yihg500k

Good news! Monopole magnets have been invented!

Recommended Posts

Good news! Monopole magnets have been invented! Yes, this is true!

The monopole magnet was invented by a physicist named Rick Smith. Here is his paper. https://zenodo.org/record/2203822#.XA-2E8B1Opo
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7447604

The rocket is the main vehicles for human space flight at present. However, it has many disadvantages such as large size, high cost, great danger and limited speed. These shortcomings will be overcome, if monopole magnets applied to propulsion systems and deceleration systems of spacecrafts. The speed of this new type of spacecraft may reach one-tenth of the speed of light or higher.
If monopole magnets applied to propulsion systems of hyperloop, the speed of the hyperloop can be increased to 10,000 kilometers per hour or higher. This hyperloop will be the fastest and most important vehicle in the future on the earth. It can reach anywhere in the world within half an hour.
These will no longer be dreams, but will soon be realized.
 

Monopole Magnet

 

5.jpg

6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant material should be presented here, per rule 2.7

 

I don't think Mr. Smith understands what a monopole is 

"the N (or S) poles of A, B and C points to the central point O separately, and the S (or N) pole of D points to the central point O. As a result, a "magnetic monopole" is produced in the space around the central point O."

1. That's not a monopole, and

2. the divergence of B is zero, so you simply can't have fields canceling in this manner.

There's no math in the paper. It's an amateur attempt, and fails.

 

Also, as the first citation in the paper implies, monopoles of a certain nature have already been developed. Even if this presentation had merit, it would not be the first.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yihg500k said:

The monopole magnet was invented by a physicist named Rick Smith.

Until Rick Smith (is that you?) publishes his paper in a peer-reviewed journal, I think we can ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the paper being offered here is nowhere close to something that would pass peer-review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, swansont said:

The relevant material should be presented here, per rule 2.7

 

I don't think Mr. Smith understands what a monopole is 

"the N (or S) poles of A, B and C points to the central point O separately, and the S (or N) pole of D points to the central point O. As a result, a "magnetic monopole" is produced in the space around the central point O."

1. That's not a monopole, and

2. the divergence of B is zero, so you simply can't have fields canceling in this manner.

There's no math in the paper. It's an amateur attempt, and fails.

 

Also, as the first citation in the paper implies, monopoles of a certain nature have already been developed. Even if this presentation had merit, it would not be the first.

 

 

It’s naive and ridiculous that you comment on other people’s paper without knowing science. :DScientific research requires evidence.You make these comments only based on your own subjective assumptions without any evidence, the comments are unconvincing and Invalid.I suggest you read a few books about scientific research methods. Dr. Smith's paper has been submitted to PRL and passed the editorial review!

Edited by yihg500k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yihg500k said:

Dr. Smith's paper has been submitted to PRL and passed the editorial review!

What is PRL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is PRL?

Primate Readers Lounge?

yihg500k, can you give us a bit more details about Dr. Smith and his previous work maybe? I am not familiar with the good doctor's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yihg500k said:

Dr. Smith's paper has been submitted to PRL and passed the editorial review!

And how do you know it has passed review? Are you Dr Smith? A colleague?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

What is PRL?

Physical Review Letters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Physical Review Letters.

 

Seems implausible, then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Seems implausible, then

Yes.

It's curious that the paper has no affiliation listed, and the email is generic, i.e. not an institutional email. And PRL papers are typically more rigorous (i.e. they have math and physics in them).

The "analysis" presented on page 2 is looking at some figures from the cited papers to figure out what a monopole is. That's not how people do physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes.

It's curious that the paper has no affiliation listed, and the email is generic, i.e. not an institutional email. And PRL papers are typically more rigorous (i.e. they have math and physics in them).

The "analysis" presented on page 2 is looking at some figures from the cited papers to figure out what a monopole is. That's not how people do physics.

That's one of the highest impact journals isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's one of the highest impact journals isn't it?

Yes. For physics, very near or perhaps at the top. (Nature and Science are probably higher, but they are multi-disciplinary)

 

(I have a PRL on my cv.  Not bad for someone who is without knowing science)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. For physics, very near or perhaps at the top. (Nature and Science are probably higher, but they are multi-disciplinary)

 

(I have a PRL on my cv.  Not bad for someone who is without knowing science)

Some people just don''t know they don't know. It happens a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yihg500k said:

It’s naive and ridiculous that you comment on other people’s paper without knowing science. :DScientific research requires evidence.

Oh, the irony! Our Dr Swanson is a working physicist with the US Naval Observatory. The evidence suggests he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Some people just don''t know they don't know. It happens a lot

I assume that was addressed to the OP (and possibly "Dr Rick Smith", if that's really not the same person) rather than Dr Swanson! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

(I have a PRL on my cv.  Not bad for someone who is without knowing science)

This is what you get for secreting your photon generator under a wicker containment vessel. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Oh, the irony! Our Dr Swanson is a working physicist with the US Naval Observatory. The evidence suggests he knows exactly what he's talking about.

The thing is, the divergence of the B field being zero is physics at a level that doesn't require a PhD. The implications are that field lines don't just disappear, like they do on electric charges (where the divergence is proportional to the charge) That's why electric fields/charges include monopoles.

The monopoles people have created are really dipoles, but they can make the N and S poles so far apart that they look a lot like monopoles.

As far as the paper goes, PRLs generally spend more time talking about the physics and less time talking about how you can improve hyperloops and such. That stuff goes in the press release, but not so much in the paper, since PRL has a length limit. (Though this paper's word count is short of that limit)

But scientific papers tend not to say things like "From the above analysis, we can arrive at the conclusion that the essence of the "magnetic monopole" is a kind of monopole magnetic field." based on reading two other papers and looking at the drawings. You would expect the author to know what monopoles are already, and what their expected behavior.

When you look at the attached images, the thing labeled as a monopole (M6) quite obviously isn't, as you can see the field looping back toward the other magnets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

When you look at the attached images, the thing labeled as a monopole (M6) quite obviously isn't, as you can see the field looping back toward the other magnets. 

I was thinking about something similar. Even for someone with no knowledge of science (that made my day) you would expect (based on the image provided) that if it was indeed magnetic monopole the strength would not vary on the sides right? To me it just looks like this is caused by a magnetic field overlap of 3 separate independent (regular) magnets surrounded by iron filling as opposed to something like:

Image result for magnetic monopole

Everyone knows that if you want to achieve true Magnetic Monopole you just take a bar magnet and cut it in half (very carefully as to exclude all the South part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

I assume that was addressed to the OP (and possibly "Dr Rick Smith", if that's really not the same person) rather than Dr Swanson! :) 

i was referring to the OP and Mr Smith, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 11:55 AM, swansont said:

And the paper being offered here is nowhere close to something that would pass peer-review.

...you overestimate his peers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now