The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Grex on February 05, 2019, 02:09:09 AM

Title: Magnetic Field
Post by: Grex on February 05, 2019, 02:09:09 AM
We all know that the Earth is magnetized and has a north and a south pole. (Haven't found anyone trying to debunk it here)
In the Flat Earth Society Wiki I came across a statement:

"How is there a magnetic field? Magnets can't be unipolar
While it's true that unipolar magnets can't exist, this isn't a problem for the Flat Earth. This is because ring magnets, which are shaped like (you guessed it!) a flat disk, are capable of having radial magnetization. In a radial magnet, one magnetic pole is at the center and other other is at all points on the edge of the magnet. A magnet like this can be found in loudspeakers, and perfectly replicates what is found on the Earth."

This statement goes against the most basic laws of physics which anyone can easily replicate at home.
1) "This is because ring magnets, which are shaped like (you guessed it!) a flat disk" -ring magnets are not shaped like flat disks, they are shaped like RINGS (with a hole in the middle)
2) "are capable of having radial magnetization" - indeed, ring magnets are capable of having a radial magnetization, but there's a big thing missing from a flat disk-shaped earth, a hole in the middle. I have yet to find a map or anyone in real life who has proven the existence of a huge hole at the north pole.
3) "In a radial magnet, one magnetic pole is at the center and other other is at all points on the edge of the magnet." - with this statement the author is going against their own title "How is there a magnetic field? Magnets can't be unipolar" (which not so surprisingly happens to be the only scientifically correct sentence)
4) "A magnet like this can be found in loudspeakers, and perfectly replicates what is found on the Earth." - the magnets in the speakers have no holes and have a "+" and a "-" side which are perfectly and conveniently placed on the exact opposite sides of the magnet.

In conclusion with the physics familiar to mankind there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist.

If you want to prove me wrong, please conduct a scientific experiment taken place in a controlled environment (e.g. a lab), just like the classical 2 sided magnet has been proved to exist and function.

Thank you!

(also you should check the wiki for grammar mistakes)
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: maq on February 06, 2019, 12:24:11 AM
i don't know if this helps in any way but i just seen this last week and now i find this post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2548880/Scientists-create-ONE-poled-magnet-unlock-secrets-surrounding-birth-universe.html
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: Grex on February 06, 2019, 12:55:25 AM
This discovery seems really exciting indeed! For a science fan like me, it's really interesting!

The only thing making me skeptical is that the articles are from 2014, and it's 2019 now. Why haven't we heard anything else about that? Discovery of a one pole magnet would be world-changing and as mentioned in the video "comparable to the discovery of the electron"!

Very interesting indeed! But sadly I don't see any actual proof of that implying to the concept of the flat earth.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: manicminer on February 06, 2019, 05:34:55 PM
It would be very interesting to hear about a unipolar magnetic field being discovered 5 years ago.  It would also mean this Wikipedia page would have to be updated accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 03:39:09 AM
We all know that the Earth is magnetized and has a north and a south pole. (Haven't found anyone trying to debunk it here)
In the Flat Earth Society Wiki I came across a statement:

... snip ...

In conclusion with the physics familiar to mankind there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist.

If you want to prove me wrong, please conduct a scientific experiment taken place in a controlled environment (e.g. a lab), just like the classical 2 sided magnet has been proved to exist and function.

Thank you!

(also you should check the wiki for grammar mistakes)

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but if I understand correctly, you've never seen a speaker magnet.
They seriously have a north pole in the center and a south pole around the out side. Or it could be south on the inside and north around the outside.

While speaker magnets are made from a normal two-pole sandwich oriented ring magnet, they have soft iron field forming pieces that form it into a magnet with one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside.

I think the problem you're having is that you don't realize that magnets are made up of zillions of tiny "magnetic domains" i.e. many tiny tiny micro magnets. Normally, these are all pointed every which way and cancel out each other.

But when a piece of metal is magnetized, these "magnetic domains" are lined up by a stronger magnetic field, and then they add together to form a magnetic field.

In fact, some magnets aren't even metal! They are small metal oxide magnetic dust particles mixed with either ceramic (AKA Ceramic magnet) or rubber (Flexible magnets) in which case it must be obvious that the small magnetic particles could be oriented in whatever direction to form whatever overall pole pattern you liked.

All permanent non-superconducting magnets are made up of numerous small magnetic domains *just like* if you were to get a lot of tiny magnets and arrange them to form one big magnet.

Thus is is not only possible but common for a magnet to have a single pole in the center and the opposite pole around the out side.

I hope that helps!
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 11:16:16 AM
While you are correct about the orientation of the magnetic poles of a speaker magnet, it is still literally a ring magnet. It has hole in the middle. All of them do. A ring magnet must have a hole. The earth does not have a hole in its middle that I know of. Unless perhaps its guarded by security guards hired by the UN.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 11, 2019, 11:33:15 AM
While you are correct about the orientation of the magnetic poles of a speaker magnet, it is still literally a ring magnet. It has hole in the middle. All of them do. A ring magnet must have a hole. The earth does not have a hole in its middle that I know of. Unless perhaps its guarded by security guards hired by the UN.
Surely a ring magnet doesn't have to have a hole in the middle? If the middle was filled with some material which was, say, not metallic then it wouldn't stop the ring magnet from being a ring magnet, would it?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 02:22:13 PM
AATW, good point. But are you saying the earth has a large plastic plug in the middle? Is it threaded nylon?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 11, 2019, 02:48:51 PM
No I'm not, but it doesn't have to be plastic, does it?
I'm not sure what materials would be acceptable.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 03:57:50 PM
While you are correct about the orientation of the magnetic poles of a speaker magnet, it is still literally a ring magnet. It has hole in the middle. All of them do. A ring magnet must have a hole. The earth does not have a hole in its middle that I know of. Unless perhaps its guarded by security guards hired by the UN.

The hole in the center of a ring magnet is irrelevant. The magnet could be made as one piece homogeneous magnet in the shape of a disk with one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside evenly distributed.
The little micro magnetic domains don't care what the ultimate shape of the magnet is.

In fact all kinds of patterns are put into rubber magnets - they use them in computer cooling fans, for shaft position encoders, and all sorts of stuff.

I have attached a picture of a speaker magnet for you. The thin gap where the speaker coil used to go in has been filled with epoxy, but otherwise for all practical purposes it's a flat surface with one pole in the center and the other pole evenly distributed around the outside.

While it is made from iron and a magnet, it could just as well have been made out of solid magnet - it's just that this was cheaper.

If I were to stick this onto a piece of tool steel, and take it off, the tool steel would remain faintly magnetized in the same pattern, and it would be a homogeneous single piece solid magnet with one pole in the center and the other pole evenly distributed around the outside.

Seriously, do a little research, please. This part of flat earth isn't an impossibility.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 11, 2019, 04:39:28 PM
Just of of curiosity, how would any of that explain the movements of the north and south geomagnetic (dip) poles that have been observed for the last hundred years or so?
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 05:13:26 PM
Tomfoolery, you are completely wrong. No disc or ring magnet can be radially magnetized.

So says companies that manufacture magnets for a living.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

And before you post a link to a Chinese website toting a radially magnetized magnet - its bullocks. Its an approximation using sintered arc segments. Already read it and researched it.

Also, here:

https://www.armsmag.com/news-samarium-cobalt-magnets-magnetization-orientation.html

See bottom of page.

And, also take note - none of these approximated radial magnets are discs. They are rings.

Research, whaaa???
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 06:55:10 PM
Tomfoolery, you are completely wrong. No disc or ring magnet can be radially magnetized.

So says companies that manufacture magnets for a living.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

And before you post a link to a Chinese website toting a radially magnetized magnet - its bullocks. Its an approximation using sintered arc segments. Already read it and researched it.

Also, here:

https://www.armsmag.com/news-samarium-cobalt-magnets-magnetization-orientation.html

See bottom of page.

And, also take note - none of these approximated radial magnets are discs. They are rings.

Research, whaaa???

First of all, you have some faulty logic going on there. You are citing available products from the manufacturers of powerful magnets.
It just so happens that making a center poled magnet super powerful is not practical because the machine that makes magnets has to an equal or greater magnetic field to form the magnets, and those machines have parallel charging magnets.

The fact that commercial strong magnet manufacturers don't make a center poled magnet simply is not proof that they cannot exist.

It just so happens that a weak center poled magnet is not particularly useful in industry and so nobody bothers making them.

But check this out, there is something very close to it in modern hard drives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular_recording
While they only show the non-center part of the charging coil on one side, it is clear that it is a weaker magnetic field over a larger area because it covers other bits and yet it doesn't erase them. Only the center pole point has enough strength to write data bits.

And you saw the picture of my speaker magnet. It is a true center pole magnet as a unit, right? What if instead of being a ceramic magnet with steel pole pieces it was all made out of ceramic, or all made out of steel, why would it cease to be a center pole magnet?

But even if you were to prove that a center pole magnet could not all be made out of the same material, you can see it can be made from a combination of iron oxide and iron.
There's lots of iron in the earth. Who's to say it doesn't form a center pole magnet just like the iron in my speaker magnet does?

However I love a good challenge, and I'll keep my eyes out for a free scrap of disk shaped tool steel that I can try to magnetize as a center-poled magnet.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 07:11:15 PM
You obviously did not pay attention to what is in the links I sent.  The key phrase is radially magnetized.  The magnetic field lines do not and will not converge to a point, or in other words spread out radially from a single point. They practically say it cannot be done. Even providing a graphic showing the misconception of a radial magnetization in a flat ring.

Your hard drive example is faulty logic right in your own statement of "something very close to it." In other words, its not it.

Throw some iron filings around your speaker magnet and find out what the magnetic field looks like.  Its a ring magnet that has the north pole on the top layer and the south pole on the bottom layer. The north or south pole is not radially sorted on the inner diameter of the ring.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 07:46:51 PM
You obviously did not pay attention to what is in the links I sent.  The key phrase is radially magnetized.  The magnetic field lines do not and will not converge to a point, or in other words spread out radially from a single point. They practically say it cannot be done. Even providing a graphic showing the misconception of a radial magnetization in a flat ring.

Your hard drive example is faulty logic right in your own statement of "something very close to it." In other words, its not it.

Throw some iron filings around your speaker magnet and find out what the magnetic field looks like.  Its a ring magnet that has the north pole on the top layer and the south pole on the bottom layer. The north or south pole is not radially sorted on the inner diameter of the ring.

I certainly did pay attention to what you sent - they didn't say it couldn't be done, they said that the curved magnets they sell are actually magnetized along a straight line, and that if you use them to make a circle you don't get a perfectly circular magnetic field.

However, just because they don't sell a product doesn't mean it can't be done.

As to iron filings, your wish is my command, oh great one!
I found ample iron filings on the floor under the benchtop grinder and I slurped up some filings with my speaker magnet. Now who's gonna help me clean it up, lol?

So I attached two photos. One shows how iron filings stand up on end on the ends of a regular N-S bar magnet.
Then I attached one showing me speaker magnet with iron filings, and you can clearly see that the  iron filings are standing up in the middle because there's a pole there, and standing up around the edge because the other pole is there.

Now  it's not a perfect example of the earth because a speaker magnet has a very narrow N-S gap around the center core where the speaker coil inserts. That's why there's nothing stuck to some of the face of the magnet. The iron filings stuck very strong to the N-S gap but it doesn't show in the picture.

I could create a much more earth like model with a larger ring magnet I have but I gotta go run some errands in a bit so you'll have to wait on that one.

But it really is possible to have a magnet with a pole in the center and the other pole around the edge.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
You are still wrong.  Your ring magnet still operates the way I said it does.  The cylinder in the center still has a north and south magnetic pole.  The ring magnet has a top layer that is one pole, and the bottom layer is the opposite pole. It is not possible to have a single pole magnet spreading out radially from a center.  This is evidenced by the fact that the iron filings on the outside of the ring are curved outward and down towards the other side of the ring magnet. See attached photo of a diagram I just drew.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 08:14:26 PM
You are still wrong.  Your ring magnet still operates the way I said it does.  The cylinder in the center still has a north and south magnetic pole.  The ring magnet has a top layer that is one pole, and the bottom layer is the opposite pole. It is not possible to have a single pole magnet spreading out radially from a center.  This is evidenced by the fact that the iron filings on the outside of the ring are curved outward and down towards the other side of the ring magnet. See attached photo of a diagram I just drew.

