Primer Fields

.
I should have posted this long ago.  

Primer Fields



David LaPoint's Primer Field model shows the electromagnetic fields around matter, at all scales in the universe. For example, the Earth emits north and south magnetic fields in the shape of a double toroid, the same as north and south electromagnetic fields that exist around a photon or a galaxy.
 
David fashioned magnets into the same basic form, a spherical bowl of inside/outside polarities with a hole at the bottom. They demonstrate unanticipated physical properties, like flipping points – points at which magnetically aligned matter must flip directions. Non-magnetic steel spheres will organize in self-ordered arrays between large magnetic bowls, always a joy to behold. David’s also wired such magnets as anode and cathode in high voltage vacuum circuits with amazing plasma displays. If you haven't seen the videos, you must, If you did, see them again.

David’s model – photons emit a double toroid magnetic field - has a problem or two that shows up when compared to Miles’ charge field.
1) Charge fields are made of photons, so the photon itself is too small to have an emission field.
2) The emission field is made of real, spinning photons.
 


David has created many astronomical images with his model overlaid to show large matter objects like the Vela Pulsar, bubble clusters or the planet Saturn. He promised to produce a Crab Nebula primer field overlay but I haven’t heard of anything new, the image below doesn't include the choke ring, flip ring, containment dome, the model details.
 

Above taken from the Primer Fields 2.

Who knows, Miles might incorporate David’s model.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://www.rexresearch.com/lapoint/lapoint.htm
David A. LaPoint
Primer Field Theory / Experiments

Youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/davelapoint777
The Primer Fields
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk
Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NogyJ0k8Kw
Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI6ikj1G-s
Part 3
________________________________________

http://revolution-green.com/what-are-primer-fields/

What are Primer Fields


Dubbed the Primer Fields, this revolutionary new idea has been tested extensively using special shaped magnets and plasma. A test chamber put under vacuum and then filled with different gas types to create specific light effects. Magnets in the shape of bowls that have a hole in the bottom are suspended in the chamber via thin filaments. A whip=like electrode inside the chamber is used to create plasma in the gas. Most important part of this setup is the Bowl shaped magnets. I’m not sure how exactly they were able to construct these magnets; but they are either Negatively polarized or positively polarized.

When placing a negative and positive bowl near near each other in the chamber, a very peculiar effect happens with the plasma. Most of the plasma in the chamber collects in the space between the bowls. It rotates at a high rate of speed and streamers of plasma are ejected from the holes in the bottom of the bowl shaped magnets.

The theory is that every component of matter has a double toroidial (bowl) shaped magnetic field that radiates from it’s core. Even the structures of the universe resemble this pattern. These videos demonstrate the effect and theory very well. If this were proven to be fact, large portions of our physics platform would have to be restructured...

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I remember being grateful David posted.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=9221&start=45

Re: The Primer Fields?

Postby PrimerFields » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:27 pm

I am the guy who made the Primer Fields video. Sorry for the length of this post, but is has to be long in order to address the issues I am seeing in some of the comments here. I just have time to make this post here and then back to work on the next videos and a paper for submission that covers my research. I hope to have PF2 up by Feb. 1. I will not be able to respond to any questions or comments here. I may read them and then address them in my upcoming videos for all to see and learn from.

Regarding intrinsic magnetic fields. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields to it. Research this. All I did was change the shape of the source of the intrinsic magnetic fields. My main focus of my work has NOT been astrophysics, but physics at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The particles of matter at the LHC are driven around the LHC by MAGNETIC FIELDS. They are able to do this because of the intrinsic magnetic fields in all matter. Think this through carefully. It is based on repeatably proven science fact and experiments. Magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter structures and that is undeniable fact. Trying to prove where they come from would be like asking me to prove water is wet. Think this through.

