Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

On Aug 14, 8:00=A0am, Christoph Kobe <christ...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> If you have the N-machine with a metal dics and a magnet on each side of
=
the disc, just put a U-shaped piece of iron (or whatever has =B5r >> 1)
aro=
und the whole thing.
>
> Like this:
>
> =A0IIIIIII
> =A0II =A0 =A0I
> =A0IIMDMII
> =A0IIMDMII
> --------- axis
> =A0IIMDMII
> =A0IIMDMII
>
> M=3DMagnet
> D=3DMetal dics
> I=3DIron


Yeah, I've got one like this. For more information on action of Iron
"****elding" see the "Hooper demonstrator" in patent 3,656,013.

> This way the magnetic field outside the discs can be concentrated in the
=
iron, so that the hook-up wires can be put where no magnetic field is. In
t=
his configuration, you can spin the magnet but not the disc and have a
volt=
age induced which proves that the field rotates with the magnet.

I suggest that this does not prove the field rotates with the magnet.
Instead of thinking of iron as "concentrating" the flux, think of it
as generating a secondary magnetic field which cancels the original
field outside the iron and creates more field within it. Consider that
this secondary field is attached to the iron.  So the final device has
the following set up. You can assume a field is attached to the
magnets and moves with them.  And that means an equal but opposite
canceling field is attached to the iron and moving with that. Both
fields extend out into the hook-up wires even though they cancel and
there appears to be no field there. The catch is that each of these
cancelling fields can be moved independently of the other. Thus, each
is capable of inducing emf in the wires via their motion.  This
explains the observed actions.

However, I think it ALSO turns out that if you assume the fields are
NOT attached to the magnets or the iron that you still get the same
results.  Bottom line is that the question of "attached magnetic
fields" is still unresolved.