The Primer Fields?

[Daniel]

Also, I noted that the book which I linked to has been altered. The entire section entitled "On Dynamic electricity" has been removed. It was this section that had the 4 pye R equations in it. I hope I still have an unaltered copy here if anyone is interested. I would upload it, but is seems I can't upload pdf's.

[nick c]

Dr. Wasilewski has demonstrated in the lab how to make a lodestone, a strong electric discharge.
This explains why natural lodestones are found near the Earth's surface and not at any appreciable depth, they were probably formed by lightning strikes.
Whatever, is occurring inside of the lodestone at a sub atomic level is open for debate. All explanations for that are based on the whatever is one's preferred theory. I have no horse in that race.
The bottom line is that lodestones are created by a strong electric current.

[Daniel]

Dr. Wasilewski has demonstrated in the lab how to make a lodestone, a strong electric discharge.
This explains why natural lodestones are found near the Earth's surface and not at any appreciable depth, they were probably formed by lightning strikes.
Whatever, is occurring inside of the lodestone at a sub atomic level is open for debate. All explanations for that are based on the whatever is one's preferred theory. I have no horse in that race.
The bottom line is that lodestones are created by a strong electric current.

Ohh, I see. Sit on the fence if you like, but perhaps you would now like to explain to me and everyone else reading this, how, with this theory, a sustained magnetic field occurs in the loadstone without an electric current being present in the material?

Thanks.

[nick c]

As I wrote, all that I have seen is theories. So I am open to evidence that falsifies any of them.
So if I have to pick one, I think that I will go with this as the most plausible:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out, so that the atom carries zero net current. However, in the atoms of ferromagnetic materials (i.e., iron, cobalt, and nickel) this cancellation is not complete, so these atoms do carry a net current. Usually, the atomic currents are all jumbled up (i.e., they are not aligned in any particular plane) so that they average to zero on a macroscopic scale. However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a strong magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become aligned such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field. In this situation, the currents can combine together to form a macroscopic magnetic field which reinforces the alignment field. In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials permanent magnets.

[Daniel]

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out, so that the atom carries zero net current. However, in the atoms of ferromagnetic materials (i.e., iron, cobalt, and nickel) this cancellation is not complete, so these atoms do carry a net current. Usually, the atomic currents are all jumbled up (i.e., they are not aligned in any particular plane) so that they average to zero on a macroscopic scale. However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a strong magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become aligned such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field. In this situation, the currents can combine together to form a macroscopic magnetic field which reinforces the alignment field. In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials permanent magnets.

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom.

I see. So, electrons in orbit about gazzillions of atoms do not add up to make a current? Why not?? They are all the same polarity aren't they???

In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out,

How convenient. Where is the charge carrier of opposite sign to cancel to??

in orbit around positively charged nuclei

Could it be that the electrons are dumping potential to the nucleii rather than exhibiting a net charge?? How is that possible??
Then, there is this gem.

However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a strong magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become aligned such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field.

A plane perpendicular to the magnetic field?? That would be an electric field, The materials within the ferroamagnet are all exhibiting aligned magnetic moments due to the saturation from the exterior field. The electric would then be EXTERIOR to the material, along the surface.
WOW. PRAISE THE ONE. This fella has discovered how to generate electricity with no moving parts in quantities only constrained by the mass of the ferromagnetic materials and size of the magnetic source field...........
I did not even dignify the link with a visit.
I woud appreciate actual logical scientific responses to my reasoning and not just links from someone alse's works with no discussion of the matter at hand.
I am not attempting to teach anything to anyone. I am merely pointing out the glaring ommisions in the theories and asking that they be re - evaluated. If that is coming across as arrogence, when I am simply trying to be succint, it is not I who has difficulty speaking but rather others who have difficulty hearing what I am saying.

[nick c]

It seems that you do not agree with the Ampere model of magnets?
You asked a question earlier in the thread:
"What makes a lodestone?"
And I presented an answer - a strong electrical discharge, which creates an intense magnetic field, that transforms the mineral magnetite into a lodestone. This has been duplicated in lab experiments and I linked to the paper. It is reasonable to conclude that natural lodestones are created in the same manner by lightning strikes. It has been noted that lodestones are typically found near the surface of the Earth which would be consistent with lightning as the formative agent.
So your question was answered!
Lodestones are created by electric currents as in a strong discharge such as lightning. All the rest of your questions were in the details of magnetism and how it remains in a lodestone after the current is removed. To that I referred you to a text book on plasma physics which presented a model of synchronized electric currents on the sub atomic level. The Ampere model, despite your hand waving, seems pretty good to me. Is it perfect? probably not, it is a model - a theory waiting to be falsified or replaced via Occam's razor.
It still looks pretty good to me. Perhaps you have a better one?