They are there and I don't have to prove that as it is already accepted as fact. If you think that they can be electrically generated just on what we find in space, then I challenge you to prove it and not just say it. This is what true scientists do, they prove their statements. In six years of experiments I find zero evidence that these intrinsic magnetic fields are driven or generated by external electrical currents. I have run many many experiments without my magnetic emitters and I have seen zero evidence of this happening. If you go back and look at Birkleland's experiments you will notice that he had to put a source of a magnetic field into his sphere to find his Birkeland currents. No magnetic field no Birkeland currents. So the magnetic fields have to be there before any electricity is provided. Therefore the electricity did not form the magnetic fields and without magnetic fields you get no Birkeland currents.

The EUT is mostly correct and absolutely more correct than current mainstream AP. But there is no proof as to the source of the electricity. I am very aware of magneto hydrodynamics and in fact my theories use it, but you still have to prove that MHD is the real source and I see no evidence for that when it comes to externally powered stars etc. In fact if you carefully observe my experiments you will see the variance between my electrically driven plasma formation and the formations in space. They are NOT the same. They are similar in that the plasma reveals the shape of the fields. The steel ball experiments I show in the videos also do this WITHOUT electricity. I do this to show that electricity is NOT the driver of the formations we see in space, but in fact is produced by the formations we see in space. I have to be careful in how I present this evidence because I have working technology based on these theories and I have patents in the works. But in PF2 I will present the mechanism by which electricity is produced by the Sun. I DO NOT AGREE with the current mainstream view of the Sun as being internally fusion powered and I find that all evidence and hard data point directly away from this concept. So I do understand the EUT frustrations with the blindness in the mainstream. But I am not the mainstream. So do not try and say things against what I am saying until you can prove it. That is what I did. I kept my mouth closed until I had hard repeatable data.

But I do find that the Sun is fusion powered from the outside. Find the highest temperature and you have the place where fusion is greatest. Simple logic. Then as to the EUT, If the Sun were externally electrically powered we would not find these incredible temperature variances between the surface of the Sun and the corona-sphere. It would all be pretty much the same temperature. This is simple logic, backed by experiments. So in an externally powered Sun you have to explain the mechanism for the Solar interior being 5000K and the hottest areas in the corona-sphere being over 2 million K. IN fact you have to provide a mechanism for the interior of the Sun to be cooled as it is surrounded by the much hotter corona-sphere. That mechanism I cannot prove, but I do have a couple of ideas that I will expound on in my videos. Too much to discuss here.

My thinking that the Sun cannot be externally powered is also backed by experimental proof of little or no temperature variance in my experiments, which are indeed externally electrically driven. Therefore one must conclude that NASA et all is incorrect and the current EUT theory is incorrect based on repeatable experiments. Six years of experiments in fact.

But again I do agree with the concepts of the EUT more than I agree with BH, DM, and DE, which I find no reason to exist and in fact I find zero proof that any of them exist.

Furthermore. I am a plasma physicist as you can see. I know very well what a Z-pinch is. Please do not make comments that I don't realize I made a Z-pinch. To those who actually worked with Z-pinches a comment like that makes the whole EUT look really bad. What I made is not a Z-pinch at all. NOT AT ALL. Trying to say it does makes you look really really bad. Sorry, but it does. It makes those who really know how a Z-pinch really works pay no attention to anything else you say. I am sorry, but that is how these guys think.

It would be like me telling you the moon is really made of cheese and then wondering why you won't listen to me. So really research what you believe, for your own sake.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don't have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week. Everything I say is backed by experiments and I have not had one mainstream physics or AP attack on any of my theories that I am aware of. All I have heard is their silence. In fact I have physicists who totally back all I say.

I know it is very frustrating to have the mainstream be so totally blind to some of the things the EUT calls for, but I am not mainstream and I am not your enemy. I am on your side more than I am on their side. I would suggest all of you take a step back and wait for the rest of my videos and my papers that I am working on as hard as I can. I only seek the truth and that is all. That is what every true scientist does. Just make sure you are seeking for the truth no matter where it leads, and not just trying to convince yourself that all you believe is true. That can be a very dangerous psychological trap that goes by the name of cognitive dissonance. This is the trap that I believe the mainstream has fallen into. I.E. our theories are correct and now we need patches to make our theories work.

