Magnetically Enabled Continuous Circulation Of Diamagnetic Fluid

[Guest Aemilius]

Not offered up as proof or as supporting any claim, but this is probably the most in depth resource (that I've found anyway) on the web when it comes to common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism, such as.... like poles repel, unlike poles attract, ferromagnetic's are attracted to either pole, diamagnetic's are repelled by either pole, magnetic fields can be shielded, shaped, etc., etc....

 

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magindex.htm

 

This is a pretty simple game really.... To show any cross sectional field diagram I make to be in error, all anyone has to do is show (preferably by using a marked up diagram from the thread) where any line of force depicted could possibly take an easier path from one pole to the other in accordance with the common knowledge fundamental principle of magnetism that lines of force will always take the easiest path from one pole to the other.

 

Anyway I was thinking about how shrinking the diameter of the bore (and with it the tube) might change the conditions within the bore and it's realy interesting as the walls of the bore get closer together.

 

You can get a good idea of the resulting field shape from this example of an "iron filing field map"....

 

http://webapps.lsa.umich.edu/physics/demolab/content/demo.aspx?id=209

 

This field shape isn't without precedent either, I found an example of it in a bit of obscure unrelated NMR research on the web, the researcher even makes reference to a "sweet spot" in the very same area (in the diagram from the link) that I'm looking at for the diamagnetic effect....

 

http://www.nmr.org/june22nmrnl.htm

 

These field diagrams are drawn from those examples (particularly the iron filing image) and correspond to common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism....

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2013 by Aemilius

[C1ay]

Not offered up as proof or as supporting any claim, but this is probably the most in depth resource (that I've found anyway) on the web when it comes to common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism, such as.... like poles repel, unlike poles attract, ferromagnetic's are attracted to either pole, diamagnetic's are repelled by either pole, magnetic fields can be shielded, shaped, etc., etc....

 

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magindex.htm

 

This is a pretty simple game really.... To show any cross sectional field diagram I make to be in error, all anyone has to do is show (preferably by using a marked up diagram from the thread) where any line of force depicted could possibly take an easier path from one pole to the other in accordance with the common knowledge fundamental principle of magnetism that lines of force will always take the easiest path from one pole to the other.

 

Anyway I was thinking about how shrinking the diameter of the bore (and with it the tube) might change the conditions within the bore and it's realy interesting as the walls of the bore get closer together.

 

You can get a good idea of the resulting field shape from this example of an "iron filing field map"....

 

http://webapps.lsa.umich.edu/physics/demolab/content/demo.aspx?id=209

 

This field shape isn't without precedent either, I found an example of it in a bit of obscure unrelated NMR research on the web, the researcher even makes reference to a "sweet spot" in the very same area (in the diagram from the link) that I'm looking at for the diamagnetic effect....

 

http://www.nmr.org/june22nmrnl.htm

 

These field diagrams are drawn from those examples (particularly the iron filing image) and correspond to common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism....

 

 

 

 

Let me be perfectly blunt here. Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th images here show an assertion that a magnetic shield blocks 100% of the magnetic field of the magnetic pole where it is positioned. None of your provided links support this claim so get busy finding some. I'm demanding proof that a toroidal magnetic shield blocks 100% of the magnetic field emanating from the poles of the annular orifice of a ring shaped magnet as your drawings assert. Prove this assertion or withdraw it. My own experiments with a real ring magnet, a toroidal shield and a steel bearing have shown to falsify this assertion of yours.

[Guest Aemilius]

C1ay "Let me add something here that maybe you can explain. I have some ring shaped magnets leftover from a project of mine. I took one of them and attached a metal washer to one side. I stood it on edge on the table. I set a small ball bearing on the table on the washer side, let go of it and it jumped across the gap and stuck to the washer. On the other hand your depiction shows no lines of flux extending beyond the shield. What caused my ball bearing to jump the gap if a magnetic shield with a hole in it blocks all lines of flux?"

 

I don't know C1ay, maybe you've discovered some new principle that the multitude of gifted physicists and engineers that went before you missed.... that's amazing man!

 

C1ay "Let me be perfectly blunt here. Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th images here show an assertion that a magnetic shield blocks 100% of the magnetic field of the magnetic pole where it is positioned."

 

Well, these are schematics, they're not meant to show every single line of force. As far as blocking 100% of the magnetic field goes, I made it clear right from the start in the origjnal post diagrams (number 6) that there would be some "magnetic/force leakage".

 

 

C1ay "None of your provided links support this claim so get busy finding some. I'm demanding proof that a toroidal magnetic shield blocks 100% of the magnetic field emanating from the poles of the annular orifice of a ring shaped magnet as your drawings assert."

 

The "....poles of the annular orifice" ? Oh man.... that's rich! I'm really having trouble even understanding your questions. There is no "toroidal magnetic shield" in the arrangement (never has been). The shield description hasn't changed.... The shield is described as a disc of annealed iron laminate (transformer core material) with a center cut hole, and like I said before I made it clear in the original diagrams that there would be some "magnetic/force leakage"....

