The problem with understanding permanent magnets is our perception of the
magnetic field. I think it is a pure cunard, a misunderstood lie.

A permanent magnet has an electrical field, and it is tangential to a bar
magnet. The CW or CCW field as experienced by target (ferromagnetic
material) Look closly, Ampere taught us that. When anything is affected by
that electrical field, it experiences a re-direction of inertia This
re-direction of inertia appears to us as force field acting on the magnets
and we call that force field a magnetic field.In the absence of the target
substance, there is no magnetic function other than the tangential electric
field. When the electric field causes a redirection of inertia of a
electrical charge in motion, I call this a dynamic electrical field.

If you wish to see the dynamic electrical field having a tangential posture,
I suggest you place a bar magnet on the face of a crt.
move the magnet and observe how the electron beam is re-distributed as the
electron beam experiences a re-direction of inertia. After that go back and
study Ampere again. Regards, Lee Pugh, DISIDENT.

Bill Mller" wrote in message
...
The title of the post pretty much says it all.

c The participants of this list seem to have fairly clear agreement that the
primary *cause* of magnetic fields is the motion of charges.

With a few hold-outs, most folks seem to (finally) understand that an E
field does not *cause* an H field. (Those that disagree: p-l-e-a-s-e read
Jefimenko's "Causality" before jumping in to dispute this statement.)

OK. So far, so good.

A permanent magnet has associated with it a magnetic field whose
characteristics seem to be indistinguishable from those of a magnetic
field
that is caused by the motion of charges.

Where the H--- does the H come from? How do we know?

Bill

On Mar 17, 4:59*pm, "Bill Miller"
wrote:

To clarify. I can imagine a magnetic material in which every atom has
somehow gone into "lock step" with every other other one. I would expect
that would be a pretty powerful magnet. I can imagine a magnetic material
that contains just a pair. Pretty weak.

well, it's been quite a few years for me, but.....

nonmagnetic elements contain pairs of electrons whose "spin" is
paired, cancelling out to net of zero, i.e. no net movement of charge.
magnetic elements contain unpaired electron spins, i.e., net movement
of charge, therefore magnetic fields for the atoms.
elements which are magnetic enough to be magnetized, like iron, can
form domains where the atomic fields are aligned.

How are these alignments arrayed? What causes them to become arrayed?
well, the domains are arrayed by exposure to external magentic fields,
obviously. but, the atoms within the domains, which i bet is what you
are asking..... last time i looked that was still up in the air.


Some permanent magnets appear to, indeed, be permanent. It is
hard-to-impossible to degauss them. Others, like soft steel, are
self-degaussing and their field (there's THAT word again) "decays" with
time. Presumably if we know what mechanisms cause the permanence, we can
understand and why they decay and vice-versa. Do we know why they decay (or
don't)?

at the basic level, i.e. what makes the domains behave, i don't think
so.


Otherwise, its about as valid as phlogiston!

well, it's validated above and below the level of the domain, which
leaves the domain workings as one hole in a large structure that's
otherwise intact, whereas phlogiston was entirely holes. but you have
indeed isolated an unproved hypothesis.