Particle Drifts in Space

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Particle Drifts in Space

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:13 pm

.
I hope comingfrom approves. I took his post as a challenge. Can we account for the following?

Re: Miles Mathis, A recent discussion at TBolts. Starting at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16723

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16723&p=120027&sid=39cb50cc49b7ad9f564061454afa6736#p120027
Airman wrote. Please make a simple diagram.
comingfrom wrote. Rather than make one, I'll find an "official" one that shows what I am speaking about.

source: Particle Drifts in Space https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wdrift.html

source: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/nmr.html

Airman wrote. Wonderful sources. Perfect for improving our understanding; all kinds of information and experimental results the charge field must account for.

Chromium6 wrote. Just to add this too... keep in mind "nano-magnets".
These apparently will prove or disprove quite a bit with Mathis' explanation of magnetism. This is a relatively young field with many recent discoveries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomagnet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnets

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Also perfect is the fact that the nasa.gov documents are archived teaching materials with the following,
 
Disclaimer: The following material is being kept online for archival purposes.
Although accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

While these tax payer funded materials (you're welcome) still last, let's make this a teaching moment.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

#10a. Particle Drifts in Space    (Optional)

Space physics can be weird. In regions of magnetic fields, the relation between electric fields and currents is very different from its form in everyday technology.
   Ohm's law tells that electric fields drive electric currents, from high voltage to low voltage. In a conductor such as a wire, electrons move from (-) to (+), while ions (if they are free to move), are pushed in the opposite direction, (+) to (-). In space, on the other hand, the the entire plasma is moved sideways, perpendicular to both magnetic and electric field lines. No steady electric current results from the electric field, and both ions and electrons advance in the same direction.
   On the other hand, electric currents often flow in space without any voltage driving them. No electric field is involved--the magnetic field is doing it all, when it has the appropriate structure.
   This strange behavior is explained below. No math is used, but the arguments are a bit complex--skip this part, if you want. If you decide to continue, go slow: it only takes a short time to read this web page, but much longer to understand it. Make sure to assimilate each part of the argument before going to the next one.

Electric Drift
The drawing shown here explains what happens when electric and magnetic fields act together on ions and electrons. Consult it in each stage of the discussion.

1.   Why electric fields parallel to magnetic field lines are rare in space
   It will be assumed in what follows that the direction of the electric force ("direction of the electric field") is always perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field lines.
   There exists a reason. In space, ions and electrons spiral around their guiding magnetic field lines, but at the same time they can also slide along those lines, like beads threaded on a wire.
   If the electric force had some part in that direction (a "vector component"), those ions and electrons, as they advance along their guiding field lines, would also be accelerated by it, and gain speed. However... gaining speed also means gaining energy. Because energy in nature is conserved, whatever the particle gains, weakens the accelerating part of the electric field, and unless fresh energy is constantly supplied, that part does not last long.
   Without such fresh energy (the usual case), the electric force along the field line quickly drops to zero. When that happens, the same voltage exists at all points along a magnetic field line, leaving no voltage differences that might drive currents in that direction. The remaining electric field is then perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, as in the drawing here.
   An exception to this rule is discussed in section #28, dealing with the origin of the aurora. There energy is being supplied and the electric force does have a component in the same direction as the magnetic field line.

2.   The Electric Force
   For the above reason, the local magnetic field lines in the drawing (repeated here for convenience) are assumed to be perpendicular to the paper, coming out towards you. Suppose also the electric field--representing the electric force--is in the plane of the drawing, towards the top of the figure. A straight arrow was drawn giving that direction, which we choose to be the y direction in a system of (x, y) axes, drawn in the bottom right corner.
   A positive particle--such as a proton, marked here p+ --is pushed by the electric force towards the top of the drawing, in the +y direction.
   A negative electron, marked e-, is pushed towards the bottom, in the -y direction You can imagine (if you wish) a positive charge somewhere below the drawing, and a negative charge somewhere above it, creating that force--repelling or attracting the proton or electron.
3.   The Magnetic Force Alone
   If the electron and the proton (or other positive ion) were free, they would simply move in those directions. But they are not free, because of the magnetic force.
   If only magnetic forces were present (no electric field), the proton would circle around a magnetic field line in the clockwise direction (from where we are looking) and the electron in the counter-clockwise direction. These directions are given near the left edge of the drawing.
4.   Electric and Magnetic Forces together
   The electric force modifies the motion. Protons are accelerated in the +y direction, so they move a bit faster on the part of their circle closer to the top of the page (see drawing above!).
   Electrons are accelerated in the -y direction, so their speed is a bit greater on the part of their circle closer to the bottom.
   Faster ions or electrons circle with a bigger radius. They behave a bit like a racing car: the greater its speed, the wider is the circle it follows when going around a curve.
   Therefore protons make wider circles at the top of their circles, and electrons make wider circles at the bottom of their circles. This is shown in the drawing, and the result is a slow crablike sideways motion ("drift") in the (-y) direction, by both ions and electrons. Even though they circle their field lines in opposite directions, the electric field moves them both in the same direction, to the right.
   It can also be shown that the velocity of both motions is always the same--even though protons are nearly 2000 times heavier, and even though the initial energies of the particles can be very different. (To those familiar with mathematics and physics, this process can be explained much more concisely and transparently.) The result is always a sideways flow of the plasma, a migration of the entire plasma, a bulk motion of the gas rather than a flow of electric current.
Barium Clouds and Solar Wind