 

C1ay "Prove this assertion or withdraw it. My own experiments with a real ring magnet, a toroidal shield and a steel bearing have shown to falsify this assertion of yours."

 

I'm sorry man, I just don't believe you. Even if somehow you've managed to prove that magnetic shielding doesn't work, your argument isn't with me but the scientific community. I'm not withdrawing anything.

 

C1ay "Let me add another question. What effect, if any, do you think your external toroidal magnetic shield has on the field internal to the annular orifice passing through the magnet?"

 

I honestly can't even make sense of your question.... let me be blunt. I've openly questioned your honesty in this forum and your only response was to "Lay Down The Law" to me that you can assume any title you want to any time you want to and that no one has the right to question it or ask who/what you really are.... or else. That's fine, I can work with that, but your not going to bully me. I like this forum, but not enough to put up with that. You can ban me if you want to but I'm not responding to any more of you posts for the reasons mentioned. If given warning (a courtesy?) that I'm about to be banned for whatever reason, I'll stop posting in the topic.... If not and you ban me after reading this I'll just say it's been interesting and thanks for letting me join in for a while.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Aemilius

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Who are you really Aemilius? How do we know you are who you claim to be? We know who Clay is he's only been on Hypo's staff since 3/2005 (ah, the good ol days when the rules were strictly applied to all and enforced). If his dealings here were half as shady as you would like readers to believe I highly doubt he would have lasted so long and he certainly would not have been promoted through the ranks.

[CraigD]

My concern is that you’re making use of still and animated graphics of magnetic field lines produced by a computer model, where what you need are the results, text or graphics, of a model of the motion of a weak magnet (the diamagnetic water, in the thought experiment) near a powerful one.

The only stills and animated graphics of magnetic field lines produced by a computer model are the three images from Rick Hoadley's site, for illustrative purposes.... I produced all the other diagrams and animations in this thread to schematically illustrate how magnets, shields and diamagnatic fluids have been shown to behave under certain conditions using common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism.

All diagrams and illustrations are for “illustrative purposes”. In physics (since about 1700), predicting how things will behave is done mathematically.

 

Reliance on “common knowledge” is profoundly unscientific, because science is the systematic building and organization of knowledge to make testable predictions, while common knowledge, as you appear to be using it here, Aemilius, refers to assertions you have not backed up using such a systematic approach – which in physics, is to validate them by represent initial conditions and calculate future conditions mathematically, or reference publications doing this. Saying “this is so because of common knowledge fundamental principles” without explicitly, mathematically using those principles is in effect saying "I just know that this is the way it is", which is unscientific, and against our forum rules. You shouldn’t do it.

 

They're not field diagrams either but rather simple force diagrams and animations showing the interactions that can reasonably be expected to occur (force and direction) under a variety of conditions using general common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism.

 

These images, which are taken from Hoadley’s “How can you shield a magnet?” page, show magnetic field lines, not the magnitude and direction of magnetic forces. As I explained above, there is an important difference between these things – they can’t be used interchangeably

 

Breaking news! You don't need a Cray Supercomputer just to reflect on common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism like those involved here, you know.... like poles repel, unlike poles attract, ferromagnetic's are attracted to either pole, diamagnetic's are repelled by either pole, magnetic fields can be shielded, shaped, etc., etc....

Rhetorical expression like “breaking news!”, as you’ve used it here, Aemilius, is rude and offensive (in my opinion, which matters here, because I’m a moderator). This is against our site rules. You shouldn’t do it. Moreover, as I explained in this post, hypography is not a debate forum, so you shouldn’t argue as if it were.

 

Aemilius, if you don’t follow our site rules, as interpreted by moderators and administrators such as C1ay and myself, your posting privileges will be suspended. Hypography is intended to provide an enjoyable forum for people of all kinds to share science, its rules to promote this. Ad hominem attacks and rhetorical trickery is counter to this purpose. People who engage in these – commonly known as internet trolls – aren’t welcome here.

 

While you may not need a computer of any kind to mentally reflect on fundamental principles of magnetism, to actually predict the behavior of physical systems using these principles, a computer is useful, a supercomputer even more so. While the fundamental principles of the interaction of moving and static charges – electrostatics and electrodynamics – are well understood physics, their application to real-world magnets, which have very large numbers of elementary charged particles, is difficult, and often much helped by the “brute” capabilities of computers.

 

 

you [CraigD] had to reverse your earlier (incorrect) position of saying a magnetic shield can't block a magnetic field, to your new (corrected) position of saying that a magnetic shield can block a magnetic field.

It’s not true, and I didn’t claim, that a magnetic shield can’t block a magnetic field. What I said was (emphasis added):

Let’s assume (falsely, to the best of my understanding – which is that, despite requiring more complicated equations, magnets in magnetic fields obey the same energy laws as charged bodies in electrostatic fields) that there is a way to just “turn off” the magnetic field in a desired volume of space, without affecting it outside of that volume, and that it looks like your sketch, Aemilius.