Excellent, you just saved me having to take another picture.

Per your drawing, what if the air gap was zero? Then look at the face! You could have a north pole in the center, and the south pole all around the outside!

So what if there's an inverted pattern on the other side, we're not on the other side so it doesn't matter what's on the other side.

What matters is that it's entirely possible to have an earth with a magnetic north pole in the center and a south pole around the outside edge!

You've just beautifully demonstrated it for us!

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 11, 2019, 08:18:50 PM
My whole intention was to address what is in the WIKI.  Which the OP graciously stated for us that the earth's magnetic field is radially oriented.  What I have drawn is not radial. What you have is not radial.  It is axial. This has been my point the whole time. Therefore, the Wiki is incorrect. You cannot have a radially oriented magnet.

Yes, we can have what you describe, if you conveniently ignore the fact that the underside of the magnet has to exist, as well - which is what the Wiki would suggest with a radially oriented magnet.

I apologize if my intention in my response was not clear.  Of course, I thought the intention of any response to a topic is to the topic itself.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 11, 2019, 09:03:16 PM
You are still wrong.  Your ring magnet still operates the way I said it does.  The cylinder in the center still has a north and south magnetic pole.  The ring magnet has a top layer that is one pole, and the bottom layer is the opposite pole. It is not possible to have a single pole magnet spreading out radially from a center.  This is evidenced by the fact that the iron filings on the outside of the ring are curved outward and down towards the other side of the ring magnet. See attached photo of a diagram I just drew.

Excellent, you just saved me having to take another picture.

Per your drawing, what if the air gap was zero? Then look at the face! You could have a north pole in the center, and the south pole all around the outside!
You would still have 2 magnets.  However, what you would not have is a south geomagnetic pole that wanders about around and off the shore of Antarctica like what is observed in the real world.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 01:02:22 AM
You cannot have a radially oriented magnet.

Surely you must realize that just because you don't have a radially oriented magnet it certainly doesn't mean you cannot have one.
Really! Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you can't have one!

And if you stopped to think about how magnets are made up of lots of tiny micro magnets called magnetic domains, you could realize that since any individual micro magnet domain can be in any angle, you could form any kind of magnet you like. I got a magnet with like 6 north poles and 6 south poles! But never mind that.

And I'm going back to a resource you provided earlier. See this image here: https://www.armsmag.com/images/Ring-Radial-Magnetization.png

They explain that if you use their magnets to form a ring, you do not get an even distribution because each magnet of theirs is not radially magnetized.

However, it is sort of radially magnetized.

Now put your thinking cap on and consider what would happen if you used a million thin pie slice magnets instead of 6 segments?
You *would* get a radially poled magnet! And here's the clincher: Magnets *are* made up of millions of tiny micro magnets! If you don't believe me go do a little research.
But it's entirely possible to arrange billions of tiny micro magnets

Furthermore, center-poled electromagnets are also common in industry, so who's to say the earth magnetic field isn't something electrical? If there are electrons circulating in the hot conductive lava deep down, that too would create a center-poled magnetic field.

I really don't think we can conclusively state that radially oriented magnets cannot exist. That's kind of like proving the non-existence of something.

I think a bigger problem would be that for a radially oriented  magnet, the magnetic force at the center would be much stronger per square meter than it would be around the edge.
The magnetic field strength on earth is supposed to range from 25 to 65 microteslas, so maybe it's 65 on the north pole and 25 around the edge?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 01:14:04 AM
You would still have 2 magnets.
However, what you would not have is a south geomagnetic pole that wanders about around and off the shore of Antarctica like what is observed in the real world.

No, you would not still have 2 magnets. Remember, magnets are made up of millions of micro magnets. There's no such thing as two magnets, really. You might have two groups of magnets, but who cares? You might have a million groups of magnets each made up of a million micro magnets/magnetic domains, but they all work together to form whatever you end up with as a final pole pattern/orientation. The magnetic domains or micro magnets don't care whether their group was molded at the same time as another nearby group or not. Their position and orientation is all that matters, and that is what defines the orientation of a magnet.

As to the poles moving, naturally we don't have to worry about the south pole since it's a ring. As to the north pole wandering, obviously the magnetic north pole is the spot that just happens to have the strongest magnetic field, and obviously whatever's down there causing the magnetic field shifts around with time.
Ok we can worry about the "south" "pole" if you want - obviously the magnetic "south pole" is just a hot spot  that is also drifting around.

As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me to find out there were multiple hot at both magnetic poles, both the ring pole and the center pole.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 12, 2019, 03:45:43 AM
You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think it means.

I'm not disputing your claim that the earths magnetic field could be produced by an electrical charge. We already know the earth holds an electrical charge from Nikola Tesla.

Anyways, you show me a radially oriented ring magnet. They do not exist in nature and no one makes a true radially oriented ring magnet. You said it yourself! "However, it is sort of radially magnetized."

We can imagine lots of things, but it doesn't make them true or possible. The field lines of a magnet always end up parallel. They do not converge to a point. No matter how finely you slice the magnet and rearrange it. They will not converge to a point and make it a true radially oriented magnet. You can pontificate on your great imaginations all you want. It doesnt change that fact.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 08:41:51 AM
You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think it means.

I'm not disputing your claim that the earths magnetic field could be produced by an electrical charge. We already know the earth holds an electrical charge from Nikola Tesla.

Anyways, you show me a radially oriented ring magnet. They do not exist in nature and no one makes a true radially oriented ring magnet. You said it yourself! "However, it is sort of radially magnetized."

We can imagine lots of things, but it doesn't make them true or possible. The field lines of a magnet always end up parallel. They do not converge to a point. No matter how finely you slice the magnet and rearrange it. They will not converge to a point and make it a true radially oriented magnet. You can pontificate on your great imaginations all you want. It doesnt change that fact.

I know that you asked for a radially oriented ring magnet, but then I figured you'd just say "Ha! The earth doesn't have a hole in the center!" so I went one better and I now present to you a radially oriented *disk magnet.* See attached photos. I even got north in the center and south around the outside edge. And I even taped on the best map we have, with a grossly stretched Australia. Poor mateys down there got some long drives if they go east or west!

By center-poled magnet I simply mean one with a north pole in the center and the south pole distributed more or less evenly around the outside edge of the disk.

I am totally mystified by your inability to grasp two simple concepts -- one being that lack of evidence "for" is not  inherently evidence "against": Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it is impossible for it to exist!  -- and the other thing that mystifies me is your inability to understand that magnets are made up of millions of tiny micro magnets called magnetic domains, and these domains can be arranged in whatever order you want, and so any sort of magnetic pole orientation is valid as long as there's a north and a south. I'm really not making it up. If you can build a 6-segment radially oriented ring magnet, why not a 60 segment, or a 600 segment, or a 6 million segment radially oriented ring magnet? The little magnetic domains don't care how many segments there are. If you were using 6 segments, the magnetic field would be significantly un-round. But if you used 6 million of them, it'd be pert near good and round!

But anyway, I have herein shown you a 4" diameter radially oriented permanent magnet with a north pole in the center and a south pole around the outside edge.
The little red & blue rod is a little magnet that I use as a compass to show that anywhere on the face of the flat magnetic earth, the compass always points between north and south, thus confirming the radial pattern.

And the iron filings also confirm a surprisingly even radial orientation - you can see how they stand up in the center and at the outer edge - and arc over in between clearly showing that it's got one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside edge.

I really don't think we have grounds to say, as OP did, that "there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist."

Well my friend, now they exist. In the video I demonstrate that the compass works  correctly all over the face of the flat earth inside the ice wall. I do have some reversal anomalies right at the ice wall because I didn't get the geometry exactly correct because I just threw it together from stuff I had lying around -- but it clearly illustrates the principle that the earth very well could have a north magnetic pole in the center and a south magnetic pole around the outside, and our magnetic compasses would all still work fine.

Bedtime here, catch you when the sun comes back over my way.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 12, 2019, 10:45:51 AM
What you've shown me again is an axial orientation. Do you see the iron fillings standing straight up at two points? Those are the two axes. That is not radial. The filings need to stick to the side of the magnet. You are being deliberately false with your photo. All you have done is taken an axial disc magnet from a speaker and glued a metal plate on top. Wow.

It essentially boils down to Gauss's law.  You cannot have a true radially magnetized orientation, because that would mean there is multiple south poles and one north pole (the point of convergence). That violates Gauss's law that basically states that each magnetic field line must have an equal (entering and exiting).

See attached drawing of a "radially" oriented magnet. It is not truly radial, due to the fact that you have to obey Gauss's law and there cannot be a singular north pole, and therefore there cannot be a solid disc.  There must be a hole - or something in the hole that is not magnetized. I should have drawn the field lines on the top view, but I forgot. They will still be in a segment or arc form with parallel field lines - even if you chop it up into little pieces and call it guacamoooooleeey.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2019, 02:42:10 PM
You would still have 2 magnets.
However, what you would not have is a south geomagnetic pole that wanders about around and off the shore of Antarctica like what is observed in the real world.

No, you would not still have 2 magnets. Remember, magnets are made up of millions of micro magnets. There's no such thing as two magnets, really. You might have two groups of magnets, but who cares? You might have a million groups of magnets each made up of a million micro magnets/magnetic domains, but they all work together to form whatever you end up with as a final pole pattern/orientation. The magnetic domains or micro magnets don't care whether their group was molded at the same time as another nearby group or not. Their position and orientation is all that matters, and that is what defines the orientation of a magnet.
Right.  Whether or not an object is a magnet or not depends greatly on the orientation of those magnetic domains.  If the domains are aligned, then you have a magnet.  If the domains are randomly oriented, then you don't have a magnet, regardless of how many "micro magnets" are in the material.

As to the poles moving, naturally we don't have to worry about the south pole since it's a ring.
Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

As to the north pole wandering, obviously the magnetic north pole is the spot that just happens to have the strongest magnetic field, and obviously whatever's down there causing the magnetic field shifts around with time.
No.  The geomagnetic magnetic north pole is where the magnetic field lines are vertical.

Ok we can worry about the "south" "pole" if you want - obviously the magnetic "south pole" is just a hot spot  that is also drifting around.
Yes, you do need to worry about the "south pole" because it's a widely used navigational marker in the southern hemiplane.

As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me to find out there were multiple hot at both magnetic poles, both the ring pole and the center pole.
Huh?  Not quite sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 04:43:29 PM
Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

I do remember reading about dip meters, and in fact my little model magnetic flat earth shows the same thing, except it shows a single dip pole in the center and a ring dip around the outside, although if my ring magnet was a lot larger and weaker it could have a "hot spot" at one point along the outer ring. And in fact, the earth may have multiple unknown magnetic hot spots around the ice ring -- it's hard to explore out there.. I have in my office a 6 poled magnet out of a brushless DC motor from an old floppy drive. It's a single piece ceramic magnet with 6 north and 6 south poled. Maybe you call that a 12 pole magnet?

And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.

But thank you for writing and I'll definitely think about what you've said.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: ChrisTP on February 12, 2019, 04:54:08 PM
And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.
That's not the case and you can just go there, it's not like you need a passport but there's no accommodation and guidelines to follow if you go on an expedition but if you were really not scared to die from the harsh conditions, you could just go to the south pole yourself. No one would stop you probably, it's just not wise. Without supply drops along the way you'd need to carry a huge amount of supplies for yourself, even the most well trained soldiers that have tried do to so found it basically impossible.

