Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

[rangerover777]

If you wish to continue experimenting with magnets, after establishing that the magnetic
field is an independent property from the iron bar. Then take two iron bars without
any magnetic field in them, install them in a generator and turn, nothing will come out
of the terminals. Take them out, put magnetic field in them (with permanent magnet) put
them back in the generator and spin it. Guess what, you will get electricity without
even one electron involved… How strange indeed.

Cheers

[junglelord]

Now, if you claim that the magnetic field in the permanent magnet happen because of the
electron’s spin, then ask yourself if the electron was not spinning around the atom’s nucleus
before the field was put in and when the field was put in, then it start to spin ?

What is outrages here, is that that you have a relatively simple phenomena happen right
in front of your eyes, and you don’t even have to figure out how exactly it works, just to
answer the simple question if magnetic field was in the iron bar or not - that’s all.
And if it was not and then was put in by a magnet and then was taken away again, you
just have to ask if it is an independent entity or not. So if you really want to stick to theories,
well, not much can be done, unless you decide to go with your observations…

Cheers

Its due to relationship of spin between the nucleus and the electron shell. Magnatism is not solely dependent on electrons. First mistake. If one looks at MRI technology and atomic theory we see that the precession of the nucleus is as important for magnetic conditions as is the relationship of the electron spin. Everything spins and never stops. One would never expect a atomic unit to not spin, nor can it ever stop. So magnatism is a relationship of spin between nucleus and electron and individual atoms. It is a level of coherence. Nothing magical.

[webolife]

I've harped on this before in other postings, but it needs to be also understood that an electric current does not necessarily involve translating "electrons" from point A to Point B over time. In a wire electric impulse at one end results in the electrical momentum at the other end virtually instantaneously, yet a magnetic field is generated about the wire... magnetic and electrical force fields are orthogonally related, with or without discussion of "spin" or moving [translating] charges.
Thus a magnetic field necessarily exists around any body with "mass" or "charge", regardless of the presence of a rotating core, etc... all objects in the universe, at every scale, have some motion relative to some other object. ANd the degree of relationship between them will have some determination of the quantity of that magnetic field.

[rangerover777]

Since Mr. Thronhill model of gravity includes electrons, dipoles, protons, electrostatic,
and more. I think it’s legitimate to deal with those particles without loosing the thread topic.

Michael MGmirkin wrote :
“So, basically, you have the electric current going in one direction, and the magnetic field is
composed of essentially concentric circles rotating the plane perpendicular to the direction
of the current. The direction of the field follows the "right hand rule." “



Good drawing, but not complete.
If you take a U-shape magnet hold the North prong level with this wire (1” away), at the right
side of the wire, while the South prong up. The North prong will pull the wire, now put the
South prong in the same place - it will push the wire. Do the same at the left side of the wire
and see the opposite results.

That tells us that the rings around the wire in text books have two elements of S & N in them,
not one static vague magnetic field with one direction and no additional characters.
Though there is no sharp split between the poles, since the particles that ejecting from the
wires (due to centrifuge force) influence the prongs according to their trajectory, so both N & S
monopoles are “mixed” together, but can be detected in this method.
The consequences of this simple test are far reaching, yet additional tests are needed.

That bring the question of what runs in the wire ? Or to be exact, when water runs in a hose
and you poke it, do we get stream of orange juice out of it ?

This perception meant to question our drive to race forward in time and conclusions, while
leaving unsolved discoveries and untested tests behind.

Cheers.

[MGmirkin]

I think it is easier to understand by assuming there is also a magnetic charge, which is the 2 dimensional equivalent of electric charge. We have no idea how electrons "circle around" the nucleus.

Magnetic "charge" (otherwise known as a "magnetic monopole") is a theoretical construct which has generally been agreed upon NOT to exist (there are no "open" magnetic field lines, observed by experiment; magnetic field loops MUST close). So, unless you can demonstrate that magnetic monopoles EXIST, then assuming they exist (contrary to current theory) does NOT make things simpler, unfortunately.

It only clouds the issue. My opinion.