The emphasized part of my statement is important, because it’s key to my explanation of why a diamagnetic material like water, or, as I suggest in a later post, a simpler, stronger permanent magnet, will not gain energy (change in energy is work, which is force time distance) when passing near or thorough the shielded magnet arrangement sketched in this thread. Reducing with the shield the work in the volume where the shield has nearly eliminated all magnetic forces between the large magnet and the small one increases the work done on it elsewhere, as explained in this post.

 

 

CraigD "However, I found nothing there or elsewhere by Hoadly that supports this claim. Just to opposite, he provides this page titled “Is there free energy in magnets?”

 

You know why you didn't find anything there that I said supports my claim? It's because I never said there was anything there that supports my claim.

As I and C1ay have explained to you, our site rules require that you back up your claims with links or references. Posting links to sites that don’t support your claim, then stating that you didn’t say they supported your claims, doesn’t satisfy this rule.

 

In the meanwhile, and in the spirit of the evolution of these though experiments from the siphon to the loop, let’s restate it using even simpler pieces:

 

Since we no longer need fluid for a siphon, or to dimple the surface of a pool using the diamagnetic effects, let’s replace the fluid with a smaller permanent magnet on a rotating arm of some only weakly magnetic material (eg: wood), and the tube passing through the larger magnet and its shield with a with a trench that allows the magnet on its arm to follow the same path as previously discussed. The small magnet is oriented to point like poles at the large one.

What? Let me get this straight.... you want to again replace this extraordinarily simple arrangement that has only one moving part (the fluid) and is governed by common knowledge fundamental principles of magnetism with a "simpler" arrangement that consists of an imaginary small permanent magnet that behaves like a diamagnetic fluid that doesn't lose it's field when it's far away from the large one?

Yes.

 

An arrangement consisting of a large and a small permanent magnet and is simpler than one consisting of a large permanent magnet and a fluid, because a in fluid dynamics, a fluid is not a single body, but a collection of a very large number of small bodies – in the real case of water, each H_{2[/sup]O molecule, and because the strength of the small magnet doesn’t depend on its position relative to the larger one.}

 

_{Also, should someone want to actually try an experiment to test whether the continuous (AKA perpetual) motion claimed in the first post of this thread occurs, using readily available materials and forces greater than ordinary frictional ones is easier than the very strong magnets and very small forces of the original thought experiment description.}

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "Aemilius, if you don’t follow our site rules, as interpreted by moderators and administrators such as C1ay and myself, your posting privileges will be suspended."

 

No need, I won't be posting here anymore.... This site has violated my rules!

 

CraigD "Hypography is intended to provide an enjoyable forum for people of all kinds to share science, its rules to promote this. Ad hominem attacks and rhetorical trickery is counter to this purpose. People who engage in these – commonly known as internet trolls – aren’t welcome here."

 

I notice you didn't touch on a senior administrator caught lying about his background. Moving the topic suddenly and quoting the rules makes it look like your either in on it or condonimg it, either way it calls your integrity into question, so I don't want to talk to you anymore.... you both disgust me.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Aemilius

[C1ay]

The "....poles of the annular orifice" ? Oh man.... that's rich! I'm really having trouble even understanding your questions. There is no "toroidal magnetic shield" in the arrangement (never has been).

And right there is the proof that you haven't any idea what you're even talking about. A round hole passing through a body like a magnet for the purpose of providing a passage for fluid to pass through it is an annular orifice. If you take a round magnetic shield and put a hole through the middle of it then it becomes a toroid and therefore a toroidal magnetic shield.

 

That said I can tell you exactly how to see the field lines of your magnet and the effects your shield would cause to those field lines. A bar magnet and a small piece of steel will work in general but I recommend to procure a small ring magnet from a local hobby or crafts shop, and a steel washer for a bolt that is similar in dimension to your magnet. Next you will need to find an old TV set or computer monitor with a CRT display. WARNING: This will likely ruin the CRT for watching TV or use as a monitor. If you power on the crt and hold the magnet up close to it you will see the magnetic field just the way you see it in Mr. Hoadly's diagrams. Once you've examined the fields of the magnet by itself you can place a washer on one end and observe the effects. It is a very simple experiment that will allow you to actually see in real time what is going on.

 

I'll make another small point here that is ultimately the flaw in your theory. You are trying to use a magnetic shield on a bipolar magnet to make it behave like a monopole magnet. Lots of magnetically driven continuous motion mechanisms could be possible with a true monopole magnet but they don't exist. Lots of people before you have tried the same approach you have only to learn it won't work. That's why there are no such machines on the market. You are not the first and not the last to see what might be possible with a monopole. Unfortunately you cannot convert a bipole into a monopole and for that reason your theory will never work. Good luck in your endeavors to learn more about science.

[C1ay]

I notice you didn't touch on a senior administrator caught lying about his background. Moving the topic suddenly and quoting the rules makes it look like your either in on it or condonimg it, either way it calls your integrity into question, so I don't want to talk to you anymore.... you both disgust me.

No one here has lied about anything. Grow up!!!

[C1ay]

Here are the results of my experiment:

 

Here are the components...

 

Here they are assembled...

 

Here I am nudging a ball bearing towards the hole in the assembly to see if a magnetic field is present...

 

I conclude that there is a magnetic field present on the shielded side of the magnet.