I am not going to get involved in an extended discussion of the subatomic functioning of a permanent magnet. As I stated earlier, I have no horse in that race, the Ampere model is fine with me. It just seems to me that you cannot logically use lodestones as evidence of a magnet existing without an electric current, since the bottom line is that they are formed by electric currents in the first place! regardless of what is going on at the sub atomic level.
For me personally, the main concern is with learning about cosmic plasmas, the associated electric discharges, magnetic fields and how they act on the macro level, which is quite a different situation from lodestones.

[Daniel]

I thought we were discussing the Primer fields, and how these could effect the cosmos. To which, I stated that it was the motion of unit particles, with inherent magnetism WITHOUT the need for an electric field to be present, which induced the electric field observed. The mapping of the flux path, rather than thr lines of force surrounding a magnet was referenced to demonstrate how relative motions of the nuclei in an atom could induce electric fields in the aether surrounding it which would then measure as electric potential. Electrons. The existance of the uni - balanced dipolar fields of the "Primer" model demonstrates that the same potential exists to produce positrons.

I used the Loadstone example of a collective of these aligned particles, creating a domain WITHOUT electric currents remaining within the material.

Or are you now going to tell me that the electric field remains within the particles of the Loadstone as well as every other atom and unit particle to create the magnetic field WITHIN the particles, even when the relative motion of these particles stops (supposedly at zero degrees Kelvin), yet the magnetism remains as an inherent property of the particles as all particles have magnetism and that

the remanent magnetization are all characteristics of proto-lodestone iron ores which behave magnetically as fine scale ( 10 micrometer) intergrowths when subjected to magnetic hysteresis analysis.

. Aside from the fact that the formation of an electric field surrounding a unit particle cannot have within the UNIT particle, yet more room for "something else" to be within it to move and "produce electric currents".


Now, I am not too sure I completely grasp what that means, but I think it means that the order imposed upon the particles within the proto - loadstone by the immense magnetic field of the ore body, struck by lightening, leaves the particles in a crystal lattice network structure similair to the tempering of steel, which then displays a coherent permanent magnetic field without eddy currents remaining within the material to support the field.

THIS is the point.

There exist in this universe, at the fundamental level of matter, particles I refer to as "UNIT PARTICLES". The modelling of their interactions with other matter and the aether was done over a century ago and was based upon observation.

Today, the model is based upon "refinements" of these early models in order to make them easier to understand.

In the process, the original observations are now not even remembered, let alone used in the math to describe the universe.

Untill they are, people such as yourself, and other "scientists" will continue down the long and dark pipe that is ignorance.

Ohhh, and never mind about answering any of my questions I posted in response to your previous post. These were obviously only posed to demonstrate the inadequacies of the "science" and I did not realy expect an answer to them as I realise they are unanswerable in the current descriptions.

[Daniel]

it is a model - a theory waiting to be falsified or replaced

. That is what I am trying to do. Not by replacing it, but by encouraging those with the ability to do math to think about things with logic and reason and re - evaluate the present situation.

It just seems to me that you cannot logically use lodestones as evidence of a magnet existing without an electric current, since the bottom line is that they are formed by electric currents in the first place! regardless of what is going on at the sub atomic level.

. No. Actually, the magnesim was allready there. Hence the name "proto - Lodestnes". All the electric discharge did was polarise the ore body, and temper the stone. The remaining order DOES NOT come from some remnant electric current/s to produce the observed magnetic field.

Now, as is above, so is below.

[justcurious]

Hi All,

I used to think the primer fields were just a show.
Now it seems the videos have some more info on how the magnets work, describing choke rings and flip rings.
I used to think that the metal balls on the glass table were charged and that is how they kept their distance via repulsion. Now I am wondering perhaps David Lapoint is not a liar.
Does anyone know the mechanism that maintains the balls at a certain orbit?
I am referring to the two bowls stuck together, when rolled toward a steel or magnetized all the ball moves away, when rolling away from the ball, the ball is pulled, always maintaining its distance. How does that work?
And finally, has anyone else experimented with some magnets inside a vacuum chamber with plasma?

