"We"? I can agree that the first figure shows magnetic field lines of a permanent magnet being distorted a bit, just because the presence of small ferromagnetic object around it. That's true. But I'm not sure what a physical reason is behind color analysis (as presented at malgabay.wordpress.com) other than author's imagination. What are the physical principles governing creation of remaining figures? The last one seems to show lines which are perpendicular to real flux lines, perhaps even crossing each other, isn't it? And finally, where do you think are located the 'poles' of current carrying coil? Do you think about magnetic poles as of point-like objects?

Dear Professor Marek Wojciech Gutowsk,

Still, we must explain some unanswered questions here like,

Why the field of a magnet in these modern definitely more advanced in resolution superparamagnetic thin film apparatus is displayed totally

differently than the classical 200 years old and flrankly overdue iron fillings experiment?

I submit the iron fillings due their saturated magnetism display wrongly the magnetic field of a magnet making chains that cross over to the other pole on each side of the magnet.

It is like attaching a metal plate to the side of a bar magnet in parallel... they will stick together...don't you see the short circuit here?

And if the iron fillings experiment you defend, is depicting the true field of the magnet why it is not depicting correctly the reduced magnetism progressively approaching to the middle of the magnet bar, there where the accepted by mainstream science Bloch wall domain is located and field strength is zeroed?

Is this not suggesting that the iron fillings image of the field of a magnet is in fact an oversaturated magnetic image and therefore can not accurately depict the actually field of a magnet?

In analog electronics a saturated clipped signal can not carry any information and can not be anymore modulated...

qoete:

"But I'm not sure what a physical reason is behind color analysis (as presented at malgabay.wordpress.com) "

The point is, as shown in this image analysis on the above link url, of the classic iron fillings experiment, that, if all the black iron filling lines are crossing all over to the opposite poles of the magnet , so they must also their complementary white spacing lines do! But clearly they are not!! As shown on the link... THERE IS NO contiguous WHITE SPACING GOING FROM ON POLE TO THE OTHER! due the interlacing black iron fillings lines in the middle of the magnet.

Therefore even the saturated wrongly depiction image of the magnetic field of a magnet using iron fillings, suggests that force lines of magnet must terminate at the Bloch region located exactly at the middle of any homogeneous magnetized magnet.

So the true picture of the magnetic field of a magnet can not be other than the following, I submit:

https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/magnetic-lines-of-force.gif

And this is exactly the true field of the magnet as shown by today's modern 200 years more advanced nanomagnetic direct observation apparatus as i have demonstrated in my post here.

quote:

" And finally, where do you think are located the 'poles' of current carrying coil? Do you think about magnetic poles as of point-like objects? "

This video here proofs the same picture shown above to be true for a electric current coil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpAb8vfah0c&t=71s

No, I don't thing them as point like objects but as two complementary vortices and definitely not as the regions of magnets where magnetism and magnetic field originates.

Sorry of me being bold and appearing to be so full with dispute but maybe it is time for renewed research concerning the quantum machine called a magnet and maybe we should rewrite the textbooks on this serious matter with new observations obtained by more sophisticated electromagnetic apparatus like a ferrolens or else known as ferrocell, than the dusting two hundred years now old iron fillings experiment.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete.

Emmanouil

It is always good to challenge accepted theories, especially in the light of new technology being able to demonstrate that old measurements were based on invalid assumptions.

But care must be taken not to slip into that form of sophistry that argues that standards must be changed because they disagree with our current proposition.

We have created a standard based on many decades of observation that a magnetic pole and magnetic field lines are defined in a certain way that can be observed with the use of iron filings.

We understand that this standard is simply a convention and because our understanding of the basic mechanism of magnetism is limited we cannot "know the truth of it"

However these conventions and standards are truly important.

The white lines described above are formed by the iron filings interacting with each other. So the magnetised filings form a line in the magnetic field by adding 'north pole' to ' south pole'. Because these poles on each filing are aligned similarly then the like poles reject each other as far as possible and white space is formed. This white space has no intrinsic meaning or additional properties. It is simply a resultant.

No, no, no! I see a lot of misunderstanding at the figure above, with headline Magnetic Lines of Force. Let us start with Bloch Wall. The object called so is not 200 years old but rather roughly 80 years. But the problem is when this name is used for completely different object than physicists investigating magnetism are used to. Well known Bloch walls describe the area between two neighboring magnetic domains and thus located inside the magnetic material. Here the magnetization changes rapidly from 'up' to 'down' direction, while the magnetization of neighboring domains is pretty uniform and directed in two opposite directions. Besides, if we insist to speak about the wall, then the Neel wall (even younger than the Bloch wall) would be much more appropriate in this figure.

I think the misunderstanding stems from the commonly used term lines of force, used to somehow describe and visualize spatial distribution of vector B (or H, if you prefer). Those lines are tangent to force (experienced by what?) and are not directly related to force magnitude. Should the magnetic monopoles exist, they would be feeling this force and moving along those lines. Unfortunately, the magnetic monopoles have not been found until today. The only known real and existing magnetic objects are magnetic dipoles and their various arrangements. Of course, we can think about a dipole as of a pair of magnetic monopoles with opposite magnetic charges (this is what is 200 years old!) and living at fixed (small) distance. If they are really close to each other then no net magnetic force will be exerted on such an object. Instead, the dipole will feel the torque, trying to orient it along the local line of force. No attraction or repulsion! This is exactly what we see in the first old-fashioned figure presenting iron fillings.