   Such an "electric drift" takes place in the barium cloud (section #8 whose figure is repeated here). The green cloud of neutral barium stays still, while any electric field present makes the purple cloud, consisting of ions and electrons, drift away from it (see illustration). Of course, since ions and electrons remain free to slide along magnetic field lines, the ion cloud also expands slowly in that direction (or rather, in two opposite directions--up and down the field lines).
   Where can such electric fields come from? Probably from far out in space. As noted earlier on this web page, a magnetic field line tends to have the same voltage everywhere along its length. If an electric field is created anywhere on that line, its voltage will be transmitted to the rest of it, and with it, the electric field is also transmitted. Thus an electric field created far in space can spread to the end region of the line, where the line comes down into the atmosphere, and where the transmitted field causes barium clouds to drift.
--------------
   Electric fields in space also arise in other ways. When some powerful cause "pushes" plasma to move in some direction, an electric fields helps achieve this. The positive and negative charges creating such a field need only a relatively small number of electrons to be moved to new positions, and where the impulse for moving the plasma is strong enough, nature obliges and shifts them. The motion of plasma--changing the magnetic field line structure--is also associated with an electric field, of a type which cannot be conveniently described by simple voltage distributions.
--------------
   One example is the solar wind, a steady flow of plasma spreading out from the solar corona, the hot upper atmosphere of the Sun, which is too hot for the Sun's gravity to retain it (see section #18). The solar wind spreads radially outwards, while the interplanetary magnetic field lines which accompany it are expanding spirals around the Sun (section #18a).
   The radial motion of solar wind ions and electrons must cut across those spirals. How do those particles avoid being forced into tiny spirals around those lines? By an electric field! The flow of the solar wind is driven by powerful energy sources, which make its motion take precedence, which it does by creating the appropriate electric field.
   (On the other hand, high energy particles from solar outbursts are too few in number to force their way through, and are forced into the spiral route. See note at the end of section #18a.)

Magnetic Drifts

Now to the other oddity--electric currents without any voltage.
   Suppose as before that magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the drawing, and that the same (x, y) axes are used as before. Only now (drawing on the left) no electric field exists, and instead the strength of the magnetic force changes with distance in the y direction--it is much greater at the top of the drawing than at the bottom.
   As before both ions and electrons circle around magnetic field lines, as drawn (we ignore the sliding motion). However, the size of the circle also depends on the strength of the magnetic force--the stronger the force, the smaller the radius of the circle. (In the limit where the magnetic force drops to zero, the particles move in straight lines--same as circles of infinite radius!)
   Because the way the strength of the force changes, the orbits, again, are no longer circles but flat spirals (see drawing), curving more sharply at the top of their motion.
   The result as before, is again a crablike sideways "drift." This time, however, protons and electrons drift in opposite directions. Protons move to the left, electrons to the right, and both motions contribute a right-to-left electric current.

The ring current https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtrap1.html#ringcurrent described in section #9 is of this type. The figure from that section, reproduced here, looks down on the equatorial plane of the Earth, from the north. All field lines point upwards, as in the previous drawing, and the strength of the magnetic field increases inwards, towards the Earth. The drift is therefore in the 3rd perpendicular direction, which carries the particles around Earth--electrons counterclockwise, protons clockwise, and the current flows clockwise too. The earlier drawing illustrating magnetic drifts may be viewed (qualitatively) as a magnified blow-up of the situation at the bottom of the ring current drawing.  
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Does all the above make sense? Do we agree?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected hyperphysics link)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#1 The Magnetosphere

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:55 pm

.
The purpose of this archived material is to “teach” the subject matter, the Magnetosphere, as it was understood in 2001, before recognition of the charge field. The material needs updating. What are the charge field mechanisms that explain the subject matter better?

We’re trying to learn here. Please feel free to add, change or comment.

The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmap.html

#1. The Magnetosphere.

The Earth is a huge magnet, and its magnetic influence extends far into space.



In our everyday environment, magnetic forces are of no importance and a sensitive instrument, the compass needle, is needed to detect them. That is because we, the materials we encounter in everyday life, even the oxygen and nitrogen which we breathe, are all electrically neutral. The atoms of oxygen, for instance, contain electrons with negative electric charges and protons which are positive, but the two charges balance each other and the electric and magnetic forces cancel. Magnetic forces have almost no effect on neutral atoms.

However, 60 miles (100 km) or more above the surface of the Earth, the natural environment is quite different. The fringes of the atmosphere at these heights are strongly heated by the Sun's x-rays and ultra-violet light (and by other causes as well), causing negative electrons to be torn off atoms and leaving the remainder of the atoms as positively charged "ions". These electrified fragments react strongly to the magnetic forces and can be steered and trapped by them.


Airman. Halfway through 1, seems like a good place to stop. “Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later. The first thing that stopped me is the figure – superimposing a bar magnet with the Earth in order to describe the Earth’s magnetic field. I’ve added another diagram from the text, showing how magnetic field lines are determined using a compass needle.

Our first task: explaining magnetic field lines in terms of the charge field.
 
Of course magnetic field lines aren’t real, they just indicate the directions the compass would follow, along lines of equal force, similar to elevation lines in a geologic map intended to portray terrain contours. Remaining roughly parallel, a compass moved to one side of the line may feel a slightly stronger force; the magnetic force felt on the other side of the line would be slightly weaker.