Aside from which it would more-or-less be a violation of Maxwell's equations. See the first link below.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode35.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... tic-charge
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... c-monopole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetic-monopole
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... opole.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/MagField.html

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

If you take a U-shape magnet hold the North prong level with this wire (1” away), at the right
side of the wire, while the South prong up. The North prong will pull the wire, now put the
South prong in the same place - it will push the wire. Do the same at the left side of the wire
and see the opposite results.

Description's a bit vague on the specific geometries involved... Would probably want to see the actual test that was performed in order to riddle out what's going on... A horseshoe magnet also has a somewhat different field configuration from a typical bar magnet.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... magnet.png
http://www.vizimag.com/horseshoe-246p-256c-b.gif
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource ... ldChar.htm

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

But to claim that magnetic field in a permanent magnet streams from the electrons at the atom level, I think is outrages.

Your outrage aside, that *is* the current generally accepted theory. (Pun not intended, but I'll take it anyway.) I've not seen any refutation of Maxwell's equations that would call current theory in that regard into question.

(Hyperphysics)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... agfie.html

Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents, which can be macroscopic currents in wires, or microscopic currents associated with electrons in atomic orbits.

(Permanent magnets - two models)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_ ... c_Currents

The Two Models for Magnets: Magnetic Poles and Atomic Currents

Magnetic pole model. Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct "north" or "south" particles on opposing sides. (No magnetic monopole has yet been observed.) If a bar magnet is broken in half, in an attempt to separate the north and south poles, the result will be two bar magnets, each of which has both a north and south pole.

The magnetic pole approach is used by most professional magneticians, from those who design magnetic memory to those who design large-scale magnets. If the magnetic pole distribution is known, then outside the magnet the pole model gives the magnetic field exactly. By simply supplementing the pole model field with a term proportional to the magnetization (see Units and Calculations, below) the magnetic field within the magnet is given exactly. This pole model is also called the "Gilbert Model" of a magnetic dipole.

Ampère Model. Another model is the "Ampère Model", where all magnetization is due to the macroscopic effect of microscopic, or atomic, "bound currents", also called "Ampèrian currents". For a uniformly magnetized bar magnet in the shape of a cylinder, with poles uniformly distributed on its ends, the net effect of the microscopic bound currents is to make the magnet behave as if there is a macroscopic sheet of current around the cylinder, with local flow direction normal to the cylinder axis. (Since scraping off the outer layer of a magnet will not destroy its magnetic properties, there are subtleties associated with this model as well as with the pole model. What happens is that you have only scraped off a relatively small number of atoms, whose bound currents do not contribute much to the net magnetic moment.) A right-hand rule due to Ampère tells us how the currents flow, for a given magnetic moment. Align the thumb of your right hand along the magnetic moment, and with that hand grasp the cylinder. Your fingers will then point along the direction of flow. As noted above, the magnetic field given by the Amperian approach and the Gilbert approach are identical outside all magnets, and become identical within all magnets after the Gilbert "field" is supplemented. It is usually difficult to find the Ampèrian currents on the surface of a magnet, whereas it is often easier to find the effective poles for the same magnet. For one end (pole) of a permanent magnet outside a "soft" magnet, the pole picture of the "soft" magnet has it respond with an image pole of opposite sign to the applied pole; one also can find the Amperian currents on the surface of the "soft" magnet.

While magneticians (sounds a bit like like "magicians") treat the magnet as though it has discrete "poles" (magnetic monopoles), Maxwell's equations (as currently formulated and used) appear to forbid it. Break a dipolar magnet in half and you still get a dipolar magnet. All the way down to the atomic level. Thus far no magnetic monopole has ever been conclusively observed. So, until it is, Maxwell's equations stand and magnetic monopoles (independent "magnetic charges") are considered NOT to exist.

(Magnetic monopoles?)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode35.html

the statement that magnetic fields are solenoidal ... is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic monopoles.

In fact, it is quite possible to formulate electromagnetism so as to allow for magnetic monopoles. However, as far as we know, there are no magnetic monopoles in the Universe. At least, if there are any then they are all hiding from us! We know that if we try to make a magnetic monopole by snapping a bar magnet in two then we just end up with two smaller bar magnets. If we snap one of these smaller magnets in two then we end up with two even smaller bar magnets. We can continue this process down to the atomic level without ever producing a magnetic monopole. In fact, permanent magnetism is generated by electric currents circulating on the atomic scale, so this type of magnetism is not fundamentally different to the magnetism generated by macroscopic currents.

