> > Well not quite entirely, the current loop > consisting in the orbiting motion has got to > contribute _some_ magnetic dipole moment to the > atom, > however small this effect may be > compared to that of the rotating motion. > > > That's very true. Most of the field in ferromagnetic > atoms comes from intrinsic electron > spin, not orbital spin. For example, in Alnico 5 > 94% > comes from intrinsic electron spin. > In Sm2Co17 63% from intrinsic electron spin. > Paramagnetic materials is another story, > but it's relatively weak. > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance
Hi Paul, some interesting facts here on (ferro)magnetism. I am not well schooled in physics, but I remember reading a book on magnetism where this fact was brought on, that magnetism was created both by "cohered" orbital electron orbits, and also the actual spin of the electron while in orbit. (Here refered to as intrinsic spin} I think it was also noted that it was the single "unpaired" electron orbit responsible for the magnetism due to orbital spin. For every electron in orbit, the magnetic force it creates reacts via lenz law to create a magnetic force in opposition; with the net result that every clockwise electron spin is paired with a counterclockwise spin, so the net effect of these two spins are magnetic cancellation. Thus ferromagnetic materials should have an ODD number of electron orbits so that the one unpaired spin can be "cohered" to all spin at the same three dimensional angle among a domain sample of many of these spins. I am somewhat confused here, are the magnetic dipoles here referred to a set of these opposite spinning electron orbits? My next question regards macroscopic spin. If we understand gyroscopic laws a spin within a spin can have a precessional force imposed on it. A good demonstration of this is what happens when a person sitting on a revolving stool holds the axle of a revolving bicycle wheel. If the revolving wheel is initially vertical, and the person tilts that wheel to a horizontal orientation, a torque is translated to the stool so that the force applied to change the angle of the spin itself is translated to cause the person on the stool to rotate. Now suppose this stool itself is filled with hundreds of gyroscopes on gimbals so that the spin itself is allowed to change its orientation of spin. And all of these gyroscopic spins are oriented in random directional spins in three dimensions.(an analogy for an unmagnetised ferromagnetic material) Now suppose then we externally rotate this stool holding all of these random spins in three dimensions. Would it not be true that some of the spins would change their direction of spin due to precessional gyroscopic forces caused by the external rotation, so that the external spin,(macroscopic) influenced a majority of internal(Molecular domain electron spins) to become somewhat cohered spins in two dimensions intead of three? The net result would be that the macroscopic spin coheres molcular gryscopic electron spins so that a side effect of macroscopic ferrmagnetic spin on a disc like structure is magnetism! In support of this thesis is the results of spinning an alternator with an unenergized electromagnet field. A 2 volt stator output that can enable a 1.5 Amp consumption on a single shorted phase at a rotation causing 480 hz were the results I obtained with a smaller Delco Remy car alternator with the diodes removed, all without the field even being energized. In fact it may be somewhat amazing to see what meausures must be taken so that zero power output is available from a spinning AC alternator whose (primary) field has not been energized. It is seen that if the DC current is sent through the field in one preferred direction, more stator voltage results, and this is logical since one direction of field current would establish a (electrically induced)magnetic field in harmony with the pre-existant rotationally created magnetic field. If the direction of the field current was made in the opposite direction to oppose the rotationally created magnetic field, the output of the alternator can be made to approach zero. Amazingly we must send energy into the field to make the alternator quit producing an output voltage. If the incorrect direction of current through the field were then increased beyond the zero output margin, the alternator once again produces voltage, but somewhat more innefficiently then if the correct direction of DC field current were used. When this was done, and then the field amperage again reduced to the point where it formerly cancelled the rotational magnetism so that zero output is shown from the stator outputs, now it delivers a different result of delivering power, so that we might conclude that rotation itself preserves as a sort of memory its previous electromagnetic influence. These effects were previously elaborated in some of my yahoo group postings; Amazing Rotational Magnetism Tests Sun Sep 19, 2004 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/1291 "what I did here was to compare the field energy requirements at the point of .25 A field current. This required a two volt DC voltage across field to accomplish from the ordinary variac set up I use to energize the field. This implies that at 2 volts, the field appears as 8 ohms, to allow .25 A conduction,even though the field measures some 20 ohms when it is not rotating. This is the meaning of "forward emf", where ordinary AC motors experience the opposite effect, the AC resistance initally appears at its normal impedance level then, but as soon as rotation commences a far higher AC resistance appears due to back emf making a voltage in reverse to the source voltage. Here somehow magically however the field looses its DC resistance, and in fact if it didnt do that, it would be especially hard to make the DC field /stator resonance feedback loop even work! But the purpose here was to compare direction of field currents to the attached load of a 2 inch water cell output. When the .25 A of field amperage is in the correct direction inputing we see about 5.5 average stator volts appearing to allow 4.7 VDC @ .85A through two inch cell Reversing the direction of field current we then see a ~ stator voltage of 3.5 VAC enabling 3.7DCV @ .54 A through cell. So here it is easy to show that a lesser output is made with equal field energies, and that a correct polarity input for field is desirable." Dispelling the Remanent Magnetism of Field Rotor Theory Sat Apr 17, 2004 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/message/1051 "Remarkably The actual DC resistance of the field is affected in a very non-linear manner prior to the point where electromagnetism of the field rotor exceeds the pre-existant rotational magnetism. Initially the field appears as a much higher DC resistance than is actually measured without motion of the field rotor taking place." "Once the field is ACTUALLY energized, and then turned off, we see an increase of (no field) parametric readings. THAT is that totality of remanent magnetisation effect, which of course is lost after a certain time after motion of the field rotor has ceased. It is ONLY that amount of increase that should be attributed to remanent magnetism of the field pole faces, and of course the ordinary parametric levels of operation are then seen when that remanent magnetism ceases to be present..." Now in finality I would ask if the above is beleivable, shouldnt rotational magnetism be more evident in materials where the magnetic effect is made more from orbital spin rather then intrinsic spin? Can you comment whether hard or soft iron would be more characterized by orbital spin rather then intrinsic? Thanx for any answers here. Sincerely HDN Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
