The Primer Fields?

[Daniel]

Hi justcurious.

Did I not explain it correctly?

[justcurious]

Hi justcurious.

Did I not explain it correctly?

Hi Daniel. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
I feel you have explained the fundamentals quite well, although I am not well versed in the quantum aspects of magnetism (domains, bloch walls). So I don't understand every sentence of your explanation, but I think I get the idea. Regarding a non-magnetized steel ball hovering inside one of the bowls, I can see how induction, and simultaneous attractive/repulsive magnetic forces might hold a steel ball in place. But my question was a bit more specific (trying not to bite off more than I can chew at this stage). Here goes again...

In the Primer Fields part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI) at the 30:55 (31 minutes) into the video, Dave demonstrates that the double bowl's magnetic field at a distance is the same as a bar magnet.
So I am wondering why/how two magnet balls far from the double-bowls are able to maintain a certain distance a couple of feet away. When the bowls are pulled back, the magnet balls follow, when the bowls are pushed, the magnet balls are repelled. So my question was, if the double bowls exhibit a magnetic field similar to a bar magnet from far (a few centimetres away from the double-bowl), then why can I not reproduce this effect with a bar magnet.

Regarding Faraday, of course he has opened up the field of electricity and magnetism and made significant breakthroughs. Having studied electrical engineering in my past life I am somewhat familiar with his equations from a practical standpoint (I don't necessarily remember the proofs), but I have never read is notes or papers, books and so on. Where/what would you recommend reading?

[Daniel]

I am looking....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59392719/Mich ... -of-nature


http://www.scribd.com/doc/124873441/Exp ... araday-pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73577411/Mich ... y-Volume-2

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm

And finally, a list of his writings....

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts ... papers.pdf

[Daniel]

Hi justcurious.

In the Primer Fields part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI) at the 30:55 (31 minutes) into the video, Dave demonstrates that the double bowl's magnetic field at a distance is the same as a bar magnet.
So I am wondering why/how two magnet balls far from the double-bowls are able to maintain a certain distance a couple of feet away. When the bowls are pulled back, the magnet balls follow, when the bowls are pushed, the magnet balls are repelled. So my question was, if the double bowls exhibit a magnetic field similar to a bar magnet from far (a few centimetres away from the double-bowl), then why can I not reproduce this effect with a bar magnet.

Regarding Faraday, of course he has opened up the field of electricity and magnetism and made significant breakthroughs. Having studied electrical engineering in my past life I am somewhat familiar with his equations from a practical standpoint (I don't necessarily remember the proofs), but I have never read is notes or papers, books and so on. Where/what would you recommend reading?

I will address the latter first. It is precisely this attitude that prevents evolution. To be satisfied that what you are told is right, without question, is at the heart of the debate, and my message. Look Deeeeper.

Otherwise. To the former, the balls he introduced into the Bloch wall region were MAGNETISED balls. This, I did not realise in my previous explanation. Nevertheless, the perceived activity is none the less of interest, the fast rotation of both balls before settling in to the null region, and equillibrium. This spin, reveals the spin of the flux field of the overlying field, ie. that of the cups. If taken to the atomic scale, this is precisely the "Rotating Magnetic Field" Tesla saw when he percieved the mechanism underlying our sun. It is the speed of the "Induction of the aether" which Maxwell described, and which is available for use in an energised system of appropiate design.

[justcurious]

Hi Daniel,

This Faraday writings were wonderful. What a genius of his time. I certainly need to read his thoughts in his own words, we need to rewind to over a century anyways with the current state of "science".
I suspect I need to start learning about quantum physics to learn more about these magnetic domain walls and so on.
A bit weary of spending so much time though on something based on probabilities rather than cause and effect.
For example, I would not want to waste my time with the theory of relativity, hopefully quantum physics offers something useful that can be gleaned from it. All literature discussing magnetic domains seems to dive pretty quickly into the murky world of quantum physics.

In your comments about my attitude, I was merely trying to understand the phenomena. I believe you had a knee-jerk reaction based on the usual comments you get. Maybe my question was a bit dumb, which wouldn't be surprising. I wasn't asking for 100% proof. I was just curious how it works, that's all. Your time is appreciated. I need to learn about the fundamentals of magnetism a bit more. I trust that Faraday's writings, as you suggest, may be helpful.

Cheers,

Sam

[Grimer]

Thanks for sharing Aetherwizard. I am beginning to see that the root of our woes so to speak is a fundamental misunderstanding of the aether, and the subsequent denial of it's existence.

Exactly.

All the evidence, when properly viewed, clearly shows the Aether's existence and its importance to fundamental physics.