We know that the magnetic lines are related to the top spin orientations of the Earth’s emission field, but why does the compass lie in the directions shown? Our compass needle displays a net force and direction – the result of several factors. The first, Earth’s emissions are two-to-one, matter and anti-matter. If Earth’s emissions were balanced, little to no magnetic field would be detected. This is true for Venus, it has a weak magnetic field yet still emits a strong electric field. The magnetosphere strength increases with greater matter and anti-matter imbalance.

Another factor, the Earth is a large source of photons of all wavelengths and frequencies. The strength of the magnetosphere would increase if Earth’s emissions were more coherent, or emitted “in phase”. These details are too complicated for the time being. Before we can answer fully, we’ll need to cover the text’s next section. I’ll conclude the current post with the remainder of #1. The Magnetosphere.



With a suitable input of energy, such fragments can also be accelerated to high speeds, can give rise to electic currents and emit a variety of radio-type waves.

It can be shown that such free electrons and ions will be guided by the magnetic field lines (or "lines of force") which rise from near the southern (magnetic) pole and enter the Earth again near the northern pole. Electrons and ions tend to remain attached to field lines like beads on wires, though unlike beads they also slowly migrate ("drift") to neighboring "wires."

It follows that the structure of field lines near Earth determines much of the motion and behavior of the free electrons and ions found there. Satellites observing magnetic forces in space have found (figure on right) that lines from most points on Earth are confined inside a fairly well-defined cavity, the magnetosphere of the Earth. The space outside it is dominated by the Sun, and by the fast "solar wind" of free ions and electrons emitted by the Sun.

Next #2. Magnetic Fields.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:11 am

Okay, LTAM... just so we stop this before this old question starts up:



https://archive.org/details/skylab_magnetism_in_space


Last edited by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:17 am


The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly: Magnetism’s Bermuda Triangle

This entry was posted on June 1, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

The Bermuda Triangle is notorious for strange phenomena and mysteries. While it’s probably more myth than fact, this peculiar part of the globe has captivated our imaginations for years. Well, those of us in the magnet biz have our own version—Russia’s Kursk Magnetic Anomaly.

The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly, or KMA, is the world’s largest. Situated in southwest Russia near the Ukrainian border and its strange properties have puzzled scientists for years.

What’s a Magnetic Anomaly in the First Place?

As most of us know (especially if you follow us on Twitter), Earth possesses a magnetic field generated from millions of tons of iron and other metals deep within the planet’s core. Our magnetic field helps deflect harmful solar wind so we’re not irradiated. Strongest near the north and south poles, the magnetic field is pretty consistent across various degrees of latitude.

However, there are of course exceptions to this rule. Often resulting from unusually high levels of metal, a magnetic anomaly is a change in Earth’s magnetic field that’s different from what’s expected. That means there’s such a large amount of metal in the crust, it can override the rest of Earth’s massive magnetic field!

Why Are We Attracted to the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly?

Plainly put, this site is massive. With more than 30 billion tons of iron ore spread across nearly 50,000 square miles, it’s the size of countries like Greece and Cuba. It’s so large, some estimate it accounts for about 50% of all of Earth’s iron ore reserves.

Thanks to all that iron in the ground, compasses here will spin an extra 15 degrees, and in some areas, they even confuse south with east and north with west. This unique geological phenomenon has won the area the nickname “Earth’s Third Magnetic Pole.” Bottom line: If you decide to visit here, bring a guide. Much like the dreaded Bermuda Triangle, It wouldn’t be hard to get lost!

But wait, there’s more! Thanks to all that iron ore in the ground, some parts are actually easier to navigate than others. That’s because the location is the perfect place for mining, and mining companies have cut enormous pits into the red surface all over the area to bring up the precious metal.

If you think phenomena like the KMA are interesting, keep up with our News & How-Tos blog, where you can learn plenty of fascinating facts on our favorite topic (magnets)!

This entry was posted in Magnet Facts and tagged kursk magnetic anomaly, weird magnet facts, magnetic field on June 1, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/kursk-magnetic-anomaly/ (cool site)

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Nevyn on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.

I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:49 am

Nevyn wrote:
LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.

I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...

Came across this article...they are finding new magnetic molecules each year... looks like particular arrangements for magnetism to occur. Like Nevyn says...what characteristics would allow for more charge flow?

https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/new-magnetic-materials-discovered-in-ireland/


New Magnetic Materials Discovered In Ireland

This entry was posted on May 8, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

While the majority of our magnets are made of neodymium, samarium, and cobalt, there are plenty more materials possessing magnetic properties. Furthermore, the scientific community has recently discovered a whole new batch! Researchers in Ireland announced last month that they had unearthed 22 new materials able to play host to the properties of magnetism.
....

How to Discover New Magnets

As mentioned above, new magnetic materials aren’t exactly popping up every day. Sorting through millions of individual particles stifles progress. For most of history, stumbling upon magnetic materials was pretty much a crap shoot. However, the Amber Research team employed a vast database to sort through over a quarter of a million materials. Each of these materials was analyzed for its magnetic capabilities.

Ok, great, now we know which materials are magnetic, now what? Not only does the database identify what materials are magnetic, but also helps determine their best potential use. For Amber Research’s purposes, that would be technology.
...
Amber’s chief researcher, Stefano Sanvito is most hopeful about a particular compound, Co2MNTI. He notes the compounds ability to maintain its magnetism at temperatures as high as 630 degrees Celsius, meaning it could be used in some pretty heavy-duty tech. It would be one of only a handful of magnetic materials to function in such extreme heat.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Nevyn on Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:06 am

You have to be careful about whether you are talking about materials that create, or enhance, magnetism or materials that react to it. The literature is not always clear about this. I was talking about materials that react to magnetism. However, it is still important to realise that certain atoms and molecules do create or enhance magnetism and it is the charge flow through those atoms and molecules that does it. So either way we have charge flowing through atoms as the cause.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 787
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

#1 Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:46 am

.
Cr6. Okay, LTAM... just so we stop this before this old question starts up:
https://archive.org/details/skylab_magnetism_in_space
Airman. You lost me there good buddy, what old question is that?