But yea if you were really dead set on going, no one will stop you.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 05:29:12 PM
What you've shown me again is an axial orientation.
Incorrect. I can see that it's been a while since you played with a magnet and some iron filings. *please* go try it.
Quote
Do you see the iron fillings standing straight up at two points?
I sure do. When they are standing straight up, that is the pole, because opposites attract and like repels. Where they are standing straight up is right on the pole, and it follows the lines of magnetic force, and the lines of magnetic force do exactly the same thing on the magnetic poles of the earth. They are vertical at the magnetic poles.
Quote
Those are the two axes. That is not radial.
No, those are not the axes. Those are the poles. It is radially magnetized, just like your diagram, except there's no hole in the middle.
Please watch the video again and you will see where I remove the flat earth magnet and bring in a regular N-S bar magnet, and you can see that the iron filings stand up over the poles, and lay down between the poles.
If you don't believe me, go get a magnet and some iron filings and try it for yourself, you will see that the filings stand up over the poles and lay flat between the poles.
Quote
The filings need to stick to the side of the magnet. You are being deliberately false with your photo.
Huh? The filings stick all over. The only question is are the lines of force vertical or horizontal.
And please don't say I'm being deliberately false with my photo. It's one thing to say I don't know anything about physics, but to accuse me of being deliberately false just isn't nice, you know what  mean?
Quote
All you have done is taken an axial disc magnet from a speaker and glued a metal plate on top. Wow.
Actually, it's not a speaker magnet. And just putting on a metal plate would not have created that center north pole.
Quote
It essentially boils down to Gauss's law.
You didn't even look up Gauss's law before posting that. Please look it up. Gauss's law relates to *electric* fields, not magnetic forces! Dude! Don't be lazy. Well I mean you can be if you want but it makes my job easier  ;D
Quote
You cannot have a true radially magnetized orientation, because that would mean there is multiple south poles and one north pole (the point of convergence).
You seem to forget that each magnet is made up of millions of micro magnets (called magnetic domains) and that each of them has a south and a north pole.
But let me simplify it for you: Let's say you had two bar magnets [N====S] and [N====S] ok? Take them, and super glue together their two north poles. They aren't going to like it but you can force them, right? Now what have you got? You got a magnet with two south poles and one north pole!
That just proved that you are wrong, and that it *is* possible to have a magnet with one north pole and multiple south poles.

You are also not understanding that there is no sharp dividing line between N and S on a magnet: It's made up of million little micro magnets all lined up end to end, and each one has a very weak magnetic force but they all add up. So the magnetic field is produced linearly along the length of the magnet, essentially.

I do not understand how you cannot grasp the fact that magnets are already made up of millions of tiny magnets, and that you can arrange them in any way you like to have any number of south and any number of north poles, as long as there's at least one of each.
Quote
That violates Gauss's law that basically states that each magnetic field line must have an equal (entering and exiting).
Please provide a link. I googled it and only found references to electric fields, and electric fields are not magnetic fields. That's why walking across the carpet zaps you but it doesn't cause paperclips to stick to your fingertips, while a magnet does pick up paperclips but it doesn't zap you.

Now if you're saying the magnetic field is weaker around the outside, I don't have a problem with that. The N forces have to add up to the S forces, and if spread over a larger area, will be weaker. I'm not arguing that. But no reason a magnet can't have a pole in the center and the other around the outside.
Quote
See attached drawing of a "radially" oriented magnet. It is not truly radial, due to the fact that you have to obey Gauss's law and there cannot be a singular north pole, and therefore there cannot be a solid disc.  There must be a hole - or something in the hole that is not magnetized. I should have drawn the field lines on the top view, but I forgot. They will still be in a segment or arc form with parallel field lines - even if you chop it up into little pieces and call it guacamoooooleeey.

You are wrong. There does not have to be a hole for there to be a pole in the center.
I really don't know why I'm arguing magnetics with someone who hasn't played with a magnet and iron dust in years,  but please please please get a magnet and some iron dust and try it out!

You will see that the iron dust stands up on the poles, and lays down between them.
The lines of magnetic force on my flat earth magnet are very similar to how they are/would be on a flat earth, and it shows that the compass would still work on a flat earth.
And it shows that a radial magnetic field is entirely possible.

Look, can you please get a magnet and some iron filings? You can get them off ebay, or just go into a machine shop with a magnet and say "Hey can I get some iron filings off the floor under the grinder?

And if you don't want to do real science yourself, then watch my video or others videos again and you will see that the iron filings clearly stand straight up right on the poles.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2019, 06:00:08 PM
Except that it isn't a ring.  There is a spot on the earth that is currently off the shore of Antarctica where the magnetic field lines are vertical.  This is known as the geomagnetic (or dip) south pole.  The movement of those vertical magnetic field lines has been observed for over a hundred years.

I do remember reading about dip meters, and in fact my little model magnetic flat earth shows the same thing, except it shows a single dip pole in the center and a ring dip around the outside, although if my ring magnet was a lot larger and weaker it could have a "hot spot" at one point along the outer ring. And in fact, the earth may have multiple unknown magnetic hot spots around the ice ring -- it's hard to explore out there.. I have in my office a 6 poled magnet out of a brushless DC motor from an old floppy drive. It's a single piece ceramic magnet with 6 north and 6 south poled. Maybe you call that a 12 pole magnet?
Except that all magnetic field lines point towards a single north magnetic pole and a single south magnetic pole.  Do you have any documentation of multiple south magnetic poles being observed?

And that's the other thing,. considering the ice wall is so heavily guarded by treaty and armed forces, and large banks of dry ice, it's really beyond the realm of certain knowledge for 99.999% of people to actually go observe the stated magnetic south pole.
Except that the magnetic south pole is currently off the shore of Antarctica in international waters with no guards to worry about.  Even so, there is a thriving Antarctic tourist industry that you may want to look into before worrying too much about how heavily guarded the Antarctic may or may not be.  My guess is that the most formidable Antarctic guard is the weather.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 12, 2019, 06:14:32 PM
Ok, maybe my phrasing is incorrect, but I am not a moron. Vertical field lines as you have shown are an axially oriented magnetic field.

I know how magnets work. I work with them every day. Ever heard of servo motor using the Hall effect to determine orientation and position of a motor?

See diagram below.

Also, Gauss's law for Magnetism is a thing. Look it up, buckaroo. Guess you are wrong. (Why would I not know about Gauss's law? I am a degreed mechanical engineer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Please, continue to tell me that I am wrong.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetization-direction

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 07:42:29 PM
Ok, maybe my phrasing is incorrect, but I am not a moron. Vertical field lines as you have shown are an axially oriented magnetic field.
I dare you to take a good strong bar magnet and lay it flat under the glass. And you will see that the iron filings stand up at the poles. Put a ring of these magnets in a circle, same thing will happen and you'll get the same pattern that I did.
Just because an axial magnet causes a ring of standing spikes doesn't mean that the side of a radial magnet can't do the same thing -- it just also stands up in the center.
Quote
I know how magnets work. I work with them every day.
I'm finding that hard to believe. But whatever. Actually, everybody who uses a cell phone, computer, drives a car or rides the bus "works with magnets every day." But that's different then actually grabbing a magnet, some clear plastic, and a pile of iron filings. When was the last time you did that?
Quote
Ever heard of servo motor using the Hall effect to determine orientation and position of a motor?
Certainly. One of my hobbies is designing and building small CNC machinery. I have motors that use a NS magnet and a hall as a low resolution position encoder, and I even have some that have a NSNSNSNSNSNS 500 count quad encoder on the back that uses a magnet with 500 north poles and 500 south poles. Yeah yeah I know they usually use optical encoders for that but I have in my possession several little Japanese Hitachi motors as I recall with 500 count magnetic incremental encoders in them.
Quote
See diagram below.

Thanks
Quote
Also, Gauss's law for Magnetism is a thing. Look it up, buckaroo. Guess you are wrong. (Why would I not know about Gauss's law? I am a degreed mechanical engineer).
Frankly, I'd never googled it before. But I googled it and it was all about electricity and with your apparent lack of connection with reality, I just assumed you didn't know.
And you gotta admit you weren't being super helpful because you didn't even say which of Gauss's laws you were referring to nor did you specify how it proved your point.
I know straw grabbing when I see it and I saw it.
And even the WP article that you just link to says right in it "The name "Gauss's law for magnetism"[1] is not universally used."
So you can't really say you were being forthright and helpful.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

Please, continue to tell me that I am wrong.
Actually, why don't you tell me how I'm wrong. I just showed you a video that clearly shows that a compass can work all over the flat earth.
Why don't you tell me how Gauss says what I've done is impossible.

Quote
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetization-direction

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magdir.asp

I'm well aware that super strong magnets have their domains pre-oriented a certain way for maximum strength.
They even say the following:

"Why must neodymium magnets have a preferred magnetization direction?
Neodymium magnets are made this way because we want them to be as strong as possible.  If we made magnets that were just as easy to magnetize in any direction, they wouldnâ€™t be nearly as strong"

They *could* make them without having a preferred magnetization direction, they just wouldn't be as strong!

The earth is not a neodymium magnet. And it's not made in K&J's factory.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 12, 2019, 08:08:07 PM
You are misinterpreting what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying what you have shown in your video is impossible. It obviously is.

What I am saying is that calling it radially oriented is not TRUE. NOT your experiment. You have an axially oriented magnet. The field lines emerge from the top surface of the magnet, not across the diameter of the magnet (aka diametrical alignment), nor does it come out the sides of the magnet and wrap around go to the center (aka radially).

I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth. I am just saying it is not radially oriented. What do you not understand here?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 08:21:32 PM
You are misinterpreting what I am trying to tell you. I am not saying what you have shown in your video is impossible. It obviously is.

What I am saying is that calling it radially oriented is not TRUE. NOT your experiment. You have an axially oriented magnet. The field lines emerge from the top surface of the magnet, not across the diameter of the magnet (aka diametrical alignment), nor does it come out the sides of the magnet and wrap around go to the center (aka radially).

I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth. I am just saying it is not radially oriented. What do you not understand here?

Wonderful, thank you!

So this begs the question, if a the magnetic fields above the surface of the earth (assuming a flat shape) appear to be radially oriented, then how can way say it's not?

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck unless you can prove to me it's not. Fair enough?

And remember the OP said "there is no way a flat disk can have a single north pole and then infinitely many south poles, all scattered around "the edge of the world". Magnets like this simply don't exist."

Would you agree with me that the OP is wrong in his statement there? You just said "I agree that what you have shown can occur on a flat earth."
And the OP says that "there is no way a disk can have a single north pole....."

Also, please specifically site which claim of Gauss indicates that you cannot have a radially oriented disk magnet. You've been throwing that reference around for a while now but not once giving the exact thing that Gauss is supposed to have said that supports your point.

Show some good faith! I made a working model, and a video, I went to some effort to demonstrate my point. And you've cited Gauss's name multiple times, but not once pointed out what he said that proves I'm wrong! And you don't even have to build anything or upload anything, just find a link and provide it here!
(And I don't mean "Here's 945 pages worth of links go read them(oldest trick in the book) but show me exactly what he said and how that proves me wrong.)
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 12, 2019, 08:57:29 PM
I will attempt to explain this again.  People have always told me I am horrible at explaining things.

Gauss's Law of Magnetism states in short that it is impossible to have a monopole, due to magnetic flux through a closed surface being zero. So having multiple south poles directed at one singular north pole violates that law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_magnetic.html

This can be demonstrated experimentally by the fact that when you cut a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets, both having a north and south pole. You do not end up with two monopole magnets. And, in addition, you cannot have X number of south poles directed at Y number of North poles if X does not equal Y. X must always equal Y, or you violate Gauss's Law of Magnetism.

I hope that explained it better.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 01:50:23 AM
<snip>
Gauss's Law of Magnetism states in short that it is impossible to have a monopole, due to magnetic flux through a closed surface being zero.
<snip>
Okay good so far.
I never ever claimed that the earth was a monopole. A monopole magnet is like a one ended stick. Or a battery with only one terminal. I get that. No contest.
But then you say....:
Quote
So having multiple south poles directed at one singular north pole violates that law.
Halt! Halt!  ;D Now you've taken a huge leap and drawn a conclusion that Gauss does not state!
A monopole magnet is one thing. A multipole magnet is an entirely different thing!
You can definitely have a 3 ended stick, or a battery with two negative plates and a positive plate, or, well you get the idea.
Surely an engineer of any type would understand this, especially since you know that the magnetic domains are many and are small.
If Gauss really states that you cannot have unmatched number of north and south poles then show me where he says it. But I'm quite sure he doesn't.
And if Gauss really states that you cannot have a south pole that's distributed over a larger surface area than the north pole, then show me where!
Sure, the pole with more surface area will be weaker per unit area because the two forces  have to be balanced, but that's a horse of a different color!