BTW, when I started my systematic reexamination of fundamental physics, I did not believe there was such a thing as Aether, The facts spoke for themselves. I was impelled to accept a view that went against the grain of consensus thinking, and that is not easy.

My research over the decades has been into the properties of materials. Interestingly enough when working as a Senior Scientific Officer in the Structures Division of the Building Research Station I came to exactly the same conclusion as aetherwizard for the reasons given in my various papers and notes that you will find here:

http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/

What was I to do - finding that far from the King having no clothes as everyone thought, he had indeed magnificent garments which the yokels were unable to see. To keep true to myself I had to publish my research and my belief the the aether existed whatever the consequences for my career might be.

Accordingly, together with a colleague, I presented a paper to the 1969 international materials conference at Southampton, England. I apologise for the printers devil who got at the last page.

I was expecting to be howled down but to my surprise the only reaction we got was a delegate who came up to us at the conference dinner and said,

"That paper of yours. It was a hoax, wasn't it?"

We fell about laughing, probably in relief as much as anything.

When we told him we were completely serious he went away looking very perplexed.

Which just goes to show the truth of that saying about conferences, "We are only here for the beer."

[Grimer]

The steel balls pick up & magnify the magnetic energy
coming from the bowls. (or from toroidal Inductors)

ElectrIcally Insulated Nanocrystalline powdered iron Inductor spheres
or Metglass material would respond the strongest !

Frogs wouldn't repel each other so easy
& not much energy would be generated with frogs.

Electret materials would not be pushed in the same direction
as ferro, dia or para magnetic materials / accretion dynamics.

Bill Beaty's excellent short graphics explaining
'Magnetic A-Fields' & Magnetic B-Field circuits In space
needs to be addressed to get the engine runnIng efficiently :
"Right Angle Circuitry for Alien Minds"
http://amasci.com./elect/mcoils.html

Mike :»

Thanks for the link to Bill Beaty's excellent short graphics explaining
'Magnetic A-Fields' & Magnetic B-Field circuits In space. I was particularly interested in the following diagram.



It reminded me of a diagram I drew when investigating hierarchical relationships between Carnot cycle fields, etc.

As you can see from the diagram below there is an inverse relation between the EM fields in an inductor and a capacitor. For simplicity I have only shown one field line pair within the capacitor.



As regards EU, I see magnetism as more fundamental than electricity, so I fear I am a heretic as far as the main forum is concerned. I presume that in this section one is allowed to express heretical views.

[Daniel]

As you can see Grimer, Heresy is simply ignored. Alternate opinions are dissavowed, and patience is applied to maintain the status quo. Consider yourself excommunicated.

[Grimer]

As you can see Grimer, Heresy is simply ignored. Alternate opinions are dissavowed, and patience is applied to maintain the status quo. Consider yourself excommunicated.

I wouldn't expect otherwise than to be ignored. As long as I'm free to post and not suppressed I'm happy.

[Grimer]

Re: The Primer Fields?
Post by kell1990 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:45 am
Found on Page 1
..."

According to YouTube the author has uploaded 2 videos. David LaPoint, the author, mentions in the longer video that there are 6 videos in this series, so I assume that they will follow these.

IMHO, anyone with even a passing interest in science should take a look at this.

According to David, the release of the remaining videos has been cancelled do to safety concerns of those who may attempt to perform experiments without proper and complete understanding of the principles involved. The resonance project is one such lab.

I thought he said he had too much work on. Let's hope he hasn't been leant on.

[dfinsandsr]

I am new here and to Win 8 so I don't know how to link a web site. It appears This idea is being used in application in conjunction with some flesman and ponds ideas. See June 8 Huffpost video fussion engine to mars

[justcurious]

Here is the answer to my own question, about how the objects kept their distance etc....

So simple I feel stupid... Long range attraction vs short range repulsion, check out this simple magnetic toy...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU

Could this reoresent a stable orbit? Maybe not... Gravity does not seem to have polarity...

[Sparky]

I am new here and to Win 8 so I don't know how to link a web site. It appears This idea is being used in application in conjunction with some flesman and ponds ideas. See June 8 Huffpost video fussion engine to mars

Go to site you want to link to. Right click and select page info. Copy page address and paste it in your post reply.

[viscount aero]

It has been a while, Charles, since the Chelyabinsk bolide thread....

Hey Folks!

I didn't make it all of the way through the first video, much less the whole series, and I have only skimmed the posts in this thread, so I'm not the most informed person on this topic. Nevertheless, I was asked to weigh in, so here's my take. Forgive me if I just restate what somebody else already said.

