| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jevan" |
| Date: |
29 May 2004 10:25:25 AM |
| Object: |
focussing magnetism? |
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jevan
To: M.S.
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: levitation idea
All points within a charged hollow sphere are at the same potential.
I see what your saying. But, my hollow large sphere is made of plastic or
something that does not attain charge, so this is not the case. Then I
placed small charged spheres on tracks mounted on the inside of the hollow
large sphere. These small spheres can have their position programmed to be
at any place on the interior edge of the large sphere (where the tracks are,
so obviously not in the middle of it). Therefore these small spheres are
attracted to the single free-moving small sphere near the middle. But since
they are fixed in position so the net effect is a force on the free-moving
sphere. Since their position is controlled and so therefore the net force
(net force due to all the small spheres on tracks) on the free-moving
sphere, is completed controlled. Therefore you can control position of the
free-moving sphere, by controlling position and charge on the
small-spheres-on-tracks.
If you want a simpler analogy, just get 10 people to stand around a table
holding charged foam spheres in their hand (if need be attach each person to
a van der graff generator to ensure their spheres remain charged), together
these people with their individual charged spheres, can control the position
of a single sphere that is sitting on the table, cause it to float into the
air and go wherever they want.. All they need to do is everyone coordinate
moving of their sphere in their hand, to the right position so the correct
force is made onto the free sphere on the table. If they want more effect,
they touch the vandergraff generator, less effect, they ground themself a
bit. The example with the 10 spheres mounted on the inside of an insutating
big-sphere, is different because the 10 controller spheres are limited in
potential positions, to that of the inner edge of the big-sphere, but should
still work because the charge on each can be accurately controlled.
So its really irrelevant whether the charges on the inside of a
charge-conducting sphere are the same - because the big sphere is
nonconducting.
Magnetic monopoles (point sources) have never been detected.
Yes I know. But, it is not really a monopole. There is a 'north' and 'south'
but it's 'north' is at the magnetic transmitter and 'south' is at the target
object. The 'north' then has no real effect on anything it just exists as
per requirement.
Magnetic field lines always form closed loops.
Yes its closed because there's a north and south. But it is a bit different
because the field cancels out everywhere in between transmitter and
receiver. I haven't seen anywhere stating it not possible to create an exact
'antifield' that cancels out a field. This 'antifield' is anti (cancelling)
in every position except at the receiver. Which just happens to be a point.
Magnetic field lines never converge, as this would imply a point source.
Hmm... there is a point source if you have a bar magnet and as the limit of
its size approaches zero. Indeed I'm told lines never converge... the lines
just represent the field intensity, closer together implies greater field
strength. So, effectively you have no lines in the space between
transmitter/receiver, and then heaps of lines close together at the receiver
(and maybe heaps at the transmitter). There's nothing saying that the field
has to have any particular distribution function, with the right combination
of magnets in theory maybe might be possible to get cancelling fields to the
right design so that you can create any desired field distribution
function.. that's what I was thinking anyway. So effectively you create the
effect of a point source and a "focus" of waves, without literally having
such a thing. Just like with fourier series you can create a square wave
from sine waves, without really having a square wave in the first place.
Well it seems possible to me anyway.. if the magnetic lines of two nearby
magnets really do combine additively then it must be possible surely, to
create any desired field in a space, by the right combination of magnetic
sources. I'm assuming 'superposition' holds.
Jevan.
----- Original Message -----
From: M.S.
To: 'Jevan'
Cc: M.S.
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: levitation idea
Jevan,
If my memory is correct:
All points within a charged hollow sphere are at the same potential.
Magnetic monopoles (point sources) have never been detected.
Magnetic field lines always form closed loops.
Magnetic field lines never converge, as this would imply a point source.
However, 100 years ago gravitational collapse would have been viewed with
skepticism...
-----Original Message-----
From: Jevan [mailto:jp@jevan1.com]
Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 11:47 PM
To: M.S.
