> Hi Hex et al!
>
> You wrote;
> > Now that I think about it - wouldn't that be a necessity? (I mean -
> > wouldn't it be *NECCESSARY* for both magnetic and electric fields
> > to be present to satisfy that good old principle of 'for every
> > action there is a equal and opposite reaction'???)
>
> EXCELLENT POINT! That both must be present....this is getting intensely
> interesting....by forcing a SEPARATION so that the two cannot react to
> each other....and I like your idea of a wheel..
Heh. I always found the 'wheel' metaphor quite useful - it helps to
illustrate the action/reaction principle quite well. Place a rope upon two
wheels to form a pulley. If you pull the rope in one direction, the other
end is pulled in the opposite direction. The 'law' is obeyed.
> And we've not even brought in superconductivity where there is NO
> ELECTRICITY, ONLY PURE MAGNETIC CURRENT that is REPELLENT to magnetic
> fields. Oddly enough, am I wrong, or isn't there NO magnetic field
> inherent in superconductors. Here are some InterNet quotes;
As I recall, all superconductors are strongly diamagnetic. Any incoming
magnetic field (including it's own) is deflected. bOING! The comments
below you have made seem to illustrate this as well.
> > But the superconductor will actually manage to remove the now
> > present magnetic field from its interior. It accomplishes this by
> > spontaneously running electric currents on the surface where no
> > currents existed a moment before. The direction of the currents
> > will be such as to create an opposing magnetic field to cancel the
> > one present. As a result, the magnetic field coming from the sample
> > will interact with that of the permanent magnet creating enough
> > repulsion force to levitate the magnet.
>
> So, a superconductor MIRRORS any APPLIED magnetic field to REPEL IT!
SHIT HOT, Jerry! The running of the current on both the surface of the
conductor and within the conductor itself would satisfy the
action/reaction principle, would it not? Thus, even though the magnetic
fields are cross-canceled - the energy is still redistributed! Am I
reading that right?
> Hex also wrote;
> > DC current doesn't produce a corresponding magnetic field, and
> > yet the current flows.
>
> I don't understand this comment. DC means direct current and when it
> flows through a wire, there is ALWAYS a magnetic field associated with
> it as in 'solenoid'.
> -------------------
> And that brings up another question, it is the MOTION of current through
> the wire that creates the magnetic field, so if there is NO MOTION,
> there is no CURRENT.
D'oh! I was under the mistaken impression that a magnetic field does not
form when a direct current flows? Now I remember why I hate physics ---
such confusion is commonplace.
> So what gives with magnets, where a magnetic field is present yet there
> is no 'motion' as we consider it. Does this mean there is a CURRENT
> flowing in magnets??? If so, why can we not tap it except by cutting
> the lines of force??? Perhaps David Hudsons comment about resonance
> might be a serious key...find ther resonant frequency of a magnet or the
> flow of the flux lines and pull energy off by resonance alone.
If we're speaking of permanent magnets - again - I don't know. But I think
we've really hit on something here. (At least, my mailbox would attest to
that... I've got at least 45 more messages to read after this one -- oy!)