Thread: Thermo-nucleur neutral magnet state.

Hello all. Yes you might well think nut job time again. Please think carefully and I will explain to my best abilities.

When finding a possible invention, or possibilities of an invention, one may consider the money aspects.

I considered the money aspects, and that I am a simple poor man with limited means, and then considered saving the planet.

I have children.

So free of charge to the world, hopefully an answer for you all, that answers global warning and common effects.


Why Physics?, you may ask, this is energy related as the topic title.

My internet at home is down until tommorrow, so I am unable to reply back until then, as I am on a freinds computer.
I felt it was important to share this as soon as I could. If I died tonight the world would never know maybe.


OK, to the point of my title. And yes, it starts with an experiment.


1. Take two magnets

2. Force their opposite poles together, leaving a gap, but so you can feel the repelling force.

3. hold them in place

4. Naked flame, cigerete lighter, light and place flame between the two magnets, the gap you have created.

5. Notice the flame becomes transparent

6. Place in the flame a cigerrette paper

7. notice the paper does not ignite

8. explained has thermo neutral state



Ok , if you have tried this, and done it correctly , you now see that there is a neutral energy created.



Ok , to the Thermo- Nucleur part.


Consider our magnetic field, of the earth, it is reducing its rate.

We have a North and south opposite polarities of magnetic field.

Between them fields we have pressured state of matter.

Our magnet test shows us that it is in neutral state.

Reduce the magnitism to the earth, and that neutral pressured state is going to create more energy/heat......The lighter becomes more hoter and the paper will burn.



Thermo - nucleur neutral state atmosphere, caused by magnetic bottling by the earths magnetic polarities.



I hope this is clear. If you know this I apologise.

Complete nonsense. The magnetic field has no influence on the way the flame looks, and does not prevent a piece of paper from catching fire.
I really wonder where you get all those cranky ideas from. There must be a central repository somewhere on the Internet

Consider our magnetic field, of the earth, it is reducing its rate.

No it isn't.

Between them fields we have pressured state of matter.

No we don't.

Our magnet test shows us that it is in neutral state.

No it doesn't.

Thermo - nucleur neutral state atmosphere, caused by magnetic bottling of the earths magnetic polarities.

And don't forget the rearward-dancing pink unicorns in the stratosphere, which, by means of swishing their voluminous tails, ignite the northern lights. Don't look at them directly though, since your eyes might turn rectangular.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Complete nonsense. The magnetic field has no influence on the way the flame looks, and does not prevent a piece of paper from catching fire.
I really wonder where you get all those cranky ideas from. There must be a central repository somewhere on the Internet

Consider our magnetic field, of the earth, it is reducing its rate.

No it isn't.

Between them fields we have pressured state of matter.

No we don't.

Our magnet test shows us that it is in neutral state.

No it doesn't.

Thermo - nucleur neutral state atmosphere, caused by magnetic bottling of the earths magnetic polarities.

And don't forget the rearward-dancing pink unicorns in the stratosphere, which, by means of swishing their voluminous tails, ignite the northern lights. Don't look at them directly though, since your eyes might turn rectangular.

I am still logged in at my friends house, no the paper does not burn


Think

Originally Posted by theorist

I am still logged in at my friends house, no the paper does not burn


Think

It does burn, and always will so long as there is fuel and oxygen available for it to do so. Magnetic fields do not have any influence on this process. Think !!

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by theorist

I am still logged in at my friends house, no the paper does not burn


Think

It does burn, and always will so long as there is fuel and oxygen available for it to do so. Magnetic fields do not have any influence on this process.

it does not burn
, i have done the experiment about ten times in disbelief...

Originally Posted by theorist

Oh yes they do, i have done the experiment about ten times in disbelief...

Well, I don't know what you did, but magnetic fields do not have any influence on this process. That is a physical fact.
Why don't you post a video of yourself performing this experiment, and we will tell you exactly why and where you went wrong. Make sure all the parts are clearly visible.