But iron fillings are attracted by permanent magnet, aren't they? Yes, but it can be easily seen that they are attracted to magnet's poles, not to its middle part. This is because the dipole indeed may feel force of magnetic origin, but this force is not just simply proportional to field strength. Funny, but while the sentence there is no magnetic force in absence of magnetic field is certainly true then the opposite is not. It is quite possible to observe null magnetic force in pretty strong magnetic field. This occurs when the field is uniform. And the reason is that the force acting on point-like dipole is proportional to M.grad(H).

I'm still not sure what we really see in other figures. If the bright lines are traces of trajectories of free electric carriers (say electrons), then it is OK that they are orthogonal to magnetic field lines. This is well explained by Lorentz force.

Dear Professor Marek W. Gutowski,

Thank you for your expertise input, that I will take very seriously in consideration.

quote:

"I'm still not sure what we really see in other figures. If the bright lines are traces of trajectories of free electric carriers (say electrons), then it is OK that they are orthogonal to magnetic field lines. This is well explained by Lorentz force."

No ferrocell does not display lines of electric force only lines of magnetic flux. The way it works is, the superparamagnetic nanoparticles (average 10nm in size) inside the ferrofluid carrier thin film align to any external magnetic field induced in the ferrocell and at the same time, light coming from a LED lighting strip around the periphery of the cell is partially reflected by these nanomagnetic particle lines allowing this ferrolens to actually "paint" the magnetic flux lines and make them therefore visible.

The difference here with the iron fillings is that nanomagnetic nanoparticles inside a ferrocel allow much more resolution in the depiction of a magnetic field and are much more sensitive to variations of magnetic field strength since they don't get saturated magnetically as iron fillings do. Therefore we can safely say that the representation of a magnetostatic field with a ferrolens (i.e.ferrocell) is much more reliable and detailed than the iron fillings. As a bonus a ferrolens can depict also to some degree depth of field information making it essentially a 3D passive direct observation apparatus for magnetic fields.

So regarding your question quoted above these lines accross the middle of the magnet (yes I agree with the Neel wall definition although I used the Bloch 80 years old definition because it is more common used in magnets) are real magnetic flux lines as shown repeatedly in all ferrocell depictions of the field of a magnet regardless its mass shape and are a subject for further research. This lines of manetic flux in the middle of a magnet or electric coil are real!...If you have watched the previous video I posted in this thread here the compass tool aligned parallel to these lines (vertical to the side of the magnet) as he passed it over the middle of the magnet.

Something lastly, you have said something about:

" Those lines are tangent to force (experienced by what?) and are not directly related to force magnitude. Should the magnetic monopoles exist, they would be feeling this force and moving along those lines. "

Can you please elaborate more on what you exactly mean by this? regarding the detection of monopoles?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Dear Ian,

" However these conventions and standards are truly important. "

I don't think any of these threatens any of the standards and conventions as you have said. Don't worry the two poles are still intact :)

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil,

The magnet of that you have crossed out with two red lines is the real one that you have instead of the other instead of the one of Tim Cullen 2013. The reason is if you have monodomain (superparamagnetic) thin films they act also as small magnets, NSNSNS= N------S, and you don't get never magnetic walls (Neel or Bloch which have a great number of magnetic atoms). Thus the zero magnetic field that you represent by the Bloch well doesn't exist and such figure is not real at all.

Hi Emmanouil

Perhaps it is the engineer in me rather than the researcher, bu conventions are fundamental to my understanding of a topic.

If I see a list of numbers 1 2 3 4 5, then the conventional white spaces tell me that this is not a large number 12345.

Similarly, when I see force lines around a model of a magnet then I know I can make assumptions and calculations with respect to that magnet that will meet my needs with a high level of accuracy.

Your challenge to the magnetic model appears to my eyes as a challenge to the conventions rather than the fundamentals.

I guess we are not poles apart on the problem!

Dear Professor Daniel Baldomir ,

quote:

" The magnet of that you have crossed out with two red lines is the real one that you have instead of the other instead of the one of Tim Cullen 2013. The reason is if you have monodomain (superparamagnetic) thin films they act also as small magnets, NSNSNS= N------S, and you don't get never magnetic walls (Neel or Bloch which have a great number of magnetic atoms). Thus the zero magnetic field that you represent by the Bloch well doesn't exist and such figure is not real at all. "

Even so this still does not explain why these lines are going across the middle of the magnet...?

The absence of Bloch or Neel wall on the single domain magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles inside the ferrocell does not prevent them to make magnetic dipoles by interacting and align with the magnetic flux lines of an external magnetic field (characteristic of superparamagnetism), induced inside the ferrolens by a rare earth magnet for example. I submit.

Also the thickness of a Bloch or Neel wall is wrong to be measured in atoms numbers I submit.. This about single domain without a ground state domain wall is not 100% experimentally proven and I strongly dispute it.

Magnetism can not exist... without a domain wall. I submit.