The video perfectly complements the compass diagram; Skylab orbits every 90 minutes or so, Richard’s demonstration allows us to see the compass’ own slow rotation in order to remain aligned with the field line directions about the planet.

Also, unlike poles do fly together, no surprise there. Like poles don’t so much repel, as flip, and attract. I’ll keep this in mind as I think it’s important to our understanding of charge.
 
Cr6. https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/kursk-magnetic-anomaly/ (cool site)
Airman. 50% of all of Earth’s iron ore reserves in such a small area is a complete surprise. I thought Earth was an iron planet, like most meteorites, I’m clueless on the actual subject matter.

I remember one news item, a magnetic model of the Earth was being run on some mainframe a small amount of time every day for a month. In the small time left allotted the model finally showed the hoped for event, a magnetic pole reversal. The Kursk is one small knot in the giant orange and blue hairball their model showed. They needed to close all exterior field lines with hypothetical lines inside the planet. I guess I bring it up as a way to object to the idea of magnetic loops inside the planet.

LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.
Nevyn. I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...
Airman. I think I agree, although it’ll take some effort to explain how.

The atom is in balance with its ambient charge field conditions. The atom is always recycling charge. Over time, the atom must recycle all the charge it receives. I suppose an atom cannot recycle what it doesn’t receive; can the atom’s constituent protons, neutrons and electrons “bank” some minimum quantity of essential nuclear charge over an extended period of time, a minimum energy quantization level?

External charge collisions where the colliding photons escape still contribute their energies to a free atom’s overall velocity and spin rate. The same collisions may simply maintain or increase the temperature of an atom bound to a large solid. The atom’s energy level determines the atom’s charge recycling rate. Higher recycling rates would result in increased energy quantization levels, equivalent to increased ionization levels.

Nonmagnetic spin collisions tend to cancel out leaving the electric field as the sole component. Magnetic field spin collisions provide more frequent spin boosts that result in an increased energy field; in addition to the electric field, there also includes a well defined spin component. 100 km above the Earth, the magnetic field must double the overall E/M energy field. That isn't a cause of the magnetic field, it is a result.

Cr6. Like Nevyn says...what characteristics would allow for more charge flow?
https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/new-magnetic-materials-discovered-in-ireland/
Airman. Designing materials with respect to anticipated charge flows sounds absolutely correct.

Nevyn. You have to be careful about whether you are talking about materials that create, or enhance, magnetism or materials that react to it. The literature is not always clear about this. I was talking about materials that react to magnetism. However, it is still important to realise that certain atoms and molecules do create or enhance magnetism and it is the charge flow through those atoms and molecules that does it. So either way we have charge flowing through atoms as the cause.
Airman. I agree. As a general statement, I believe charge flow through atoms must follow the energy level of the atom, whether the atom is magnetic or not. I haven’t begun to appreciate each special case yet.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:41 am

.
#2. Magnetic Fields.

People not familiar with magnetism often view it as a somewhat mysterious property of specially treated iron or steel.

A magnetized bar has its power concentrated at two ends, its poles; they are known as its north (N) and south (S) poles, because if the bar is hung by its middle from a string, its N end tends to point northwards and its S end southwards. The N end will repel the N end of another magnet, S will repel S, but N and S attract each other. The region where this is observed is loosely called a magnetic field; a more specific look at the concept of "field" is provided in a later section.
Below, the above paragraph is repeated, only first sentence is changed.

A magnetized bar channels nuclear charge primarily in the N/S direction, the pole-to-pole main atomic axis; they are known as its north (N) and south (S) poles, because if the bar is hung by its middle from a string, its N end tends to point northwards and its S end southwards. The N end will repel the N end of another magnet, S will repel S, but N and S attract each other. The region where this is observed is loosely called a magnetic field; a more specific look at the concept of "field" is provided in a later section.
Either pole can also attract iron objects such as pins and paper clips. That is because under the influence of a nearby magnet, each pin or paper clip becomes itself a temporary magnet, with its poles arranged in a way appropriate to magnetic attraction.

But this property of iron is a very special type of magnetism, almost an accident of nature!

But in space there is no magnetic iron, yet magnetism is widespread. For instance, sunspots consist of glowing hot gas, yet they are all intensely magnetic. The Earth's own magnetic powers arise deep in its interior, and temperatures there are too high for iron magnets, which lose all their power when heated to a red glow. What goes on in those magnetized regions?

It is all related to electricity.

An incorrect image of a nucleus with orbiting electrons has been deleted.

It is all related to the charge field.

Electricity and magnetism have been unified for almost 200 years. Atoms and electrons have been known for 150; together they were electrically neutral, and so equal and opposite positive and negative charges were defined. Electricity was composed of electrons. These things – rather than more modern quantum ideas - are common knowledge today. 100 years ago it was observed that light could knock electrons from metal – the photoelectric effect. We now know that electrons are pushed along by photons. All previous interpretations based on electron motion alone are incomplete, new charge field interpretations are needed.

The discovery of the charge field is still new, there are many unanswered details. It is assumed the reader is not familiar with the charge field. Unfortunately, I’ll be making errors. Please feel free to correct or discuss. See Miles Mathis’ Physics Site, http://milesmathis.com/index.html for a complete understanding.

