Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

they have no clue so they call it a magnet maker




we need to think more about magnetic fields, here something interesting,
looks like magnetic fields do have some proffered direction or "spinn"

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr
It's not a "weak" magnet. It's not a permanent magnet. It's a one time use only magnet. Refrigerator magnets are "weak" but they keep on working.

Per my previous post, that's a property of the material, it's not anything special about the apparatus.

All he shows in the video is that magnetic flux is stronger when the power applied than when it isn't, but his tools don't show the flux goes to zero when the power is removed (though maybe he thinks it does), the flux is still there but it's weaker. We have a lot of experience with this type of flux circuit because it's basic to transformer design, as seen in the diagram on the left here:

www.electronics-tutorials.ws...

You can see the flux follows a path around the square core, and when you break the flux using materials that don't retain magnetism, the flux isn't restored.

For similar reasons, there are "keepers" for horseshoe magnets that keep the flux going longer. Even on the better magnet material, the magnets lose magnetism more quickly without the "keeper"

Magnet keeper

A piece of iron, called a keeper, fits over the magnet's poles, helping it retain its magnetism during long periods in storage.

So essentially what we see in the leedskalnin videos are these "keepers" on very pathetic horseshoe magnets that don't retain their magnetism without the keeper, because of the materials they are made out of.

I honestly don't see any mystery here, this is mostly a materials issue, and our brains are programmed to think of the types of materials that are normally used for permanent magnets, which are not being used in these experiments. So use a different type of material and of course, we will get different results.

Any time electrons move their magnetic field always spins in the same direction. Though i hadn't watched the video on my cell but from the description the pattern would change depending on how you applied the current. And also impurities in the aluminum sheet so im not sure what this would prove exactly. But ill watch it latet and see.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

this configuration you show in this picture is a different configuration
those two are not the same

how comes you apply the function of one circuit to a totally different one ?


if you take a closer look you will notice the power transformer windings are configured like this
( looking just at the primary winding)

"//| m |// //| m |//"

and if you listen to the video the other windings are opposite to each other
"//| m |// \| m |\"

in power transformers you want the same flow and not an opposite current that creates an standing wave like in Leedskelnin's device

How comes again you explain the one with the other ??

in Leedskelnin's device the two electro magnets are pointing south to south and north to north
Transformers are south to north and north to south oriented.
oh... in transformers one current goes in one goes out

Leedskelnin's - current goes in, stays there trapped and get released when the magnetic field gets broken (changes)


the steel is not magnetic enough to produce current, it produces non the moment he attaches it to it, no changing field for current flow.
once charged, the magnetic field holds it together

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

this configuration you show in this picture is a different configuration
those two are not the same

how comes you apply the function of one circuit to a totally different one ?


if you take a closer look you will notice the power transformer windings are configured like this
( looking just at the primary winding)

"//| m |// //| m |//"

and if you listen to the video the other windings are opposite to each other
"//| m |// | m |"

in power transformers you want the same flow and not an opposite current that creates an standing wave like in Leedskelnin's device

How comes again you explain the one with the other ??

in Leedskelnin's device the two electro magnets are pointing south to south and north to north
Transformers are south to north and north to south oriented.
oh... in transformers one current goes in one goes out

Leedskelnin's - current goes in, stays there trapped and get released when the magnetic field gets broken (changes)

the steel is not magnetic enough to produce current, it produces non the moment he attaches it to it, no changing field for current flow.
once charged, the magnetic field holds it together

He didnt go to the link youll see there is a high and low voltage winding one is to insulate the other to prevent crossover. For all practical purposes just look at the high voltage winding its the same. Maybe next time you try to accuse someone of being deceptive you might want to know what your talking about.

Ps if you were to reverse the wiring on one side you get zero flux which defeats the purpose.

a reply to: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

KrzYma, the main reason I posted that illustration is to show the path of flux through the core of a transformer, and to show that it makes a complete loop. You can ignore the windings in that illustration if you want, but dragonridr is right the windings of the factory magnet maker and Leedskalnin's version of the magnet maker are both such that the flux will go around the horseshoe-shaped magnet on the bottom and the "keeper" at the top in a complete "flux loop", like in a transformer core. In fact here's my comment on the illustration:

You can see the flux follows a path around the square core

But if you want to talk about windings, you're wrong, the transformer windings must also be opposite just like the factory magnet maker and just like Leedskalnin's magnet maker. Dragonridr is correct that the flux loop shown in the illustraion won't exist if the windings are in the same direction, because then both sides create flux pointing in the same direction, and then the flux doesn't make a "loop", it cancels out in the transformer core just as dragonridr said(referring to the illustration on the left in the post above).

Nice try at taking your misunderstanding of a subject, and turning it into an ad hominem to accuse me of trying to be misleading,you apparently don't understand transformers either, or you never would have made such a claim about the direction of the transformer windings.