Hmm, seems to be the same assertion that the Hyperphysics site makes... Fancy that!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

If you say that magnetic currents in the atomic level are cause of the electrons orbiting the nucleus, then why magnetic field could be put in and take away from ferromagnetic? The electrons stopped and start orbiting the nucleus suddenly?

I believe I've already answered this. But apparently I wasn't clear enough, so I'll try again.

Recall that a "current," as such, is a flow of like charged particles in more-or-less the SAME direction. A coherent flow, if you will (not sure if coherent has another different use in physics; in this context, I simply mean flowing in the same direction at the same time, in 3D).

IE, if there is a bulk motion of charged particles in lock-step, it's a current. Now, if they're NOT all or mostly moving in a similar direction, then it's either a much weaker current or not considered to be a current. Do you see what I'm saying?

So, okay, let's take a really, really simple example. You have 4 particles in your scenario. If they're all stationary, no current is flowing. If 2 are flowing left and 2 are flowing right, their motion cancels each other out and there is no net flow of particle and no current. While there was motion, it was more-or-less "random" motion, insofar as the motion was not coherent (all/most particles moving the same direction).

If, however, you have 1 particle moving left and 3 particles moving right with the same charge as each other and as the one moving left, this constitutes a current! The one particle moving left cancels out one particle moving right, but that still leaves a NET MOTION of 2 particles to the right. So, one would say (to oversimplify the terminology) "there was a current with a strength of 2 particles flowing in the 'right' direction." That's really oversimplified, but apt, I think. Similarly, if all the particles are moving in the same direction(s) in 3D, that would also constitute a current. So, if all 4 particles were moving right, then you'd have a current with a net motion of 4 particles.

Taking a larger sampling, we could say the same of a billion particles. Say 499,999,999 particles of the same charge are moving left, and 500,000,001 particles are moving right with the same charge as each other and those moving left, then the net current is 2 particles moving right (500,000,001 - 499,999,999 = 2)...

It's precisely the same in an atom, only in 3 dimensions, rather than 2. If all your 30 electrons are moving around a circle clockwise in the plane XZ, and none are moving counterclockwise, and none are moving in the Y direction, then you've got a current of 30 particles. Likewise, if you've got 10 moving clockwise and 20 moving counterclockwise in he same situation, then you've got a net current 10 particles moving counterclockwise. But, if you've got 15 particles moving clockwise and 15 moving counterclockwise, you have a net of 0 current. It's not that the electrons suddenly "stopped circling the nucleus," it's that chaotic motions (collisions, et al) have reduced the NET current to zero (or near-zero).

That's what I meant about the Curie point making sense... IE, if you've got a cool, well-ordered ferromagnet with all its little magnetic fields aligned (because the electrons in orbit around the nuclei are all spinning the same direction, more-or-less, in each atom), it acts like one big magnet. But, when you heat up a magnet, then the atoms start vibrating more and bouncing off each other. The electrons get more energetic, and start colliding more often. In a collision, the direction the electrons is moving may be changed. Get enough collisions going on and the formerly well-ordered system turns into an energetic, chaotic system. Where maybe you had 30 quadrillion electrons moving in the same clockwise orbit around their respective nuclei and only 20 thousand electrons rotating counterclockwise in the same orbital plane, once you start getting near that Curie point, the mechanical interactions throw things into chaos and maybe you've got 15 quadrillion electrons rotating counterclockwise and 15 quadrillion, 20 thousand electrons rotating clockwise. So, rather than having a net current of 29,999,999,999,980,000 electrons orbiting clockwise, you've now got a net of only 20,000 electrons orbiting clockwise. That's what, a 12 orders-of-magnitude difference in currents? Do you figure that'll have a big impact on the amount of magnetic field being generated, based on the electric model? You bet! The magnetic field drops off to about nil.

