Ok, lets take a step back here. In the context of which you have provided, yes, there seems to be 3 poles. Seeing that I do not have that object in my hand, I cannot confirm nor deny that there are 3 poles.
Yeah, it's just a section of an allen wrench, I used it because tool steel can hold a magnetic bias better than mild steel. I could mail it to you so you could test it, but I think you're coming around to the fact that it's entirely possible that what you saw in the video is what you'd see with it in your hands.
However, lets consider this. I am going to take a stab at what you have done (a little slight of hand and ambiguity).
What? Slight of hand? that's not very nice. Do you know what slight of hand is? It's intentionally tricking somebody into thinking they saw something that they did not see.
There was no slight of hand. It was a single take un-edited video of exactly what you would have seen if you'd been doing the experiment yourself.
What you have actually done is taken an object that is not normally magnetized.
Doh, that is how they make magnets. They take things that aren't normally magnetized and mix them, treat them, and magnetize them. In fact they have used strips of tool steel for the magnet in compasses for years, even though it's "not normally magnetized."
You have then taken two permanent magnets and magnetized the object.
Doh! Of course that's what I've done. It's how every real engineering science student does it for a hundred years. How else would I have done it?
The experiment can be found on the internet by taking two permanent magnets and converting a bicycle spoke (I also saw a safety pin) into a "3 pole" magnet. So, you maybe somewhat right -
Somewhat right? either it's got 3 poles or it hasn't. So what - maybe two of them are half-poles, but they are unique separate poles. And maybe the center pole is made up of more magnetic domains combining forces, just like they combine forces on any pole. But it's all one piece of metal that was not treated any differently along its length as far as grain structure or alloying - it was simply magnetized with 3 poles. It would be absurd to try and claim that it's not 3 poles.
-but disingenuous, as well.
Now wait a second. For a pedicured engineer with the truth on your side, how come you have to constantly resort to an Ad hominem approach?
Nothing disingenuous in what I did. Can't we just stick to the facts here?
Considering that you declined to give the details of how you made said "magnet" -
Declined, you say? If you said I neglected to explain how I did it, at least your statement would be true, even if irrelevant.
But Declined? Declined implies that somebody asked me to explain and that I had declined to tell them.
The only reason I didn't explain how I did it was because it's obvious how I did it because it's how engineering students have been doing it for a hundred years.
I knew you knew how it was done, and google knew how it's done, and it's obvious and simple. If anyone had asked, I would have told them.
- or should I say material that has been given temporary magnetic properties.
Wait a second. Are you demoting my 3 pole magnet to temporary?
![Grin ;D](/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
But really, all magnets loose some strength when they come out of the manufacturing process. Depending on alloy and grain structure they can still remain very strong, but not all magnets are that kind and while they lose their magnetism over time, it doesn't mean they are temporary. They just aren't as strong for as long.
Tool steel has been used for weak magnets for ages. Sure, it eventually loses its magnetism. I still have a little magnet I got as a birthday gift when I was perhaps 5. It's really weak now. It was some commercially made magnet from the hardware store.
The point is, my tool steel magnet is a permanent magnet. That doesn't mean that any magnet will last forever, but it's not temporary like an electromagnet.
Let's face the facts. You've repeatedly told me that you *know* I'm wrong and that there was no such thing as a 3 poled magnet.
The original poster said basically that it was not possible for a flat earth to have a radial magnetic field, and you agreed with him.
I have now demonstrated that not only is it possible for the earth to have a radial magnetic field on top, but I've demonstrated a 3 poled magnet, and you've found corroborating evidence elsewhere to that effect.
Look, we both don't know everything, we were both wrong about some things, and we both learned a whole lot. And that's OK.
I admitted I had not heard of Gauss's law for magnetism. I admit that the 12 pole magnet has 12 opposite poles on the other side, and slicing it would produce something other than a 3 pole magnet. After you wrote, I pried it out of it's metal back-shell and put it on the iron filing plate and sure enough you were dead right about the 12 pole motor magnet.
It's time you admit that you were wrong on a number of points as well, and that I'm not being intentionally misleading nor am I as stupid as you've made me out to be. Only about half that stupid
![Grin ;D](/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
Edit: Looks like you edited to add another argument, so I'm editing to respond to it.
In fact, the more I think about it, I come to the same conclusion from the earlier experimental evidence you posted. The stacked ring magnets is the same as this. You have taken to permanent magnets, using (lets call it the north pole) of each and magnetized the ends of the random material. I cannot confirm this but it is my suspicion that there exists 2 south poles in the middle of the material, the same way your stacked ring magnet was oriented. The only reason it cannot repel the other pole away, is due to the material strength being larger than the magnetic flux density.
Exactly how do you define two south poles right next to eachother?
I mean I agree if the domains were like this >>>>>> gap <<<<< it would would be two poles.
But what if they are smashed right up towards eachother like >>>>>><<<<<< ?
How can you say it's two poles? Remember, the domains in a regular NS bar magnet are paralleled like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
and they all add up for a stronger force, right?
So why would not >>>>>><<<<<<< add up for a stronger single pole force?