Subject: levitation idea
I was thinking there of, when you focus a laser beam, it is bright if you
hold the paper at distance correponding with its focal distance away from
it, but otherwise dim at any other point. Certainly you could design
something that depends on two or three coordinates for it to focus (IE so
your laser beam is only bright at a single exact location in 3d space).
Then instead of laser beam, we focus a magnetic wave (if that's actually
possible). So your two? magnetic generators on two perpendicular walls of
the department, set up in such a way that the magnetic field is only felt at
the current location of the paper plane (perhaps use an accurate passive
tracking system such as, video camera mounted on the wall which has two
lenses a known distance apart & microprocessor). So the plane only need have
a small piece of magnet (or metal) in it, lightweight, and now controllable
by the system.
You'd have to be a bit careful - don't want to upset pacemakers etc (if some
visitor to the department). I don't know how you'd design that kind of thing
in to it. What if the device gets the plane location wrong and focuses the
magnetic beam on someone's watch, causing it to malfunction permanently (due
to a spring popping out, say). As if digital watches have them. But still.
It wouldn't take much energy at all, when focused, to actually cause some
effect.
Assuming its actually possible to focus magnetic energy.
As you know, you have speaker systems which you can only hear on one part of
the room but is completely silent elsewhere, due to focusing technology. But
that's focused audio.
How about focused magneticism? Only present at a small dot.
Hey: The parabola picks up its energy best from focal point? No not quite
actually, it picks it up from everywhere and bouces off and onto/through the
focal point.
I'm sure there must be some mathematical method (combined with engineering &
physics) that could focus a magnetic wave on a single point in 3d space -
just like you can focus a light beam on a single point such as with a
magnifying glass (and its harmless/ spread out/ low energy/ invisible even,
everywhere else).
See with that, you can design a simple device which will hover anything you
want in mid air ('levitation') just by ensuring it has the right kind of
metallic attachment from which the force can eminate (since you don't want
to pick someone up by their watch, say).
Then, you no longer realy need planes, buses, etc. All you need is
levitation equipment mounted onto telegraphic poles throughout the counry,
which shifts things between any locations you want in mid air. Freight - no
more trucks, traffic jams, everything. Imagine. And it can go as fast as you
want too (as long as you can stand the acceleration/deceleration), just
ensure enough controller poles (that emit focussed magnetic controlling
waves) to maintain continuous control over whatever the things are.
Its not quite the teleportation that I thought would be nice to invent.. but
it sounds like another step in the direction of revolutionalizing the whole
world with a new technology (and becoming bilionaire and more in the
process, hopefully). Hmm. Oops. I just told you... Oh well, others would
have thought of it anyway. (or, wishful thinking?).
I'm sure you could control multiple objects in midair simultaneously. Just
have multiple focussed beams being transmitted to different locations. Just
like your CRO can send a beam to any place on the monitor cause it operates
so quickly. Or you can have multiple emittors of the beam. Whatever works I
suppose.
It is based on the fundamental assumption that its actually possible to
focus magnetic waves...... but surely it seems intuitively possible. !!
After all, if you block a magnetic wave by putting something that block
magnetism (such as a closed metal enclosure), in its path. Then the magnetic
wave passes through everywhere in the air *except* inside the metal
enclosure. So you can certainly control places where the wave is present or
is not. You can no doubt change its direction just by shielding everywhere
except a single slit where it's emit from the magnetic transmittor, so that
no doubt you probably won't notice much magnetism behind the transmittor.
Surely with some electrical or other methods it may be possible to really
properly focus it (like what happens with a magnifying glass), not just
control its direction. Like, how, I don't know. Maybe someone has some ideas
on that part of it.