I’ll break the text's following paragraph into sentences.  
Matter consists of electrically charged particles: each atom consists of light, negative electrons swarming around a positive nucleus.
Charge is a repulsive force based on photon collisions. Photons travel with forward and tangential spin velocities equal to light speed. Matter such as electrons, neutrons and protons, (or simply charged particles), is created from high energy photons through a mechanism of radius doublings known as spin stacking (see http://www.nevyns-lab.com/ for simulations of several charge field ideas). All matter constantly recycles photons; photons usually enter the charged particle’s poles and exit the particle’s equator. Emitted photons form the particle’s emission field, with most repulsion delivered in the equatorial plane, and least repulsion directed above the poles. Neutrons channel photons pole-to-pole, and have weak emissions, limited to just above the poles. The largest known particles are the neutrons, although planets, stars and galaxies seem to organize charge in much the same way.

Charge photons can be spin up, or spin down, (using the right hand rule), matter or anti-matter. The Earth, along with its inhabitants are a mix, two-to-one, matter-to-antimatter. Note there are no total annihilations. Photons enter the Earth’s south pole at twice the rate compared to anti-photons entering the Earth’s north pole. Earth’s photons and anti-photons are emitted from charged particles anywhere in or on the planet, most often from the equator, and the opposite (from the entry pole) +/-30 degree latitude directions outwards. The magnetic field of the Earth reflects the matter/anti-matter imbalance, after all spin cancellations are complete, there is still a large number of photons with associated spin-up direction, forming the Earth’s prevailing magnetic field.

The unified charge field unites gravity with the charge field. Gravitation is equivalent to expanding matter. Charge is always in vector opposition to gravity. At the large end of the size scale, beginning at a meter and above, gravity is found to be the more dominant force of the universe. Below a meter’s length, charge increases in relative strength. The photon radius is about 10E-24 meter.

There is no real attraction, only varying repulsion, based on the size differences, orientations, spins, velocities and distances between charged particles. For example, two protons may prevent any further approach by their mutually bombarding photon emission fields; an electron may pass between the two without necessarily being knocked away since it is 1821x smaller than the protons – too small a target at that particular distance. This has been misinterpreted as attraction.

Free electrons are too large to travel at light speed; they still spin with a tangential light speed; they can be found almost anywhere except inside larger charged particles. Free electrons are usually pushed along by random photon collisions, usually in a slow Brownian motion, or in a drift toward a proton pole nuclear charge current intake. Atomic electrons are usually found circling a proton pole, caught in a photon charge eddy current trying to enter the proton, but too big to fit.
Objects with extra electrons are negatively (-) charged, while those missing some electrons are positively (+) charged.
There are no negative or positive charges. All photonic charge is repulsive, based on photon collisions. Electrons will show a net movement only when the charge field pushing those electrons forward shows its own net movement.  An increased number of electrons in a given area adds to the photon emissions in that area. Energetic photons or electrons can knock electrons away from their positions circling the proton poles; the atom is then ionized, this results in an increase in that atomic charge channel photon intake, causing increased through currents and an overall increased emissions and repulsion at the emission ends of the affected charge channel.
Such charging with "static electricity" may happen (sometimes unintentionally!) when objects are brushed with cloth or fur on a dry day. Experiments in the 1700s have shown that (+) repels (+), (- ) repels (-), while (+) and (-) attract each other.
One way static electricity may result is when large numbers of electrons are stripped off the materials by contact motion, thereby ionizing many atoms. The electrons’ absence leaves wide open atomic charge channel intake points. All the affected charge channels through currents increase, forming what has been described as fractal like random distributions of increased two-way lines of charge repulsion from both materials involved. The increased emissions may, in turn, cause additional ionizations of nearby material, perhaps as cascades that can lead to explosions in grain silos. The electrons affected become free, unlikely to rejoin the atoms they were previously close to. Eventually other free electrons will drift between the lines of increased charge currents, re-positioning themselves above the proton charge intake poles, and slowly de-ionize the "statically charged" surfaces.

To Be Continued.

Your inputs are appreciated.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:14 am

Thanks for the inputs LTAM and Nevyn.  Magnetism always seemed the most elusive to me for reconciling Mathis with the Mainstream theories. What is replaced and accepted with Mathis and the Mainstream with magnetism?

BTW, that old question LTAM was: "does magnetism work in space?"... that is when magnets are placed far away from the earth's magnetic field?

Interesting thoughts on this. What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic? Those with single slots on the ends and a simple carousel?  N-S flows and limited carousel flows?

I need to go back and reread this part.

http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetochemistry
---

Now, how do the photons actually cancel half the field, and why do they cancel it in the case of magnets, but not in the case of normal objects? When we bring two objects together, they do not normally interact this way, creating a charge vacuum and a significantly increased gravitational bond, do they? Since I have claimed that all objects emit the charge field, why don't all objects act like magnets? Also, why do repulsing magnets repulse?

When magnets meet, they do not need to have stronger charge fields or extraordinary charge fields, or anything else. They only need to have charge fields that are ordered in a particular way. This is already known, in a way, since we know that the domains have to all be aligned by some external magnetic field. If they aren't, the magnet won't work or won't have its full strength. This was known, but it wasn't known precisely what was aligning. Up to now, it was thought that it was something to do with electric current, but it isn't. The electric current in a magnet and around a magnet is an effect of the alignment, not the cause of it. What is actually aligning is the charge field. It is not unpaired electrons creating alignment either, it is the nucleus. The nucleus is channeling charge, and with certain elements the nuclear poles align, creating magnetic conduction. See my recent paper on Iron for more on this.

