Does Magnetic Energy Flow?
by Walter Rawls
©2003 Biomagnetics International, Inc.
All rights reserved.
It has been said that magnetism is not energy and does not flow. The following is submitted:
Energy is a concept so basic that no terms more fundamental can describe it.
Therefore, especially in science, it has been qualified in more basic
units by relating it to mass, velocity, temperature, and so on.
When Newton formulated his laws of motion, he did not mention energy.
Thomas Young (1773-1829), about eighty years after Newton, took the term
from a Greek word meaning "work" and applied it to what we now call the
kinetic energy of a body.
Half a century later, Rankin coined the term 'potential energy'. Both of
these terms concern mechanical physics and their relation to thermal
energy (HEAT), but it was not realized until Joule (1818-1889)
demonstrated that heat produced by the passage of an electric current
through a wire was related to the square of the current and that heat
was produced by mechanical work.
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) and Carnot (1796-1832) never accepted that heat
was anything other than a fluid, called calorie, possessed by hot
bodies.
It was Einstein (1879-1955) who showed that every physical occurrence of
whatever kind can be specified completely only if it is known when, as
well as where, it occurred.
From Einstein's relativity of energy and mass also grew the idea (with
"flow" overwhelmingly accepted at that time), that matter can be
rearranged, but not destroyed. Mass at rest is equivalent to an amount
of energy; but in motion, the effective mass (and therefore the
effective energy) increases according to the velocity of the body in
relation to the velocity of light.
For energy to do work and to be useable it must be able to flow to be
transferred from one place to another. For example, a heat engine will
only function with a useable temperature difference because only then can heat energy flow.
It has followed that units of energy have been thus specified, such as:
-
Calories, therms, and British Thermal Units (for heat),
-
Watt-hours (for electrical energy),
-
Foot-pounds and kilogram-metres for (mechanical energy), and
-
Gauss-oersteds (for the permanent magnet industry).
Energy is stored in the magnetic field of
a permanent magnet because it will move a piece of iron in the
vicinity, thus doing work on the iron. We pause here to remind the
reader that the foregoing is accepted science. It is not unusual for a
part (or parts) of accepted scientific knowledge to be misapplied or not
disseminated thoroughly throughout the scientific community.
There are a number of editorials and scientific magazines, as well as
comments by noteworthy publicly employed and private scientists,
addressed to this difficulty. For example, the eminent scientist and
mathematician, Gilbert, in the time of Elizabeth the First of Great
Britain, proclaimed that the Earth was like a giant magnet.
Since Gilbert, this has been accepted science (although perhaps not
emphasized or used properly for clarifications of energy and flow).
Since the industrial revolution...really since Benjamin Franklin, through Edison, Tesla, and even
until the mid-1900's, the thrust has been on electrical energy in
private and public use. That was until the advent of atomic energy. If a
machine works...if a bomb can explode, then it is accepted. And even
now, the scientific community divides between relativity and quantum
mechanics in a broader sense of disciplines.
Question!
For
energy to do work it must flow, so how can magnetism not flow as
science accepts that it does work, and is energy? Still, we find
prestigious scientific references that will say magnetism is energy and
does not flow. This is a paradox of words (which are actually symbols)
and not unusual as we rush ahead rapidly to improve upon and build
greater devices. All the while, however, it is all too often done at the
very expense of gaining more comprehension of the basics we have
accepted on the path to achieving that very growth.
Here is another example of a science principle overlooked in relation to
the importance of magnetism versus electricity (our two basic
disciplines of useable energy in societies). In the discovery by Faraday
in 1851, he realized that it is not just the actual motion of flow of
the electrons that are at the center of electricity. Rather, it is the
electric and magnetic (force) fields they set up as they move along.
It is well to note that in 1865, when Maxwell published his theories of
electromagnetism, both electricity and magnetism were related in an exact mathematical fashion, one equal to the other and interrelated.
The rapid development of the atomic theory, with its discovery that all
matter is ultimately composed of (among other particles) electrons,
meant that electricity gained the more central prominence in physics.
This added to the earlier important discoveries of Hertz (a light wave
is merely a traveling electromagnetic wave).
Electrons exist in the atom orbiting around the nucleus. They are held
there by the electromagnetic attraction existing between the negative
charge carried by the electron and the positive charge of the nucleus.