You'd need it to be stronger at 1m than at 0.5m for example. If an electron
passes through the centre of a coil of wire with current flowing through the
wire, and the electron has a certain velocity and coil a certain magnetic
flux associated with it (due to AC through it), then quite possibly the
electron and coil may have a synchronizing velocity/flux combination in
which the electron passes through with greatest gain in energy. Therefore
this could in effect create the potential to be able to 'focus' a beam of
electrons into midair. How can you now have a magnetic particle do the same
thing (is there such a thing anyway, as a magnetic particle). Hey. If
magnetism were really consisting of tiny particles (invisible), eminating
from the bar-magnet (or whatever emits the magnetism), then it would be
simple to do this, alike to the electron example.
Certainly if you have two magnetic fields, eminated from two points at some
distance apart along a ruler, but pointing at the same target, you will get
a pattern with areas of stronger and weaker magnetic field. I'm sure someone
can come up with a mathematical design which simulates the equivalent of the
"focussing" effect, magnetically, just by using the right combination and
levels of magnetic eminators situated along the ruler and pointing a the
target. Just like you can make any kind of wave (such as square wave or a
unit pulse step) using fourier transform (sine waves), you should be able to
make anything such as a 'focussed magnetic wave' by using single magnetic
emittors of varying intensities (and locations) pointing at the same target.
So there's your magnetic focusing device.. to make paper planes hover in
midair and to replaces planes/ buses/ trains/ everything. (hey you could
just hover a platform you stand on, if that's safe enough, if it focuses on
a point(s) underneath the platform and has safety measures in case someone
gets in the way of the beam). Now who's going to build it. Probably could
take a few years before the whole world uses that technology (levitation
instead of buses/ cars/ planes/ etc) - even now I've illustrated an idea
that would work, as far as I can see.
You think?
JP
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
29 May 2004 03:24:00 PM |
|
|
"Jevan" <jp@jevan1.com> wrote in message
news:fZ1uc.4095$%r.43637@nasal.pacific.net.au...
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jevan
To: M.S.
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: levitation idea
All points within a charged hollow sphere are at the same
potential.
I see what your saying. But, my hollow large sphere is made of
plastic or
something that does not attain charge, so this is not the case.
Such materials do not exist.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jevan" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
31 May 2004 10:00:09 AM |
|
|
I see what your saying. But, my hollow large sphere is made of
plastic or
something that does not attain charge, so this is not the case.
Such materials do not exist.
Hmm....... your saying its impossible to get a material that doesn't attain
charge, even an almost-perfect (electrical) insulator? Insulator = electrons
can not move through the lattice. Therefore they must stay in their
positions around each atom. OK.. I suppose then it could be ionic (charged)
yet not conducting ? Like salt in water but that's ionic and conducting.
From what I can see, things that attain charge, tend to be conducting. And,
things that are non-conducting tend not to attain charge.
So, an insulator should be fairly non-conducting.
Come on, you can't say you can't construct a sphere from a material that
doesn't attain charge (or very difficult for it to).
Everyone knows some materials pick up static electricity more easily than
others for example.
HMM.......... if such material does not exist (it looks plainly obvious that
it exists to me).. what does exist then? Actually that is a good point,
because my idea of what exists and everyone elses of what exists, could
vary.
I'm not saying 100% insulator is possible though. Good point.. even air
conducts electricity if high enough voltage. Even a vacuum would? Probably
yes, if it had enough energy.
I suppose this is an unimportant detail though.. after all, it's all
relative. I doubt that an "insultating" sphere would have much attactive
effect in terms of force on it due to charge interaction, on
charge-conducting spheres nearby (electrically), relative to the effect of a
charge "conducting" sphere. Unless you want to go and say it cancels a force
by insultating. But you're getting off the point here.
I mean, you would have to admit for a start that you could control a charged
spheres position using static charges, and, similarly for magnetically for a
metal sphere.
The only question would be whether you can control a spheres position
magnetically, without having a magnetic field in the space between the
sphere and the magnetic source. That's what I was trying to assert, was the
plausibility of having a magnetically cancelled field in between target and
source (such as +5-5=0), so that the field only existed AT two points - the
target and source.