First, he's talking about magnetism as if it is the prime mover. Yet the only known way of generating a magnetic field is with a moving electric charge. This is true even in a permanent magnet, wherein the movement of electrons creates the atomic dipole, and if many of the dipoles are aligned, the aggregate will display a net dipole. So to think that magnetism happened first, and then all of the matter in the vicinity got organized around that, just isn't correct.

Do we really know this in absolute terms? LaPointe states that all matter has endemic magnetism to some degree. His experiments with the bowls demonstrate this.

I've personally never been fully convinced of every aspect of the current EU theory. It is highly intriguing and more than likely mostly correct, however I don't fully buy that the entire universe is connected by filamentous galactic and extragalactic currents that power all of the stars from without. I believe the Sun is hollow and is nothing more than a plasma bubble. I think that is obvious once one is exposed to plasma sciences. However Lapointe's bowls appear to be virtually self-powering feedback devices whereby the chicken and the egg are the same thing.

Second, the rest of what he's saying is just observing superficial similarities, and calling that an explanation. Show me any geometric shape, and I can find examples in nature that have that shape. That doesn't prove that they are the same for the same reason. When studying science, keep both eyes on the scientist!

I take issue with your position here: just observing superficial similarities?

Really? You ought to watch the videos with greater attention. His shapes are highly specific and nearly describe and/or implicitly demonstrate that nearly every feature imaginable in the observed cosmos can be created in the laboratory. Not only does he demonstrate that virtually any nebulae and galactic gross structure can be recreated experimentally (including "relativistic jets"), the residual markings on a bowl during an experiment exactly and unequivocally and LITERALLY described and matched with incontrovertible certainty the nature of the gas planets, particularly Saturn, with its hexagonal feature embedded in its cloud belts (whose patterns are accounted for in the experiment as well). This is superficial? Please explain.

Third, if we were to try to do his homework for him, and estimate the strength of the galactic magnetic fields, we'd see that they are definitely there, but that they are very weak. I'm of the opinion that at the largest scales, magnetism is actually the organizing principle. Electric fields are far more powerful than gravity, and are generally much more powerful than magnetic fields, but E-fields obey the inverse square law, while B-fields obey just the inverse law. So magnetism has a larger scope, and I think that it's galactic B-fields that put the spin into stellar systems, and cosmological B-fields that put the spin into galaxies. But this is a tiny amount of force, exerted over a huge period of time, that eventually builds up momentum in the matter. The electric force acts much more quickly, if only in tighter scopes. So I think that if you were to leave out the electric force, and try to explain galaxies just with the magnetic force, there would be a lot of stuff that you wouldn't be able to explain.

Cheers!

Did you notice, too, although he doesn't outright state it, that he shows how and why galaxies rotate with a flat profile? (using the plexiglass with the metal bb's and bowls). This is utterly mind blowing experimental evidence.

Although you seemingly disparage and downplay his work, it is nothing short of astounding and genius. His experiments demonstrate GIGANTIC things that were heretofore either lost to esoteric history or were actually unknown in their entirety. He has made huge strides.

Although he is eccentric and lacks some people skills, most geniuses of their time fit that category. I don't quite understand how you arrive at your disdain for his work (?)

[CharlesChandler]

First, he's talking about magnetism as if it is the prime mover. Yet the only known way of generating a magnetic field is with a moving electric charge.

Do we really know this in absolute terms? LaPointe states that all matter has endemic magnetism to some degree. His experiments with the bowls demonstrate this.

Hey viscount!

Well, I guess you could say that we'll never know the inner workings of atoms in absolute terms -- the best that we can do is develop theories that seem to account for the observations. So we can't disprove LaPointe, at least not in the most rigorous of senses. But his demonstration of diamagnetism (i.e., the ability of a non-magnetized object to get polarized in an external field, and then to respond to that field) doesn't prove intrinsic "primer" magnetism either, in the same rigorous sense. Standard atomic theory explains diagmagnetism and ferromagnetism, without magnetism as the prime mover. So neither disproves the other.

Second, the rest of what he's saying is just observing superficial similarities, and calling that an explanation. Show me any geometric shape, and I can find examples in nature that have that shape. That doesn't prove that they are the same for the same reason.

I take issue with your position here: just observing superficial similarities?

For example, one could observe that a hurricane and a spiral galaxy are similar in structure. Therefore they are the same? Hardly. A hurricane is caused by a self-perpetuating low pressure. Yet in space, there is no "low pressure" at the center of a galaxy, because the whole thing is surrounded by a near-perfect vacuum. So the form might be the same, but for very different reasons. As such, the one does not explain the other -- these are just superficial similarities. Not surprisingly, when we look closer at galaxies and hurricanes, we start to see fundamental differences. So these are two different things, that just happen to look the same from a distance.