My approach is to try and shoot down my own theories and prove them incorrect. This approach has worked really well for me and any mistakes or problems are revealed when I do this. If I cannot prove something, I will not say it as a fact. If I say I believe that means I think that this is correct, but I cannot yet prove it, therefore it could be wrong. I think all of us should be like that, even NASA, even you, even me.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from.

Cheers to all,

Dave

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Thanks for posting LTAM. Wasn't aware of this guy and his work. Very interesting.

.


Hey Cr6, I found the Primer Fields absolutely fascinating, I’m surprised you didn’t see it. I need to say a few more words on the subject.

David offered a new magnetic form which provided many new and unique demonstrations of magnetism and high voltage plasma creation. His findings led him to believe he had unlocked the mystery of matter. He planned a series of seven videos, but stopped at three. Five years later, nothing. What happened?

David’s model begins with the electromagnetic field emitted by the photon. Given the charge field, we can point out the “error” in that idea: 1) the photon cannot have an emission field since it is already the smallest particle of matter; and 2) The emission field is comprised of real spinning photons. Perhaps the model only applies to charged particles larger than photons?


Above, David shows how photons come in different sizes, in accordance with the current mainstream misunderstanding. Ken L. Wheeler tries out David’s idea in his book, Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism.

I admit, I was rather disappointed by the Primer Fields part 3 in that it is mainly a rehash of plain old emf wave theory. I suspect we haven’t heard more about the Primer Fields because David cannot explain electromagnetic waves any better than they were previously misunderstood.

I’ve been trying to find something in David’s work that might expand our understanding of the charge field. Large and complex fields may indeed organize in ways predicted by David’s model.
.

Do you know if his patents have gone anywhere, like into products?

.
Patents or products? Sorry Cr6, I don’t know. Thanks for asking, it’s worth a look.

First, I’ll point to the top of the post. I linked http://www.rexresearch.com/lapoint/lapoint.htm. The page title is, David A. LaPoint Primer Field Theory / Experiments. I also copied rexresearch’s conveniently listed link set. Opening the Primer Fields part 1, I see the title is The Primer Fields Part 1 International Ver. Some switch or mistake on my part? Duly noted. I would rather avoid the subject. Anyway, at 1:12 into the first video of either version we see - U.S. Pat App Number 13624857 along with International Patent App Number PCT/US2012/058805.

Note that the rexresearch htm page mostly includes information on:

1) Power generation device US 20080246361. A device with the ability to harness electrical power utilizing magnetic arrays and electrically charged particulate to produce electrical power is provided. … .

2) WO2013106104 Magnetic Array. A magnetic array with a bowl-shaped array of magnets oriented to induce a structured and oriented ionic flow towards a focal point. … .

I haven’t figured out the Power Generation device, (electrically charged particulate goes where?) other than to avoid placing it between a high voltage source and ground (I know I’m funny). Many disappointing typos and fragments are included. The Magnetic array – disk magnets distributed on a hemispheric surface seems like a perfectly reasonable enough way to create magnetic bowls. Neither rexresearch object strikes me as the patent pending item referred to in the video.

Here’s my David LaPoint google patent search – actually my first google patent search. They make it so easy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=david+lapoint+patent&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs3ePkptDYAhVF7FMKHcjaDOgQ1QIIeCgE.