It actually makes sense, when you consider it from an EE perspective. I'm still learning, but I think I've gotten a pretty decent grasp on it, so far. If I was being more rigorous, I'd probably talk in terms of Coulombs, Amperes and Teslas. But this was just a pretty basic set of examples...

Also, how does one get a permanent magnet? Generally by heating the materials and exposing the magnet to an externally applied magnetic field as the material cools. The magnetic domains of the atoms in ferromagnetic substances will tend to align with the external magnetic field, more-or-less replicating it. To take away a magnetic field from a ferromagnet, heat it to the curie point (mechanical interactions cause the magnetic domains of individual atoms to get out of alignment and cancel each other out, or causes the electrons in atoms to orbit in random directions around the nuclei, in which case the magnetic field drops off dramatically, and alignment of atoms really doesn't much matter any more since the magnetic fields of the atoms would be nearly nil if there's no net current in the electron motions around the nuclei).

Hope that clarifies what I'm talking about.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Addendum: Forgot to mention that the situation is slightly more complicated, when you factor in differing charges.

(Which Way Does the "Electricity" Really Flow?)
http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

In electrical engineering, the conventional current follows the direction of positively charged particles. In electrical terms, there is an equivalence between a positive charge flowing left and a negative charge flowing right. Both will flow in opposite directions in an electric field. For that reason the opposite motions of opposite charges are considered to be additive to the overall current. The same motion by opposite charges is considered to be subtractive or canceling in the overall current. So, measuring one positive charge moving left is equivalent to measuring one negative charge moving right. In conventional current, direction of charge isn't really cared about, just overall current. So, you could have a proton moving left and an electron moving right, and have a convention current of 2 charged particles moving through the cross-sectional area you're measuring. You would get the same current measurement if you had 2 protons moving left, 2 electrons moving right, or one proton moving left and one electron moving right. Either way it amounts to more-or-less two units of conventional current. Again, that's oversimplified. Just for posterity.

It is useful to know though. IE, you can have lots of particles "flowing" and still have zero current. Say you've got 2000 protons flowing left and 2000 electrons flowing left as well. The total current would be zero, since opposing charges flowing in the same direction cancel each other out. Now, if you had 2000 protons flowing left, 1999 electrons flowing left and 1 electron flowing right, how does one figure out the current? Well, one could cancel out the 1999 electrons flowing left with 1999 of the 2000 protons also flowing left (sine they cancel out). That leaves 1 proton flowing left, NET. However, there was one electron flowing right. And what did we say about opposite motion of opposite charges? Right, they're additive. So, you'd still have a net of 2 units considered to be moving in the "conventional current" direction. A bit confusing until you grasp it. But in the end, it makes sense.

It's basically a shorthand simplification to avoid having to deal with the specific direction of each charged particle, and just deal with the overall "current."

Anywho, though I should include that for completeness...

[MGmirkin]

I would again also refer back to NASA's educational page about magnetic fields:

(Magnetic fields)
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html

People not familiar with magnetism often view it as a somewhat mysterious property of specially treated iron or steel.

[...]

Out in space there is no magnetic iron, yet magnetism is widespread. For instance, sunspots consist of glowing hot gas, yet they are all intensely magnetic. The Earth's own magnetic powers arise deep in its interior, and temperatures there are too high for iron magnets, which lose all their power when heated to a red glow. What goes on in those magnetized regions?

It is all related to electricity.

[...]

Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.

In 1821 Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. An electric current produced a magnetic force!

Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents. The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents:

--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation:

--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Replace each circle with a coil of 10, 100 or more turns, carrying the same current (figure below): the attraction or repulsion increase by an appropriate factor. In fact, each coil acts very much like a magnet with magnetic poles at each end (an "electromagnet"). Ampere guessed that each atom of iron contained a circulating current, turning it into a small magnet, and that in an iron magnet all these atomic magnets were lined up in the same direction, allowing their magnetic forces to add up.

The magnetic property becomes even stronger if a core of iron is placed inside the coils, creating an "electromagnet"; that requires enlisting the help of iron, but is not essential. In fact, some of the world's strongest magnets contain no iron, because the added benefit of iron inside an electromagnet has a definite limit, whereas the strength of the magnetic force produced directly by an electric current is only limited by engineering considerations.