Like, if I have two magnets, of equal strength, a metal ruler. Place the
north end of one magnet on one side of the ruler so it attracts the metal
ruler up, and place the north end of the other magnet under the ruler so it
attracts the metal ruler down. Really the net force is zero. So in effect
the net magnetic field at the point is zero. So in theory is should be
possible to create regions of net zero magnetic field. That's all I'm
saying. I don't know about how plausible it is to actually create the effect
I mentioned (series of magnetic transmitting sources that has the net
magnetic effect of appearing like a focussed magnetic field at a single
target point only). But, I wouldn't call it impossible yet, unless discussed
a LOT further.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
31 May 2004 04:33:09 PM |
|
|
"Jevan" <jp@jevan1.com> wrote in message
news:xNHuc.4229$%r.53769@nasal.pacific.net.au...
I see what your saying. But, my hollow large sphere is made of
plastic or
something that does not attain charge, so this is not the case.
Such materials do not exist.
Hmm....... your saying its impossible to get a material that doesn't
attain
charge, even an almost-perfect (electrical) insulator?
That is exactly what I am saying.
Insulator = electrons
can not move through the lattice.
You did not say anything about a charge moving through the lattice.
You said "cannot attain charge". Any insulator will become charged
when rubbed with a suitable material
Therefore they must stay in their
positions around each atom.
I would rather just stick with "the charge cannor move around freely
in or on the insulator.
OK.. I suppose then it could be ionic (charged)
yet not conducting ?
If you were to drop the word "ionic", you would be spot on.
Like salt in water but that's ionic and conducting.
No. Not like salt in water at all. Introducing salt into water does
not introduce nett charge. Rubbing your backside on a plastic covered
chair and getting up smartly does produce a nett charge on your
clothes.
From what I can see, things that attain charge, tend to be
conducting.
No, not at all. That is quite wrong.
And,
things that are non-conducting tend not to attain charge.
No. That is quite wrong. Have you never heard the crackling when you
pull a nylon shirt over your dry hair?
So, an insulator should be fairly non-conducting.
An insulator should be very non-conducting. That, however, has only
to do with the mobility of charges, not with the ability to acquire a
charge.
Come on, you can't say you can't construct a sphere from a material
that
doesn't attain charge (or very difficult for it to).
You most certainly cannot construct a sphere from a material that
doesn't attain charge, since all materials contain electrons. Many of
these are very easily removed and deposited elsewhere by rubbing.
Everyone knows some materials pick up static electricity more easily
than
others for example.
But all insulators are able to do so quite easily.
HMM.......... if such material does not exist (it looks plainly
obvious that
it exists to me)
No, such materials do not exist at all.
... what does exist then?
Materials which contain nucleii with positive charges and electrons.
The electrons are easily removed by rubbing.
Actually that is a good point,
What is it that is a good point?
because my idea of what exists and everyone elses of what exists,
could
vary.
And then only some of us would be right.
I'm not saying 100% insulator is possible though. Good point.. even
air
conducts electricity if high enough voltage.
For the nth time, we are not talking about charges being conducted
around in an insulator. We are talking of removing or depositing some
electrons on to its surface.
Even a vacuum would? Probably
yes, if it had enough energy.
I suppose this is an unimportant detail though..
No. It is highly relevant in the context of your original thought
experiment. It makes a nonsense of that experiment.
after all, it's all
relative. I doubt that an "insultating" sphere would have much
attactive
effect in terms of force on it due to charge interaction, on
charge-conducting spheres nearby (electrically), relative to the
effect of a
charge "conducting" sphere. Unless you want to go and say it cancels
a force
by insultating. But you're getting off the point here.
You have already gor off the point.
I mean, you would have to admit for a start that you could control a
charged
spheres position using static charges,
You can indeed do so.
and, similarly for magnetically for a
metal sphere.