And domain walls thickness in magnetism should not be measured by number of atoms but better with the Planck length. I submit... or else the indivisibility property of dipole magnetism is in trouble and so is the electron model as a dipole magnet.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Dear Emmanouil,

I saw the video but nothing unusual was shown there. The compass behaved exactly as expected, including situation when it was positioned near the middle of coil side. The only unusual phrase was the one saying something about 3D plane. I'm certainly a bit old-fashioned, but all planes are 2D objects for me. Besides, I see no immediate connection between presented photos and a drawing. The drawing is a creative transformation of observed situations, too creative. It emphasizes non-existing features, those existing only in author's imagination.

Your ferrofluid/ferrolens contains - as you write - superparamagnetic particles of 10 nm diameter. At this size, those particles are single domain objects. This means they are magnetically saturated. Some will call them superspin particles. Moreover, they are superparamagnetic because they don't interact with their neighbors but are free to reorient themselves when exposed to magnetic field. Lack of (magnetic) interactions, with even nearest neighbors, is a consequence of the presence of the other component of a ferrofluid, namely some kind of oil. They simply cannot stick to their neighbors, as they have 'skin' made of oil molecules. Oil molecules, in turn, are non-magnetic. In addition, oil is a very poor conductor. In result the ferrofluid retains its properties for months, I mean sedimentation of heavy magnetic nanoparticles is a very slow process. But Brownian motion is certainly present there, since one cannot exclude that at least some of those particles have non-zero electric charge. This could explain their tendency to move mostly in plane (Lorentz force) perpendicular to local magnetic field. Unfortunately, I can't explain how this situation translates into observed pictures. Note that the wavelength of LED light sources is roughly two orders of magnitude higher than magnetic particle diameter --> ordinary reflection (like the one from mirror) doesn't apply there. I have to admit I do not understand how the optical impression is created.

On the other side, the Maxwell equations do not contain any length 'scale factor'. Therefor there is no good reason for 10 nm particles to behave differently than their much larger iron fillings.

Magnetic monopoles have never been detected. Some reports claiming their existence in the so called spin ice compounds are nothing else but wishful thinking.

Dear Marek,

I agree with you and only let me to say explicitly, perhaps I didn't understand you properly, the superparamagnetic nanoparticles have dipolar interaction among them. On the other hand, the physical behaviour, for instance the Neel relaxation time depends exponentially of their volume; that is to say their size is fundamental. But I think that these pictures are just made with some kind of trick, or I don't understand them as you.

Dear Emmanouil,

Sorry, I didn't see your post.

Even so this still does not explain why these lines are going across the middle of the magnet...?

You are right, that line is not real and it is againt magnetism. From my humble point of view this is a trick.

Magnetism can not exist... without a domain wall. I submit.

No. Magnetism can exist without magnetic domain walls, a wall is only formed when you have more one domain and contain several atoms providing different spins. The Bloch wall is much width than the Neel one, but in both cases you need to have a certain number of atoms in between the domains. In your case there are no Bloch nor Neel.

In summary, your figures are just tricks without being real magnetism.

" But Brownian motion is certainly present there, since one cannot exclude that at least some of those particles have non-zero electric charge. This could explain their tendency to move mostly in plane (Lorentz force) perpendicular to local magnetic field ".

Brownian motion is greatly inhibited in the ferrocell by the strong Van der Walls forces existing in the thin film structure of the ferrocell. Also this explanation I find highly unlikely for the displayed lines in the middle of the magnet to be Lorentz force vectors since this particular region of a magnet has the most balanced electric charge distribution , E=0 induced during the magnetization process. If that is the case Lorentz vectors should be depicted by the ferrolens as perpendicular lines all over the magnet... and this is not the case here.

EM

"Even so this still does not explain why these lines are going across the middle of the magnet...?

You are right, that line is not real and it is againt magnetism. From my humble point of view this is a trick."

I ensure you Sir this is not a trick...!

just type in ferrocell at a search machine... there also plenty of videos..

I have posted a link of one of these here in my question text.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Here is one more example, not static as first figures, and using two colors of LEDs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZsojDdEbE

I have few simple observations:

1. The curves are changing their shapes when the magnet is translated or rotated,

2. It takes some time for curves to adjust after the magnet is moved

3. Visible curves always end at individual LEDs (and thus keep their color)

4. The picture at 3:28 is intriguing: not only there is no expected symmetry but there are many intersections between the visible lines. Intersections mean nothing else but indetermination of field values and its directions at crossings. Singular points?

In conclusion: what we see is not a simple picture of magnetic field around the magnet. Magnetic field is obviously involved but is not the only factor shaping the observed figures. What we see is a complicated transformation, not just slight distortion, of the exciting field. Curved traces of light suggest strongly that the medium's (ferrofluid) refraction index is changing smoothly from point to point. Those changes are most likely caused by spatially varying density of magnetic nanoparticles as well as by its smoothly varying orientation (forced by source magnet). Additionally, it is likely that magnetic field produced by nanoparticles somehow polarizes their oil 'skins' making the medium optically anisotropic. I have to agree that Brownian motion is not the primary factor here. Anyway, what we see is light propagation in textured medium, not a simple projection of magnetic field lines.

This is completely new to me. Very interesting video! This one also:

https://youtu.be/c1V4I_UZtyE.

Fantastic play of the light and the magnetic field in space.

I see the explanation of professor Gutowski closest to the reality.

Thank you all!

