New Test of J.Nordberg's 'Field Reversing Sphere' Experiment

I don't think it would make sense to have the wire running straight through the middle of the sphere, but you're right, it's not clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looking at the conduction paths implied in his setup explanations I assumed that the main conduction paths are on the spheres surfaces not straight through. Otherwise if a wire ran through the spheres the shortest path would be straight through and the spheres would just act as passive shielding only, not conducting surfaces? The spheres must be empty of anything that would short-circuit or there would be no point in the spheres being there. Am I wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that a wire running through the middle of the sphere would not make much sense. The current would still run through the sphere either way, but why complicate matters. I was just making sure everyone was interpreting the setup the same way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't really expect a crackpot to explain the experimental setup. If you note, with no current, his two compasses do not have the same heading. This is a classical example of GiGo.

 

Yes, I noticed that. It might be an example of "ok I have all of the hidden magnets situated just right such that the experiment will appear to work". I'm hoping this isn't the case but we must brace for this likelihood.

 

This means that Nordberg is a failure at being a magician too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's just do the damn experiment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While we wait, I wonder if anyone has the equipment to do a 2 dimensional version of the experiment. Just use a flat circle of wire instead of the copper sphere. Seems like that would be a good approximation to the full version of the experiment.

 

Just for everyone's information:
I shorted a 9v 300mA "wall wart" transformer through a loop of wire, and found no deflection at all of a spherical liquid filled compass.

Whoops, I just noticed that the output is AC. Never mind.

 

Alright, I just performed the 2 dimensional version of the experiment. I bent a "coat hanger" type wire into a flat circle with one end of the wire coming straight out the top, and the other end of the wire coming straight out of the bottom. I brought the far ends around to a transformer with 12v 800mA DC output.

Spoiler

Left side tests:
I placed my liquid-filled spherical compass to the left side of the bottom hemisphere and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect clockwise. I moved the compass up to the left side of the "equator" of the circle and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect clockwise again. I moved the compass up to the left side of the top hemisphere and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect clockwise again.

Right side tests:
I placed my liquid-filled spherical compass to the right side of the bottom hemisphere and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect counter-clockwise. I moved the compass up to the right side of the "equator" of the circle and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect counter-clockwise again. I moved the compass up to the right side of the top hemisphere and pulsed the current, causing the compass to deflect counter-clockwise again.

I think it is interesting that the compass deflects in opposite directions depending on which side of the circle (left vs. right). Now I am really curious to see what will happen in 3-D!

 

Here is a sketch of my 2-dimensional wire setup, with my compass shown deflecting at various locations.

Spoiler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never took his 'symmetry principle' to imply an exact mirror reflection, rather that there was a general situation of 'field reversal', which on any reasonable grounds, must involve a smooth transition in field pattern. It is totally unphysical and unreasonable, even by Nordberg standards, to expect an abrupt reversal at the equator. There would then by that standard of logic be an abrupt reversal between wire (right-hand rule applying) and hemisphere in the lower hemisphere (left-hand rule applying). You believe he means that too? Where precisely would such an abrupt reversal, implying infinite values of curl B, occur exactly? Right at the junction of wire and sphere? Generating infinite curl B at that junction? Similarly you are positing a line of radial acting infinite curl B at equator. I doubt Nordberg would go that far. Maybe time to contact him and get it straight from the horse's mouth. For all that would matter.:shrug:

In a sense all such nonsense talk of abrupt reversals is beside the point here. It still implies an in vacuo curl B existing - but in the abrupt scenario you apparently see in Nordberg's 'theory', that curl B is an infinitely strong delta function existing perhaps just at the abrupt reversal zones. Which no less than in my conception of Nordberg's 'theory' implying a gradual transition between 'reversals', admits a perpetuum mobile, just as I have described in #64 and #66. I repeat yet again - any departure whatsoever from strictly 1/r behavior for |B| in infinitely long straight wire case automatically implies an axial finite curl B, thus possibility of constructing a spinning magnet free energy system. One may have to slightly bend the magnet assemblies into say a horseshoe shape to do so, but always it is possible; assuming Nordberg's general claim is true. And I defy you to avoid that conclusion, when in particular treating lower hemisphere region where at some point right-hand circulation in wire must a la Nordberg become left-hand circulation in that hemisphere.

Not correct. See above comments. See also below comments.

So you keep saying. And so I keep saying it's not true - given Nordberg field config - whether viewed as abrupt or gradual transitions. See what I wrote in #62 re your claim nothing would move. It's flat wrong. Presence of finite curl B anywhere in vacuo (magnetostatic case) allows PMM's just as I have claimed. So that can be taken as proof such in vacuo curl B is absent. How many times have I said that or similar now? Way too many. But then I'm now used to this situation here at SF.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nice pic but experiment irrelevant. If you want to try a genuinely useful '2D' setup, check out suggested configs in #37- they actually cover the essence of Nordberg's claims. And while you are being brave (or foolhardy) in committing to a position backing Nordberg, sorry to say you will be eating humble pie once results from RJBeery and eram are in. Bet welcome.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That isn't Nordberg's claim, that's is slightly different.

Hey Neddy, pics or it didn't happen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We've gone over this before I believe. Flat plate intersecting at right angles a wire or rod captures all the essence of Nordberg's crazed theory imo. How does it not? Read again #37 and tell me where a sphere would make any difference in principle.

 

Oh, I was referring to Ned's diagram.

It's slightly different from what Nordberg claimed.



However Ned's results are just as bizarre as Nordberg's.

 

OK that's cleared up.

More than slightly different - there is a complete lack of axial symmetry in Ned's setup and that makes it unfit as alternate arrangement.

I disagree about it being bizarre. It's actually exactly what one should expect. If you think carefully the 'circulations' or rather compass deflection arrows shown in his pic is completely consistent with the B field around a wire. The fact that he has it splitting changes nothing. Man will I be ever happy when this whole thing is done and over. :bawl:

 

I'm thinking that some people need to read chapter 11 a few times. (rolls eyes)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4EQVCeyjp1VYkN2dkJvdTRLS3M/edit?usp=sharing

 

Since he provides absolutely no mathematical formalism and no quantitative results, it is difficult to say what to "believe".

Without any data, it is impossible to know how "far" Nordberg would go. Mind you, you can get the same reversal by taking a standard coil and reversing the winding in the middle of its length, as I already pointed out.

Yes, this should settle it. I suggest it is done after RJB fails to replicate his results.

You won't get a perpetuum mobile even if the two hemispheres weren't canceling each other effects. You won't get a perpetuum mobile even if you placed the needle in the center of one hemisphere.

I think that you don't understand the basics of electric motors. The "rotor" would not even start except from one time when the current is applied.

 

I commend you on making the effort, but this does not test the premise as I worded it. The flux area has not increased because the hanger has a constant thickness.

Wait a minute, I'm not sure it's fair to equate me taking the time to run this experiment and me predicting positive results. I won't be 'eating humble pie' with a negative result because I don't actually expect a positive one. If this were a proper bet I would be getting extreme long-shot odds but I accepted 1:1 because I knew that would spur me into actually doing it.

 

wait, didn't you say that Neddy was backing Nordberg and would be eating humble pie?