Not too long ago I had a little discussion going here, about the nature
of a magnetic field.
While I am very open to any "proofs" pertaining to magnetic fields; I
have grave reservations, about whether there is ANYTHING flowing in the
static field of a permanent magnet. I would be more than grateful, if
you could provide the 'findings' behind that "proof", which you have
mentioned here.
If you can provide me that proof, it would certainly go a long way
toward making possible several inventions, that I have ideas for. I
could develop the devices,
that would be used in the testing methods, which would detect that flow
- Not to mention the applications I could come up with, for the flow
itself - 'IF' I knew WHAT that FLOW was made of; and, IF I knew how much
of 'whatever that is' could be used to accomplish anything, at a given
rate.
I still must assert (till proven wrong,), that the only reason electrons
in a conductor move one way or the other, in the presence of a magnetic
field; is because they are attracted or repelled, by their polar
differences, or sameness.
What else is there ????? And, your "proof" would be.......?????
SWB
______________________________________________________________________________
CER56@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/18/99 10:46:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> DMBoss1021@aol.com writes:
>
> << I have spent all morning analyzing them with Quickfield, a finite element
> analysis program, and there is something very odd about the resulting fields
> - these arrays may actually serve as "proof" that a magnetic field is really
> a flow of some "medium", with a difference in properties between the
> "inflow" and "outflow" poles!
>
> So far, I can see no other explanation for why they concentrate the flux on
> only one side of the array, except for a fluid dynamics explanation.
> >>
> Hi Everybody!
>
> Yikes, shades of Edward Leedskalnin's story that north and south pole magnets
> flow in opposing currents as an explanation for electricity. This explanation > was in Leedskalnin's booklet "Magnetic Current".
>
> I know, maybe not quite the same but seems an interesting correlation none
> the less.
>
> I personally am beginning to think that some very special form of light may
> be the basis for magnetic fields.
>
> Cer56
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------