OK. I understand where is the trick that I have mentioned. They use photonic metamaterials that they can change the permeability quite a lot and therefore the magnetic lines.

See the links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_metamaterial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking

" OK. I understand where is the trick that I have mentioned. They use photonic metamaterials that they can change the permeability quite a lot and therefore the magnetic lines. "

NO SIR! I myself did research on the ferrocell it's a magnetite Fe3O4 ferrofluid on a carrier hydrocarbon solution, just one to two drops between two optical grade glasses which are bind with optical cement at their periphery.

This is the ferrocell product:

http://www.ferrocell.us/

and this is the ferrofluid product used inside the ferrocell:

https://ferrofluid.ferrotec.com/products/ferrofluid-educational-fluid/efh/efh1/

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Dear Emmanouil,

Sorry but I don't believe you the ferrofluid magnetite cannot change the magnetic lines in the form shown. There must be other product as an optic metamaterial where the magnetic permeability can be changed. This is perhaps the trick!

" In conclusion: what we see is not a simple picture of magnetic field around the magnet. Magnetic field is obviously involved but is not the only factor shaping the observed figures. What we see is a complicated transformation, not just slight distortion, of the exciting field. Curved traces of light suggest strongly that the medium's (ferrofluid) refraction index is changing smoothly from point to point. Those changes are most likely caused by spatially varying density of magnetic nanoparticles as well as by its smoothly varying orientation (forced by source magnet). Additionally, it is likely that magnetic field produced by nanoparticles somehow polarizes their oil 'skins' making the medium optically anisotropic. I have to agree that Brownian motion is not the primary factor here. Anyway, what we see is light propagation in textured medium, not a simple projection of magnetic field lines. "

Dear Professor Marek W. Gutowski,

I agree with your oservations and conclusions when moving the magnet on the ferrocell and the multiple light color sources are used.

Of course light sources are fixed and can not move in synchronisity with the magnet therefore flux of magnet is always shown when it passes over the light sources. Also color of light source is dominant and slightly varied by the interaction with the magnetic flux due to polarization effect in this particular video demonstration which I may add is a poor example of the potential of the ferrocell.

However, all these can be resolved by a not moving stationary placed magnet at the center of the ferrocell and using a white light LED strip with much more lights along the periphery creating a total and homogeneous light cover on the surface of the ferrocell as in this example here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-CbKHbH5QA&t=25s

Still, light play can NOT be accounted for the appearance of the repeatable parallel very real lines crossing the middle domain of a magnet depicted by the ferrocell.

As I told before, magnetic flux appears wherever light is but the direction of the lines is determined only by the magnetic flux. If this was not the case the lines would appear broken by light beams coming from multiple directions.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Here you have more applications for magnetism:

https://phys.org/news/2011-09-cloaking-magnetic-fields-antimagnet-device.html#nRlv

Dear Emmanouil,

And the full explanation for your devices is in the paragraphs:

The antimagnet has been designed to consist of several layers. The inner layer would consist of a superconducting material that would function to stop a magnetic field from leaking outside of the cloak, which would be very useful to cloak certain metals.

A downside to using this material, however, is that it would distort an external magnetic field placed over the cloak, making it detectable, so the device would need to be combined with several outer layers of metamaterials, which have varying levels of magnetic field permeability, to correct this distortion and leave the magnetic field undisturbed.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-cloaking-magnetic-fields-antimagnet-device.html#jCp

Notice a diamagnetic part is used in the middle using the Missner effect of the superconductors. THE TRICK IS CLEAR.

Dear Professor Daniel Baldomir,

I fail to see what all these metamaterials have to do with a simple hydrocarbon solution magnetite ferrofluid encapsulated on a a lens.

There are thousands of papers written on ferrofluids, thin films and ferrohydrodynamics. I trully don't understand why a thin film of ferrrofluid solution lighted up should make a trick!

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Dear Emmanouil,

I call it a trick because there are several films with different magnetic properties. The idea of the magnet that we were discussing seems to be easy to understand if you think that they get as two magnets independent

N------S-N-----S

In such a case you can get the figure that you have shown. And obviously there are more things that magnetite ferrofluid !

As far as I know there is only one thin film of ferrofluid inside the glass cell microns thick. This is also shown here in this video and there are also plenty other videos showing the same thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1V4I_UZtyE&feature=youtu.be

Dear Readers,

Here are two videos of "K&J Magnetics" company, on the ferrocell subject on how they are made (first video) one thin film and second video the same guy demonstrates it with different magnets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy7J3VALRnU (how ferrocell is made)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTwS6Cxr50 (ferrocell demonstration)

All returning the same picture. Parallel lines crossing the middle of the magnet! The guy in the video, representative of the company, states also puzzled about the magnetic field shown by the ferrocell without having any explanation to it.

I don't think K&J Magnetics is playing tricks on us.

So, it comes out to this... either the Ferrocell ( www.ferrocell.us ) is showing wrongly the magnetic field of a magnet or so does the iron fillings experiment and we were wrong all the time about it!

Either way, the matter is worth investigating by academia and subject of serious review.

If we can not disprove the picture of the magnetic field shown by the ferrocell then we are at the pinnacle of a serious discovery.

This has to be answered and researched by academia.

And this was the purpose of my question here. To spike the interest of researchers out there. I believe is is worth investigating.

