Magnetic Fields <-- Electric Currents vs Magnetostatics

[Siggy_G]

"Magnetic fields are induced by electric currents" is a statement that is often brought up within EU theory. While it's true, I'm wondering how magnetostatics and ferromagnetism really works. Magnetospheres are always explained due to iron cores in stars/planets (although not all planets are thought to have an iron core). When David Talbot in the Thunderbolts of the Gods video says "... and ONLY electric currents produce magnetic fields", this part seems to be wrong.

While standard cosmology pretty much ignores electric currents in space, I'm wondering how EU theory approaches magnetostatics?

[earls]

Yes, I've also wondered about that statement... If that is true, then what is the nature of the electric fields and or currents in magnetic and atoms.

[Pianoman]

A HA! This is exactly the quote I've been struggling with. Are electric currents the only force that produce magnetic fields or are the 2 related to another force yet to be understood?

[nick c]

I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that electric currents are needed in order to create a magnetic field. At first glance it may seem that a [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet]permanent magnet[/url2] or [url2=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lodestone.htm]lodestone[/url2] would be an exception to this, but it is not. The magnetic field of the lodestone is created by electric currents at the atomic level.

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

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

When we find a magnetic field there will inevitably be an associated electric current. Do you have any evidence or observation that might indicate a situation where this is not the case?

Nick

[fzzzy]

I am also not an expert, but I was about to post something similar to what nick said.

From the wikipedia page on magnetism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

In magnetic materials, the most important sources of magnetization are, more specifically, the electrons' orbital angular motion around the nucleus, and the electrons' intrinsic magnetic moment.

So, the electrons' orbital angular motion around the nucleus constitute an electric current, which generates a magnetic field. Since this is at the level of the atom, this field is very weak. In non-magnetic materials these fields are oriented in such a way as to cancel each other out. In a magnetic material these fields are oriented such that they generate a single larger magnetic field.

Siggy_G also states "Magnetospheres are always explained due to iron cores in stars/planets."

The internal dynamo theory explaining the magnetosphere relies on an unobserved phenomenon: The idea that the iron core of the earth is spinning at a different speed than the rest of the earth, creating the magnetic field. However there is a much simpler explanation: The electric circuit which links the earth to the sun causes the earth's magnetic field.

From the following page: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... ights.html

The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun

In other words, an electric current is flowing from the sun to the earth.

A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope.

It's a Birkeland current.

This page even talks about the fact that it is an electrical current, and even dares to claim it "powers" the magnetosphere! http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... multi.html

Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere!: THEMIS discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.

There is no need for the internal dynamo theory, based on unobserved (perhaps unobservable?) phenomena happening at the center of the earth, when we have observed electric current flowing from the sun through the earth, which even NASA said "power[s] the magnetosphere"

[earls]

In that case, help me understand why we cannot "tap" the electric current of permanent magnets to do work. KNOWHAHMEAN.

[jjohnson]

Our first introduction to magnetic fields is inevitably the "iron filings around a bar magnet" example. FIrst, where are the flowing electrons or ions completing an electrical circuit in this apparently static example? Second - why are so few materials naturally magnetic - iron, say, and cobalt and liquid oxygen and a few others? What is different about their electronic structure (or other structure) that predisposes them to have an observable static magnetic field, or at least one that is orders of magnitude stronger than other atoms? just askin'...!! However, it keeps getting stated here that magnetic fields are only created by moving electric charges, which may or may not be true. It seems better to state, at least for EU purposes, that magnetic fields are always created by moving charged particles, not that this is the only possible mechanism. Maybe static magnetic fields and dynamic magnetic fields are the two subsets of all magnetic fields? We need to know the correct answer by heart, here, if we are to avoid looking stupid in a debate with Those Who Shall Not Be Named!

[fzzzy]

earls: Good question. I don't know. It seems to me that we should be able to. The sheer number of permanent magnet motor videos on youtube would indicate that a lot of other people seem to think this too.

jjohnson: The electrons are completing electrical circuits around the nucleus.

This is just a guess, but some elements probably have complementary electron orbits (one spinning one direction and one spinning in the other) which cause the magnetic fields to cancel out.

When an element has an imbalance, it has a tiny magnetic field. When a group of atoms is randomly oriented, these fields cancel each other out. When a group of atoms is aligned correctly, as in an iron bar magnet, these fields resonate with each other and create a larger field.

You are right that we can't say that magnetic fields are ONLY produced by electric currents. That would mean saying no phenomena exists that produces a magnetic field without an electric current, and it is impossible to prove something does not exist. However it is correct to say that there is no known phenomena which produces a magnetic field, besides a flowing electric current.

I see no reason to speculate about other possible mechanisms with no evidence, though.

[earls]

Also odd is that Ferromagnets do not superconduct.

[mharratsc]

Let's see if I can dredge anything up from my old bamaged draincells...

What does the work in an electric current is the difference in potentials, and the electrons attempting to achieve a balance. To make an electromagnet, we need to run current through something to generate the EM field, or we can run something conductive through an EM field to generate current.