A few new sources, including forums, here’s one.

https://thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com/what-i-think-the-primer-fields/some-questions-and-answers-from-david-lapoint/

Some questions and answers from David LaPoint

Steve Thomas
    Two questions if I may. Is the vacuum chamber simply similar to a florescent light? The bowls are producing a magnetic field that causes the gas in the chamber to align along this field?
David LaPoint
Yes the vacuum chamber is just like a florescent light and yes the bowls emit a magnetic field that controls the plasma. The electricity does not make the fields not cause the formations therein. The formations are there all along with or without electricity. The electricity only reveals the formations, the electricity does not cause them. Just as when you put electricity through a florescent bulb it causes it to light up, and that is all the electricity does.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Greg Sanders
    I wonder if the polar jets of a spiral galaxy act as atom smashers that generate heavier and heavier elements and if an enormous ball of depleted uranium has accumulated at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. I do not believe that there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way but there is something very heavy there that alters the orbits of a dozen nearby stars. Geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon hypothesizes that stars and planets have uranium cores that function as natural nuclear reactors. He notes that Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun.
David LaPoint
    Greg, polar jets are not atom smashers and there is not reason to have any core of a certain material in the center of the Milky Way galaxy to see the orbits around it that we see. Watch how the balls behave in my video at this point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI&t=19m40s There is no mass at the center at all to begin with. This orderly structure is all just from magnetic fields and how they interact. Gravity need not be involved at all. But there is a focal point in the center of the Milky Way and around that point we see what we see. We are still waiting for more info to really go into what is going on there. But this is the point. You don’t necessary have to have a “core” of great density at the center of anything. All I am going to say on that until I can expound on it in the video. But some very good observations and points.
———————————————————————————————————————
 …”But electricity causes everything.”
David LaPoint
It is this simple. It has proven that you can have concentrations of energy (COE) without external electricity involved at all. When is the external electricity that is causing the water to form in the glass before you drink it? That is a silly idea, right? But every molecule and atom in that glass of water has an intrinsic magnetic field to it. That is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The LHC uses magnetic fields to drive matter to nearly the speed of light for the collisions there. The universe has electricity in it for certain, but the cause is not at all from magneto hydrodynamics in flowing fields in space as other groups contend. It is a concept without scientific merit and zero experiments behind it.
———————————————————————————————————————
   …”Black Holes?’
David LaPoint
On black holes and planetary orbits. I believe that what are called black holes are actually the effects of the magnetic fields confining matter. The orbits of the planets are also due to the magnetic fields as you see with the outer orbitals on the acrylic sheet in my video. Remember this experiment was conducted within the magnetic field of the Earth so I have to contend with effects of that. If we could do that experiment in deep space far away from other magnetic fields I believe we could increase that orbital distance a quite a bit. It can be very difficult to totally let go of the gravity concept when it comes to orbitals in space. It was difficult for me to let gravity go. But it actually makes a lot more sense that the orbits of planets are do to magnetic confinement once you see that it is possible and it places objects in clearly defined stable orbits.
—————————————————————————————————————
     …”So even nylon balls should behave in a similar way to the steel balls?”
David LaPoint
    So can you charge a nylon ball.? Of course you can.  It will then respond to a magnetic field. If you can get something to accept a charge, then you can control it with a magnetic field if you eliminate completing forces. It would be nice to be able to jump into deep space to test this concept out, but my teleporter has been down for a while and I am still waiting for replacement parts from my home planet. LOL
——————————————————————————————————————-
    …”Why do you just do simulations?”
David LaPoint
My experiments are designed to show how things truly work at all levels from the atomic to the galactic. My goal in all of videos is to open everyone’s minds to a new way of thinking about how things really work. Not just to do simulations.
——————————————————————————————————————
…”Would “the bowl” repel a non spherical steel object?”
David LaPoint
Yes
——————————————————————————————————————
…”If the bowl was laid flat would it levitate a thin plate of steel/iron above it?”
David LaPoint
Yes
——————————————————————————————————————
…”Would the repulsion force increase if you increased the magnetic flux flowing from the bowl?”
David LaPoint
Yes

Policetac aka Richard, posted that thread and goes on to answer many readers’ questions, a total of 159 responses, the last comment in May, 2017. Richard isn’t involved in David’s work. Richard said he believed each bowl is a mono-pole, but that can’t be correct. There was also mention of the Primer Cube.