In short, with magnetic attraction, we have two opposite spin fields meeting, and these fields are a creation of the nucleus. Some elements create much stronger spin fields via magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole, and these elements are the most magnetic. When these strong spin fields meet from opposing directions, we get high spin cancellations. When the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field. The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins. In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field. Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide. But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field. A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened gravity field, and the result is an apparent attraction. There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.
...
And this is why normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Magnetic Fields Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm

.
Cr6. Thanks for the inputs LTAM and Nevyn.  Magnetism always seemed the most elusive to me for reconciling Mathis with the Mainstream theories. What is replaced and accepted with Mathis and the Mainstream with magnetism?

BTW, that old question LTAM was: "does magnetism work in space?"... that is when magnets are placed far away from the earth's magnetic field?

Interesting thoughts on this. What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic? Those with single slots on the ends and a simple carousel?  N-S flows and limited carousel flows?

I need to go back and reread this part.
Airman. Me too. I’d be lying if I said this subject were clear to me, far from it. I’m re-reading How Magnetism Works Mechanically maybe my lucky seventh time. I finally see Miles discussing how to increase magnetic effects using electricity and/or free electrons. That must mean that electrons (and protons) are also magnetic.

"does magnetism work in space?"... .
Oh, and space is a perfect insulator? We know that charge field photons are too small to see. Electromagnetism is visible only through the motions of electrons and ions. Earth’s magnetic emissions permeate Skylab, whose own materials, free atoms and electrons conform to and strengthen the magnetic field locally.

What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic?
I gave comingfrom my guess on why iron is attracted to either magnetic pole on the TB board a couple of weeks ago. I’ve added a little to it, what do you think?  

Iron is a perfect conduit of magnetism. That may be due to the fact that Iron is so perfectly balanced – with respect to phase. No matter what azimuthal directions iron’s photons are emitted, they have traveled through the atom the same phase length. North and south are equal, the four arms are equal – does it follow that all six paths are the same phase lengths? Note that phase lengths are critically important in signals and communications (I’m banging my foot on the floor – definite test question!).

If that rule is true for electrons, protons and iron atoms, it must also be true for magnetic molecules – the phase out should equal the phase in – the internal nuclear channels should be some integer phase length. Any carousal, or azimuthal, imbalances must interfere with the coherence of any magnetic field. Open hook positions must diminish coherent emissions.

Here’s a question that I keep repeating to myself. 100 km up, every electron, proton, or free magnetic atom will align itself as sure as the magnetic compass, orienting themselves to maximize photon intake. Is that true? What vector additions make that true? It seems to me the magnet must point to the Earth’s main axis. I was a boy scout, but I haven’t figured out how the compass points north. Sad.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:05 pm

And Neodymium too. Balanced as well with just 4-single posts on the carousel. 6 single slots total.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/AtomicViewer/AtomicViewer.php?metadata=false&element=60&position=0,0,90


Last edited by Cr6 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:23 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:08 pm

.
#2. Magnetic Fields.
It is all related to electricity the charge field.  continued.


Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.
Airman. As shown, the heated coil in the battery circuit produced a supply of electrons that flowed across the gap to the positive plate. If the main battery leads were switched, a flow of electrons between the coil and plate were not created. If the coil was not heated no current would flow.

Without going too deep, I hope, the charge field description goes something like, this *- The battery provides two terminals with two different charge density producton rates. When connected, the wires should be considered extensions of the battery terminals. The wires then share the same voltages, and the same general photon creation rates as the two terminals. Photons aren’t guided by wires. The atoms making up the two wires and circuit share a mutual E/M coherence. In this case, the heated and energized coil becomes a source of photons that indeed drives free electrons towards the plate. The electron motion is evidence of the underlying net charge motion.

A heated wire connected to a battery produces electrons. More importantly, the heated wire is also creating coherent, spin aligned photons Quoting #4. Electrons, our source also states.
Light, like heat, can also knock electrons out of a metal. If the heated coil in the drawing is replaced by a clean metal plate, and light shines onto it, electrons are again released, and current will flow in the circuit. The explanation of this phenomena, called the photoelectric effect, earned Albert Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize.
Airman. Forgive me for repeating. The photoelectric effect, we've known for almost 100 years that photons can also cause an electron flow. Back to the source, with small changes.
In 1821 (see below) Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. The needle was neither attracted to the wire nor repelled from it. Instead, it tended to stand at right angles (see drawing below). In the end he published his findings (in Latin!) without any explanation.

Airman. (I’ve edited the source text a little). When energized, the wire becomes a coherent source of photons. The compass will want to align itself to the source of photons. In the Oersted demonstration I’m familiar with, the compass is not in the same horizontal plane as the wire. The compass describes a tangent to a cylinder that surrounds the wire, describing the direction of the wire’s magnetic field lines, which, of course, was unknown at the time.  

Oersted was unable to explain the results. Without benefit of the charge field, and 40 years before Maxwell would write his famous E/M field equations, Oersted had no model or theory to draw upon. I’m not at all sure I’ve given the proper explanation either.  
Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents . The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents (figure below):



--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Airman. The charge field explains these results with photon collisions. Circuits energized this way form coherent nuclear charge sources. All photons emitted from these sources will have closely aligned linear (E) and spin (M) components.