Who knows maybe some other good stuff comes out of this investigation.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Dear Readers,

For fearness porposes and because this post is very important and bigger than my personal views and academia neglected the patented Ferrocell invention since it first came out at 2007.

We must also consider a current second opinion-view circulating, about the magnetic filed shown by the ferrocell (although I am not a believer of this second opinion).

That is, maybe both iron fillings and ferrocell are correct

That is, there are two flux circuits in a magnet, the first, high potential and trajectory flux crossing all the way the two pole from N to S as shown by the classic iron fillings experiment and secondly two lower potential and trajectory flux complementary circuits closing each between the poles of the magnet and the its middle ground state Bloch ( or Neel ) domain wall region as shown by the ferrocell and failed to be shown by the iron fillings.

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh555/ufopolitics/THEORIA_APOPHASIS/MAGNET_1_zpsq5lq3q42.png

https://magnetismtoroidaldynamics.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/26.jpg?w=820

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh555/ufopolitics/THEORIA_APOPHASIS/MAGNET_1_zpsq5lq3q42.png

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Dear Emmanouil,

On the video you recommend, at ~3:20,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1V4I_UZtyE&feature=youtu.be , at ~3:20,

one can easily see that the light produced by LEDs is deflected when traveling in ferrofluid subjected to magnetic field. But what makes you think that those rays follow magnetic field lines? They do not, and the trick is in using LEDs as a light source, not just an ordinary light bulb (incandescent lamp). Why should magnetic field lines always start at LEDs positions, if LEDs themselves are non-magnetic objects? And why the 'magnetic field lines' should be crossed, as you can observe when toroidal magnet is acting as a field source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-CbKHbH5QA&t=25s ?

I think the ferrolens (with electromagnet) may be found useful in some kind of optical equipment, as a device with no moving parts (contrary to mirrors- and lenses-based systems), yet making possible easy change of laser light propagation direction. It is not a tool for direct observation of magnetic field configuration.

Dear Professor Marek Gutowski

Let us agree that we disagree.

" Why should magnetic field lines always start at LEDs positions, if LEDs themselves are non-magnetic objects? "

Try to imagine the magnetic field not as a collection of lines but as an black solid sphere surface midair in an empty totally black and dark room. Suddendly you point a very narow beem red laser somewhere on its surface. What you would see? Next you point from another direction a second lased to a different position on the sphere and another and another... until you cover all the surface of the sphere... what you will see then?...

...a red sphere midair....

What I'm trying to say is the more LED lights on the periphery of the cell the more complete the image of the magnetic field is (assuming that the ferrofluid nanopatcles are small enough and in large concentration inside the ferrofluid). .. So then you would ask why not use an incandescent lamp instead as shown in one of the pictures i posted (bottom left at the start of this page). The ansewr is that with omnidirectional light source the result image of the field is fuzzy and one can not see the detailed geometry of the flux and directional informatiion of the force lines tagent to the flux lines of the field. Also you loose depth of field and in general 3D information.

Conclusion, many lines are good but too many and you can not resolve the information presented.

" And why the 'magnetic field lines' should be crossed, as you can observe when toroidal magnet is acting as a field source "

Good question. I believe I know, but you will not like the answer anyway.

Ferrocell is the today modern evolution of the very old 2D iron fillings experiment . A nanotechnology 3D ferrohydrodynamic version passive direct observation apparatus for magnetostatic and dynamic magnetic fields. With almost real time response depending signal frequency if made sensitive enough. It can display real time VLF radio signals magnetic fields as I have researched and demonstrated on my recent paper.

The best we have today of this type it deserves our attention and it is in our best interest to research it and develop it further I submit.

This concludes my presence on this thread here, thank you all for your insight, input and very interesting debate may I add.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

I was only mentioning the example that you present with a "Bloch well" where I see several films, layers associated to magnets.

Emmanouil,

In some of pictures the lines shown are crossing. This crossing of lines is proof that the lines themselves cannot be the 'mapping' of the field lines.

Let me explain: Lines such as magnetic field lines, electric field lines, gravitational field lines, or any type of vector field cannot and do not cross (this is also sometimes called a stream field if you are only interesting in the direction and not the magnitude). It is impossible to cross such lines. It would imply that at the crossing point the magnetic field has two values, thus two vectors pointing in different directions with different magnitudes. Haha, imagine a particle's confusion when it arrives at this location in space!

Another way to think of it is you take a given place on the earths surface and it has a well defined definition of the slope (magnitude) and the direction of the slope (the vector or more appropriately, the unit vector). It is impossible to find a place where the slope has two values and/or the direction of the slope has two values.

Now I'm not pretending to understand what is going on, but I have a few suggestions since we know that it is impossible for any type of vector field to cross. Since the iron film is confined to 2D (Lx ~= Ly >> Lz), you need to solve the Schrodinger equation for light propagating along that waveguide. I'm not sure about your medium, so you might need to use the nonlinear Schrodinger equation. Solve for the magnetic field inside of the waveguide using Biot Savart's Law and include that in the Schrodinger equation. Once this is done and if the outcome is different, then we have something to talk about (and is a publishable paper)!

Thanks for the post, I thought it was very interesting and would like to see your results! It's really good to question things (as there are a few things with which I don't agree), but the scientific approach needs to be taken as prescribed above (otherwise we are just guessing, (and many have called it a trick) as to what is actually happening).