That is gobbledegook.
The only question would be whether you can control a spheres
position
magnetically, without having a magnetic field in the space between
the
sphere and the magnetic source. That's what I was trying to assert,
was the
plausibility of having a magnetically cancelled field in between
target and
source (such as +5-5=0), so that the field only existed AT two
points - the
target and source.
Your mind seems to be wandering rather a lot.
Like, if I have two magnets, of equal strength, a metal ruler. Place
the
north end of one magnet on one side of the ruler so it attracts the
metal
ruler up, and place the north end of the other magnet under the
ruler so it
attracts the metal ruler down. Really the net force is zero. So in
effect
the net magnetic field at the point is zero. So in theory is should
be
possible to create regions of net zero magnetic field. That's all
I'm
saying. I don't know about how plausible it is to actually create
the effect
I mentioned (series of magnetic transmitting sources that has the
net
magnetic effect of appearing like a focussed magnetic field at a
single
target point only). But, I wouldn't call it impossible yet, unless
discussed
a LOT further.
Static magnetic fields are not "focussable", how ever many you
superimpose.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jevan" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
02 Jun 2004 08:37:12 AM |
|
|
I see what your saying. But, my hollow large sphere is made of
plastic or
something that does not attain charge, so this is not the case.
Such materials do not exist.
Hmm.. conceivable.. that all materials (atoms, compounds, in any state) can
lose electrons when rubbed (or some kind of contact occurring with them i.e.
a flow or movement of something over them).. metals, ceramics, plastics,
air, helium, water, carbon dioxide, .... I suppose we could collect the
electrons moved to the bottom of the waterfall (few though they might be)
then, in that case.. that rub off onto the rocks the water could flow over.
In terms of the original idea, though, it's still valid I'd think - just
that it complicates things slightly. I suppose you can always charge up one
sphere with electrons (by rubbing it for example) and not another one,
thereby control which spheres are charged and which aren't.
I'm sure it still possible to construct a device that applies static charge
to foam balls sitting on its interior (even if its interior sphere can in
fact potentially attain charge), to control the position of a foam ball
floating in the middle. We don't really want lots of static buildup on the
interior of the device, only on the control points, that's why I thought it
good if there was a material that can't be charged.
If you make the interior sphere from metal and ground it, it will conduct
away any charge. Then since the interior has a track, with foam spheres on
it, these foam-spheres now need to be mounted on insulating pads so that
they don't conduct through to the metal interior (otherwise they mightn't
keep charge as well), but it needs some kind of conducting path through to
the outside so it can be separately charged.
Basically all I'm really thinking here is charging up or discharging each
foam-sphere mounted on the track on the interior-metal-sphere (but insulated
from the interior), charged/discharged separately at the right moment, to
cause application of a desired force onto a free-floating sphere (in the
air) in the centre in order to hold it there or change its position as
required.
It seems possible enough, but might be questioned whats the point. Certainly
be a nice gimmick though. The main point though is doing the same thing then
with magnetism - but it does really on whether we can focus magnitism,
otherwise there's no point really (because the field strengths required
would be too great without such a thing as 'focusing', for it to be useful
in common use).
Static magnetic fields are not "focussable", how ever many you
superimpose.
See my other post of 1st june 2004, whose body text begins with "I looked at
a bit more.. can't really seem to figure any easy way of getting the field
to INCREASE". Here I suggested perhaps dynamic method might be required in
order to achieve a virtual static 'focus'. I don't know if that would work
either though. If you flip a solenoid from generating N/S to S/N and vice
versa quickly, can the net magnetic charge be zero, when you superimpose the
N/S with the S/N (if the alternations are set up in the right way). If it
can be, then it looks possible perhaps to 'focus' magnetic fields (seem to
be to me anyway, see other post).
JP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
29 May 2004 03:24:01 PM |
|
|
"Jevan" <jp@jevan1.com> wrote in message
news:fZ1uc.4095$%r.43637@nasal.pacific.net.au...
