[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

Mon Dec 5 23:57:06 CET 2016

Hi Arend,

    I think the Lorentz force is understood well enough to apply to that
video. You say:

"I believe magnetism actually *is* a vortex c.q. rotation in the medium,
the aether, and that the vortices we see in this experiment actually are
caused by the electrolyte spinning along with the magnetic aether vortex
created by the permanent magnet."

    However, if the direction of electric current flow were to be reversed,
the water vortex would spin in the opposite direction I am sure. It is not
even clear from the video what the magnetic field direction or the current
direction is, it is so poorly documented, so we can't even predict the
"magnetic vortex spin" expected for the magnet, assuming what we are
talking about as the purported "cause" is the predicted direction of
circulation of the magnetic lines of force, or what is sometimes called the
magnetic vector A potential. However since the inevitable "cause" of the
water spin will likely depend on the direction of the charges moving across
the magnetic field (and in the video, the spin is chaotic at best), the
only reasonable explanation is the Lorentz force, since this is such a
familiar phenomenon to those who work with it. The Lorentz force can of
course be explained using the physical model of Maxwell, i.e. can be
described as the pressure exerted between the "tubes of force" of the
charges verses the permanent magnet, as explained for example by Starling,
reproduced here:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Lorentz/Lorentzforce.html

So I am not disputing that model at all. However, Maxwell's model would
call for the magnetic vortices from the permanent magnet to be in an array
(perhaps involving millions of them rotating in the same sense). Such an
array would be incapable of causing the rotation of a neutral fluid
directly, acting instead only on the magnetic field lines of the particles
in motion across the array due to the potential difference applied. This
explanation can fit with a fluid dynamic model of pressure between the
aether lines or tubes as the cause of the effect, since in such a  version
of the Lorentz force the repulsion between co-rotating vortices and
attraction between counter-rotating vortices would likely fit with the
particle motion direction (if the experiment was performed properly, like
with labelled current and magnetic field direction).
So again, although this is interesting observation, the guy that made this
video doesn't seem to recognize or acknowledge what is most likely going
on, so I would  be careful about referencing him.