Quote
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_magnetic.html

This can be demonstrated experimentally by the fact that when you cut a magnet in half, you end up with two magnets, both having a north and south pole. You do not end up with two monopole magnets. And, in addition, you cannot have X number of south poles directed at Y number of North poles if X does not equal Y. X must always equal Y, or you violate Gauss's Law of Magnetism.

I hope that explained it better.

Thank you, at least I know what in the world was going through your mind. You really had my worried there!

You must remember that the magnetic field is actually produced by tiny magnetic domains. And each of them does balance out because each one has exactly one north and one south pole. But you can create all sorts of patterns in a magnetizable media by arranging those domains.

Gauss says you cannot have a south pole without a north pole. He didn't say that you couldn't have 3 south poles and one north pole, but only that the force from the 3 south poles must balance out for the one north pole.

I'm not at all trying to say that the 3 south poles are *each* of the same magnetic strength as the one north pole, no, that would violate Gauss's law of magnetism.
But if the 3 south poles add up to the same flux density as the one north pole, then Gauss is happy and I can rest my case.

The impossibility of a monopole magnet simply cannot be used to disprove a 3 pole magnet nor can it be used to disprove a radially oriented magnet.
Sure, if you have a 3 pole magnet, the center pole will be stronger than the two end poles. Gauss definitely states that. The forces have to equal out, but no reason they can't be divided up.

Did you really think a 3 pole magnet (SNS) or a radially oriented magnet was the same impossibility as a monopole magnet? Or were you just trying to see if a flat earther would catch you on it?  :D
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 02:08:04 AM

"The equation states that there is no net magnetic flux b (which can be thought of as the number of magnetic field lines through an area) that passes through an arbitrary closed surface S. This means the number of magnetic field lines that enter and exit through this closed surface S is the same. This is explained by the concept of a magnet that has a north and a south pole, where the strength of the north pole is equal to the strength of the south pole (Fig. 35). This is equivalent to saying that a magnetic monopole, meaning a solitary north or south pole, does not exist because for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic poles."
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 02:51:20 AM

"The equation states that there is no net magnetic flux b (which can be thought of as the number of magnetic field lines through an area) that passes through an arbitrary closed surface S. This means the number of magnetic field lines that enter and exit through this closed surface S is the same. This is explained by the concept of a magnet that has a north and a south pole, where the strength of the north pole is equal to the strength of the south pole (Fig. 35). This is equivalent to saying that a magnetic monopole, meaning a solitary north or south pole, does not exist because for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic poles."

That wasn't Gauss writing! It was... Who the Tarzan wrote that?! Right, so you're quoting an un-named author or the work of collaboration between unknown internet contributors.

That's a mule of a different color than Gauss stating it!

I think the unnamed author meant "for every positive magnetic pole, there must be an equal amount of negative magnetic pole" (I dropped off the s on the end.)

I agree that the N pole flux must add up to the S pole flux.
On the micro scale, the magnet is made up of micro magnets and if you count those north and south poles they are an equal number.

Please find where Gauss states what you say he states, or lets get in contact with that unknown author and question him about it.

You really gotta be careful trusting anonymous unsigned sources on the internet. At least if the author puts his name and a contact link for him, people can ask him to see if he made a mistake. But as it is, we don't know who wrote it, but it looks like if I had a github account I could fix that false statement they make there. Or maybe you have a github account and you put that false statement there?

Totally not a definitive source.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 04:30:51 AM
It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 04:42:14 AM
It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: stack on February 13, 2019, 05:58:53 AM
It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 06:41:01 AM
It's from the link I posted earlier. Come on. FFS. Good lord.

Which link that you posted? One that showed only what Gauss said, or the one where anonymous people had written their understanding of what Gauss said?

The point is you're claiming that Gauss's law does not allow a magnet with an uneven number of poles. As best as I can tell, all he claimed was that you cannot have a north pole without a south pole or a south pole without a north pole, in other words, you cannot have a monopole magnet.

Can you show me where Gauss himself said you cannot have an uneven number of poles or a radially oriented magnet?

I totally get it that you cannot have a monopole magnet.

But a monopole magnet is clearly not a multipole magnet.

It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.

I built one:

But if everyone things that's invalid because it's  multiple sintered peices, I may have to try making a single piece 3 pole magnet with my diamond blade on my 12-pole magnet.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: stack on February 13, 2019, 06:59:10 AM
I just woke up CFG.

A) He's madder than a hornet, though still a little drunk so not as angry as he would be had I waited till morning.
B) He's not sure what to make of your invention, he's scribbling wildly on parchment right now. Symbols and such. I think it's best to let him settle down some.
C) How do we apply your odd-poled magnet to perhaps the moebius strip that is earth?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2019, 02:35:58 PM
But if everyone things that's invalid because it's  multiple sintered peices, I may have to try making a single piece 3 pole magnet with my diamond blade on my 12-pole magnet.
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 05:18:13 PM
<snip>
It's my understanding and interpretation that Gauss' Law of Magnetism states or alludes to the fact that you can't have, essentially, an odd number of poles, 'free poles' as it were. Your understanding and interpretation may be different. (I would wake Gauss up and ask him, but he was on an epic bender last night, not to be disturbed.)

Gauss' Law aside, is there any evidence that odd multipole magnets exist? Maybe they do. I can't find anything.

If all the poles have equal force, then I agree that there definitely has to be an equal number of N and S poles.

However, knowing that the magnetic flux doesn't come out a pinpoint on the poles but is distributed over the surface of each pole, and knowing that a magnet is actually made up of millions of series and parallel magnetic domains, I do not see why you could not have a magnet with one pole that was larger (but less intense per unit area) or even a magnet with one north pole and two weaker south poles.

But I'm all for experimentation and truth so I intend to keep experimenting until I figure it out.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 05:22:08 PM
I just woke up CFG.

A) He's madder than a hornet, though still a little drunk so not as angry as he would be had I waited till morning.
B) He's not sure what to make of your invention, he's scribbling wildly on parchment right now. Symbols and such. I think it's best to let him settle down some.
C) How do we apply your odd-poled magnet to perhaps the moebius strip that is earth?

I'm not sure how to apply a radially or odd-poled magnet to a multidimensional mobius  earth. I gotta admit, the radially oriented magnet model does work more easily on a flat disk earth than it does on a 3D mobius earth.

I'm hoping to find some flat earther's here that are smarter than me so we can figure some stuff out. What do you think my chances are?

never went to high school, and have no GED, so I imagine I can learn a lot from smarter flat earthers.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 05:26:18 PM
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?

Well, maybe not completely moot.
There seems to be some who say that it's not possible to have a radially oriented magnet. They equate it to a magnet with multiple south poles, which they say is impossible.
What they seem to be ignoring is that all magnets are made up of zillions of tiny micro magnets, and in fact every magnet has billions and billions of north poles and south poles, but because they are usually all coherent, it appears as much larger poles spread over a larger area.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 07:10:07 PM
For those who may be interested, because some doubted the possibility of a true single piece homogeneous (Same material all the way through) I made a 3 poled magnet.
It has two south poles on the ends and one north pole in the middle.

By "north pole" I mean it matches the earth's north pole, so the North end of the compass points at it.

So if you thought a multipole magnet was not possible, well here is one. You can clearly see that the center pole is twice as strong as the two end poles, which Gauss's law for magnetism requires.

And it stands to reason, that if we can have two poles, we could have a radially oriented magnet as well.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 07:28:17 PM
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.

However, lets consider this.  I am going to take a stab at what you have done (a little slight of hand and ambiguity). What you have actually done is taken an object that is not normally magnetized. You have then taken two permanent magnets and magnetized the object.  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 - but disingenuous, as well. Considering that you declined to give the details of how you made said "magnet" - or should I say material that has been given temporary magnetic properties.

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.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 08:30:11 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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."
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
-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?
Quote
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.
Quote
- or should I say material that has been given temporary magnetic properties.
Wait a second. Are you demoting my 3 pole magnet to temporary?  ;D ;D
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  ;D

Edit: Looks like you edited to add another argument, so I'm editing to respond to it.
Quote
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?

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 08:57:51 PM
Please, do not get lost in the semantics of how I say things. I am not calling you stupid. You believe something that based on simple optical observations match what you believe.

You have already demonstrated how two south (or north poles) situated near each other can seem to show a larger magnetic flux density - with your ring magnet stack.

I cannot conclusively say that you have not made a true 3 pole magnet - nor can I conclusively say that you have! It would require equipment for analysis that I do not have access to.

That is why I said I have my suspicions that the tool steel is acting like your ring magnet stack - two south poles in extreme proximity to each other.

I concede that my interpretation of permanent and temporary magnets was in error. I was taking the word permanent at its face value - a magnet that already contains a magnetic field that does not have to be induced by some other method (be it magnet or current). My apologies.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Unless you can show that the earth has multiple south magnetic poles, isn't this whole discussion moot?

Well, maybe not completely moot.
There seems to be some who say that it's not possible to have a radially oriented magnet. They equate it to a magnet with multiple south poles, which they say is impossible.
I'm not going to say that a magnet with multiple south poles is impossible because I'm sure that someone like you would jump through more than a few hoops to make such a magnet.  I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

What they seem to be ignoring is that all magnets are made up of zillions of tiny micro magnets, and in fact every magnet has billions and billions of north poles and south poles, but because they are usually all coherent, it appears as much larger poles spread over a larger area.
Yes, what we commonly refer to as "magnets" are made up of many individual magnetic domains aligned in certain ways.  However, those "magnets" homogeneous materials and the "opposites poles attract and like poles repel" general rule means that those magnetic domains will naturally align themselves as efficiently as possible.  The concentration of north poles at the center and radial spreading of south poles at the edge are a very inefficient alignment and not at all likely to occur in nature.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 09:21:43 PM
Please, do not get lost in the semantics of how I say things. I am not calling you stupid. You believe something that based on simple optical observations match what you believe.

You have already demonstrated how two south (or north poles) situated near each other can seem to show a larger magnetic flux density - with your ring magnet stack.

I cannot conclusively say that you have not made a true 3 pole magnet - nor can I conclusively say that you have! It would require equipment for analysis that I do not have access to.

That is why I said I have my suspicions that the tool steel is acting like your ring magnet stack - two south poles in extreme proximity to each other.

I concede that my interpretation of permanent and temporary magnets was in error. I was taking the word permanent at its face value - a magnet that already contains a magnetic field that does not have to be induced by some other method (be it magnet or current). My apologies.

Ok cool, thanks. So seeing as how my belief is consistent with what I am able to observe, am I cleared of all charges of "intentionally misleading" then, at least for the time being?  ;D

I must admit to you that yesterday I ordered a pound of magnetite powder off of ebay. I think my intentions are obvious. But if I'm able to make a homogeneous disk magnet with a north pole in the center and a south pole around the outside, I would feel obligated to mention it here, but since the product has not arrived I cannot experiment yet.
I've never worked with magnetite powder before so I really don't know what to expect.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 09:31:30 PM
My responses or others are not meant to hinder you from exploring. By all means, do it and show us your results. I will not be mad if you prove us wrong. However, I think a simple look at something and making a conclusion based on simple observation is ignoring the fact that there are probably more underlying causes and mechanisms to what you are seeing. And that requires rigorous testing methods and equipment to specifically analyze what is happening.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 09:47:58 PM
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Even the ball earth theory on the source of the earth's magnetism is a lot of speculation.
I can see how you get a magnetic field if you have a DC electric current. Or I can see how you get an electric current if you have motion and a magnetic field.
But somehow they are getting the magnetic field from a rotating globe with no electricity input?
And it's supposed to have to do with the earth's rotation and Coriolis. And yet every few hundred years it reverses itself suddenly?
I bet everybody gets dizzy when it quickly changed surface speed by 2000mph at the equator!