[nick c]

Actually, the magnesim was allready there. Hence the name "proto - Lodestnes". All the electric discharge did was polarise the ore body, and temper the stone. The remaining order DOES NOT come from some remnant electric current/s to produce the observed magnetic field.

I assume that "magnesim" is a typo for "magnetism."
Lodestones are made of magnetite, not all magnetites are lodestones. The word "proto" is used to describe magnetite that has yet to be magnetized enough to become a lodestone. The magnetism was not already there before the electric discharge, at least not to the point of transforming the magnetite (proto loadstone) into a Loadstone. Daniel, you can hand wave all you want, the bottom line is that loadstones are formed when magnetite is exposed to an electric discharge. Natural loadstones are most probably created by lightning strikes, and this is supported by Dr. Wasilewski's experiments in the lab as described in his published peer reviewed paper, which was linked earlier in the thread. We can argue till the cows come home about what is going on inside at a sub atomic level, (as stated earlier the Ampere model works for me, but if you have another model, then fine) but the fact remains that the evidence suggests that loadstones are created by lightning strikes.
Cosmic magnetic fields are created by electric currents. Most of space is a tenuous plasma, plasma's by definition have charge separation resulting in electric currents and the accompanying magnetic fields. Loadstones have remnant magnetic fields that are the residue of a past electrical condition, and may have some analog, at least in part, in celestial bodies that were exposed to electrical discharges in the past.
Other than that, the loadstone is not a good model for the understanding of cosmic plasmas. The electromagnet provides a better model. Turn on the electric current and you have a strong magnet, turn off the current and the magnet disappears.
I think that occasionally someone has to at state the EU position (that is my interpretation), as opposing views in the forum should be viewed in the context or contrast to the EU model.

[Daniel]

Hi Nick. Yes, there were a couple of spelling mistakes. It was getting late here.

I think you miss my point. I am not hand waving. I am stating fact. You are miss - representing the facts.

"The word "proto" is used to describe magnetite that has yet to be magnetized enough to become a lodestone"....That is correct, Yet to be magnetised enough to bring the magnetic particles, which are already there in the proto - type in the same quantity as the sorrounding ore body, into alignment through exposure to a magnetic field and subsequent sintering to lock them in place along the crystaline lattice of the material. Well, that is the THEORY and there is no mention of what types of conditions were used to "form them in the lab".

"The magnetism was not already there before the electric discharge".... See above.

"the bottom line is that loadstones are formed when magnetite is exposed to an electric discharge"...The discharge did indeed "form" the Lodestone. It heated the rocks which were within the ore body, Those succeptable were sintered and became Lodestone. The electric field also induced in the ore body, the magnetic field which remained for long enough ( called reluctance), that aligned the particles of naturally magnetic material and formed a domain.

"the Ampere model works for me, but if you have another model, then fine"...... Yes, perhaps you could post that model here, so I could respond. That way, we will both be on the same page.

"Loadstones have remnant magnetic fields that are the residue of a past electrical condition.....Other than that, the loadstone is not a good model for the understanding of cosmic plasmas."....So, are you saying that the conditions present proir to the discharge of the excess tension of our planets' atmosphere due to a charge build up from solar wind, (apparently), resulting in a plasma field absorbed by an earthly ore body is not a good reference to understand other planetary bodies or system alignments? I would've thought the very mechanisms observed here in the essentially micro scale, would have to also occur in the macro of the galaxy, surely? And, yet again, I will point out that the "remnant magnetic field" is not as a result of the electrical discharge. The material within the Lodestone was ALREADY magnetic. The polarisation of the ore body from the discharge, aligned these particles, where they wer sintered in place. At least, that is the OBSERVATION by " Dr. Wasilewski's experiments in the lab as described in his published peer reviewed paper, which was linked earlier in the thread."

"The electromagnet provides a better model. Turn on the electric current and you have a strong magnet, turn off the current and the magnet disappears."......This type of magnetic field ONLY occurs with a DC current source. It exhibits only ONE Bloch wall. It is NOT a good model. The machanics are not consistent with observations of the natural media, such as a Lodestone or permanent magnets. Perhaps you might like to familiarise yourself with where electric energy actualy comes from in the first place. It certainly does not simply "appear" from nowhere to "produce" a magnetic field somehow.

All matter has in it, magnetism. It is the motion of matter which induces electric charge into the surrounding media.

This basic principle is the foundation of electric science as observed By Micheal Faraday et al. right back into antiquity and as recently as the 15'th century and was the basis of understanding by scientists until last century
where it all went awry.