The patents page returns also include the Primer Cube.

http://aetherforce.com/the-primer-cube-by-david-lapoint/

Unfortunately, the 1 March 2015 video seems to be unavailable for me. Plenty of info follows. We’re shown images of a device that emits a curative ionic field.

How the PrimerCube Works
The PrimerCube is based on a patented technology that enables it to emit a uniquely structured ionic field. This ionic field produces unparalleled health and anti-ageing benefits not only outwardly, but throughout the body all the way down to the intracellular level. Researchers believe that the ionic field emitted from the PrimerCube provides these benefits by imparting very small charges to the individual cells of the body. As these charges build up in the cells small electrical currents then flow which then leads to the dramatic results seen thus far. This theory was developed by examining how various issues responded to PrimerCube treatment over the last eight years. Some issues have responded very quickly to PrimerCube technology and other issues take much more treatment time before positive results were realized. Then a certain number of issues have not responded to PrimerCube technology at all. By carefully looking at these issues and which ones have responded rapidly, slowly, or not at all, this theory of imparted electrical charges and minor electrical currents has come to be the most likely explanation as to how the PrimerCube truly functions. In the section on Bioelectricity Research further down on this page are some links to studies that were conducted at University of Aberdeen in Aberdeen, Scotland.  These important studies offer some additional information as to how bioelectricity  was discovered to function in the body. These studies further strengthen the theory that the PrimerCube truly functions by imparting ionic charges to the cells within the body. Of course this theory still needs to be absolutely proven, therefore research continues in order to better understand the exact mechanisms by which the PrimerCube produces the results that it does. But among the researchers involved with this project there is no debate about the fact that the PrimerCube works and often when no other prior treatment had been successful.

It’s not clear if the product is available.

At this point I must wonder – where’s the rabbit hole? It may not be just my imagination, Miles has lots of examples.

Actually, I’m an eternal optimist, presently lost in the Crab Nebula. I see no problem with the possibility that choke rings, flip rings and containment domes may exist between large adjacent distributed charge structures.
.

I don't have a lot to say against this guy's work, other than to point out that once again we have a physicist researching and working on charge without actually knowing or even hypothesizing what it might be. It's evidenced in many of his responses. The nylon ball response especially - he makes it seem like a nylon sphere would or could be magnetized the same way an iron sphere is, which is just plain silly.

But it doesn't mean he's wrong about other things. I don't agree with his magnetic assessment of the galactic core, but it's as good as any other assessment really, and at least he's not using the old black hole dodge.

After watching a few of these videos, it really occurs to me that he's conflating the magnetic field with a combination of electricity, magnetism, and charge. For example, he offers no mechanism for "magnetism" to return to the poles. Nor does he (of course) offer any physical definition of what magnetism is.

Yes, we're seeing charge effects that do enter the poles, but that's not because of magnetism. The charge is already entering the poles, so he just claims that magnetism is the cause without any supporting evidence or reason.

We can also clearly see this in his diagrams, when compared to Mathis's charge field theory:



I think the guy is on a good path, just not the right track. And at this point in the game, if someone hasn't heard of or at least refuting Mathis (generally to no avail), it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Anyone researching electricity should know who Mathis is. That's how I found the guy in the first place, by Googling, "What is electricity?"

.
Hi Jared, Thanks for the comments. I didn't see your second post till a minute ago, I don't think I need to change what I prepared to say.

You judge David too quickly, look at the silly comment again.

Question. …”So even nylon balls should behave in a similar way to the steel balls?”
David LaPoint. So can you charge a nylon ball.? Of course you can.  It will then respond to a magnetic field. …

David changed the question away from your interpretation before answering his rephrased question – Can you charge a nylon ball sufficiently to respond to a magnetic field? David’s answer - of course you can - is correct and a perfectly valid charge field statement.