But I'd say that of all the awfully unusual processes happening that must be accepted by a flat earther, a radially oriented magnetic field on the earth is the least of  them.

The things that mystify me much more are things like flight times, the map dilemma,  the sun, the moon, the horizon and level issue, and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 13, 2019, 09:56:25 PM
Now, I cannot say for certain this actually confirmed, but Nikola Tesla did many experiments to demonstrate that the earth has an electrical charge. Anywho...
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 10:38:10 PM
Now, I cannot say for certain this actually confirmed, but Nikola Tesla did many experiments to demonstrate that the earth has an electrical charge. Anywho...

I actually grew up enamored with Tesla. I have a book which contains every patent he ever filed. I grew up reading his biographies and autobiographies.

It seems the earth is pretty much a big electrical conductor. In fact, some power companies didn't want to have to run two wires to carry the high voltage, so they ground one lead from the output of their high voltage step up transformer, and just run the other lead along poles. The earth acts like an electrical conductor for the return current.

It is true that there is a vertical voltage gradient across the atmosphere. But it's more like a static charge, and doesn't really pass much current through the earth.
But I have built a measuring apparatus that measured the atmospheric voltage differential. I was going to use it as an artificial horizon by measuring voltage difference on wingtips of model airplane for stabilized flight. Never got around to finishing the project, but I tested it and the voltage is real.
But the available current is almost zero, so I had to use fet input op amps as zero-current input voltage followers to measure the voltage.
But I digress, this is definitely off topic.

Back to the magnetic field, folks. Is there enough evidence to say that it could be radially oriented above the surface of the earth?
The reason this is important is because the magnetic compass does always point generally north and south, and if we're going to entertain a flat earth, we need our compasses to work with our map.
Unless someone's got a better idea for the wiki entry -- an idea which conforms to observed reality (that compasses work centered around the north pole, or the center) and it also needs to conform to flat earth theory -- I think "radially magnetized" is a pretty good place to start.
If evidence comes up that it simply cannot be that, or that something else works and makes more sense, then great let's discuss it.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2019, 11:20:01 PM
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Which leads to the question of what sort of natural processes would be required to create the magnetic field lines that are observed on the earth?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 14, 2019, 12:26:52 AM
It took me a couple reads, but I think I agree with everything you said, except:
<snip>
I would, however, say that nature would most likely not go through the bother unless there are some awfully unusual processes happening.

Naturally, anyone supporting the flat earth theory has to get used to a lot of awfully unusual processes happening.
Which leads to the question of what sort of natural processes would be required to create the magnetic field lines that are observed on the earth?

First of all, we must remember that a present inability to show a possible mechanism is certainly not evidence that a mechanism doesn't exist.

Having said that, it's doubtful we will come up with a simple provable explanation for what causes the magnetic field on the flat earth.
Heh, even  the globers who have had a hundred years to try and figure it out aren't exactly sure. If you google it, you see that almost every article on the topic starts out with "It is believed that..."

Having yet again said that, maybe it has to do with the sun? Per flat earth theory, the sun moves in a circle around above the earth generally over the "equator."
Maybe the sun has some electric field which produces a magnetic field at right angles just like moving electrons do.
Can I prove it? Of course not. But the sun's in the right place doing the right thing to create that orientation of a magnetic field.
If you look at electromagnets, they often make electromagnets that have one pole in the center and the other pole around the outside, and the wire wound around inside. The electrons travel the exact same path as the sun does, and the magnetic orientation is the same as the magnetic field is on the flat earth.

But I don't know how that would all fit in with my 3D mobius model.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 16, 2019, 02:56:52 AM
My responses or others are not meant to hinder you from exploring. By all means, do it and show us your results. I will not be mad if you prove us wrong. However, I think a simple look at something and making a conclusion based on simple observation is ignoring the fact that there are probably more underlying causes and mechanisms to what you are seeing. And that requires rigorous testing methods and equipment to specifically analyze what is happening.

Well folks, my pound of hematite powder arrived today so I made a 4" diameter radially oriented solid homogeneous disk magnet by mixing melted candle wax  and hematite powder, forming a mold around the top of my existing flat earth magnet, and pouring it in..!

Naturally I got a pole reversal but no matter, it still illustrates that it's entirely possible for the earth to be flat and still have a radially oriented magnetic field on the surface, as the wiki says, which would allow compasses to still work. more or less.

You can see that the iron filings stand up on the pole in the center and on the pole around the edge.

Also found out what the back of the flat earth looks like! Instead of ice walls, it's got lava rock walls!

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: ChrisTP on February 16, 2019, 09:54:15 AM
That's actually pretty cool, well done. I guess that means earth's magnetic field could work on a flat earth. Of course, this doesn't disprove sphere earth either but it's something that works on both at least.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 16, 2019, 03:33:09 PM
That's actually pretty cool, well done. I guess that means earth's magnetic field could work on a flat earth. Of course, this doesn't disprove sphere earth either but it's something that works on both at least.

I think the coolest part was the "Ferro-fluid frozen in time" I got on the back!  ;D

I agree it doesn't disprove a sphere earth, but the this topic was specifically started on the basis that the wiki was wrong to say that the flat earth had a radially oriented magnetic field. The original poster said it was impossible for such a thing to exist.

Thank you all for your indulgence ;D
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 16, 2019, 06:33:56 PM
While I agree that it is quite cool that you made that, that is still not a radially oriented magnet. It just isn't. Its actually oriented. While you can say that the south poles are situated and possibly divided evenly around the outer circumference of the disc and the north pole is situated in the center, it is still not radiating from a center point, aka, a radius. The magnetic field lines are obviously balanced and satisfying Gauss's law of magnetism, but it is axially oriented, as I have provided time and again many diagrams showing what is meant by industry and scientific standards what the difference is between diametric, axial, and radial. I would draw another diagram, but a) you would ignore it as you have done all the other ones, and b) I am on a bathroom break from my kids so I have no real time at them moment to do so. I know TMI.

But that's beside the point. I am merely stating that it is incorrect terminology to say that it is radially oriented. Convergence on a single point is impossible as you and I both agree due to magnetic Fields lines having to sum equally. Your center pole shows multiple field lines, correct? Not a single field line? Correct. Those field lines are perpendicular to the disc surface. Therefore it is axial. No field lines are emitting from the narrow side of the disc. If there were that would be radial.

All you have done (which is still cool btw), is show the exact same field orientation as your earlier post of whatever kind of magnet you said it was.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 16, 2019, 09:08:07 PM
While I agree that it is quite cool that you made that,
Thanks!
Quote
that is still not a radially oriented magnet. It just isn't.
Well, so there's two questions at hand here. One is if the magnet is radially oriented, and the other is the field on the surface magnetically oriented *like the wiki states is the case on the flat earth.*

I think we both agree that the magnetic field on the surface of my model fits what is proposed on the wiki to be the magnetic field on the surface of the flat earth:
A compass anywhere within the bounds of the ice wall still points north/south.

And that is the main point to this whole discussion.

But we might as well speak on the technicality of whether the magnet is radially oriented further in since you brought it up.
Do you agree that if I sliced off a thin layer from the top of my magnet, or had formed it very thing, that the thin slice would be essentially radially oriented?

But even if it had a significant thickness, if you looked at the lines of force, you would probably see that it was still rather radial, but in a 3D space, sort of an union.
If you can imagine a flat radially oriented magnet, imagine a hemispheric magnet cut an onion cut in half with the north pole in the center and the south spread around the outside surface. That would still be radially oriented, just in 3D instead of 2D.
Quote
Its actually oriented. While you can say that the south poles are situated and possibly divided evenly around the outer circumference of the disc and the north pole is situated in the center, it is still not radiating from a center point, aka, a radius. The magnetic field lines are obviously balanced and satisfying Gauss's law of magnetism, but it is axially oriented,
I'm not ready to agree with you that the homogeneous model I made is axially oriented inside, below the surface. Maybe semi-radial, semi-transverse-toroidal?

I agree that the first model I made out of the ring magnet and the iron pole piece did contain an axially oriented ring magnet as a component, which had its overall field modified with a pole piece to produce a radial pattern on one side.

However the second one I made simply cannot be axial because it wasn't magnetized with axial fields. It was magnetized with a radial field.
There are numerous domains aligned radially. And that, my friend, is how it creates a radial field on its surface!
Quote
as I have provided time and again many diagrams showing what is meant by industry and scientific standards what the difference is between diametric, axial, and radial. I would draw another diagram, but a) you would ignore it as you have done all the other ones, and b) I am on a bathroom break from my kids so I have no real time at them moment to do so. I know TMI.
Well, if you like, I would be grateful if you did draw a diagram of what you think my magnet is like inside. Then when you're done, I can cut it in half (It's just wax!) and actually measure the internal magnetic pattern, and we can see if you're correct!

I don't mind cutting it in half at all, since I can take the pieces, remelt them, and re-mold a new one if I like, since it's just wax and hematite powder!
Quote
But that's beside the point. I am merely stating that it is incorrect terminology to say that it is radially oriented.
If there are a significant number of magnetic domains (i.e the micro-magnets) aligned radially, I frankly don't see why it's not the correct terminology to say it's radially oriented.
Quote
Convergence on a single point is impossible as you and I both agree due to magnetic Fields lines having to sum equally.
I'm not sure what you mean by "convergence on a single point." Could you elaborate?
I do realize (and previously stated) that the magnetic field does not funnel out through a single pinpoint on the poles -- not for a radial magnet nor for a regular axial or bar magnet -- but I don't see a problem with all the north pole field coming out through a non-zero-sized area in the center.
Quote
Your center pole shows multiple field lines, correct? Not a single field line? Correct.
Oh dear. umm, how do I say this. The reason I'm squirming here is it looks like you may believe that "magnetic lines of force" are actual discrete threads of magnetism twining through space.. but I can hardly bring myself to believe that a tenured engineer such as yourself  would even come close to thinking that.

But in reality, there are no actual discrete field lines. It is a smooth average field. Within that field there is a direction and a strength at any point, but there are not discrete threads of force...  It just happens that due to like poles repelling that iron filings happen to form strands of iron filings that just happen to line up with the direction of the fields orientation. But other than the concentration of the field caused by the iron filings themselves, there is no such thing as discrete field lines, and therefore invalid is the question of how many there are.
Quote
Those field lines are perpendicular to the disc surface. Therefore it is axial.
I beg to differ. The "lines of force" (and by that I mean the direction of the field!) definitely come perpendicular off the side face of a bar magnet, why couldn't they come perpendicular off the side face of a true radially oriented disk magnet?
Quote
No field lines are emitting from the narrow side of the disc. If there were that would be radial.
What do you mean? You mean off the outside edge which has a cylindrical surface shape?

I do realize that the diameter of my outer ring pole is somewhat smaller than the diameter of my bulk material, so technically I have sort of one radially oriented magnet with an inverted radially oriented magnet outside that. But if I remold it with a smaller mold, it would eliminate that outside ring deadzone area, leaving it as a single radial magnet.

I honestly don't understand how you can't come to grasp the fact that if the domains are radially arrayed, that it's a radially oriented magnet. I'll grant you that while it may be radially oriented on it's surface, that it may be toriodally oriented deeper in.

But it is still radially oriented, and it still shows that the flat earth could have what we as observes on top of the earth would identify as a radially oriented magnetic field.

PS: Had a flat earth calf born today:
(With the snow and cold weather we brought it inside to dry it off before putting it back with it's mother.)

Edit: I got my quote blocks messed up... edited to fix.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 17, 2019, 03:37:28 PM
Kinda busy with kids but here is my quick reply.

Imagine that your homogeneous magnet was just a bunch of bar magnets. (Just for illustrative purposes). The positions of the south poles are positioned around the circumference and this is what YOU are referring to as radially oriented. But oriented and positioned are not the same thing. In your example, the positions are radial but the orientation is such that your "bar magnets" are standing on end. That gives it an axial orientation of the magnetic field lines.