And for God's sake, don't look at them unicorns ! Bad stuff might happen to your eyes...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by theorist

Oh yes they do, i have done the experiment about ten times in disbelief...

Well, I don't know what you did, but magnetic fields do not have any influence on this process. That is a physical fact.
Why don't you post a video of yourself performing this experiment, and we will tell you exactly why and where you went wrong. Make sure all the parts are clearly visible.

And for God's sake, don't look at them unicorns ! Bad stuff might happen to your eyes...

I have no way of recording a video, the test is simple, two magnets, 1 lighter, 1 cigerrete paper.


push the magnets together opposite poles so they repel.

hold them in place.

place flame in the gap of the magnets

the flame changes

then the paper

the paper does not burn

lasted about 5 seconds before the lighter was to hot

Originally Posted by theorist

Hello all. Yes you might well think nut job time again.

Not "again." The word is "still."

Please think carefully

Too bad that you don't do this yourself.

OK, to the point of my title. And yes, it starts with an experiment.


1. Take two magnets...{snip} explained has thermo neutral state

The real reason is obviously the well-known vorticial phlogistonic displacement field. (See how easy it is to make up nonsense terms that sound science-y?)

Ok , if you have tried this, and done it correctly , you now see that there is a neutral energy created.

Another in a long string of idiotic, unsupported assertions by you.

Ok , to the Thermo- Nucleur part.

Oh, brother.

Consider our magnetic field, of the earth, it is reducing its rate.

Badly formed sentence. Can't tell what "it" and "its" are referring to (not that it matters).

We have a North and south opposite polarities of magnetic field.

Basically correct, although scientific usage (since Peter Peregrinus in the 13rh century) is generally to call them simply opposite poles.

Between them fields we have pressured state of matter.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

Our magnet test shows us that it is in neutral state.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

Reduce the magnitism to the earth, and that neutral pressured state is going to create more energy/heat......The lighter becomes more hoter and the paper will burn.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

Thermo - nucleur neutral state atmosphere, caused by magnetic bottling by the earths magnetic polarities.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

I hope this is clear. If you know this I apologise.

It's clear that you are continuing to make up one false, idiotic and unsupported assertion after another. You do not "simply ask questions," as you keep claiming. The evidence contradicts your false claims. Just look at the post above -- it consists of a string of assertions.

You've not shown anything with this magnet experiment. You've certainly not shown any nuclear processes being involved. But you have shown yourself to be a fool who posts a vast quantity of nonsense in several concurrent threads. One might consider that behavior spamming.

You can clearly see the orange flame outside the magnetic field and inside the field it is different.

Look I need go, I am not onmy computer,my freind wants it back. Do the test, look what I wrote, this is how it is and what happens and what is goingto happen so do not BS me.

Originally Posted by theorist

You can clearly see the orange flame outside the magnetic field and inside the field it is different.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

Your experimental method is so sloppy that you cannot make any such assertion. You haven't performed obvious checks, such as a control experiment with a non-magnet of the same material composition, to exclude a purely thermal (e.g., the magnets simply suck up heat) or other effect (which it almost certainly is). (1) You also did not describe an obvious experiment in which you simply reverse one of the magnets so that you no longer have any repulsive force. Is the flame's behavior different? Repeatably?

A clean additional experiment would be to use an electromagnet instead, and to shield the whole apparatus from other influences. By varying the current through the electromagnet, one can see if the effect truly depends on field strength (which it almost certainly does not).

You are no scientist. You lack logical thinking ability and leap from thought to thought without applying any critical thinking whatsoever. A good scientist is always thinking, "Hmmm...what might I have gotten wrong? How can I check for that possibility? How might my conclusions be criticized as poorly supported? How would I address those concerns?" You bypass all of that and simply assert a bunch of nonsensical crap because you have delusions of grandeur.

