logical to say that opposing things attract each other.

In all this universe, like conditions seek like conditions. Gases and vapors seek gases and vapors by rising to find them. Liquids and solids seek liquids and solids by falling toward them.

Radiating matter seeks a radiating condition in the outward direction of radiation. Gravitating matter seeks the inward radial direction of condensation to find its like condition.

Opposite poles of a bar magnet thrust away from each other as far as they can go. That is the very purpose of the electric current which divides the universal equilibrium. If opposite poles attracted each other they would have to be together in the middle, instead of "pushing" away from each other to the very ends.

When depolarization takes place the poles seem to draw closer together, but that is because of their lessening vitality. They still thrust away from each other until devitalization is complete. When motion ceases, the matter which it manifests ceases to be.

Scientific observers have been deceived by their senses into thinking that opposites attract each other because of seeing the north pole of one magnet "pull" toward the south pole of another magnet.

The fact that opposite polarities void each other when thus contacted has not been considered as a factor in the matter. It is a fact, however, when two opposites are thus brought together by their seeming eagerness to contact each other, both poles cease to be. Each one has voided the other as completely as the chemical opposites sodium and chlorine void each other and leave no trace of either one after that contact.

If the Coulomb law were valid, it would not be possible to gather together one ounce of any one element.

www.scribd.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Mary Rose
When I see "Coulomb" posted about I'm reminded of the writings of the non-mainstream thinker and author Walter Russell, author of A New Concept of the Universe. From pages 18 & 19:



Scientific observers have been deceived by their senses into thinking that opposites attract each other because of seeing the north pole of one magnet "pull" toward the south pole of another magnet.
It's not just their senses, instruments independent of the scientists senses can detect magnetic forces.



The fact that opposite polarities void each other when thus contacted has not been considered as a factor in the matter. It is a fact, however, when two opposites are thus brought together by their seeming eagerness to contact each other, both poles cease to be. Each one has voided the other as completely as the chemical opposites sodium and chlorine void each other and leave no trace of either one after that contact.
Mary, are you buying what he's selling? Does this make any sense at all to you?

I don't see any contradiction of the scientists perception that north attracts south magnetic field before contact is made, so does this really support that scientists are deceived? Even when contact is made, have you ever tried to pull two strong magnets apart? They are still pulling on each other even harder so does what he says about each voiding the other make any sense at all?

And are you aware that sodium and chlorine do leave traces of each other after contact? So he's just as wrong about chemistry as he is about electromagnetism. I don't know why you'd post anything from Walter Russell in the science forum since there is nothing scientific about his claims. It's not just that he's non-mainstream, which implies he has scientific ideas that aren't accepted, rather his ideas are not scientific at all and have no basis in science. Some of his claims are entertaining though, like his claim about sex in stars:

www.eoht.info...

Russell continues:

“The material substance of mind cannot evade its materialization into the form desired by mind. This is an immutable law to which there can be no exception. Man’s concept of sex as beginning with organic life is a wrong concept. Sex is as absolute in the elements as in the complexities and compounds of the elements. Man’s concept of the beginning of sex and the beginning of life is a concept founded on conditions of temperature. Sex and life and light and intelligence are in and of all things from the beginning. The sex principle is as much a part of the granite rock or bar of iron as it is of man.

The great hot star called Argo, blazing away at a temperature of thirty thousand degrees, knows sex in its fiery heart, and cannot continue its appearance without it. The Martian ice cap knows sex in its frozen depths, and retains its appearance because of sex. Sex is an electromagnetic equalizer of matter in motion.”
If ATS subscribed to these ideas they would probably have to censor pictures from the Hubble space telescope and from the mars rover due to all the excessive sexual content. This guy was beyond "fringe".



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

beckybecky
you are missing the point.
embed the electrons around the proton in some material around protons.just like the above magnetic printing.
Electrons can only occupy certain "orbitals" around the nucleus, based on observation. They are so far from the protons it's mind boggling. Someone made a web page trying to illustrate the distance but I guess people got tired of trying to scroll 11 miles to find the distance to the electron (I don't have the patience to scroll 11 miles on my monitor):

Hydrogen Atom Scale Model

The page had a picture of a proton that was one thousand pixels wide, and a little electron that was only one pixel wide, and they were separated by fifty million pixels of empty space - I worked it out that that was eleven miles if your monitor displayed 72 pixels per inch, not uncommon at the time. You could try to scroll between them and it would take a long time.
Ummm, yeah that would take a long time. The point being, electrons are a really, really, really long distance from the protons when the atomic scale is viewed to scale.

Now if you can figure out a way to get electrons closer to the nuclei you can rewrite quantum mechanics and win a Nobel prize, but we actually imaged the electron orbitals and they matched our quantum mechanical models closely, so it doesn't seem likely our models could be far enough off to allow that.



i am afraid your completely wrong. again.

the distance is 5.29×10−11m for a hydrogen atom.its even got a name....bohr radius.look it up.

en.wikipedia.org...

i don't know if you can understand ≈ 5.29×10−11m

. followed by 11 zeros.

your analogy about pixels is absurd and meaningless.who cares?
how is it relevant to getting the coulomb barrier reduced?

are we supposed to be frightened by it and run for the hills?

electrons dime a dozen. see that cathode ray tv or oscilloscope? fires trillions of electrons at the screen.

particle colliders routinely fire electrons at protons in experiments.

it's not a big deal.

As i said before your scare us to death post about distances we need to fire the electrons or imprint them in some way using electric/magnetic fields so that the above effect with magnets is simulated/replicated with a view to reducing proton proton coulomb repulsion and getting proton fusion.do you understand?

i said it very simply above but you insist on diverting the topic to pixels distances.