In space, on the Sun and in the Earth's core, electric currents are the only source of magnetism. We loosely refer to the region of their influence as their magnetic field ...

So, again, magnetic fields are spawned from currents. Magnetic field strength derives from current strength. In permanent magnets, all the aligned small magnetic fields together act like one big magnetic field (and essentially as though there was a big solenoidal current along the surface of the magnet [in the case of a cylindrical magnet that was a more-or-less perfect dipole]; there of course isn't a giant current circulating the circumference, it just acts that way, hence Ampère's model mentioned previously).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[webolife]

Once again, while it is analogous, and therefore helpful to aid in picturing electrical action, it is not correct to think of electrical flow, as in a wire for example, like the flow of water through a hose. The electrons, however they may be described, do not flow from one end of the wire to the other, as one pictures the flow of water molecules. A more direct analogy would be Newton's cradle. You let go two balls at one end and two balls pop out at the other, energy relatively conserved. The time delay is virtually and theoretically zero. The "current" analogy comes from the fact that electrical action has measurable direction, albeit that direction can be both ways at once, also illustrable with Newton's cradle.
I wish to understand more how this analogy applies to stellar and galactic scale Birkeland currents... yes, no doubt ions flow in plasma across space, but there is a field component to this action which must be virtually instantaneous [at any points A and B, or at the observed endpoints] along the current. The so-called c-rate is too slow.

[MGmirkin]

If you wish to continue experimenting with magnets, after establishing that the magnetic
field is an independent property from the iron bar. Then take two iron bars without
any magnetic field in them, install them in a generator and turn, nothing will come out
of the terminals. Take them out, put magnetic field in them (with permanent magnet) put
them back in the generator and spin it. Guess what, you will get electricity without
even one electron involved… How strange indeed.

Cheers

Just because you do not see the collective behavior of the electrons in the iron bar (at the atomic level), does not mean that it does not exist. As I've stated, the currents are at the level of the atoms themselves.

Unless you can claim to see the atoms themselves and to say that you can see that there are NOT currents of electrons around the atoms, you cannot assert definitively that electrons have nothing to do with it.

I've already provided ample references all in agreement that the magnetic field is derived from an electric current. This is simply demonstrable by the experiments noted on the NASA educational site. I have also offered several references which cite the fact that magnetic monopoles (your North-only or South-only "magnets" / "magnetic particles") have NEVER been experimentally detected (Maxwell's equations as currently formulated / understood appear to forbid them), and are thus assumed NOT to exist in current theory. So, I'm not sure why you persist in asserting that they do and are solely responsible for magnetic fields?

In fact, I've already stated the reason why a plain bar of iron or a rock will not produce a current when rotated inside a coil of wire (as opposed to using a magnet). I fail to see how restating my explanation without any reference to the underlying physical processes (which I've already mentioned) 'improves' our understanding of what's going on...

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Its due to relationship of spin between the nucleus and the electron shell. Magnatism is not solely dependent on electrons. First mistake. If one looks at MRI technology and atomic theory we see that the precession of the nucleus is as important for magnetic conditions as is the relationship of the electron spin. Everything spins and never stops. One would never expect a atomic unit to not spin, nor can it ever stop. So magnatism is a relationship of spin between nucleus and electron and individual atoms. It is a level of coherence. Nothing magical.

Let's clarify terms here. You've said "spin," but haven't said what's spinning or in what manner...

Are you talking the "property" 'spin,' or are we talking orbiting around an external object? Wikipedia would probably say 'intrinsic angular momentum' vs 'orbital angular momentum.'

So, perhaps we should be more specific when saying "spin." Are we talking about the particle itself spinning or orbiting around something else?

If you're saying the magnetic field of an atom is created though the differential motions of the nucleus (stationary or rotating around some internal axis) and the cloud of electrons orbiting the nucleus, I'd say you're spot on. It's precisely the orbit of the electrons in like direction around the nucleus that I'm referring to as the "current" producing the magnetic field. If, for some reason, the electrons were motionless, and the nucleus were rotating, that would also constitute a current, I think. IF the nucleus is rotating one way, and the electrons rotating the other, I'm pretty sure that would also be considered a current (though one might ask: "the nucleus rotating with respect to what? The electrons, the observer, space itself?"). An odd thought I just had was "what if the nucleus is rotating the same direction as the electrons at the same rate; would that constitute a current?" As I think about it, I don't think it would (assuming the charges are in equal proportion), since the signs would cancel each other out?