David is on my short list of People (not Miles) With Charge Field Ideas. When one reads about David’s theory or comments we need to keep just a few things in mind: 1) David’s model is wrong about photons and electromagnetic theory. Also, 2) David’s idea of the Intrinsic Magnetic Field, is an altered view of a charge field; and as far as I can tell, 3) David has never suggested any possibility of incoming charge or charge recycling. With those limits in mind, what can the charge field tell us about David’s other ideas and demonstrations?  

I suppose David’s work strongly suggests that magnetic fields (emission fields) interact in a more complex fashion than we currently assume. An observation from David’s work is the fact that highly charged distributed matter fields may exist as magnetically concentrated pockets with equipotential boundaries within larger emission fields. That idea may apply to star clusters or nebulae; yes, the bubble may have a “pressure relief mechanism” - magnetic accelerations of ejected matter that David explains could account for the Crab Pulsar’s 30x per second x-ray pulse. The same idea can also apply to areas within circuits or concave or convex surfaces between dissimilar materials within material structures.

Of course, nobody tells it like Miles, just ask him, he’ll tell you, we all agree. Still, it's refreshing that David also has plenty to say, just interpret him through the charge field. I'm only disappointed that David may not be sharing any additional information.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Hi Jared, Thanks for the comments. I didn't see your second post till a minute ago, I don't think I need to change what I prepared to say.

You judge David too quickly, look at the silly comment again.

Question. …”So even nylon balls should behave in a similar way to the steel balls?”
David LaPoint. So can you charge a nylon ball.? Of course you can.  It will then respond to a magnetic field. …

David changed the question away from your interpretation before answering his rephrased question – Can you charge a nylon ball sufficiently to respond to a magnetic field? David’s answer - of course you can - is correct and a perfectly valid charge field statement.

David is on my short list of People (not Miles) With Charge Field Ideas. When one reads about David’s theory or comments we need to keep just a few things in mind: 1) David’s model is wrong about photons and electromagnetic theory. Also, 2) David’s idea of the Intrinsic Magnetic Field, is an altered view of a charge field; and as far as I can tell, 3) David has never suggested any possibility of incoming charge or charge recycling. With those limits in mind, what can the charge field tell us about David’s other ideas and demonstrations?  

I suppose David’s work strongly suggests that magnetic fields (emission fields) interact in a more complex fashion than we currently assume. An observation from David’s work is the fact that highly charged distributed matter fields may exist as magnetically concentrated pockets with equipotential boundaries within larger emission fields. That idea may apply to star clusters or nebulae; yes, the bubble may have a “pressure relief mechanism” - magnetic accelerations of ejected matter that David explains could account for the Crab Pulsar’s 30x per second x-ray pulse. The same idea can also apply to areas within circuits or concave or convex surfaces between dissimilar materials within material structures.

Of course, nobody tells it like Miles, just ask him, he’ll tell you, we all agree. Still, it's refreshing that David also has plenty to say, just interpret him through the charge field. I'm only disappointed that David may not be sharing any additional information.
.

LTAM do you know if David explained/illustrated diamagnetic/paramagnetic properties with paired/unpaired electrons with his theory? Like Jared stated I also see David's descriptions similar to the charge field.


-------
http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/mu/

When a molecule is subjected to a magnetic field those electrons in orbit planes at a right angle to the field will change their momentum (very slightly). This is predicted by Faraday's Law which tells us that as the field is increased there will be a an induced E-field which the electrons (being charged particles) will experience as a force. This means that the individual magnetic moments no longer cancel completely and the molecule then acquires an induced magnetic moment. This behaviour, whereby the induced moment is opposite to the applied field, is present in all materials and is called diamagnetism. Hydrogen, ammonia, bismuth, copper, graphite and other diamagnetic substances, are repelled by a nearby magnet (although the effect is extremely feeble). Think of it as a manifestation of Lenz's law. Diamagnetic materials are those whose atoms have only paired electrons.