It is the same as the way in which the moon is held in orbit by the
gravitational attraction between it and the Earth. The heavier atoms can
have as many as ninety electrons swirling around the nucleus moving
from one orbit to another giving us a source of energy for light,
x-rays, etc.
It is the behavior of the electron clouds of the different atoms and the
way the clouds link together that gives us the chemical properties of
all matter.
The electron can behave like a particle or a wave (cables of spinning
circular energy in frequency waves and particles, i.e. Davis and Rawls).
The most important charged particle, the electron, carries a negative
charge. Davis and Rawls, when pressed to state a preference between the
negative and positive separate and distinct magnetic energies, will say
the negative magnetic energy is more desirable for applications and
effects, although a balance between the two energies is essential.
One of the themes of Davis and Rawls' book, The Magnetic Blueprint of Life,
stresses the importance of negative energy in a number of scientific
areas characterized in line with accepted physics, in the form of spin
in the Nature of this energy. It is interesting to note here that the
word "electron" also comes from the Greek word, and was first applied to
magnetism, not electricity. It is, of course, still applied to
magnetism, and becomes more important with the applications and effects
seen by Davis and Rawls.
Davis and Rawls' discoveries have their roots in accepted science. To
understand the basics as presented, it is neccessary to understand
that by the scientific principle of application and effect, magnetism is
as important (if not more so) as electricity.
Considering electromagnetic dictums, this is the principle. But the application and effect of magnetism has not been, in practice, equal
to the use of electricity. It is believed that clarification of
magnetism, at least in the discovery of the two separate and distinct
energies fitting into definite scientific principles of cause and
effect, will change this appreciation of magnetism's importance one day.
What does the scientific community say about magnetic flux in regard to flow? There are two general camps of belief:
1. That it flows, and
2. That it does not flow.
The only right or wrong belief about its flow is to be judged on whether
the concept is useful to a particular individual. For example, it is
more profitable to think of flux as merely being set up because it
represents stored energy. In this case, it thusly does not flow and does
not have a continuous loss of power as in the case when electric
current flows in a wire.
For others, the analogue is more profitable if flux is considered to be a more precise analogue of electric current, so that a magnetic circuit can be given the properties appropriate to inductance and capacitance in an electric current.
Electricity flowing is an analogue as is magnetism flowing, depending on
the use, application and effect. Prestigious scientific references are
in conflict as Van Nostrand's will say no flow and the International Edition of the Science and Invention Encyclopedia will say otherwise. The analogue explanation seems more plausible for the scientific community's present position.
Here, we note the accepted practice of using a "keeper" for a magnet.
Flow is considered magnetic flux from one pole to another. Each part of a
magnet is a domain, a self-contained energy source, except for the
Bloch wall (the center dividing portion), which cannot be measured with
available instrumentation.
Magnetism will flow from pole to pole and over a period of time there is
a loss of magnetism from the pole ends into infinity. Eventually, you
would have a dead magnet (which could be recharged). A "keeper" is used
to slow down and prevent this loss of energy flowing into infinity.
Magnetic domains are negative and positive, not just as symbols for
identification, but in accordance with physics and natural laws of
energy spin in relation to the distance of a magnet's poles to its
center. The flow of energy is in cables of spinning circular energy,
initially, from south to north. However, the constant flow is in both
directions.
This is a synopsis, not a detailed explanation needing many pages,
experiments, etc. Also, we are not going into radiation and wave
frequency herein. However, we will say that the only thing that
distinguishes one kind of radiation from another is its wavelength (or
frequency) and that the study of electromagnetism is basic to the whole
of science. After all, the Earth receives most of its energy from the
sun by electromagnetic radiation.
In conclusion, we say that the already accepted basics of science -
before Davis and Rawls - did accept magnetism as energy that flows,
although not in unanimity among the scientific community. Davis and
Rawls' applications and effects give more importance to these basics.
Davis and Rawls consider themselves their own worst critics, but
nonetheless have to ask: If our diagnostic system, patented on the
separate energies, works 100% of the time on the animal and human body -
and the explanation of this working is not correct - then can someone come forth with a scientific explanation of why it works other than the way Davis and Rawls explain?
So far no one has. And we do not believe they can.