If you wanted a true radial ORIENTATION, you would lay the bar magnets on their side. Do you understand the difference?

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 17, 2019, 04:37:09 PM
Kinda busy with kids but here is my quick reply.

Imagine that your homogeneous magnet was just a bunch of bar magnets. (Just for illustrative purposes). The positions of the south poles are positioned around the circumference and this is what YOU are referring to as radially oriented. But oriented and positioned are not the same thing. In your example, the positions are radial but the orientation is such that your "bar magnets" are standing on end. That gives it an axial orientation of the magnetic field lines.

If you wanted a true radial ORIENTATION, you would lay the bar magnets on their side. Do you understand the difference?

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

I certainly understand your description of the difference between radial and axial. In fact, I've known the difference between radial and axial for this entire discussion  ;D

If you're saying my wax magnet simply an axial magnet, then you're mistaken.

Near the surface the orientation is almost entirely radial. As you get deeper into it, the angle begins to curve a bit as shown in my sketch.

If you're saying that my magnet is not an exact 100% totally perfect radial magnet, OK fine the orientation is not exactly a perfectly aligned 100% radial orientation.

But if you're saying it's closer to axial than to radial, then I'm going to 100% disagree.

It is much much closer to radial than axial. The top mm or so *is* pert near exactly radial. With increasing depth, the deviation from exactly radial  increases, but not toward axial but rather double conical or toroidal  -- but not even close to axial!

I have one yes/no question for you:

If I took a million pie-slice shaped N-S bar magnets that were tapered just right to make a million slice pie, and sintered them to form a little pie with all the N poles in the center, would that be a radially oriented disk magnet then?

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 17, 2019, 07:05:03 PM
One request. If you would indulge me. If not that's ok.

Make a video taking iron filings and place them on the side of the magnet. Let's see where the land and how they orient. My answer is that they will not stick to the side of the magnet. They will flip and stick standing straight up on either the outer edge of the top or will go to the center. Radial magnet would have the filings stick out of the sides. Axial would have them standing on the top flat surface of the earth standing up.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 18, 2019, 01:54:27 AM
One request. If you would indulge me. If not that's ok.

Make a video taking iron filings and place them on the side of the magnet. Let's see where the land and how they orient. My answer is that they will not stick to the side of the magnet. They will flip and stick standing straight up on either the outer edge of the top or will go to the center. Radial magnet would have the filings stick out of the sides. Axial would have them standing on the top flat surface of the earth standing up.

Answer my one yes/no question and I'll be delighted indulge your request.  ;D

I do need to tell you that when I cast my magnet, my form was bigger than the active magnetic field area of my master magnet, so there's a kind of dead zone around the outside, so to expose the actual edge of the radial section, I would need to carve off some from the diameter -- which I am totally glad to do because it's wax and I can re-mold it into whatever I want! Would carving off some of the dead area invalidate the experiment in your opinion? Or would I need to cast a new smaller magnet?

Here's my yes/no question again, in case you missed it:

I have one yes/no question for you:

If I took a million pie-slice shaped N-S bar magnets that were tapered just right to make a million slice pie, and sintered them to form a little pie with all the N poles in the center, would that be a radially oriented disk magnet then?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 18, 2019, 02:19:12 AM
Answer: yes, it would be. That's what I've been trying to get at the whole time. Apologies for the late reply.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 18, 2019, 02:38:36 AM
Answer: yes, it would be. That's what I've been trying to get at the whole time. Apologies for the late reply.

Great.

So question: As I mentioned, my magnet mold was too big as compared to my master magnet, so there's a deadzone around the outside edge. I need to either cast a new smaller magnet, or carve off the outside edge to eliminate the non-radial part. I'll start by carving off the outside edge in a spot, but if you say that's invalid then I'll cast a new smaller magnet that correctly fits my master magnet's field. How's that sound?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 18, 2019, 03:09:29 AM
Why would carving that off invalidate it?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 18, 2019, 03:18:48 AM
Why would carving that off invalidate it?

I don't think it would, but I didn't know if you would say "Objection your honor, he modified it...."  ;D
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 18, 2019, 11:02:26 PM
One request. If you would indulge me. If not that's ok.

Make a video taking iron filings and place them on the side of the magnet. Let's see where the land and how they orient. My answer is that they will not stick to the side of the magnet. They will flip and stick standing straight up on either the outer edge of the top or will go to the center. Radial magnet would have the filings stick out of the sides. Axial would have them standing on the top flat surface of the earth standing up.

Alright, a series of events delayed me but I got it done!

A couple notes - as I mentioned before, the wax magnet was bigger than the magnetic field zone of the master magnet so I had to trim off some outer dead area to get to the point where the pole is.

Also, the magnet is not super strong, and the strands of iron filings just toppled over every which way if I pointed them up.

However, you can clearly see that the edge is very much a pole, and that it is radially oriented, and that the "lines of force" are going out away from the edge, not toward the other side. I tried it on a regular axially oriented magnet and it was totally different.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 12:31:21 AM
I saw no filings hanging off of the side of the magnet. I saw them hanging off of the edge. And pointing down due to gravity (RE) or UA (FE). To me that is a failure. You can disagree but the best you will get out of me or anyone else that cares to comment (crickets...) will say inconclusive.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 01:33:36 AM
I saw no filings hanging off of the side of the magnet. I saw them hanging off of the edge. And pointing down due to gravity (RE) or UA (FE). To me that is a failure. You can disagree but the best you will get out of me or anyone else that cares to comment (crickets...) will say inconclusive.

The magnet is not very strong. And per my previously submitted sketch, the magnet is only really nearly radially magnetized right near the surface And guess what? That's where the iron filing stick!

If it had been axial as you claimed, they would not have stuck straight out, they would have folded right over to the other pole. But the other pole wasn't there!

I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over my magnet. I was always clear that the radial area was on the surface.

If I removed all the extra off the bottom, just leaving a thin section on top (i.e. the radially oriented part) would that make you happy?

And the one I made comes very close to being one, and in fact if I were to take just the top layer of it, it *would be* one.

It very clearly is NOT axial, as you stated. Sure there's material there that isn't magnetized much or at all, but the part that is is radially magnetized.
But hey, it's something I threw together in 20 minutes with minimal effort. If I'd made a special master magnet which had all the right geometry to make the idealistic radially oriented magnet, I could have made it stronger and more even and everything, but you'd probably say it wasn't really one magnet because it was made of multiple individual hematite powder grains, I don't know.

If you think you can make a better one then for pete's sake do it!

Why do those who won't build stuff pester those who did build stuff?  ;D

But the whole point of this was to answer the question whether it was possible for the earth to have a radial magnetic field above the surface - which you also already admitted was not impossible.

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 02:56:44 AM
No you are twisting my words. What you have shown I admit can exist on a flat earth, and yes if you take a million thin bar magnets radially positioned you would have a fair approximation of a radial magnet. But what you have shown is not radial. It just simply isnt it. I drew a diagram of axial coordinates and polar coordinates and how it relates to magnetic field orientation, but I havent been able to compress the photos enough to meet the size requirements. I will upload it tomorrow when I am not just on my phone.

I am not knocking your skills. It's quite impressive actually. And fun to watch. I am merely trying to correct your use of certain terminology and the same as my response to the original post about the Wiki.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 03:26:10 AM
No you are twisting my words. What you have shown I admit can exist on a flat earth, and yes if you take a million thin bar magnets radially positioned you would have a fair approximation of a radial magnet. But what you have shown is not radial. It just simply isnt it. I drew a diagram of axial coordinates and polar coordinates and how it relates to magnetic field orientation, but I havent been able to compress the photos enough to meet the size requirements. I will upload it tomorrow when I am not just on my phone.

I am not knocking your skills. It's quite impressive actually. And fun to watch. I am merely trying to correct your use of certain terminology and the same as my response to the original post about the Wiki.

Well this dilemma reminds me of a question I asked previously and I didn't notice you answer: When was the last time you played with iron filings and a magnet!??

Reason I ask is because if you tried this with an axial magnet, those strands of iron filings would NOT be sticking out straight from the edge. They would have quickly been attracted to the opposite pole and flipped over to it.

I'll grant you that the magnetized region is very thin there. But you gotta admit that it's also not axially oriented there. I should have put it in the video, but I also tried an axially oriented magnet and it was drastically different!

If you really think an axially oriented magnet can do what you saw in the video I last posted, then please do it and take a picture and send it to me.

1: Have you *personally with your own hands* experimented with a magnet and iron filings in the last 10 years?
2: If I sliced off just the top layer of my magnet so it was very thin, and it still acted the same way as you saw in the video, would you agree that the thin top layer is essentially radially oriented?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 03:57:04 AM
I play with magnets as part of my job. I have magnets at home. You are proceeding down the route of logical fallacy of argument from authority.

If you show me the same magnet with the filings on the entire surface of the side that you just cut a straight section off of, and without holding it up on its side, then, and only then may I even consider saying you are close to making a radial magnet. I, however could clearly see two things. 1) Gravity was making the filings stick out from the edge. 2) some of the filings had started to curve over the edge as in an axial magnet orientation. I hope I explained this well enough.

Anyways lay the magnet flat on its larger top or bottom surface. Then throw filings at the thickness or side of the magnet. My guess is it won't stick out straight. And not because of the weakness of magnetic field, because you already demonstrated that it in your first video of this magnet that the iron can stand straight on end.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 04:37:41 AM
I play with magnets as part of my job. I have magnets at home. You are proceeding down the route of logical fallacy of argument from authority.

If you show me the same magnet with the filings on the entire surface of the side that you just cut a straight section off of, and without holding it up on its side, then, and only then may I even consider saying you are close to making a radial magnet. I, however could clearly see two things. 1) Gravity was making the filings stick out from the edge. 2) some of the filings had started to curve over the edge as in an axial magnet orientation. I hope I explained this well enough.

Anyways lay the magnet flat on its larger top or bottom surface. Then throw filings at the thickness or side of the magnet. My guess is it won't stick out straight. And not because of the weakness of magnetic field, because you already demonstrated that it in your first video of this magnet that the iron can stand straight on end.

Whatever.

You still have not answered my question whether you've played with a magnet and iron filings in the last 10 years.  Sure you said you play with magnets all the time, but that doesn't mean you used iron filings on them. Heh, everyone who uses a cell phone plays with magnets every day because there are magnets in the speaker and the vibrator motor.
But I asked before and I asked today specifically if you used iron filings on a magnet. You've refused to answer twice already.

As to my magnet, look. I know the truly radial section is a very thin layer on top. That's because of how I charged it. But that doesn't mean that it's not radial in that part.
I also know that if the edge of the magnet was an N-S boundary of an axial magnet that the strands of iron filings would have all immediately whipped over to the other pole, and would not have been repelled by each other.

I could make a jig and make a better magnet that would show exactly what you're asking for, but why?

You've already made numerous statements that were not true (I'm sure you believed them at the time) but the point is you started out with an exceptionally flawed understanding of magnetism.
And you've been absolutely stubborn, requiring me to actually build a model for you to see that you were wrong.
First you said a radial field on the earth was not possible. So I constructed a magnet that showed it was possible.
Then you said a 3 poled magnet was not possible. So I constructed a composite one, and you ruled it out because it was two magnets forced together.
So then I made one out of a single piece of steel.
And said my radial flat earth magnet was not valid because it wasn't homogeneous and was constructed from other pieces, even though the field would work on the earth's surface.
So I made a homogeneous magnet that had the same radial field pattern on the surface of it.

The point I'm making is  you simply don't have a good understanding of magnets, and if you simply understood magnetic domain theory, you'd have understood it right away, but you were too stubborn to think for yourself, and I had to prove to you that you were wrong every single step of the way.

What this has led me to realize is that you just don't understand magnets don't have the sense to realize it, and that even though I could go on proving you  wrong with working models, there's no point because however much I prove you're going to make some other absurd claim and refuse all logic and I'll just have to build another model, and it's never ending.