In other molecules, however, such as oxygen, where there are unpaired electrons, the cancellation of magnetic moments belonging to the electrons is incomplete. An O2 molecule has a net or permanent magnetic moment even in the absence of an externally applied field. If an external magnetic field is applied then the electron orbits are still altered in the same manner as the diamagnets but the permanent moment is usually a more powerful influence. The 'poles' of the molecule tend to line up parallel with the field and reinforce it. Such molecules, with permanent magnetic moments are called paramagnetic.

.
Cr6, the Magnetic properties of materials http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/mu/ link you provided looks like a fine reference source on magnetism. Sure, it’s old and no longer being updated, nevertheless it’s good data and written well. Is it copyright free? Like the magnetosphere documents, updating the reference with charge field ideas would be a straightforward task. Sorry, I realize I keep repeating myself, as with most topics here, we are trying to understand and explain ideas with the charge field.

I don’t recall David using any paramagnetic or diamagnetic terms. Likewise, David made little mention of atoms or electrons, except for the fact that they, like all matter in the universe, emit dual, bowl shaped, and dual polarity electromagnetic fields.



We may have better luck looking at David’s high voltage vacuum chamber setup. I'll try describing it. Dual, bowl shaped magnets (with holes at both ends) are suspended by thin, non-conductive wires attached to the glass wall of the chamber with strong magnets –this allows, as David says, delicate adjustments while the experiment is underway. We see what appears to be an anode between the two bowls. That makes the cathode the ring shaped structure at the top of the chamber. What I guess is the cathode is hard to see, just above a confusing magnetic bowl reflection in the image above, half again as wide as the magnetic bowls, which is wired like the anode. A small amount of gas is present. The chamber’s base is a bit complicated, including a clamp mechanism and copper coil(?).



When 70KV is applied (between anode and cathode), the plasma display appears. The plasma form changes shape with a varying gap distance between the magnets. It’s not exactly visible in the video, David mentions the fact the plasma is rotating quickly about the center axis between the two magnets. The plasma created in the chamber is constrained by the fields emitted by the magnetic bowls. For example, if the bottom bowl is removed, all the visible plasma fills the bottom of the chamber below the remaining top bowl.

My point is, the plasma is filled with charged particles: electrons, positrons, and various ions - interacting in a well-defined, visible manner. And beyond my grasp. We have barely figured out the battery circuit, but I’m trying to understand and describe a high voltage plasma tube with magnetic emitters.

Thanks guys, I love it.
.

.
High Voltage Plasma Tubes

David begins with the old question, is matter a wave or a particle. As “proof” of the particulate nature of matter, David shows us a Crookes Tube.



I don’t recall ever having heard of a Crookes Tube before.

Here’s wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube

A Crookes tube (also Crookes–Hittorf tube)[1] is an early experimental electrical discharge tube, with partial vacuum, invented by English physicist William Crookes[2] and others around 1869-1875,[3] in which cathode rays, streams of electrons, were discovered.[4]

Developed from the earlier Geissler tube, the Crookes tube consists of a partially evacuated glass bulb of various shapes, with two metal electrodes, the cathode and the anode, one at either end. When a high voltage is applied between the electrodes, cathode rays (electrons) are projected in straight lines from the cathode. It was used by Crookes, Johann Hittorf, Julius Plücker, Eugen Goldstein, Heinrich Hertz, Philipp Lenard and others to discover the properties of cathode rays, culminating in J.J. Thomson's 1897 identification of cathode rays as negatively charged particles, which were later named electrons. Crookes tubes are now used only for demonstrating cathode rays.

Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays using the Crookes tube in 1895. The term Crookes tube is also used for the first generation, cold cathode X-ray tubes,[5] which evolved from the experimental Crookes tubes and were used until about 1920.