Josh

"Fields of force"? - Humbug.

This is all ONLY mathematics;

the assumption that continuous, differentiable functions 'map' reality: evidence? What is being mapped?

Lines of force? Force-field-densities? Trivial human extrapolation.

"In some of pictures the lines shown are crossing. This crossing of lines is proof that the lines themselves cannot be the 'mapping' of the field lines."

It can in a vortex swirl.

The West has been on the wrong path ever since Plato & Aristotle promoted abstract generalizations over the particulars of reality. This led to the pseudo subjects of mathematics and logic and then 'science' with its maniacal stepson, technology. We are now facing existential extermination and few seemed concerned. Our values are so twisted that killing is glorified.

Streamlines cannot cross. You mentioned in a vortex, but you are mistaken. Please if you feel it is wrong then offer an equation that shows differently. Furthermore, if field lines could cross then we would observe chaos in such 2D systems (and according to the mathematics once again impossible, see chaosbook.org)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex

Also, in a tokamak the field lines are twisting and bending, but they never cross (there's a load of research just on the field lines in a tokamak, especially once you get particles in there).

Please go and solve the Schrodinger's equation as suggested.

You never asked what is swirling.... and also please notice that ferrocell is not a 2D device but actually a 3D transparent device. Half of the lines you see are mirrored from the bottom side of the ferrocell where the opposite pole of the magnet is located.

...meaning the lines you see do not cross. Just overlap.

...Schrodinger equation therefore will lead to false conclusions.

Ferrocell although sounds simple it's much more complicated than it looks... it's a electromagnetic ferrohydrodynamic photonic quantum nanomachine. BTW it is also suitable for observing microscopic quantum effects! did I mention that? The view window in this research here was 16 mm in total but the actual zoomed one is not more than 5mm:

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

Few intellectuals are brave enough to think critically about the significance of mathematics because all of them have demonstrated sufficient talent in this area throughout their early academic careers to qualify as "intelligent".

Mathematics has been the foundation for education in the West since Plato established his institution of schools (the "Academy") to preserve his ideas.

**VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE!**

EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT A FERROLENS OR ELSE FERROCELL DEPICTS CORRECTLY THE MAGNETIC FLUX LINES PASSING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A MAGNET THUS IN PARALLEL WITH THE BLOCH WALL DOMAIN AXIS OF A MAGNET ©COPYRIGHT EMMANOUIL MARKOULAKIS TEI OF CRETE 2018

In the ferrocell picture 1 (top) of the side view of a magnet we see the 2 dark circles left and right which are the 2 poles of the magnet and flux lines crossing the middle of the magnet parallel to the Bloch (or Neel if you prefer) wall domain wall axis of the magnet. This picture is correct I submit since the superparamagnetic nanoparticles inside the ferrolens and for any other magnet that is, are actually always attracted parallel to the Bloch axis.

Meaning two magnets always get attracted parallel to their Bloch axes.

On the other hand ferromagnetism and ferromagnetic materials like iron (e.g. iron fillings experiment) always get attracted perpendicular to the Bloch domain wall axis. As shown in the picture 2 (bottom). Disk magnet shown always gets attracted in parallel to Bloch axis of larger block magnet indicated with a green line in the middle. Whereas ferromagnetic materials like the iron ring shown gets always attracted perpendicular to the Bloch axis!!

So magnetism between two permanent magnets is different than magnetism between magnet and ferromagnetic material!

That is exactly the reason why the 200 years old iron fillings experiment fails to depict correctly the real image of the field of a magnet but the ferrocell depicts correctly the actual field since nanoparticles inside the ferrolens are not ferromagnetic but superparamagnetic meaning actual small magnets themselves.

watch my video for experimental proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCdu2TE_Wk8

(PICTURE 1)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zuVf2bSG-kpis1DYwRyjSG-2yXcGLpfh/view?usp=sharing

(PICTURE 2)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10PfKbqkmgEE-tHInXSNgBCsEiuRMgPNc/view?usp=sharing

CREDITS TO ©KEN WHEELER FROM HIS BOOK HERE:

https://ia902502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf

©COPYRIGHT EMMANOUIL MARKOULAKIS TEI OF CRETE 2018

I'd like to add a comment to this discussion. Emmanuel is correct when he describes the formula used in making a ferrolens (Ferrocell). The mixture he and most others have is Ferrotec EFH-1 Ferrofluid, which is hydrocarbon based. The ~10nm Fe3O4 particles are coated with a surfactant (soap) and suspended in mineral oil. The layer is less than 30 microns thick.

Also, after 12 years of research on the cell, I and other investigators have concluded we are seeing the lowest potential of the magnetic field at each 'radian' point of light. NOT flux lines.

The spherical nature of a magnetic field is responsible for 'bending' the light we see. It's a complex form of scattering and the phenomenon has yet to be explained completly.

quote from Timm Vanderelli:

"Also, after 12 years of research on the cell, I and other investigators have concluded we are seeing the lowest potential of the magnetic field at each 'radian' point of light. NOT flux lines."

I have to strongly disagree at this point.

No! the Ferrolens IS SHOWING 100% AND ACCURATE THE MAGNETIC FLUX LINES AND FIELD OF A PERMANENT MAGNET.