Lodestones are made of magnetite, not all magnetites are lodestones. The word "proto" is used to describe magnetite that has yet to be magnetized enough to become a lodestone. The magnetism was not already there before the electric discharge, at least not to the point of transforming the magnetite (proto loadstone) into a Loadstone. Daniel, you can hand wave all you want, the bottom line is that loadstones are formed when magnetite is exposed to an electric discharge. Natural loadstones are most probably created by lightning strikes, and this is supported by Dr. Wasilewski's experiments in the lab as described in his published peer reviewed paper, which was linked earlier in the thread. We can argue till the cows come home about what is going on inside at a sub atomic level, (as stated earlier the Ampere model works for me, but if you have another model, then fine) but the fact remains that the evidence suggests that loadstones are created by lightning strikes.
Cosmic magnetic fields are created by electric currents. Most of space is a tenuous plasma, plasma's by definition have charge separation resulting in electric currents and the accompanying magnetic fields. Loadstones have remnant magnetic fields that are the residue of a past electrical condition, and may have some analog, at least in part, in celestial bodies that were exposed to electrical discharges in the past.
Other than that, the loadstone is not a good model for the understanding of cosmic plasmas. The electromagnet provides a better model. Turn on the electric current and you have a strong magnet, turn off the current and the magnet disappears.
I think that occasionally someone has to at state the EU position (that is my interpretation), as opposing views in the forum should be viewed in the context or contrast to the EU model.[/quote]

[justcurious]

Hi Everyone... I'm not "justcurious", I'm "reallycurious!".
Any comment n the below???? Anyone?

Does anyone know the mechanism that maintains the balls at a certain orbit?
I am referring to the two bowls stuck together, when rolled toward a steel or magnetized all the ball moves away, when rolling away from the ball, the ball is pulled, always maintaining its distance. How does that work?
And finally, has anyone else experimented with some magnets inside a vacuum chamber with plasma?

[Daniel]

Hi justcurious.

In the previous posts it is explained that the cups have one pole at the outer face, and another at the inner face, with the Bloch walls then, being within the centre hole, and diffuse about the ends of the cups. This is how a non magnetised steel ball sits suspended within the center. It is magnetised at an angle in opposition to the dominant magnetic field, (called Dia - magnetism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism), meaning the Soth pole of the magnet induces a North pole in the material, so the ball is locked in the exact center of the Bloch wall in the centre hole of the cups.

As I have been trying hard to explain, there is also a Bloch wall along the horizon of the dipole. This is evidenced by the steel ball being "locked" in this wall, (which is rather diffuse due to the fields being like to like with no induction plate to act as a mediary, but rather, relying on the space between the fields at the interface of the cups, at the inversion layer of the air, and the magnetic field).
Closer in, and the ball will be aligned with the flux, and will roll to either end, (producing Eddy currents within itself while doing so), Further out, and it is outside the field of influence but retains it's field via reluctance, and so is drawn inwards towards the cups. The time taken to withdraw the cups and not draw with them, the ball would be in a direct relationship to the reluctance time of the material in question, (this basic principle being used to measure this phenomena by Faraday et al.). The induced strength of the field within the ball has to be equal. The outer fields on the cups are obviously like fields or the ball would be magnetised at right angles to the field with the opposite direction axially, (left to right), and would simply roll to either end no matter the position and not produce eddy currents within, but would simply be "polarised".
Meaning both outer surfaces on the cups are either North or South, producing a field which is North at the front of the ball, at right angles to the table, looking toward the cups and South at the rear or vice verce, which will prevent the ball from being pulled into the field and moved to one end or the other as the opposite pole face of the ball will prevent the ball from going into the field at all. This opposite field occurs a priori and is the reason no mono - pole has ever been found nor can exist. Magnetism is an inherrent property of all matter. It is the amount of alignement of the unit particles, (or magnetic "moments" to use the modern term), within the material which determines the strength of the field.

The presence of these moments has nothing whatsoever to do with electric energisation. It is the collected motion of these moments relative to the aether which produces electric states. This is why some materials are said to be electro - negative and others electro - positive and led to the development of the galvanic scale. The materials themselves have no inherant electric charge but rather act as a sorce or sink for the induced charge within them as a consequence of their density and structure. Finely reduced energised elemental matter retains no net electric charge yet retains it's magnetic properties meaning the electric energy is retained by the geometry of the collective material, as in a Leyden jar.

If you don't beleive me, read Faraday's work. He was a prolific writer and "Natural Philosopher" of his time.