The article is quite interesting. Crooke made many different tubes; including one intended to demonstrate the kinetic energy delivered by the cathodic ray, by rolling a paddlewheel. It was later decided that the paddles turned by a heat differential; I like the kinetic idea better.



You probably noticed the dual magnetic bowls in David’s vacuum chamber aren’t exactly aligned vertically, they are aligned just away from the vertical. Crooke’s tubes weren’t aligned vertically either, they produced horizontal cathode rays, the exception being the “anode ray tube” that produces a flame like plasma form. It now occurs to me that all fluorescent lighting and all television sets were horizontally mounted. We know why. If the bowls, or cathodic rays in general were aligned vertically, the Earth’s vertical emission field will more easily influence the charge beam. As David wrote above. “Remember this experiment was conducted within the magnetic field of the Earth so I have to contend with effects of that”.

It strikes me there is still a lot of vertical emission traffic between the two bowls causing an uncertain outcome. The experiment should be performed in a horizontal arrangement. David indicates that the plasma is constrained by the dual magnetic fields, ok, the material presence of the bowls is probably also significant.
.

.
As I’ve said above, I must dismiss David’s ideas with respect to: 1) Photons - for the reason that photons do not have emission fields, photons make up the emission fields of larger particles; 2) Electromagnetic field (emf) theory – since David doesn’t define the emf field - it is simply there, his model fails to recognize that the emf field is caused by spinning photons. With respect to the charge field, David’s other shortcomings include failure to recognize charge recycling or incoming charge.

With that and the charge field in mind I need to give David’s Intrinsic Magnetic Field a closer look.

At about 5min into Part 1, David says.  But we must realize that the fields around an electron, as well as all around other matter are actually two opposing bowl shaped electromagnetic fields. Unless we properly understand this basic magnetic field structure, we will never be able to properly understand the fundamental forces of matter from the sub-atomic to the galactic.

It is not at all clear to me why David has chosen these two dual bowl shaped toroidal fields (with about a 45deg hole around the central top to bottom axis intersecting the particle’s poles. The particle itself is rather small, the yellow dot in the middle, the blue and red bowls are the emf field. I suppose that the particle plus the emf field represents the Inherent Magnetic Field. Why does the particle’s emf field include large pole opens that get smaller and smaller the closer we approach the poles?

David doesn’t need to convince us of dual magnetic fields, that agrees with the charge field - if CW (or North spinning) photons are mostly emitted from Earth’s northern hemisphere, then CCW (or South spinning) photons are mostly emitted in the Southern hemisphere. We might say the hole allows incoming charge, but that cannot be the reason David has included them.

At about 11 min into Part 1, David says.  The Globe of Science and Innovation in Geneva, Switzerland. Not only was it a bowl shape, but the design of the building also has a hole in the top of the dome exactly as my theory would call for. So I made a magnetic scale model of the CERN dome, placed a set of them in my vacuum chamber and fired it up.

So, perhaps divine intervention is involved, David sees the same bowl with hole pattern at the Pantheon in Rome, St. Peter’s Basilica, St. Paul’s Cathedral in Malta and the U.S. Capital dome.

What about the fact that David’s model shows no emf field above the particle equator? While I believe it’s true that most of Earth’s emission occurs at +/- 30deg, most overall emission should occur between +/- 30deg, over the equator. We see that the electric component of the emission field at the equator is ignored. Then again, the IMF only shows the magnetic field; I would expect to see zero spin emissions over the equator only if emission spin polarities were somehow allowed to cancel. If that’s the case, I believe the bowl shaped emf diagram shows a polar diagram of the charged particle’s relative magnetic field intensity profile.

The Intrinsic Magnetic Field diagram shows the particle’s magnetic field strength - related only to the emission’s spin component; not a full “emf” (electromagnetic field) nor a full charge field emission field.

That’s enough progress for now.
.