Maybe some day I'll have the time to build a jig for making the magnet of your dreams (or night mares  ;D) but not right now.

We clearly demonstrated that the earth could have on its surface the magnetic field that the wiki describes.

And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: stack on February 19, 2019, 05:27:49 AM
And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?

Yes.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 05:45:03 AM
And I want to get some work done on this project to disprove gravity. Don't you want me to do that?

Yes.

me too  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 10:49:58 AM
In short, yes. I took my oldest son a year and a half ago to a science exhibit that had an interactive* exhibit on magnets and it had....drum roll...iron filings. Do I win a prize?  :-* ::)

Ok, I've gotten to the point where I am going to go out and by my own magnets and do some experiments to show to you what I mean instead of pretty little diagrams that don't seem to get my point across to you. Give me some time and I will have it all ready for your viewing pleasure. But in the meantime, here is the diagram I drew last night showing the difference between radial and axial.

*edit

I have also attached a diagram of the set up of my experiment to end this debate.  I will take two pieces of lexan that have slots milled into them at a certain depth to hold 12 bar magnets that are radially positioned as the hour marks on a clock. The lengths of the slot will be a certain length (not determined yet) that is longer than the length of the bar magnet. The bottom piece of lexan will have a hole drilled in the center, as well as the bar magnets having a hole drilled in the same end (same pole) of each.  A string will be attached to each bar magnet and pulled through the hole in the lexan. The top piece of lexan will have slots milled in at the same depth and length as the bottom piece. A number of screws will hold the top and bottom pieces of lexan together loosely to allow the bar magnets to slide.  Once assembled, I will drop iron filings or some other magnetic material that is available to me and I will record the movements of the magnetic field lines as I pull the bar magnets towards the center of the lexan.  This will approximate what will happen when the same pole of each magnet approaches a convergence, and approximate what happens with a radially oriented magnet.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 06:17:06 PM
In short, yes. I took my oldest son a year and a half ago to a science exhibit that had an interactive* exhibit on magnets and it had....drum roll...iron filings. Do I win a prize?  :-* ::)
AHH WONDERFUL! I've been debating magnetics with someone who last experimented with iron filings a year and a half ago - at a science fair for kids - and who doesn't even have in his possession iron filings!
Look, a huge number of ordinary folks with kids have probably seen magnetism displays at science events.
And all this time you've been passing yourself off as one with significant expertise in the field!  ;D ;D

I guess that explains why you made so many claims which I then proved were wrong.
Quote
Ok, I've gotten to the point where I am going to go out and by my own magnets and do some experiments to show to you what I mean instead of pretty little diagrams that don't seem to get my point across to you. Give me some time and I will have it all ready for your viewing pleasure. But in the meantime, here is the diagram I drew last night showing the difference between radial and axial.

*edit

I have also attached a diagram of the set up of my experiment to end this debate.  I will take two pieces of lexan that have slots milled into them at a certain depth to hold 12 bar magnets that are radially positioned as the hour marks on a clock. The lengths of the slot will be a certain length (not determined yet) that is longer than the length of the bar magnet. The bottom piece of lexan will have a hole drilled in the center, as well as the bar magnets having a hole drilled in the same end (same pole) of each.  A string will be attached to each bar magnet and pulled through the hole in the lexan. The top piece of lexan will have slots milled in at the same depth and length as the bottom piece. A number of screws will hold the top and bottom pieces of lexan together loosely to allow the bar magnets to slide.  Once assembled, I will drop iron filings or some other magnetic material that is available to me and I will record the movements of the magnetic field lines as I pull the bar magnets towards the center of the lexan.  This will approximate what will happen when the same pole of each magnet approaches a convergence, and approximate what happens with a radially oriented magnet.

Most excellent. I cannot wait to see what you come up with.

What exactly is your magnet clock thing gonna prove? that a radial magnet cannot exist? or that my magnet is not radial?

Thanks! I really appreciate others doing a little hands on investigation too!
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 06:28:41 PM
I really do not appreciate that comment. I guess it was my fault for falling into that trap of a question. I have not besmirched or denigrated you. I didn't make fun of you when you said you don't have your GED or high school diploma. I have worked with plenty of people in my career who do not have a college education and I respect them.

However, you are starting to cross the line here. I have answered all of your questions and you continue to criticize and attack me and corner me contextually and warp my words. The closest thing I have done is to call you out on some disingenuous posts. If you were so hurt by them you would have reported them, or one of the moderators would have already called me out.

Is there a point to asking me when I last handled a magnet? That is simply a straw man argument that falls away completely. I do not have to have had any direct handling of magnets within a certain time period to retain my knowledge that I have gained through prior experimentation and study. Is it a refresher? Sure. But I do not lack knowledge in this area.

Its like saying Michael Jordan can no longer play basketball since he no longer plays in the NBA. (Me being Michael Jordan, and you some punk ass kid who thinks he can take me on because has some fancy moves he learned at an And1 camp).

Watch, I will probably get a warning or a ban for this post. But hey, I am about tired of this crap from you.

Anyways back to it. To answer your last two questions - yes (in the form of a convergence), and yes.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 19, 2019, 09:02:41 PM
I really do not appreciate that comment.
I really did not appreciate all the times you accused me of being intentionally disingenuous, with no proof and no apology when I showed you I was being genuine.
Quote
I guess it was my fault for falling into that trap of a question.
It wasn't a trap of a question. You were presenting yourself as one with significant expertise in magnets, and I was puzzled because of your obvious lack of understanding about them, I was trying to figure out why somebody with such experience in magnets would make such odd statements as you did. Now I know why. And in fact, this is often the case when someone cites their expertise on the topic rather than using their understanding of the topic to prove their point.

There's no shame in not having experimented with iron filings and magnets, but to present yourself as one with expertise on the topic when you haven't done so may not have been a successful approach in  convincing us that you know what you're talking about, or that we should regard you as an expert. (i.e. one with expertise.)

If you feel like you slid into a pit, you dug it yourself, not me.
Quote
I have not besmirched or denigrated you.
Except the multiple times you told me I was being intentionally disingenuous without any proof whatsoever, and nary an apology?
I double checked the definition for "besmirched" and it basically means to say bad things about someone to influence other people's opinion of them.
And telling everyone that I was being intentionally disingenuous doesn't influence other people's opinion of me? Well, maybe not coming from you  ;D
I also looked up denigrated. It means along the lines of to criticize unfairly; disparage, or an attempt to blacken someone's reputation.
And are you saying accusing me of being  intentionally disingenuous doesn't denigrate me?

I mean, look, it's one thing if you believe I'm wrong in my belief, I don't have any problem with you telling me you believe I'm wrong.  But that's not what you told me - you said I was being  intentionally disingenuous!
To honestly accuse me of that you would have to know my intentions and be able to prove to others that they were in fact disingenuous, which you never did!

So when you say that you never besmirched or denigrated me it's a lie, plain and simple.
Quote
I didn't make fun of you when you said you don't have your GED or high school diploma. I have worked with plenty of people in my career who do not have a college education and I respect them.

However, you are starting to cross the line here.
If there were lines here, you already crossed them all. You accused me multiple times of being intentionally disingenuous with no proof whatsoever, and never an apology.
You made multiple claims about magnetism which I then proved wrong. If there are lines here and you didn't cross them already, you must be bringing them with you  ;D ;D ;D

I was never offended that you believed I was wrong about my understanding of magnets. That's why I didn't call you names, I just built models to show you that I had come by my beliefs honestly.
Quote

I have answered all of your questions and you continue to criticize and attack me and corner me contextually and warp my words. The closest thing I have done is to call you out on some disingenuous posts. If you were so hurt by them you would have reported them, or one of the moderators would have already called me out.
I don't have to tell a moderator just because you accused me of being intentionally disingenuous. I know I wasn't, and I demonstrated that I have been perfectly genuine about my understanding of magnetism.
Why bother the moderators? We're grown ups. Or at least I'm working on it. For years I wondered what I wanted to be when I grew up, then one day I decided I should just work at growing up.  ;D

But seriously, I know I wasn't being intentionally disingenuous. You saying that something is so doesn't make it so. I've been in enough discussions to know that some people just throw out accusations of their opponent being intentionally disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument they are losing so it's nothing new to me.
Quote

Is there a point to asking me when I last handled a magnet?
Absolutely! It just so happens we were talking about magnets, and how iron filings behave on them, and the different shapes magnets can be formed in.
Iron filings help us see how a magnet is formed.
The statements you were making suggested to me that you had in fact much less knowledge of magnets than you were claiming.
I was trying to understand how this guy who worked with magnets every day and knew so much about them seemed to know so little.
If we were talking about riding a bicycle and I was giving you advice, wouldn't you want to know if I'd ever ridden one?
If we were talking about flying airplanes, and I was giving you advice, wouldn't you want to know if I'd ever flown one?
Maybe you wouldn't.
But when someone is telling me things that seem to contradict my own experience, I do naturally want to know what experiences they are drawing their statements from.
Quote
That is simply a straw man argument that falls away completely.
My question about when you last experimented with iron filings on a magnet was not an argument. It was my attempts to understand what was going on here.
Quote
I do not have to have had any direct handling of magnets within a certain time period to retain my knowledge that I have gained through prior experimentation and study. Is it a refresher? Sure.
Wow, super-brain-man. Everyone forgets things with time.
Quote
But I do not lack knowledge in this area.
I don't know what to say about that. You claimed it was impossible to have a radially oriented magnetic field on the surface of the earth, which I proved wrong.
You claimed a 3 poled magnet could not exist. which I proved wrong.
<snip>
And maybe my full understanding of Gauss's Law of Magnetism is flawed and what you say is correct. I can not at this point neither confirm nor deny that.

Even if someone I never talked with claims that they do not lack knowledge in a given area, I'd be suspicious. Everyone lacks some knowledge, unless they are a perfect know-it-all.

Can you see why I am having a difficulty with your claim of not lacking knowledge on the topic, especially after all the mistaken beliefs you started out with?
Quote
Its like saying Michael Jordan can no longer play basketball since he no longer plays in the NBA. (Me being Michael Jordan, and you some punk ass kid who thinks he can take me on because has some fancy moves he learned at an And1 camp).

Watch, I will probably get a warning or a ban for this post.
I hope not. Active intelligent globers are just about as scarce as that kind of flatter.
Quote
But hey, I am about tired of this crap from you.
I guess that's how the internet works  ;D
Quote
Quote
Asked Tom Foolery: What exactly is your magnet clock thing gonna prove? that a radial magnet cannot exist? or that my magnet is not radial?
Anyways back to it. To answer your last two questions - yes (in the form of a convergence), and yes.

Most excellent! I look forward to the results!

Some suggestions, if you use neodymium magnets, you may not want to drill holes in them, but you can buy just the shape you need from K&J with the holes already in them.
Or if you're concerned the holes will upset your experiment, use ones without holes and just put a zip tie around the outside of the magnets to force them all together.
Also, instead of using lose screws to hold the two plates, you probably want to use tight screws with standoffs so the two lexan plates are ridged.
Remember, with all those magnets pressing apart from eachother, there are going to be some funny forces on the plates, and things might bind up.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 19, 2019, 09:27:47 PM
Read my statements carefully. I said MAYBE my full understanding is flawed. I did not say wrong.

And you have not proven me wrong about a radially oriented or 3 poles magnet. You have just given your observations. I said there was more at play here that required a deeper analysis with equipment that neither of us have at hand. I will attempt to show you what I mean by the lexan bar magnet demonstration.

You refusing to understand how radially oriented field lines cannot exist and you labeling something as radially oriented field lines does not mean it is radially oriented. For one, i have given you lots of evidence as to what is actually meant by radially oriented,yet you refuse to accept or even acknowledge it.

Also, the fact that you baited me with a question and continue to use backhanded comments about my intelligence is just another piece of evidence of how you operate.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 20, 2019, 12:56:40 AM
Read my statements carefully. I said MAYBE my full understanding is flawed. I did not say wrong.

And you have not proven me wrong about a radially oriented or 3 poles magnet. You have just given your observations. I said there was more at play here that required a deeper analysis with equipment that neither of us have at hand. I will attempt to show you what I mean by the lexan bar magnet demonstration.