I didn't say Leedskalnin's magnet maker was the same in all respects as the transformer, I said the flux path was the same as in the transformer, but I did say Leedskalnin's device does appear to be essentially the same apparatus as the factory magnet maker machine with a few slight differences. The design, construction, and even appearance look similar to me and aside from some differences in windings and power source, the main difference in the factory magnet maker and the Leedskalnin magnet maker is that the experiments with the latter are using the wrong type of material for making magnets, and I posted the source that explained this, did you read it?

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I think magnetism is the easiest for peopleto get confused by. And the one most often used by scam websites because its easy to convince people this magnetic field can move mountains or cure cancer. What people dont realize is we have ben studying it and its effects foe hundreds of years. At this point id say its safe to say were not going to see something we have never seen before. All will see is variations on diffrent experiments. Maybe science needs to do more like this thread scientists tend to alienate them selves and alot of stuff just doesnt get talked about.

So... how about that God particle? Has it solidified the standard model as much as you hoped? Or has the enthusiasm waned, for whatever reason?

a reply to: BlueMule
A particle physicist who had done work at CERN has posted on ATS, but I haven't seen him post for a while. He used to give us some insights about the buzz at CERN which I can't do, but I can make a few comments.

Physicists don't like the "god particle" term, the media invented that term I guess to make catchy headlines, but "Higgs boson" is preferred, and hopefully anybody who read past the "god particle" headline has seen a term like that.

If it hadn't been found, the standard model would need some work, so of course finding it helps the standard model. But there are still unanswered questions with the standard model, someone asked about one of them earlier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are some other unsolved problems:

What gives rise to the Standard Model of particle physics?
Why do particle masses and coupling constants have the values that we measure?
Why are there three generations of particles?
...
Where does Dark Matter fit into the model? Is it even a new particle?

There's another scientist on ATS working on the last question. I think his team's dark matter experiment might start running later this year or early next year, so the search to answer the unanswered questions hasn't slowed down because of confirmation of the Higgs. Here's a thread he made on the topic:

Direct Dark Matter Detection [A review]

If a new particle or particles are detected in the dark matter experiment, this could potentially fill a giant hole in the model, since about 84% of the matter in the universe is thought to be dark matter, and standard model can't account for the majority of that.

originally posted by: BlueMule
So... how about that God particle? Has it solidified the standard model as much as you hoped? Or has the enthusiasm waned, for whatever reason?

Ok this is that disconnect between science and people i was talking about. It was a very big deal for scientists a new particle just where we thought it was supposed to be. But more importantly it allowed us to make that conection from the big bang to the way our universe is now. This is the first confirmation that at least our theory of what happened is sound. But the disconnect occurs when people ask well what does it do for us? We dont know yet what discoveries are awaiting in our new particle. The closest thing ican think of is when they discovered the electron no one knew what it could do but life without it would be unimaginable we use it for communication and light and heat etc. So lets talk about what we learned about it first the particle has a mass of about 125 times the mass of the proton and no electric charge. The rates at which the particle decays into pairs of other subatomic particles—photons, Z bosons, W bosons, tau leptons, and bottom quarks. and recently some new stuff it has zero spin or no angular momentum. And also has specific parity properties this means if we could look at it through a mirror it would look exactly the same.

Now some of the stranger things we learned well the possibility of other Higgs also being discovered we know theirs gaps still in the standard model. we also learned the Universe the universe is indeed in a metastable state, and that in the hopefully far future it might transition to a more stable state. Picture this in a galaxy far far away a bubble appears in this bubble the laws of physics would be entirely different. Meaning even matter itself cant exist not as we know it anyway and it would expand out ward at the speed of light.Literally causing stars to blink out of existence like they were never there for all we know could be happening somewhere right now. Some of the stranger implications for us a weapon that could literally destroy you by removing mass from your particles sending them shooting off into the galaxy? Maybe a way to get around Einsteins speed of light problem where mass increases with velocity? Control an object weight by playing with the bosons we dont know where this could lead yet but man the journey could be fun.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

KrzYma, the main reason I posted that illustration is to show the path of flux through the core of a transformer, and to show that it makes a complete loop. You can ignore the windings in that illustration if you want, but dragonridr is right the windings of the factory magnet maker and Leedskalnin's version of the magnet maker are both such that the flux will go around the horseshoe-shaped magnet on the bottom and the "keeper" at the top in a complete "flux loop", like in a transformer core. In fact here's my comment on the illustration:

You can see the flux follows a path around the square core

But if you want to talk about windings, you're wrong, the transformer windings must also be opposite just like the factory magnet maker and just like Leedskalnin's magnet maker. Dragonridr is correct that the flux loop shown in the illustraion won't exist if the windings are in the same direction, because then both sides create flux pointing in the same direction, and then the flux doesn't make a "loop", it cancels out in the transformer core just as dragonridr said(referring to the illustration on the left in the post above).