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jevan
To: M.S.
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: levitation idea
All points within a charged hollow sphere are at the same
potential.
The original message in which this last sentence appeared does not
show in my list of threads, so I have to reply "out of turn"
Whoever said it left out a crucial word.
Guess what it is.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jevan" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
31 May 2004 12:36:27 PM |
|
|
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
I looked at a bit more.. can't really seem to figure any easy way of getting
the field to INCREASE after it's had a net decrease. I set up simple model
of 9 "source magnetism" cells, one in centre and 8 around it. The model
works by, the net field present at any given cell point position (imagine
for example a 10 by 10 grid of points), is the sum of contributions from
each source, each multiplied by weight factor for distance. Eg cells around
a source cell of source magnitude 10 have value 10, distance 2 away have
magnitude 10/2, distance 3 away 10/4, distance 4 away 10/8, etc (to simplify
I just defined the similar value points as concentric squares around the
source, each half as intense as the next).
I found that the source pattern:
20 -20
-20 20
produces a field going out at all four diagonals, with zero field
above/below and to the sides. The field going out at diagonals does decrease
with distance (it doesn't ever increase).
-20 -20 -20
-20 190 -20
-20 -20 -20
produces similar to the above.
"20 -20" produces field going out to sides and diagonals but zero field
above and below.
-20
40
-20
produces field going out to diagonals and above, but zero field at sides.
So it looks like we could fairly easily have a directed field (like, in four
straight lines), if you take the limit of such a design; and that then has
zero magnetic field everywhere else. But, it still has a field in between
source and target (along those lines).
The only way I can think of to have zero field between source and target, is
to have two sources coincide (on top of each other) but with equal and
opposite magntitude (field strength). In that case, there will be net zero
magnetic field everywhere. However, after some distance (as determined by
random noise and distance), the eminating fields should go out of
synchronization, and then suddenly the field should manifest. In that case,
it should be possible to have zero field everywhere, except for some radius
away from the source.
Using a four-diagnoals type design (see above), it could then be possible to
limit the manifesting field eminations to four straight (diagonal) lines,
beginning at the point it starts to appear (once synchronization breaks
down), if this could be of some help. But, there is still therefore the
issue of what to do about the field once it manifests. I thought perhaps the
target could shield the field from going any further. However, using the
four-diagonal + synchrony method, this means you'd have four targets, and
only one of the rays would be shielded, the other three would continue. I
think one would have to see about whether an eminating design can be created
that only goes out in one direction (not all directions of 2D around the
source).
Actually I think one could always use a four-diagonal design, combined with
shielding around the source, to ensure only one diagonal's rays are
released. That would ensure only one target. At the target it would be
necessary to block the magnetic emination received, from going any further.
By this design I mean a source consisting of two blocks of four sources, the
two blocks coinciding:
20 -20
-20 20
and
-20 20
20 -20
Each of these puts out a field consisting of four diagonals and zero-field
everywhere else, and when coinciding, results in net-zero field until
synchronization breaks down after some distance. Shielding around 3 of the 4
diagonals, should ensure only one of the four targeting rays is allowed to
exit the source.
All this by the way, is working in two dimensions, the idea would have to be
reworked into 3 dimensions.
It sounds do-able to me.....
If you want to follow my analogy I've used, look at this grids below. This
does rely on the assumption that it is possible to place two magnetic
sources of opposite magnitude, in simultaneous position (such as
electrically generated or otherwise - eg if you can quickly switch and
electrical solenoid or something method from generating a field point N/S,
to suddenly generating a field pointing S/N, and vice versa, so that it is
fast enough that the net effect was cancellation, if that would actually
work?... and then assuming that the net-zero field would eventually (and
suddenly) manifest as a significant field, after some (calculatable by
experiment) distance wherein perfect synchrony breaks down). Comments
anyone?