Doug

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Zoltan,
> >
> >    I watched that YouTube video after you posted it to Arend - I think
> it is
> > pretty clear what is happening - there must be a current passing through
> the
> > water above the magnet (which is generating the electrolysis bubbles) and
> > those moving particles/ charged bubbles are then experiencing a Lorentz
> > force in the magnetic field, so they start rotating, just like as if they
> > were a disk in a unipolar (homopolar) motor. That's why when you flip the
> > magnet the rotation reverses. Interesting effect to see it in water, but
> > this is not new science by any stretch of the imagination : ) .
>
> Perhaps one should ask the question: "what is the Lorentz force"?
>
> According to Koen van Vlaenderen, there is a problem there in that it
> violates Newton's 3d law of motion (action = -reaction):
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0297
>
> "Maxwell’s Classical Electrodynamics (MCED) shows several related in-
> consistencies, as the consequence of a single false premise. The Lorentz
> force law of MCED violates Newton’s Third Law of Motion (N3LM) in
> case of General Magnetostatics (GMS) current distributions, that are not
> necessarily divergence free. A consistent GMS theory is defined by means
> of Whittaker’s force law, which requires a scalar magnetic force field, B
> L .
> The field B L mediates a longitudinal Amp`ere force, similar to the vec-
> tor magnetic field, B T , that mediates a transverse Amp`ere force. The
> sum of transverse- and longitudinal Amp`ere forces obeys N3LM for sta-
> tionary currents in general. The scalar field, B Φ , is also a physical,
> as a
> consequence of charge continuity.
> MCED does not treat the induction of the electric field, E L , by a time
> varying B L field, so MCED does not cover the reason for adding E L to
> the superimposed electric field, E. The exclusion of E L from E simplifies
> MCED to Classical Electrodynamics (CED). The MCED Jefimenko fields
> show a far field contradiction, that is not shown by the CED fields. CED
> is based on the Lorentz force and therefore violates N3LM as well."
>
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Zoltan Losonc <feprinciples at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Arend,
> >>
> >> In your article “On Space, Time and the Fabric of Nature“
> >> https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/on-space-time-and-the-
> fabric-of-nature
> >> you wrote this:
> >>
> >> “Now let us consider the rotational nature of the magnetic field of a
> >> permanent magnet. This can be made visible by placing a permanent magnet
> >> under water and use it as an electrode in an electrolysis process. At
> >> YouTube, several examples of such an experiment can be found (1, 2, 3),
> >> which show that the magnetic field of a permanent magnet actually has a
> >> vortex nature:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY
> >>
> >> Since these are permanent magnets connected to a DC power supply, it is
> >> hard to imagine a transverse electromagnetic wave propagating along the
> >> surface of the magnet to be responsible for inducing the vortex, because
> >> that would also generate electromagnetic radiation, which would probably
> >> have been detected by now. If we assume this to be correct, then if the
> >> nature of the magnetic field would be like in Maxwell's
> multi-vortex-tube
> >> model, we would not expect a vortex to appear in the water. For this
> reason,
> >> we must reject Maxwell's multi-vortex model filling all space.”
> >>
> >> In the video “MAGNETIC VORTEX SPIN DISCOVERY, Sept. 2011, TORNADO
> >> UNDERWAT.mp4”
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY
> >>
> >> The narrator says: “This video that I made basically shows conclusive
> >> proof that magnets generate helical vortex, a tornado type of magnetic
> field
> >> that is unknown to science…” later on he claims: ”…did not see any type
> of
> >> explanation how this happens…”. Basically he implies that classical
> science
> >> can not explain the observed phenomenon why the electrolyte starts
> rotating
> >> around a vertical axis and creates the appearance of a tornado like
> helical
> >> vortex of bubbles.
> >>
> >> Do you agree with his claims? How do you explain the spin of the
> >> electrolyte?
> >>
>
> I believe magnetism actually *is* a vortex c.q. rotation in the
> medium, the aether, and that the vortices we see in this experiment
> actually are caused by the electrolyte spinning along with the
> magnetic aether vortex created by the permanent magnet. And actually,
> Maxwell also described magnetism as having a rotational/vorticity
> nature:
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
>
> "If we observe the lines of force between two magnets, as indicated by
> iron filings, we shall see that whenever the lines of force pass from
> one pole to another, there is attraction between those poles; and
> where the lines of force from the poles avoid each other and are
> dispersed into space, the poles repel each other, so that in both
> cases they arc drawn in the direction of the resultant of the lines of
> force.
>
> It appears therefore that the stress in the axis of a line of magnetic
> force is a tension, like that of a rope.
>
> If we calculate the lines of force in the neighbourhood of two
> gravitating bodies, we shall find them the same in direction as those
> near two magnetic poles of the same name; but we know that the
> mechanical effect is that of attraction instead of repulsion. The
> lines of force in this case do not run between the bodies, but avoid
> each other, and are dispersed over space. In order to produce the
> effect of attraction, the stress along the lines of gravitating force
> must be a pressure.
>
> Let us now suppose that the phenomena of magnetism depend on the
> existence of a tension in the direction of the lines of force,
> combined with a hydrostatic pressure; or in other words, a pressure
> greater in the equatorial than in the axial direction: the next
> question is, what mechanical explanation can we give of this
> inequality of pressures in a fluid or mobile medium? The explanation
> which most readily occurs to the mind is that the excess of pressure
> in the equatorial direction arises from the centrifugal force of
> vortices or eddies in the medium having their axes in directions
> parallel to the lines of force.
>
> This explanation of the cause of the inequality of pressures at once
> suggests the means of representing the dipolar character of the line
> of force. Every vortex is essentially dipolar, the two extremities of
> its axis being distinguished by the direction of its revolution as
> observed from those points.
>
> We also know that when electricity circulates in a conductor, it
> produces lines of magnetic force passing through the circuit, the
> direction of the lines depending on the direction of the circulation.
> Let us suppose that the direction of revolution of our vortices is
> that in which vitreous electricity must revolve in order to produce
> lines of force whose direction within the circuit is the same as that
> of the given lines of force.
>
> We shall suppose at present that all the vortices in any one part of
> the field are revolving in the same direction about axes nearly
> parallel, but that in passing from one part of the field to another,
> the direction of the axes, the velocity of rotation, and the density
> of the substance of the vortices are subject to change. "
>
>
>
> If this is true, then we have somewhat of a mystery in why "positive"
> and "negative" charges would behave differently, which I believe can
> be explained analogous to "acoustic" propulsion, as can be
> demonstrated by Helmholtz resonators:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je7eLZS6GG0
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEyIJx3uM0
>
> In the second YT vid, it is demonstrated one can distinguish the flame
> on a candle, by means of the *appearance* of a net air flow coming out
> of an Helmholtz resonator brought into resonance. I believe something
> akin to that is happening with "charges", whereby with one type of
> charge we have the *appearance* of a net inflow of aether (low
> pressure) and the other we have the *appearance* of a net outflow of
> aether (high pressure).
>
> I have no idea how to work this out mathematically, though.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arend.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161205/18b29977/attachment.html>