Nice try at taking your misunderstanding of a subject, and turning it into an ad hominem to accuse me of trying to be misleading,you apparently don't understand transformers either, or you never would have made such a claim about the direction of the transformer windings.

I didn't say Leedskalnin's magnet maker was the same in all respects as the transformer, I said the flux path was the same as in the transformer, but I did say Leedskalnin's device does appear to be essentially the same apparatus as the factory magnet maker machine with a few slight differences. The design, construction, and even appearance look similar to me and aside from some differences in windings and power source, the main difference in the factory magnet maker and the Leedskalnin magnet maker is that the experiments with the latter are using the wrong type of material for making magnets, and I posted the source that explained this, did you read it?

it shows again you have no idea what you are talking about, right ? (I don't think you will ever notice this)

The Perpetual Motion Holder is a completed circuit that allows the individual magnets to polarize (move in opposite directions) into two individual currents. They orbit the PMH in opposition to each other indefinitely — not going around one another, but screwing through one another.

If two magnets or two magnetic currents are running against each other, both spiraling from opposite directions with a right hand twist in a double helical fashion as described, they will switch direction (polarity) so they can continue to screw forward against each other using the same right hand rotation. This illustrates why magnetic currents in nature are alternating as Leedskalnin tells us. This also demonstrates the unipolar mechanics of the individual magnet and magnetic currents.

so please stop assaulting people with your fictional prefect knowledge and understanding of everything. YOU DON'T know !!

reply to;dragonridr

Assuming one knows really everything about something is very very presumptuous.
I wouldn't follow this path...

originally posted by: dragonridr
"So... how about that God particle? Has it solidified the standard model as much as you hoped? Or has the enthusiasm waned, for whatever reason?"

It was a very big deal for scientists a new particle just where we thought it was supposed to be. But more importantly it allowed us to make that conection from the big bang to the way our universe is now. This is the first confirmation that at least our theory of what happened is sound.

string theorists predicted several "higher energy levels", and thus an even larger particle zoo.
even tho they pretty much say "its the same strings vibrating at different frequencies", scientists try to catalogue the outcome and consider them particles.
we allso know that you cannot treat neither, any part of a system observed or the observer as individual entities, yet we still try and seperate particles from each other using larger and larger colliders.
...like throwing a truck into a shredder and reverse-engineering it from the remains.
sure, you get somewhat of a picture of what you threw into the shredder, but a "pretty vague" one. ;o

it is apparent by now that matter splits into ever-smaller manifestations if you smash it togeather, to whoknows whatever smallest unit, if there is even one at all.
the striking similarity of the universes behaviour to a computer program, makes it pretty plausible that we live within an infinite fractal structure, and the efforts to find the "smallest pieces" may very well turn out to be futile.
at any rate, i dont recall who sayd it, but id like to paraphrase:
"string theory is not as revolutionary as we once hoped."
and quite alot of "giants of science" claimed wed NEED a revolution, bc were conceptionally stuck.

Picture this in a galaxy far far away a bubble appears in this bubble the laws of physics would be entirely different. Meaning even matter itself cant exist not as we know it anyway and it would expand out ward at the speed of light.Literally causing stars to blink out of existence like they were never there for all we know could be happening somewhere right now.

thats kinda funny one must admit, letz just propose completely different physical laws that free us of our bonds. :p
im not saying this couldnt be the case, but its a bold call for mainstream science, granted its allmost esoteric. ;o
(same as the assumtions we make regarding inflation, and that it just occoured this one time, instead of beeing letz say a variable in constant flow)

/edit: just a sidenote, particles without spin whatsoever dont appear very "in line" with the rest of the cosmos behaviour...
any info on how this is justified?

a reply to: KrzYma
I don't have perfect knowledge, but I do know quite a bit about transformers, magnets, electricity and such.

In this diagram:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
www.electronics-tutorials.ws...

The left hand view shows opposite directions for the windings and the flux as indicated by the flux arrows pointing down on one side and up on the other side, so yes these are opposite directions.

However, from a different perspective, these opposite directions can be considered the same direction if you follow the arrows around the entire core.

Think of a racetrack, where cars drive around an oval path. They are going North on one side of the track and South on the other side of the track, so you can call these opposite directions, but in a race, they all need to circle the track in the same direction, either clockwise or anticlockwise. If some cars travel clockwise and some anti-clockwise, they can collide.