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Then take two iron bars without
any magnetic field in them, install them in a generator and turn, nothing will come out
of the terminals. Take them out, put magnetic field in them (with permanent magnet) put
them back in the generator and spin it. Guess what, you will get electricity without
even one electron involved… How strange indeed.

Cheers

What, according to you, has changed intrinsically about the iron in the iron bars in this case? In both cases you have the same iron bars. But in one case they are magnetized and "do something", in the other case they are not magnetized and "do nothing." So, what changed about the intrinsic properties of the iron bars to change the state of the magnetic field? Do you have an explanation?

I have already offered one. In one case, a significant portion of the atoms in the iron bar have their magnetic domains aligned and work constructively (a large overall field). In the other case, either the currents about the atomic nuclei have been disrupted (electrons move in equal amounts in opposite directions, thus zero NET current flows), or the currents still flow, but the random alignment of atoms' magnetic domains cancel each other out (destructive interference).

So, what say you? What's your explanation for the "strange indeed" behavior of magnetic versus non-magnetic iron bars? IE, what physically changed to give the bars magnetism, or to take it away?

~Michael Gmirkin

[rangerover777]

Thanks Michael for the comments and explanations. It would take some time to catch up with
your pace, so I’ll start with your answer to Steven0 :

Michael wrote : “Magnetic "charge" (otherwise known as a "magnetic monopole") is a theoretical construct which has generally been agreed upon NOT to exist (there are no "open" magnetic field
lines, observed by experiment; magnetic field loops MUST close). So, unless you can demonstrate
that magnetic monopoles EXIST, then assuming they exist (contrary to current theory) does NOT
make things simpler, unfortunately.
It only clouds the issue. My opinion.”

1. Like you said Magnetic Monopoles are “out” by text books (since magnetic field could never
detected as moving particles system but as static entity as a result of electricity).
2. There is no open magnetic loop as you said, and that have nothing to do with monopoles, since
the monopole model explain how these particles (that have either North or South magnetic
property) could circulate between two poles.

3. To demonstrate monopoles needs several experiments (since it‘s a long explanation I‘ll bring
just the idea of each phase) :
- Show with magnetized needles and “electric” wire, the direction of the possible running
currents in the wire.
- Show how magnetic circulation happen in a close loop (with two poles).
- Show two end of wire touching and sparks are coming out, how this happen and what happen
as a result.
- Show how the magnetic field is a separate entity then metal it circulate through and around.
- Show how transformation, generator and electric magnet works.
- Show how Perpetual Motion Holder (PMH) works.
- Show how magnetic currents are made of particles.
4. One test cannot show enough evidence, only the complete series will compose the web.
5. The most important, is to start with an open mind, not based on anything you know…
Direct methods (like Faraday / Oersted / Maxwell and before the electron was born), have
much better chances.

* by the way if the circulation around a permanent magnet (who's going where), would understood,
that would open the way to understand monopoles.

Cheers

[rangerover777]

Michael wrote “Description's a bit vague on the specific geometries involved... Would probably
want to see the actual test that was performed in order to riddle out what's going on... A horseshoe
magnet also has a somewhat different field configuration from a typical bar magnet.”

So I made a rough sketch, hope it would help :



The upper right drawing shows why we get magnetic field around the wire (due to the ejected
N & S monopoles from the wire, due to a centrifuge force). Eventhough I made a mistake about
the angle of the N pole ejection...sorry, it should go with the direction of the flow and out, not
against it and out...

Though all you can see (and according to this, text books teaching us...), is this :



As much as I experimenting with magnet, the field and the circulation in any permanent
magnet look like that :



Though you are right that there is some difference in the field of U-shape magnet, maybe that’s
the reason is very difficult to get a large size one or a Neo one…LOL

* sorry Mr. Thornhill, we'll be back to gravity after this small matter will be addressed...


Cheers.