Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> 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..
>
> I always considered electricity the CHILD of magnetism since by cutting
> a magnetic field with the crystalline structure of a wire, you induce
> current flow and thus electricity.
>
> 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;
>
> > The superconductor has zero electric resistance at temperatures
> > below 92 K and expels any applied magnetic field.
>
> > In 1933 Meissner and Oschenfeld discovered one of the most
> > fundamental properties of superconductors. They found that a
> > magnetic field does not penetrate into superconducting material.
> > Superconductors are actually perfect diamagnets and not perfect
> > conductors.
>
> > 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!
>
> This is from David Hudsons comments on superconductivity;
> > A material that is a superconductor literally, a superconductor
> > contains one vibrational frequency within the superconductor. One
> > vibrational frequency, a lot like a laser. That this light flows
> > perpetually within the system. That no where in the system is there
> > any voltage. So you can't hook up a wire here and a wire here
> > to the superconductor and get current to flow in and out of the
> > superconductor, because to get current to get off of the wire,
> > you've got to have a voltage to get current on the wire, you
> > got to have a little voltage and yet by definition a
> > superconductor won't allow any voltage. So the material's a
> > perfect insulator not a superconductor. But if you resonance
> > frequency tune the wire so that the electrons vibrate at the
> > same frequency as the superconductor, then the electrons will
> > flow on as light, as electron pairs. They will pair up and flow
> > on, because they're seeking the path of least resistance which
> > is the superconductor. Okay?
> > So, it is different than an ordinary conductor and shouldn't be
> > thought of as electricity, it's light. All right, now, the
> > amazing thing is, if you resonance frequency tune this conductor
> > to the frequency of the superconductor then energy starts
> > flowing on, but it's flowing on as light. Any amount of light
> > can exist in the same space-time. There's only so much
> > electricity can flow on the conductor, but light can flow on
> > forever. And so it just flows on and flows on and flows on and
> > flows on, but you don't have to take it off... Now around the
> > superconductor it forms a Meissner field. The Meissner field
> > has no north or south pole, it's just a field, but it's unique
> > in that it has no north or south pole. The largeness of that
> > magnetic field is proportional to the amount of light that is
> > flowing within the superconductor......Now, the strange thing
> > abouta Meissner field is other Meissner fields, that oscillates
> > at the same frequency, can enter that field and not perturb it.
> > So as long as there is no volts, you could touch it, you could
> > feel it, it's hundreds of thousands of amps, but no tickle, no
> > tingle, because there's no volts. So as long as you're in resonance
> > with it you can approach it, you could touch it, you could hold it,
> > you could feel it, nothing. But if you're not in resonance with it,
> > you enter the field, you perturb the resonance, and it's a flux
> > collapse, and now you've got voltage, and it'll kill you.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> --
> Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187