[Benevolent]

I am friends with Dave and thus, very familiar with his work. The Primer Fields series was done on Youtube because Dave is a visual guy and would prefer to express his theory in a visual way (it was also fun to make). He was originally going to attempt a mathematical derrivation but at the end of the day would only be doing such a paper to satisfy a group (looking to refute his work) who's opinion matters very little to him or those involved with application of this science, his actual income earning enterprises. We have a good chuckle when any supporter of the current physics dogma refers to him as "crank" or tries to invalidate what he proposes by citing a lack of math or a paper on it. There are hundreds of "papers" and volumes of math with regards to DM as a WIMP, the "spin" of "black holes", the Higgs boson and "virtual particles" as though these are real. All of which only exist in the form of mathematical equations (and will only ever exist there, no matter how many billions we spend looking for them).

There is currently a paradigm shift towards more study into magnetic/energetic interaction as it relates to cosmology because this is what creates the stable structures we observe (and thus are worthy of study). Thinking the fundamental secrets of the universe exist in energy frequencies detected for a fraction of a nanosecond after 2 protons collide, or that 75% of all matter is undetectable is where theoretical math leads anyone lazy enough to follow (when the equation is a little off, just go ahead and represent the anomally with a variable to account for it). When you can grasp that gravity doesn't maintain a cloud structure in a vacuum, or bend light by "curving spacetime" and that in a vacuum, a sphere cannot "explode" into two energetic lobes, yet leave a sphere behind, there may be hope for you.

Lastly, not one single physicist either of us has spoken with can actually say he is wrong and state a valid reason why. Just like on this forum.
Just ad hocs and citing an "ignorance "of the scientific method as far as sending his theory to the world. If he were in the "established" scientific community surely these short comings would result in expulsion, so it's a relief he is in a postition to just do his work without having to justify why it produces the results it does beyond observational success.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypo ... post418147

Post 13... No relevance to primer fields theory...garbage....just like your comparison above.. A better comparison would be a football player setting a world record in the 100m during drills, just because he can (kinda pisses off the athletes actually training for it but...just...cant....get ...there). But stick to YOUR scientific method...stick to squandering OTHER peoples money on snipe hunts and take your own advice, don't try to comment on science YOU know nothing about...that would be primer fields. (figured I would specify since associating "magnetic turbulence" to anything Dave is proposing clearly demonstrates a comprehension issue).

Regarding HAVING nothing to be invalidated, you have posted several times INVALIDATING what he proposes...but I'm sure there is math which qualifies this too.

"Don't try to get involved in things you know nothing about"-----I'm not the one making assumptions about an individuals motivations for making a youtube video series or scrutinizing the methodology behind it. If you actually are employed in a scientific arena, you could take the route a few other facilities have, apply what he is saying as it pertains to your particular field and see if you can falsify it, or maybe, do something useful with it....NASA is....so did these guys.

Magnetic shell provides unprecedented control of magnetic fields

Getting around the 'uncertainty principle': Physicists make first direct measurements of polarization states of light

Or you can keep posting your opinion about "pseudoscience" and advising people who don't "tow the company line" to go educate themselves in the same manner you have been...hell maybe you can bring ptolemy back to astrophyscics and repopularize leaches in medicine. Surely the "force carrier" of gravity is right on your doorstep....a little package from the WIMP fairy all neatly bound with a Higgs boson bow around it....as I said, we chuckle when one of YOU throws out the crank label.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypo ... post418304

[justcurious]

Wow. I thought there was drama at the thunderbolts forum, that thescienceform.com thing, pretty interesting!

I am trying to summarize Dave Lapoint's masterpiece experiments, can someone correct me...

He has played a lot with magnets and plasma in vacuum chambers, and figured out how to make custom magnetic shapes that have different specific effects. He has an idea of the underlying physics, but mostly has figured out how it works through intense experimentation and observation. So he is criticized for not mathematically proving his shells, but at the same time those who criticize him are not even curious about the interesting effects demonstrated. His permanent magnets may have many great uses, but would not explain for example plasma behavior in space (but could be useful in improving understanding?). He's a bit of an eccentric, not very good at PR, which will not help him in overthrowing the Vatican and the large hadron collider.

I still want to know how he gets those dual magnet balls to maintain a certain distance from the shells as he rolls the shells back and forth. In his video, he explains that at a distance from the double-shells, the magnetic field is like a bar magnet. I can't do what he does with my neodymium stack of magnets (cylinder ie bar magnet) and ball magnets.