Viewed down their lengths, both wires emit photons radially outward. Between the wires the photons will meet head to head. Their spins will determine the outcome.

--Two CW photons meet from opposite directions, they meet in head-on collisions, opposing spin directions, stripping spins only in the general area between the two wires, reducing repulsion between the wires and resulting in a corresponding charge field increase in the area surrounding both wires; the result is an apparent attraction.

--A CW photon meets a CCW photon from opposite directions, they meet as spinning partners with no spin differential or loss of angular momentum. The spins cannot cancel, they sideswipe, and repulsion is increased.
Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation (figure below):



--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Airman. There’s no change going from two parallel or anti-parallel wires, to two parallel or anti-parallel loops. The same photons meet in the same ways. Forces between conductors boil down to photon collisions between materials with well-ordered spins. That is exactly the same as the definition of magnetic attraction or repulsion.



Replace each circle with a coil of 10, 100 or more turns, carrying the same current (figure below): the attraction or repulsion increase by an appropriate factor. In fact, each coil acts very much like a magnet with magnetic poles at each end (an "electromagnet"). Ampere guessed that each atom of iron contained a circulating current, turning it into a small magnet, and that in an iron magnet all these atomic magnets were lined up in the same direction, allowing their magnetic forces to add up.
Airman. Additional loops directly increase the number of photons, the charge density, for each coil. I imagine the only spins that could cancel in a coil would be opposing photons along the coils’ axis.  There is an attraction inside the coils, everywhere else, the coil emission field is increased.

The magnetic property becomes even stronger if a core of iron is placed inside the coils, creating an "electromagnet"; that requires enlisting the help of iron, but is not essential. In fact, some of the world's strongest magnets contain no iron, because the added benefit of iron inside an electromagnet has a definite limit, whereas the strength of the magnetic force produced directly by an electric current is only limited by engineering considerations.
Airman. Adding a core greatly increases the number of coherent photons generated, greatly adding to the electromagnet’s strength.

(One change to the final paragraph – strike electric currents and add boldened).

In space, on the Sun and in the Earth's core, electric currents aligned charge fields with an imbalanced charge and anti-charge production is the only source of magnetism. We loosely refer to the region of their influence as their magnetic field, a term which will be further discussed later.


* . 126. How a Battery Circuit Works. Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp.
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

124. How Magnetism works Mechanically. With spin and the unified field. 11pp.  http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

Feel free to discuss
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Changed last sentence of --Two CW photons meet ...)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:25 am

Nice walk through of the examples LTAM! Thanks for taking the time to walk us through.

Reminded me of this. Miles had an interesting quote in his designer electrons paper:
---
Because:

By writing complex patterns that mimicked changes in carbon-carbon bond lengths and strengths in graphene, the researchers were able to restore the electrons’ mass in small, selected areas.

You can't do that with photons, they think, so these must be electrons. But what is happening is that the created photons are being re-energized up to the electron level, using my spin stacking method. We are seeing in the experiment the actual making of an electron from a photon. We are seeing proof of my particle unification, which shows that the photon and electron are the same particle, one with more spins than the other.

Although this should be fairly obvious to anyone doing even a quick scan of the data, the researchers won't go there as a matter of theory. Why? One, because they don't have the theory to cover it. You can't turn a photon that is a point particle into an electron, and their photon is a point particle. Two, because to admit it would bring down QM and QED from the foundations. So they simply gloss over it. They imply that this isn't a problem by not even mentioning it. They toot the horns on the high-tech side, while hiding the theory side completely.

Even more amazing is this:


“One of the wildest things we did was to make the electrons think they are in a huge magnetic field when, in fact, no real field had been applied, ”Manoharan said. They calculated the positions where carbon atoms in graphene should be, to make its electrons believe they were being exposed to magnetic fields ranging from zero to 60 Tesla, more than 30 percent higher than the strongest continuous magnetic field ever achieved on Earth. The researchers then moved carbon monoxide molecules to steer the electrons into precisely those positions, and the electrons responded by behaving exactly as predicted — as if they had been exposed to a real field.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:35 pm

.
Cr6, You refer to,
290. The "Designer Electron" is a Photon. I explain the new experiments at SLAC. 3pp. http://milesmathis.com/desig.pdf By Miles Mathis.

Short paper, quick review. Never pass up the opportunity to re-read one of Miles' papers. I hope I don't offend anyone by misinterpreting or summarizing incorrectly.

Five years ago, researchers reported finding that they could produce specific types of electrons on demand, designer electrons.

Using a scanning, tunneling microscope, one can build molecules, atom by atom, onto a clean copper crystal surface. The researchers arranged carbon monoxide molecules into compact arrays. They applied stress; perhaps pressure or tension on the copper crystal or an applied E/M field, and monitored the changing material characteristics.

The researchers said they were converting massless light speed electrons into electrons of any preferred types; they could make the electrons behave as though they were in magnetic fields stronger than any found on Earth.

What a wonderful tool. With just a little imagination and luck we can create all sorts of unique configurations, cutting edge materials. High end labs everywhere probably already have similar capabilities. You can’t stop progress.
 
Except for one thing. How does one fool massless light speed electrons into becoming specific types of electrons? As Miles points out, they can’t say. They don’t account for the advancing technology. They hope no one will notice that the findings are completely inconsistent with contemporary QED and QM theories. Give them enough time, I’m sure they’ll adapt somehow.