Magnetic flux is somewhat analogous to this in the transformer core diagram above, as well as in the magnet makers, so keep this in mind when you talk about directions, it can get a little confusing and I think you're confused.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

English is my foreign language but even I can understand this

The Perpetual Motion Holder is a completed circuit that allows the individual magnets to polarize (move in opposite directions) into two individual currents. They orbit the PMH in opposition to each other indefinitely — not going around one another, but screwing through one another.

running cars on a loop against each other is what happens in the iron core, it is required for this device to work.


what happens here
... you say Leedskelnin's apparatus is nothing else than a magnet maker.
... I say it is not
... you say Leedskelnin's apparatus works like a power transformer
... I say it is not, give you the explanation and point out the opposite directions of the flux
... you tell me I'm wrong and don't understand this device, I don't understand the transformer function electricity and magnetism
... I tell you again this device works different than you think
... you tell me about cars in a race as example of how the flux is or should be going around
...

enough yet

a reply to: KrzYma
You don't understand.

Here, try this:
web.archive.org...://www.nequaquamvacuum.com/en/english-section/alt-sci/9-pmh-2006.html

During 2006 I had some spare time so I decided to make exact replica of Ed Leedskalnin's PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder). ...
Coils were also made as per original instructions and both of them are completely identical. Of course they're connected in anti-parallel in order to achieve opposite polarizations when they're energized. One thing I did notice is that only one coil is sufficient for normal operation of PMH.

So this confirms two things:
1. The opposite polarization means the same thing as cars going north on one side of the track and south on the other side of the track, but they are only going one direction in the loop, say, counter-clockwise, like in the transformer flux diagram.
2. Disconnecting one of the coils still allows the PMH to work. This confirms that the flux is all one direction in the sense of say, a counter-clockwise flow.

If the operation of the PMH depended on opposing flux directions as you wrongly claim, then disconecting one of the two coils would not permit continued operation of the PMH. The experimental results that "only one coil is sufficient for normal operation of PMH" confirm my interpretation and reject your interpretation about the importance of the direction of the other coil. You don't even need the other coil.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
This vid is a good representation of my questions on this. Pay close attention from about 2:18-2:39. I 'seen' the light!

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
This vid is a good representation of my questions on this. Pay close attention from about 2:18-2:39. I 'seen' the light!

This is the Lennz effect good example of it. An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux. For this reason even the huge electro magnets that move cars if we change the flux into a loop instead running current through the car instead of just themagnet. They will hold a car while turned off as well at least for a while just wouldnt want to stand under it. Bottom line put particles in motion they stay in motion ie 3rd law. Something has to force the particles in this case electrons to stop eventually resistance will but until than tada magic.

Hey arb. nice of you to do this thread. my ques do we exist in merely a hologram?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
There is magnetic flux going though the flux loop, and when he breaks the flux loop it changes the magnetic field (the flux is interrupted) and a changing magnetic field results in an electric field which moves the electrons in the wire which lights the light.

See comment by Michael Goebel on the youtube video page, saying there's nothing about this inconsistent with known physics. When ScorchGD says this violates the laws of physics, what he's really saying is, he doesn't understand the laws of physics. It's perfectly consistent with the laws of physics.

Regarding his question about the difference between his gadget and the electromagnets at scrap metal yards, his gadget has a magnetic field like a horseshoe magnet, meaning it presents both a north and a south pole, and bridging that with a piece of iron can create a flux loop like in the transformer diagram.

In the scrap metal yard, a key difference is that the magnetic field is a dipole like a bar magnet, meaning it only presents either a north or a south pole to the scrap, therefore you can't bridge the N and S poles of the electromagnet and create a flux loop with the scrap metal yard electromagnet design.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey arb. nice of you to do this thread. my ques do we exist in merely a hologram?

There is a hypothesis called the Holographic principle which is a property of string theories and like string theory hasn't been experimentally confirmed.

There are some ideas on how it might be experimentally tested, but so far none of the experiments have confirmed the hypothesis.

The current topic is about quantum mechanics (QM), and whether this quantum mechanical model is an accurate representation of reality or not,

This might surprise you, but I think it's accurate enough to provide functional answers which allow for real world problem solving, which is all that matters in my book.

I still think it is flawed though.

For example, SR forbids infinite point mass particles, which negates black hole theory.

SR can't account for low energy nuclear reactions. MIT recently held a course on this and NASA came out saying its a real phenomena.

SR also has no working theory of gravity, which means its still entirely disconnected from GR (and always will be).

It has its share of problems, but its useful... for now. I think Randal Mills theory is better because it relies on closed form classical physics to explain atomic structure and behavior, allowing him to solve previously unsolvable problems. People can mock Mills and Blacklight Power all they want, but these guys have independent lab proven results.

It's just a matter of time until SR, and its outrageously insane big brother GR, are scrapped entirely.

For the record, I don't think Mills has it all figured out either. I just think his theory is better.