Since they did not find the magnetic charge particle there is no such thing like magnetic current. There is only magnetic field and field potential.

The iron fillings experiment shows falsely I repeat the magnetic permeability (or else inductance) of the iron fillings as the magnetic field outline of a magnet. 

This is wrong, the iron fillings suck out (steal) magnetic flux from the magnet's field essentially deforming it and align themselves across the two highest potential spatial regions of the magnetic source namely the two poles of a magnet. thus actually short circuiting the magnet!!

Your device the Ferrocell is the accurate one because it has single domain magnetic particles (superparamagnetism) meaning they can form dipoles between them following exactly the magnetic flux,  tangent to the force lines (potential) of a dipole magnet field.

As far I am concerned the iron fillings experiment is a corpse...as proven R.I.P.

END OF STORY

Actually, I think we are talking about the same thing. I'm not saying a magnet is generating a current, or that a current-like action is occurring.

The Bloch region has no south or north but is a transition zone for both.

It is a 'zero-point' as such and can be considered the lowest potential between both poles.

Using the Ferrocell (ferrolens) for example, the band we see bending around the magnet has a thickness determined by the diameter of the light source. A larger source creates a thicker band. Likewise, a small diameter source will create a thin band. This band is physically located between the poles, and shaped like a moebius. Between the poles is the key here. That is the Bloch region, or magnetic null (zero). Multiple light sources arranged around the circumference of the cell will result in multiple rings, offset by their angle of incidence, but they are still indicating the same feature, zero potential.

something like that

More like this with one point source of light behind the magnet. But, yes I think we are talking about the same thing...

Dear Emmanouil,

You are right that magnetic fields poles are physically separate.

In a bar magnet, half of the individual unpaired electrons magnetic fields add up in mutual parallel spin alignment, the whole group aligning in least action antiparallel opposition to the sum of the other half of individual unpaired electron magnetic fields adding up in mutual magnetic parallel spin alignement.

There is an experiment that you can easily carry out with magnets configured to simulate the coinciding poles of point-like behaving electrons, that demonstrate that only one pole at a time can be physically present, which proves that the magnetic field of electrons is monopolar by structure at any given instant, and that their magnetic field oscillates at the electron frequency between maximum presence and zero presence:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

This means that localized point-like behaving elementary electromagnetic particles such as the electron can only be magnetic monopoles at any given instant.

Best Regards

André

Dear André ,

Thank you for you confirmation and quantum analysis.

Maybe the confusion arose in this thread here due the fact that a ferrolens or else commercially known as ferrocell as a nano device is essentially a quantum direct observation device for magnetism and also other related quantum effects.

Either way, this is the correct image of a magnetic field on a permanent magnet as presented by the ferrolens and not the macroscopic iron fillings experiment which as I have preliminary proven (a paper of mine is on the way related with the ferrolens and magnetic field of a magnet and the iron fillings experiment) is interfering strongly with the magnet and therefore distorting its field.

On the other hand the superparamgnetic single domain properties of the ferrolens nanoparticles are following accurately with minimal distortion the magnetic flux of the field of a permanent magnet and therefore give the most accurate real-time 3D visualization of the magnetic field of a magnet today from a passive device like this.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Because this thread has become overcrowded, I made a sister thread to follow:

(sister thread is located here)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ferrocell_depicts_correctly_the_field_of_a_magnet_iron_fillings_does_NOTWhy2

The middle and right-hand pictures look like the field lines of a solenoid, apparently rotated by 90° about the center of symmetry.

"apparently rotated by 90° about the center of symmetry."

What you mean by that Sir?

you can look for your self Sir...nothing is rotated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkKpLHO5-7o&t=80s

or here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTwS6Cxr50&t=

Here is one impressive demonstration of the quantum field of a magnet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpA_0eNKkdo

The movies are impressive, undeniably. Indeed, we can see magnetic field dependent shapes, but not the field itself. Try to fix a magnet and move the ferrolens (relocate it and/ or rotate). The field lines should be unaltered - but are they? I bet this is not the case.

couldn't find the exact experiment you asked Professor but this is the closest thing I found, exact relative movement of the ferrolens should result to the same outcome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeXYKpMFp0

I am puzzled: you seem to have all the necessary equipment to see for yourself whether or not the picture in moved ferrolens is stable. Internet cannot be trusted unconditionally, I have already seen a lot of perpetuum mobile machines there ...

I am not releasing anything more out of my own work before the publication proving once and for all the real quantum field image of a magnet.

Iron fillings are showing only the macroscopic highest potential field of the magnet and actually wrongly thus bridged in the middle of a magnet failing miserable to show the Bloch domain region of magnet and what is really happening there with the magnetic flux...there is a lot more to it...

Regarding the internet.

Of course there are many charlatans out there in the internet however there are also many respectful independent researchers out there doing serious empirical work.

Currently there are hundreds of videos made with the ferrocell even serious companies like K&J Magnetics showing all the same thing. To dismiss them all would be wrong I submit.

I encourage any academic to start experimenting with this new tool maybe some new wonderful research will come out.

Dear Professor Marek Gutowski,

okay I found it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDuuA3eojPo

first he turns the magnet (side view) sitting under a ferrolens on a turntable and then he turns the ferrolens over the magnet.