The designer electron story confirms and should be considered as proof of Miles Mathis’ charge field ideas. He’s already explained these things in many of his papers:
1) Together with gravity, the charge field explains how all forces are the result of photon collisions.
2) So-called massless light speed electrons are actually real, spinning photons. Photons have both a forward velocity (the pre-electric-field), and a spin tangential velocity (the pre-magnetic-field), equal to light speed; although electrons and larger particles are too large to travel forward at light speed due to a greatly increased number of ambient photon collisions which must slow the larger charged particle to a small fraction of light speed.
3) Photons can become electrons (or protons or neutrons), through a series of mass doublings called spin stacking. There are four different types of electrons, and four different types of positrons, depending on the orientation of the outer Z-spin, and the order of subordinate spins.
4) All charged particles recycle photons; which mainly enter at the particle’s poles, and are generally emitted from the particle’s equatorial plane;
5) The molecular array is creating a real magnetic field, stronger than most any found on Earth, entirely capable of providing energy boosts consistent with the study’s findings.

In light of the current discussion of magnetism we now have strong additional data. The hexagonal array described is quite a bit different from our usual three dimensional orthogonal charge channel orientations. The researchers built what looks to me like a copper ground plane atomic antenna arrays or hex-taxi-metric magnetically select-able nuclear charge channel raceways(?). Phase out appears to equal phase in. Strong magnetic fields seems to make it very interesting.

What did you find most interesting?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:50 pm

Notice that we get no commentary on that, just that it is “wild.” But again, it completely overthrows the current model. How can positions alone create fields of 60 Tesla?

I think this quote really did it for me. How does this happen?

Is it possible to near perfectly align molecules to amplify CW/CCW photon recycling.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 641
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion continued

Post by LongtimeAirman Yesterday at 10:19 pm

.
Cr6 wrote.
Notice that we get no commentary on that, just that it is “wild.” But again, it completely overthrows the current model. How can positions alone create fields of 60 Tesla?

I think this quote really did it for me. How does this happen?

Airman. Graphene is carbon molecule formed by carbon atoms arranged to fill every vertex in a hexagonal grid pattern, a single carbon atom layer thick. Graphene has many unusual characteristics and properties such as great strength, semi-transparency, it conduct’s electricity and can be levitated. I suppose understanding and reproducing graphene’s properties has been a major goal of materials labs around the world since it was first discovered. You've posted on the subject many times, we haven't provided any suitable explanations.

The Designer Electron researchers believe they have successfully mimicked, or copied, the graphene molecule. They use the word “graphene” rather freely. I’d point out their molecule is far more complicated. Instead of a single atomic layer of carbon, the researchers have at least three: 1) The carbon layer, is actually the carbon side of a carbon monoxide molecule, which means there must also be an; 2) Oxygen layer, and something to build upon, a; 3) Copper crystal substrate, we aren’t told the thickness of the copper crystal. The result is a massive structure which resembles graphene in its top layer only.

I don’t know graphene’s actual structure. What is the orientation of the carbon atoms? If carbon’s main charge channels are oriented orthogonally to the molecular layer, as I believe the design team accomplished, then the molecule cannot share any of the carbon atom’s N/S nuclear charge channels. How can the four axial protons all align as a single layer, four protons thick? Are we dealing with a matter/anti-matter mix? What do the top and bottom protons do? It’s an atomic configuration that neither Miles nor Nevyn (I believe) have addressed. On the other hand, it exists, so until I’m told otherwise, I’ll believe.

In the video we’re told, “They reproduced the electronic properties of graphene just by patterning the surface of the copper crystal”, and, ”Just by stretching the graphene, distorting it, the electrons will behave as if they’re in a huge magnetic field. It’s like turning a knob, going from 0 Tesla, no field, up to 60 Tesla”. I’m sorry, they don’t have a knob. The sequence of five images appear to come from five different attempts.

I don’t doubt the designer group found some wild stuff. In addition to the stretched “graphene” I suggest there’s additional voltage applied. The entire structure will then emit charge coherently. Natural graphene may not require shared N/S nuclear charge channels, however the researchers have, without realizing it, plugged those channels into larger charge sources: the copper substrate and oxygen atoms. The carbon atoms, along with the entire structure are working at a very high energy level. The proton emissions are greatly increased, this structure is operating in a very high density coherent emission field. Adding more energy - tension(?) - means more energy recycling, with more emissions.

Cr6 wrote. Is it possible to near perfectly align molecules to amplify CW/CCW photon recycling?

Airman. We're talking about more than just the positions of isolated atoms or molecules, plus energy is being added. I'm not sure of the configuration, but I agree, it appears so.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion continued

Post by LongtimeAirman Today at 12:47 pm

.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. The biggest problem I have with the designer guys is their atomic arrangement doesn't even appear to be a graphene.



Above is an image of graphene from Wikipedia. Every carbon atom has 3 closest neighbors. Looks like chicken wire.



Here’s the Designer “graphene”. Each black dot is a carbon monoxide. The arrangement is such that each carbon atom now has 6 closest neighbors – not 3. The designers went from a hexagonal to a 60 degree arrangement. Why call it graphene?



The last image shows zero to 60Tesla. The atoms are clearly placed carefully in the zero image. The atoms on the 60 side appear deformed, perhaps the scanning tunneling microscope allows them to place the atoms so, but I doubt it, it appears to be energized.

Another thing. They think they've created electron raceways between their atoms, I beg to differ. They don't understand that atoms within molecules must share nuclear charge. Where exactly are the electrons? More importantly, where are all our photon emissions? We haven't figured it out. They are experimenting with energetic objects, gotta love em.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 564
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum