On May 17, 10:11 pm, "Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"Benj" wrote in message

OK. Let me pick your brains. I'm working on the age-old question does
a magnetic field rotate with the magnet if you spin it. ....

The following link is not on this subject, however, I do believe it relates
well to the overall question, and some others posted over the last couple of
months.

Is there really a "motional E field", and is it closely related to gravity?
A non shieldable field that resembles gravity to such an extent that it is
basically indistinguishable from it? If so, then Floyd Sweets VTA, or
Searle's device may well be the real deal.http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hpmoncrt.htm

Some things in the crankarama can at times be very interesting.

For those of you not familiar with the things of crankarama, let me
bring you all up to speed.

What Vince is talking about here is the so-called "Hooper
demonstrator". Hooper was a professor of Physics who on retirement
began to work on certain aspects of basic EM "traditional" theory.
Bridgman's book in which he noted that the "one E field" dogma was
pure bunk, suggested that there are 3 E fields each arising from the
position, velocity, and acceleration of charge, respectively . Hooper
built the "demonstrator" to show that the middle one (the VxB field)
actually is an unshieldable separate E field which oddly enough (like
induction outside a toroid) exists in a region of ZERO B! This is all
excellent high level physics that flys in the face of much of the
dogma that "traditional physics" promotes.

So far so good. These musings then led to other questions such as that
of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down"). The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons. If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation
in a atom, he concludes that his motional field generator was
potentially an "anti-gravity" generator! I do NOT believe this to be
the case. I find gravity and EM to be two difference actions with
different rules and sources even if presently physics has no clue as
to what gravity is, we DO have some clues as to what it is NOT! Hooper
found backers and formed an "anti-gravity" company in Akron Ohio. It
all became defunct after he died.

Thus the Hooper Demonstrator is great physics and not "OT" at all to
the question of whether a magnetic field rotates with a magnet. Some
here have suggested the question isn't important at all and should be
ignored, but I hope the Hooper experiments show that this is not a
sensible approach to these questions. Field "attachment" is a central
theoretical issue!

On the other hand, I feel Hooper's gravity analogies are over-
reached. I believe gravity may be in some ways similar to EM
phenomena even related to it, but I do not believe it IS EM
phenomena! And this includes the crankosity of that Japanese
professor ( I forget his name) with the Mobius strip so-called electro-
gravity generators and some other similar claims by other inventors.

Still, excellent point to bring up for this discussion, Vince!

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.
And this does not even yet raise the Hooper question of THREE E
FIELDS!

Benj

On May 10, 10:28Â*pm, Benj wrote:
Magn�ts are not Fermi-Dirac condensva; each domain must break down at
the atom which fluctvently impels as a cog. Â*With the wire's
h�steresis, the inducted currend would be speed-dependent.

I don't think this is quite right, Aut. Â*I mean it might be speed-
dependent, but the fact that a superconductor can support a magnet
shows that the response extends down to DC! (or very close to it).

Currently I am thinking that as the magnetic field moves over a
superconductor it induces an equal and opposite field from
superconducting circulations in the material. This means that the
canceling field is attached to the superconducting material and is NOT
moving along with the inducing field. Â*Therefore, in my little

Ah, no, the superconductor supports the magnèt because the magnèt
falls upon im; its spinning is for inertial stability and not
induction.

-Aut

On May 12, 9:03*pm, " wrote:
On May 12, 8:43 am, "Kevin G. Rhoads" wrote:

*If we ever build a Beanstalk (tethered mass in geosynchronous
equatorial orbit) will the stalk carry a current from "cutting" the
Earth's field as it orbits?

If conductive, perhaps -- remember B fields, like motion, are expressed
in vectors, so the cross product can be zero even if both terms are not
(they only need be parallel).

* It was a "trick" question. The Earth's field is generated somewhat
differently from that of an ordinary magnet; the angular velocity of
the conductive fluid within the Earth that generates its field is not
directly tied to the angular velocity of the surface (note that the
spin and magnetic poles of the Earth are not co-located and their
relationship changes over time).

* So yes, a (conductive) Beanstalk will definitely carry a current.

Heh, all of our metal refinement will kill off our compasses and then
atmosfair.

On May 18, 8:15*am, Benj wrote:
of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down"). *The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons. *If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

This should not be hard wittun. As I first said, magnèts are not
perfect standards; elementary magnèts the least so. If you take their
finite dipole moment of their domains, and add their longwise and
withwise velocities with the magnetic boost at all radii, you can find
the mean net boost (nonzero) and also the effective magnetic moment.
Of course if you blew up the magnèt as a coil or a plasma, the
rotation would indeed induct a magnetic field, as it would approximare
a two-body sýstem instead of two-mole. Uncle Al is wrong again, about
magnèts and neutròns.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation

They're not.

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.

why?

-Aut

"Timo A. Nieminen"

Which suggests an interesting exercise: what electric field should we
observe due to the Earth's magnetic field and rotation? Is this a
significant component of typical atmospheric electric fields?

The Earth is like the charged disc (excess of electrons). Such generate a
magnetc field.

If I have time, I'll do the numbers.

It will be not easy to estimate the number of electrons and the distribution
of them.
S*

A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted by the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh
"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
...
On May 18, 8:15 am, Benj wrote:
of "Is the magnetic field attached to the source that generates it?
This is of course identical to or nearly identical to the question I
was asking about does a magnetic field rotate with the magnet?
Hooper's experiments then led him to develop the "All-electric
Motional Field Generator". This device is a bundle of wires arranged
in a totally non-inductive fashion (current flowing in as many wires
"up" as flows in the wires "down"). The device purportedly develops a
potential outside of it due to the assumption that the magnetic field
is more or less attached to the electrons and moved on the average at
the "drift velocity" of those electrons. If you think about this ( I
know that is a strain in the modern world but it actually still IS
possible!), you'll see that because of directions and polarities a
potential should happen.

This should not be hard wittun. As I first said, magnèts are not
perfect standards; elementary magnèts the least so. If you take their
finite dipole moment of their domains, and add their longwise and
withwise velocities with the magnetic boost at all radii, you can find
the mean net boost (nonzero) and also the effective magnetic moment.
Of course if you blew up the magnèt as a coil or a plasma, the
rotation would indeed induct a magnetic field, as it would approximare
a two-body sýstem instead of two-mole. Uncle Al is wrong again, about
magnèts and neutròns.

But, then Hooper made a large leap into crankosity (one which, by the
way, I DO NOT agree with) that noticing that both the VxB force and
gravity are non-shieldable and also since there is charge separation

They're not.

And let me add a minor comment to Timo's exposition on relativity
relationships between frames and E and B fields. That would simply be
that I do not believe this theory to be correct because I do not
believe that E fields and B (or H) fields are at the fundamental level
similar enough in their formation to allow the mathematical transform
of one to the other based on reference frames and relative motion.

why?

-Aut

wrote in message
news |A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
| tangential to the length of the bar
| magnet.

Hahahaha! And nobody listens, huh? I can see why.


--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin

Androcles

wrote
news
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

In article , "Szczepan Bia³ek"
wrote:

wrote
news
A bar magnet has only one propagation. That is an electrical field which is
tangential to the length of the bar
magnet. It is either a clockwise or counterclockwise field (electrical
field) as viewed by something else. When two bar magnets experience this
electrical field having the circular pattern, force appears to be
effected.
Construed as a magnetic force or magnetic field, after all what you see is
what you get in this wysiwyg world of physics. The magnet field is a true
illusion because it does not span the gap between the magnets. only the
circular electrical field spans the gap. the exhibited force is locally
achieved as the re-direction of inertia of the individual magnets
accomodate
their newly distorted dynamic electrical field having been distorted by
the
other magnet. Test: hold a bar magnet close to a crt face to observe the
effect the tangential electrical field has on a moving charge. Ampere
taught
us this, nobody listens. Lee Pugh

Ampere taught that who are fluent in French. I am not. But I am very
interested on such idea. I am sure that the fields OF "mass", charge and
magnet must be the same because the space is one. Of course grvitational,
electric and magnetic field can be different because they are math.
I have known that Aepinus found the theory that gravitational and
electrostatic forces are the same. Many people discuss that. But I could not
find more than you wrote here about Ampere idea. Could you tell where can I
read more? ( I am a science hobbyst).
S*

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics. Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

"J. B. Wood"

Hello, and the very first thing you need to do IMHO is distinguish science
from pseudoscience or misinterpretations of cause and effect as
illustrated by the above posts. A "theory" (e.g. electromagnetic theory)
in science is something that has been established by repeatable
experiment, produces predictable results and usually is firmly rooted in
applied mathematics.

I am interested in physics not in math. But I know what and for what math
is.

Anything else is an "hypothesis" (e.g. cold
fusion). Since you have science as a hobby this makes it more difficult
if you don't have some field of science or applied mathematics as a
profession. As an EE by profession and referring to the postings above,
may I suggest an introductory course in electromagnetics? You didn't say
your age but I'm talking about a course at the freshman/sophomore college
level. It probabably will be somewhat rough going mathematically but you
might absorb some basics. Sincerely,

For me opinion of very famous people are very interesting. Ampere was such
even in Maxwell opinion. I am 67. Can you help with Ampere papers in
English.
S*