You refusing to understand how radially oriented field lines cannot exist and you labeling something as radially oriented field lines does not mean it is radially oriented. For one, i have given you lots of evidence as to what is actually meant by radially oriented,yet you refuse to accept or even acknowledge it.

Also, the fact that you baited me with a question and continue to use backhanded comments about my intelligence is just another piece of evidence of how you operate.

Yeah first you said maybe your understanding was lacking, then you said you do not lack knowledge in this area.
Well which is it? "Maybe lacking" and "not lacking" are not the same thing.  You said both.
And please don't tell me that my experimental evidence didn't surprise you. I could tell by your reaction.
When I first asked you about a 3-pole magnet you didn't say "Well you can make one but even though it is indistinguishable from a 3 poled magnet it's actually not one."
You said "Impossible." So then I made what sure appears to be one, then you changed your tone to "Well it's not what it looks like." yeah OK.

And I didn't bait you with the question about when you last actually experimented with a magnet and iron filings.

You said a that lot of your actual job is troubleshooting faulty equipment.

You're a troubleshooter, and so am I.

When you're troubleshooting a faulty equipment, you're actually troubleshooting 3 things, all at once: The equipment, your test tools, and the equipment's operator  ;D ;D
Any one of the 3 could be feeding you bad information.
Maybe the operator didn't want you to know he busted it so he didn't recount the failure exactly accurately. Or maybe he just assumed something happened that didn't.
Or it might be you stick your volt meter on something, and get a reading you simply cannot believe, so then you're questioning your volt meter.

Ultimately, what you are trying to achieve is a state where the operator, the volt meter, and the machine all are telling you the same thing, then you can move onto the next step.

So part my troubleshooting technique included trying to get agreement between what I was observing and what you were saying and what magnetic theory states.
The fact that I had to ask the questions 3 times before you answered it tells me you already believed that you were overstating your grasp on the topic and that maybe you shouldn't have claimed to work with magnets every day.
By the way, you said that you worked with magnets every day, and I would love to know exactly what that means. You use equipment which uses magnets every day? you handle bare magnets every day?

So no sir, I did not bait you with any question. You knew the importance of the question the moment I asked it the first time, and it was perfectly relevant.

And I never said anything negative about your intellegence. All I said about intelligence was that  we need intelligent people around here like you because there aren't many. I hope you didn't take that any other way.

There's nothing wrong with your intelligence, there's just some areas lacking in your knowledge -- but that's true for everybody!
And we're remedying it.

Having said all that, I really look forward to your magnet experiment!
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 20, 2019, 11:59:23 PM
I ordered 12 bar magnets today. And a container of iron filings. Since I don't have a workshop of my own with a router or CNC that can run an end mill, I will be purchasing some lexan and having a buddy of mine at work do some..."government work" to mill the slots and holes in the lexan. So this little endeavor will not be as quick as yours.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 21, 2019, 12:25:16 AM
I ordered 12 bar magnets today. And a container of iron filings. Since I don't have a workshop of my own with a router or CNC that can run an end mill, I will be purchasing some lexan and having a buddy of mine at work do some..."government work" to mill the slots and holes in the lexan. So this little endeavor will not be as quick as yours.

Wonderful, I'll be patient. My attempts to disprove gravity have not been going well, but they have been keeping my busy. Latest video here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183727#msg183727

As to Lexan, keep it cool. It has a tendency to get warm from the cutting then melt and turn to a huge gooey mess then crack when it cools.

One time I was deep hole line boring a half inch hole up the center of a 1 inch round lexan rod and it got hot and melted inside, so to cool it I sprayed some light lube or something in there and it instantly made the most amazing crazed pattern inside.

Oh second try I used plenty of coolant and then it worked fine  ;D
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 21, 2019, 01:30:16 AM
Good luck on continuing your gravity experiments. Fun to watch.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 07:26:57 PM
I know how magnets work. I work with them every day.

By the way, you said that you worked with magnets every day, and I would love to know exactly what that means. You use equipment which uses magnets every day? you handle bare magnets every day?

I'm so glad you've been answering all of my questions previously, but there's still another question I asked and I really would be grateful for an answer.

You said you worked with magnets every day.

What do you mean by that? I'll grant that "every day" probably means during work days only, and probably not exactly every day, but definitely a good number of working days out of any given month.
Obviously some days you may be mostly working with other things, or in a bored meeting (LOL intentional misspelling) but I take your claim to mean that  you work many days out of each month with magnets.
I'm not denying that.

But what do you mean by "work with?"  What kind of work with magnets? what kind of magnets?

Thanks!

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 25, 2019, 07:48:19 PM
The previously mentioned servo motors that use the Halls effect for detection of rotor position which allows the motor to commutate in the proper order.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 08:39:35 PM
The previously mentioned servo motors that use the Halls effect for detection of rotor position which allows the motor to commutate in the proper order.
I do remember you asking me if *I* knew about servo motors. I don't remember you indicating that your daily magnet work was related to servo motors. But that's wonderful!
I know a bit about them myself, so maybe we have some common ground.
I actually one time designed and built a driver circuit for driving two brushless DC motors that had hall commutating output signals. I used a couple discrete logic chips so I had an enable input and a direction input, then those fed some international rectifier half-bridge drivers which controlled the fets. I did it so I could drive the brushless motors with a board that was designed to drive a brushed servo motor.
Granted there was no timing advance control -- but hey it was for a one-off personal project and it made the two brushless motors operate like DC motors and I was able to complete my project.

Are you designing the hall commutating modules? Like drawing up the PCBs? Or drawing up the blueprints for the magnet factory to form the magnets you indicate? Or do you work at the factory that sinters the magnets for these motors?
Or do you just operate an industrial 3D printer or other industrial machine that has servos in it?

I'm trying to get a grasp on what exactly you meant by the phrase "Work with magnets every day."

Thanks!
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 25, 2019, 08:52:50 PM
I design, build and program machines for my company in-house. I draw up the wiring schematics, I program the PLCs (we use Automation Direct, but I have used Siemens and Allen Bradley, as well). Sometimes we use PC based controls with CodeSys. I program the servo motor drives (we have used Lenze, ABB, and Kollmorgen AKD) - so for that I must understand how the motor works.  From time to time we get a bad motor from the factory (we still use the Lenze brushless AC rotary servo motors no matter the drive). We use VFDs to drive AC motors for some parts of the machine, as well. Its a pretty full gamut of required knowledge and their interactions - mechanical, electrical, and programming.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 09:23:16 PM
I design, build and program machines for my company in-house. I draw up the wiring schematics, I program the PLCs (we use Automation Direct, but I have used Siemens and Allen Bradley, as well). Sometimes we use PC based controls with CodeSys.
Wow that is so cool!
Quote
I program the servo motor drives
Sweeet! I designed and built my own servo motor drives using 8 bit PIC micro controllers, IRF half bridge drivers, mosfets, and wrote the PID code for them in assembly!
Quote
(we have used Lenze, ABB, and Kollmorgen AKD) - so for that I must understand how the motor works.  From time to time we get a bad motor from the factory (we still use the Lenze brushless AC rotary servo motors no matter the drive). We use VFDs to drive AC motors for some parts of the machine, as well. Its a pretty full gamut of required knowledge and their interactions - mechanical, electrical, and programming.

That's all really wonderful.

Do you think it was a little bit of a stretch to claim that you "work with magnets every day?"

I mean, that's all wonderful work you do. But you gotta admit, what you've just described is "Working every day with machinery which uses components which contain magnets."
Which pretty  much is true for all of industry, and really leaves you with a high level theoretical general understanding but it explains why you never really drilled down deep into the topic of magnetism.

Now I'm sure you've taken apart the odd bad motor for a look, or maybe even in a pinch repaired one on a Friday night before new years day to keep production rolling, and maybe during one of those events you even adjusted the position of the commutating sensor magnet, but I hardly think that's even close to part of your general daily work.

By your standard, yeah, there have been many times in my life where I worked with magnets every day too, when I've been designing, building, troubleshooting, or repairing any technology that uses components which use magnets.
Every phone repair technician works with magnets every day. Every appliance technician works with magnets every day. Every automobile mechanic works with magnets every day. Pretty much magnets are in everything.

But anyway, I'm still very pleased to know a CNC automation expert such as yourself and I have no doubt that you excel in that field. I'm sure there's a lot I could learn from you in that field!

Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on February 25, 2019, 10:23:27 PM
I would venture to say that a degree mechanical engineer that has 13 years in the field of automation and motion control has quite a bit more knowledge on how magnets work than any of those 3 techs you just named. I am one of those rare engineers who even admits to learning a lot of his trade on the job from maintenance technicians that have been doing their job for 30 years. I like programming robots more though.

Edit: just got home. Magnets and iron filings have arrived. Time to take some measurements and make a CAD file for the lexan.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on February 26, 2019, 02:59:32 AM
I would venture to say that a degree mechanical engineer that has 13 years in the field of automation and motion control has quite a bit more knowledge on how magnets work than any of those 3 techs you just named.
I dare say so, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're in the top 1% of people in the world when it comes to magnets.
But that's also completely besides the point I'm making - and the question I asked of whether you think you may have stretched the truth  a little when claiming to "work with magnets every day."

See here's the dilemma.  And I explain this so you understand how I process information. When information comes, there's two aspects to it: What does the information say, and how reliable does it appear to be.

The fact is, there really *are* people who do literally work with magnets every day: The people who design and the people who build your motors, the magnets for them, speakers, magnetrons, etc.

So while you certainly know more about magnets than 99% of the of the world, there are still people who know more about it than you - and those are the people who really *do* work with magnets every day.

So you definitely claimed a level of expertise you clearly do not hold.

(As a side note, I'm not claiming to know any more than you about magnets. Whatever I did know that you didn't I already taught you. ;D)

I say all this to point out that when you make exaggerated claims  about your own activities in order to try to win an argument or convince someone of something, the truth does always come out and then you're worse off than you were before because now people are going to be less prone to trust you.

And this brings me back around to what I said about information and the meta-information -- the reliability clues.
Quote
I am one of those rare engineers who even admits to learning a lot of his trade on the job from maintenance technicians that have been doing their job for 30 years. I like programming robots more though.
yeah continually learning is definitely part of engineering in my book.
And I like programming robots better too, for what that's worth.
Quote

Edit: just got home. Magnets and iron filings have arrived. Time to take some measurements and make a CAD file for the lexan.
That is most excellent news! I can't wait to see your contraption do whatever it is going to do!
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on March 02, 2019, 08:21:15 PM
Since we're all doing magnetic experiments, and since I still had a string hanging from the ceiling, I couldn't resist the urge.
Here's a little magnet repelling a little block of carbon without touching it.
Nothing new, but still fun to watch and fun to do.

https://youtu.be/xvlb8xQhmBM
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on March 02, 2019, 09:43:56 PM
Nice. I got my lexan in yesterday. Gave the CAD file to my CNC guy. Hopefully will be done soon
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on May 03, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
Nice. I got my lexan in yesterday. Gave the CAD file to my CNC guy. Hopefully will be done soon
Hey friend,
How is progress? I'm looking forward to the results of your working model of magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 03, 2019, 02:25:20 PM
Hey, been a while. Unfortunately, our machine shop is so backed up they haven't gotten to my "government work." I am not sure if I should push more or just give it to someone outside the shop. I don't really know anyone though that has machining capabilities. Hopefully, you give me the benefit of the doubt here and believe the truth of my statements.
Title: Re: Magnetic Field
Post by: TomFoolery on May 04, 2019, 05:42:34 AM
Hey, been a while. Unfortunately, our machine shop is so backed up they haven't gotten to my "government work." I am not sure if I should push more or just give it to someone outside the shop. I don't really know anyone though that has machining capabilities. Hopefully, you give me the benefit of the doubt here and believe the truth of my statements.

Oh I understand completely. I have machining capabilities but again I'm just too busy myself to do it, or I'd have offered. No CNC for me though, unfortunately, although working towards retrofitting to CNC.