Does Magnetic Energy flow?

By Walter Rawls
©2003 BioMagnetics International
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.

For energy to do work it must flow, so how can magnetism not flow as science accepts that it does work, and is energy?

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 to what we now call the kinetic energy of a body.

Half a century later, Rankin coined the term potential energy. Both these terms concern mechanical physics, and their relation to thermal energy (HEAT) 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 other than a fluid, called calorie, possessed by hot bodies.

It was Einstein (1879-955) 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—to be usable—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 public 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 not emphasized or used as properly as perhaps for clarifications of energy and flow).

Since the industrial revolution...really since Benjamin Franklin, through Edison, Tesla, and even until the mid-1900s, 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's another example of a science principle overlooked in relation to the importance of magnetism versus electricity (our two basic disciplines of usable energy in societies). In the discovery by Faraday in 1851, he realized that it is not just the actual motion—the 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 electro-magnetism, 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 on to the earlier important discoveries of Hertz (light wave 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 in need for applications and effects although a balance between the two energies is essential.

One of the themes of Davis and Rawls' book, The Mahtgnetic Blueprint of Life, stresses the importance of negative energy—in a number of scientific areas—characterized in line with accepted physics, on the form of spin in Nature of this energy. It is interesting to note here that the word "electron" also comes from a 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 its roots in accepted science. To understand the basics as presented, it is necessary to understand that by the scientific principle of application and effect, magnetism is as important (if not more so) than 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 the 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.

...he realized that it is not just the actual motion—the flow—of the electrons that are at the center of electricity.

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 about its flow is to be judged on whether the concept is useful to a particular individual. For some, 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—i.e. 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 or 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 science¾before Davis and Rawls¾did 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 body¾and the explanation of this working is not correct—then can someone come forth with a scientific explanation why it works other than the way Davis and Rawls explain?

So far no one has. And we do not believe they can.