Here's where it gets fuzzy to me, so bear with me. The surface of the Earth, for the most part, is pretty much a balanced charge. Remember the plasma double layer that surrounds the Earth? The way that I understand it- to get power (i.e. electrons to flow) in a way that we'd be able to harness them, would be to create our own 'short' across the plasma double-layer, and get electrons to flow where we wanted them to go. We've already done this, actually, on accident. Remember that 'tethered satellite incident' NASA had? They'd been refusing to listen to the electrical physicists, and they thought they could deploy a very long conductive tether to a satellite, and that this would produce electricity by picking up 'static' charge- very low power gain. Instead, they ended up with enough power to melt their tether, arc their tether deployment mechanism, and left a glowing, ionised piece of space debris floating around in orbit!

One thing that I think we might could look into however, would be the notion that the Earth's electric field is not homogeneous- there are areas of differing conductivity and charge around the planet. I've surmised that the areas called 'tornado alleys' around the world are in fact conducting electricity between the atmosphere and the Earth more strongly and with less saturation than areas that simply experience thunderstorms (with dispersed lightning). Likewise, I think areas of volcanic activity are more highly conductive as well, perhaps even more conductive than sea water- considering that so many volcanos plow up from the sea bed to reach up and discharge into the atmosphere!

If we could tap into these zones from outside of the zone- we might be able to steal some of the circuit power from the Earth-Sun circuit, I think. Long wires criss-crossing Kansas, or some way of running a conductor over the cone of a volcano and able to withstand the enormous electrical charge AND the hellish heat (which I think is actually heat generated due to the fact that the rock it travels through is semi-conductive and converting some of the current into thermal energy via resistance).

Anyway, I'm not a scientist by any means, and I couldn't for a moment suggest a plausible explanation for how a current would want to rise to flow through a volcanic cone rather than just zap off the surface of the ocean via a thunderstorm... unless the oceans themselves are doing their own 'double-layer' thing?

Ehh! Anyway- I think any 'free energy' type gig that we do in the high-power environment we live in (and thankfully, at equal potential with!) is going to be some method of taking advantage of the electrical 'hot spots' around the planet, and tapping off of them. I certainly don't think they are going to be tabletop-type units! Also I think that they will need to be deployed in strategically-intelligent locations.

Sort of like real estate- location is everything!

(Standard disclaimer- I am not a scientist! Take everything I say with a grain of salt!)


Mike H.

[nick c]

hi jjohnson,

It seems better to state, at least for EU purposes, that magnetic fields are always created by moving charged particles, not that this is the only possible mechanism. Maybe static magnetic fields and dynamic magnetic fields are the two subsets of all magnetic fields? We need to know the correct answer by heart, here, if we are to avoid looking stupid in a debate with Those Who Shall Not Be Named!

I don't know what I am missing here. The assertion that magnetic fields are created by electric currents is not an EU invention. It is standard mainstream, right out of plasma physics text books. In fact the quote that I posted above is from a plasma physics textbook not EU literature:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/380.pdf

Here is the quote from that textbook again:

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

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

Now if someone has an example or can think of a case where magnetic fields could be created without an electric current, then that would be interesting. Please inform us of such, that is, give a specific example.

Nick

[Siggy_G]

The assertion that magnetic fields are created by electric currents is not an EU invention. It is standard mainstream, right out of plasma physics text books. In fact the quote that I posted above is from a plasma physics textbook not EU literature: (...)

That's interesting, and it seems that the original statement (magnetic fields are always produced by an electric current / dynamic) is true by definition. However, since magnetostatics is related to atoms interal electric dynamics (orbiting electrons), standard cosmology can still play their iron core card, and perhaps ignore Earths bathing in the Sun's plasma stream, radiating across the ecliptic...

Speaking of it, if any star is a result of a z-pinch, shouldn't the magnetic field surrounding it be somewhat cylindrical or an elongated sphere? (the electric current goes axial through the star and the magnetic field should be wrapped around that axis, I assume). Or in other words, how does the z-pinch work while the Sun's magnetic field is spherical?

[junglelord]

Techanically thats a Theta Pinch, same thing, but proper geometry.

[jjohnson]

nick: you answered my question, as I had not considered electrons orbiting atoms as "currents" in a circuit, although with the definition of a moving charge (the electron) moving through the electric field (of the nucleus), assuming that a bare nucleus exhibits an electric field, then yes, those are tiny currents and they sum up to provide a larger overall magnetic field in something like a bar magnet.

My statement that "for EU purposes...always are created by moving charged particles" was simply to avoid our being so dogmatic about how magnetic fields are created. If they are only sole-sourced, however, then we should be dogmatic about it!

Here's a related question. A moving photon (the only kind) either creates or is a combined electric and magnetic field (I don't want to get into wave-particle duality here). What's the source of a photon's magnetic field? WWMMS? Maybe I'll ask him. Good discussion, guys!

[jjohnson]

JL: I agree with the EU concept that z or theta or Bennett pinches on a large scale (!) create stars,even galaxies, but I am not so sure that the pinch conditions remain. Is there any observable evidence that our sun is still in the grip of a z-pinch of two filaments, or are we perhaps centered more or less in one Birkeland current and simply maintained by the galactic electron drift through our position in space, in this arm? I ask this in complete ignorance of how we would find out such a condition. I have also wondered if the Milky Way has polar jets, while we're at this, and why astronomical images, at any wavelength, haven't revealed jets if they are there. If they do reveal jets, post a link, please! (No NASA or ESA "artist's impressions" !)