1) 4-Diagonal eminations
Source
0 20 -20
0 -20 20
0 0 0
Source region after application of field:
0 0 0
0 0 0
-10 0 0
Total Resulting Field:
0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 -5
0 0 0 0 10 0 0 -10 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -10 0 0 10 0
0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 -2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) 4-Diagonal eminations
Source:
-20 -20 -20
-20 190 -20
-20 -20 -20
Source after field applied:
80 60 80
60 30 60
80 60 80
Resulting field:
3.75 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.25 7.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.5
0 2.5 15 5 0 0 0 5 15
0 0 5 30 10 0 10 30 5
0 0 0 10 80 60 80 10 0
0 0 0 0 60 30 60 0 0
0 0 0 10 80 60 80 10 0
0 0 30 10 0 10 30 5
0 2.5 15 5 0 0 0 5 15
3) Side+Diagonal Eminations
Source:
0 0 0
0 -20 20
0 0 0
Source after field applied:
-10 0 0
-10 0 0
-10 0 0
Resulting field:
-0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.63 -1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 -5 0 0 0 0 5
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 -5 -10 0 0 10 5
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 -5 -10 0 0 10 5
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 -5 -10 0 0 10 5
-0.63 -1.25 -5 0 0 0 0 5
-0.63 -1.25 -2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) Top/Bottom + Diagonal eminations
Source:
0 -20 0
0 40 0
0 -20 0
source after field applied:
10 10 10
0 0 0
10 10 10
resulting field:
0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63 -0.63
0 1.25 -1.25 -1.25 -1.25 -1.25 -1.25 -1.25 -1.25
0 0 2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 2.5
0 0 0 5 -5 -5 -5 5 0
0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0
0 0 5 -5 -5 -5 5 0
0 0 2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 2.5
To see this properly you have to place it into a 9x9 grid so each number
occupies equal space. To explain calculations done, is best illustrated by a
simple example (it should be obvious from this example).
source:
0 1 1000
0 0 0
0 0 0
source after field applied:
501 1001 1001
501 1001 1001
500.5 500.5 500.5
(notice the 1000 propogates to each nearby cell as 1000/1=1000, and
propogates to cells distance 2 apart as 1000/2=500; similarly for the 1
propogating as 1/1 and 1/2; and then net field is sum of all these
consitutuent parts; of course for distance 3 it will be 1000/4, for distance
4 will be 1000/8, etc)
resulting field:
31.31 62.63 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.5 500.5 500.5 500.5 500.5 500.25
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.5 501 1001 1001 1000.5 500.25
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.5 501 1001 1001 1000.5 500.25
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.5 501 1001 1001 1000.5 500.25
31.31 62.63 125.25 250.5 500.5 500.5 500.5 500.5 500.25
31.31 62.63 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25 250.25
31.31 62.63 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13 125.13
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
02 Jun 2004 05:51:36 PM |
|
|
any what are you trying to build ?? A tv ?
Go buy one
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
29 May 2004 10:34:43 AM |
|
|
Jevan wrote:
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
[snip 235 lines of crap]
If you knew more, which is to say any, physics you would be deeply
embarassed.
Zeta pinch, idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jevan" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
29 May 2004 10:49:46 AM |
|
|
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
If you knew more, which is to say any, physics you would be deeply
embarassed.
Well then since your a physics expert you can explain how magnetic waves
combine then, for everyone else reading this, for a start. Also I assume
they are like waves, not particles.
JP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: focussing magnetism? |
29 May 2004 11:04:07 AM |
|
|
Jevan wrote:
See below, any comments/ideas to add, from anyone?
If you knew more, which is to say any, physics you would be deeply
embarassed.
Well then since your a physics expert you can explain how magnetic waves
combine then, for everyone else reading this, for a start. Also I assume
they are like waves, not particles.
You snipped the most relevant word from my OP: "Idiot."
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