There is no need to run scare stories about billions of pixels and other defeatist irrelevancies.what is the point of that?

i mean IF you want to impress people like that make a separate thread about it.

i daresay if you had been in Nasa we would never have gone to the moon and played golf there.I mean they would have chickened out at the 2500000 miles distance,had a burgher and gone back to bed.

so once again let us ALL now concentrate on getting the coulomb barrier reduced so we can get nuclear fusion instead
of worrying about electron proton distances.because that is the key to unlimited energy.

when you are in bed tonight try to IMAGINE some way of using the correlated magnet method and apply it to proton proton repulsion so that repulsion is reduced using electrons as attractive forces against the repulsive proton proton force.

if you succeed you could be rich and famous.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Again, an example of apparent mainstream thinker having a very naive opinion. What is said can SOUND correct because that is what it looks like when you do see two magnets together. The external field lines appear to cancel and vanish but the reality backed up by lots of observation is that these opposing parts of a magnet continue to attract. Once together it does not stop.

it is like the naive opinion that these magnets are something new, while the technology used to create them is indeed novel and possibly new, it is on the whole nothing that has not been done previously in other applications. It might have uses, very good uses, but none that spring to mind right this moment.

Simulations of magnetic field lines is something that is also possible to do by hand and can be written quite simply.

Still good luck to these guys and their tech, neat and fun stuff



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Really you can't see a SINGLE use for this new technology?

Because the first time I read about it I thought of about 15 before I finished the article...

It's always good to consider that just because YOU can't think of a use for something doesn't make it useless!



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Who can explain how this discovery changes the overall theory of magnetism?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Who can explain how this discovery changes the overall theory of magnetism?

Doesn't your question pre-suppose that it DOES change the overall theory of magnetism?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Who can explain how this discovery changes the overall theory of magnetism?
I don't think they claim it does. It's more like innovative engineering based on existing theory.


beckybecky
your analogy about pixels is absurd and meaningless.who cares?
how is it relevant to getting the coulomb barrier reduced?
I already explained why it's relevant to your suggestion of getting electrons into the nucleus of the atom. They are nowhere near the nucleus and you can't use a printer to put them there. You should care if you want to learn something relevant about science. If you don't want to learn about science that's ok I guess but then don't be offended when someone points out scientific reasons why your suggestion contradicts observation.

In fact I'll put it in another perspective. Randall Mills is running the second biggest scam that I know of in human history (After the Keely Motor scam), and he has the idea that electrons can occupy orbitals closer to the nucleus of the atom than has ever been observed in mainstream science. Now if he came up with a device that actually worked I'm sure the world would sit up and take notice, but all the world has noticed so far is that investors with "deep pockets and shallow brains" (as physicist Dr. Robert Park put it) have been funneling millions and millions of dollars into his "non-mainstream" ideas for decades with nothing to show for it, except embarrassment. Aside from Randall Mills I'm not aware of any mainstream scientist who thinks what he is suggesting is consistent with our extensive observations, and by inference, since you are also suggesting something along those lines (if I understand what you're proposing), the very same skepticism would be applied. In fact I know of a physicist who was hired to look into the Mills investment opportunity by a potential investor, and the physicist reported that what Mills wrote in his manifesto didn't really even make any sense in the beginning part of it. Further into the manifesto it started making some sense but it turned out that Mills plagiarized that content from college textbooks.

So my point in telling this story is to illustrate that the idea of getting electrons in orbitals closer to the nucleus than has ever been observed is not something that has never been considered before, rather it has been looked into by physicists hired by investors who had deep pockets and NOT shallow brains, who ultimately chose to not invest in Mills' scam.


roguetechie
It's always good to consider that just because YOU can't think of a use for something doesn't make it useless!
This doesn't seem like an appropriate reply to the statement:

"It might have uses, very good uses, but none that spring to mind right this moment."

You should re-read what was said.
edit on 14-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   

roguetechie
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Really you can't see a SINGLE use for this new technology?

Because the first time I read about it I thought of about 15 before I finished the article...

It's always good to consider that just because YOU can't think of a use for something doesn't make it useless!


Read very carefully, that isn't what i said. What I said is more about getting a grip on reality. It is not a revolutionary breakthrough in magnetics, it is actually something that has been available to do for many years but in different forms.

I can think of applications, but most of them are already taken care of by systems that already work very very well and hare highly developed and mature. Before jumping on someone and doing the standard routine, maybe sitting less on the fight or flight emotions and sit on logic a bit more.


There is also the possibility of having leptons that orbit inside those of the electrons... but... those are muons and the bound states decays quickly as the muon decays

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 14-2-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Mary Rose

roguetechie
Arb I've been watching correlated magnetics for several years now.


Larry Fullerton was preceded by someone else thinking of this?


Valdemar Poulson, 1895. He invented a way to print patterned magnetics onto a wire.

Behold:




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Mary,

It's not that it changes the theory of magnetics or advances it in any way. It's more an indicator that science is getting a slightly better grasp on how to bend magnetism to our will. While I hold out hope that there's stuff we've missed, and I believe correlated magnets are going to do some REALLY neat stuff, I don't think it really changes the overall game.

And as to the people who want to say my commentary was unjustified. I saw a lot of negativity from people who couldn't themselves see a way that this changes things/ makes new stuff possible or makes stuff we already do much cheaper, easier, or otherwise improves them. My response to this was right on point as far as that is concerned.

The dearth or abundance of a poster's imagination does not determine the usefulness of a scientific breakthrough. This is a fundamentally true statement. Look, for example, at the way Lord Kelvin's statements get brought up taken sort of way out of context in regards to powered flight!

And really I'd list some of the ideas that immediately spring to my mind when i read the basic capabilities of a correlated magnetics printers, but can you really blame a guy for holding his cards close to his vest when he thinks he might see something that may in fact be a career maker?




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join