No field rotation when he turns the ferrolens . We observing the field of the magnet.

Currently I am on Orthodox Church Eastern vacations when I return I will do this experiment on my own and report it in my forthcoming article.

Thanks for the tip.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Questionable (poor quality at most interesting phases of demonstration) and thus not very convincing, sorry.

Anyway, have a nice and happy Easter!

Thank you.

Dear Emmanouil,

Due to thermal fluctuations, particles in ferrofluids do not concentrate along the magnetic field lines. At thermal equilibrium, the density of fine multi-domain particles is

n(H) = n(0)*exp (chi*H^2*V/2kT).

For single-domain particles it is

n(H) = n(0)*sinh (m*H/kT)/(m*H/kT).

In both cases the dencity depends on module H of the magnetic field vector.

Some references about that:

IEEE Trans Mag 16, p.979 (1980), Phys. Rev. 76, p.1527 (1949).

An explanation for lines in the pictures can be as follows. There is a thin layer of a ferrofluid between two surfaces. The surfaces reflect light, so the interference lines (colored in non-monochromatic light) will be seen, if the refractive index of the ferrofluid depends on the concentration of particles. If this is true, it must be H = const along the bright lines in the pictures. The lines H = const are not the magnetic field lines, and can be perpendicular to them.

Dear Sergey Langwagen,

You are referring to a paper from 1991 and 1949 and it is for ferrofluis alone.

Thin film ferrofluid technology has much advanced from that time.

Also don't forget this is a thin film 50 microns thick encapsulated and sealed in a vacuum between two 2mm optical grade glasees

The analysis you are presenting is for Brownian motion does not apply in our case since strong Van der Walls forces essentially nullify Brownian motion and the nanoparticles inside the ferrofluid carrier are hold in a state of equilibrium The encapsulated thin layer of ferrofluid inside the ferrolens in this state, does not flow anymore, but exists in a balanced state of equilibrium no matter what position the cell is oriented. The nanoparticles inside the ferrolens do not settle with gravity. More in detail, the anionic surfactant coating on the nanoparticles keeps the particles from touching each other (i.e. clumping or agglomeration) in the free state when there is no external magnetic field present. Notice here that the generated Van der Waals forces in the ferrofluid are not attractive but due to steric repulsion results to stabilization.

Therefore, the nanoparticles movement is essentially we can say is dictated only by their induced by an external magnetic field magnetic moment according to their Néel relaxation time,

τ(Ν) = 1/f0 * (e^(KV(N)/KT))

for which, fo, K , and V(N), the frequency constant of Néel relaxation (Larmor frequency), the anisotropy constant of the particle and the Néel particle volume, respectively. And T the temperature in Kelvin units, however during a observation session with the ferrolens with a constant room temperature and the cold light from the LED's don't expect much of variation and actually hold constant and negligible.

Also Néel relaxation time is more important for the response time of the ferrolens for dynamic magnetic fields and less for magnetostatics. As I have proven in my previous work the ferrolens with the 10nm particles can respond almost in real-time for dynamic magnetic fields up to 5MHz.

quote from SL:

" The surfaces reflect light, so the interference lines (colored in non-monochromatic light) will be seen, if the refractive index of the ferrofluid depends on the concentration of particles "

No, colored lines shwon on some ferrocells are because RGB colored light source was used. Color of lines is most dependent from light source color and tint sligtly changes depending magnetic polarization of nanoparticles. As I have shown when white light LED is used the result is lines have same uniform color all over the ferrolens surface.

Optical light refraction index of the ferrocell is very small depending the carrier fluid (specially water based) used it can go up to 90% transparency as measured for all colors of light used in the ferrolens.

So light refraction index is controlled almost exclusively by magnetic polarization of ferrocell by the external magnetic field induced. Light dispersion effects are also minimal due the 50 microns or less thin film.

quote from SL:

" The lines H = const are not the magnetic field lines, and can be perpendicular to them. "

No when uniform lighting conditions are established all over the surfaces of the ferrocell, light used by LED strip is not coherent laser monochromatic light but incoherent omnidirectional filling all the 3D space from every direction (see also pictures where an incandescent lamp light source is used instead of LED light).

The pattern of the magnetic flux which always consistently appears has circular trajectories when considered on a 2D plane closing circuit around the Bloch region and each magnetic pole.

How you can make a circle perpendicular on a 2D plane without leaving the 2D plane really escapes me?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

p.s. For every researcher out there I think a better way apart from hypothesizing would be to make your own experiments with the ferrocell

Dear Emmanouil,

On the other hand, my opinion is that it would be better to all if you confirm your hypothesis in another way, by experiment or calculation, without using ferrocell.

I do that always, obtain the same result with different methods, if my experiment shows something different and new.

Best,

Branko

Thank you for your suggestion. I am already doing that so you have to wait for my forthcoming papers.

Also regarding Sergey Langwagen suggestion of the shown lines being 90 degrees perpendicular to the actual magnetic flux I have to add, that if that was the case the magnetic flux we see in the ferrolens will not end up at the physical locations where the poles of the magnet are! (i.e. the two black holes depicted at the ferrolens)

nanoparticle chains 1-2 microns inside the free ferrofluid polarized by external field

Amazing video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suz27yUQOeY

Are you saying that you believe in magnetic monopoles?