(1) Flames have been shown to be sensitive to acoustic phenomena,for example.

Why is this crackpot allowed, even encouraged, to spew his nonsense over this forum?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

You can clearly see the orange flame outside the magnetic field and inside the field it is different.

Another false, idiotic and unsupported assertion by you.

Your experimental method is so sloppy that you cannot make any such assertion. You haven't performed obvious checks, such as a control experiment with a non-magnet of the same material composition, to exclude a purely thermal (e.g., the magnets simply suck up heat) or other effect (which it almost certainly is). (1) You also did not describe an obvious experiment in which you simply reverse one of the magnets so that you no longer have any repulsive force. Is the flame's behavior different? Repeatably?

A clean additional experiment would be to use an electromagnet instead, and to shield the whole apparatus from other influences. By varying the current through the electromagnet, one can see if the effect truly depends on field strength (which it almost certainly does not).

You are no scientist. You lack logical thinking ability and leap from thought to thought without applying any critical thinking whatsoever. A good scientist is always thinking, "Hmmm...what might I have gotten wrong? How can I check for that possibility? How might my conclusions be criticized as poorly supported? How would I address those concerns?" You bypass all of that and simply assert a bunch of nonsensical crap because you have delusions of grandeur.

(1) Flames have been shown to be sensitive to acoustic phenomena,for example.

Delusions of grandeur not.

I showed several freinds the test. They just think it's a neat party trick.

An electromagnet would of been ideal, well two of them, but I have neither.

I will try to do the experiment again although not at this time, as I have a burnt thumb.

I will add blue tack, to hold my magnets, which are of equal size and equal mishaped. They are magnets out of a set of speakers, so I will look up, acoustic phenomena.

I am currenty 1 bar signal on an open connection, not even mine.

The orange flame I sore , I will reconsider my experiment, but i feel the outcome will be the same.


Maybe it is a frequency devised by shape.

added- How can I check for that possibility? as you say a good scientist doe's.

try burning my thumb to see if it was a posibility. My next test I will put my finger directly into the field. I am confident I will not burn.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I originally thought you were just a bit dim but after this post I've come to the conclusion you either clinically insane or a wind up merchant. Which is it?

None of the above

Attachment 0forcefield.jpg

The blue represents the magnets and shape upright and flat.

the yellow my lighter

the red my flame

The flame starts from the lighter, comes out the other side of the magnet, leaves a void in the magnet gap, my paper does not burn in this gap,

Explain then please I was amazed obviously I have missed something?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by theorist

Attachment 0forcefield.jpg

The blue represents the magnets and shape upright and flat.

the yellow my lighter

the red my flame

The flame starts from the lighter, comes out the other side of the magnet, leaves a void in the magnet gap, my paper does not burn in this gap,

Explain then please I was amazed obviously I have missed something?

Another deranged cartoon with no bearing on reality, yes you have obviously missed something like an education or any contact with rationality, there is no physical basis for your "observation" and as tk421 and Markus have pointed out you are so far wrong it's not funny anymore. From the evidence of your posts you're a credulous crank, a nutter, a bloody moron or a troll, take your pick...

I am wrong, no, there is a void as in my diagram. Why would you try dismiss this?


THIS IS WHAT HAPENS.

I have just tried it again same result.

You do not have an answer do you? try the test see whos looney or not..

This belongs in the trash.

Actually, I think it never should have started, but now that it's here, the trash is all that can be done with it.

If you cannot demonstrate the test to us, then you have nothing. What you are suggesting violates logic. Putting "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS" in caps does not make your claim more valid. It doesn't work logically and you cannot demonstrate it. You have nothing.

You have to show us the evidence. I put a candle flame between two of my neodymium magnets was still able to ignite a piece of paper between them. Therefore, I see no validity to your claim.

Hi Flick, gas, a lighter uses gas, try that , i think that is why and the difference

I will try do a video flick, I have done this several times today

Originally Posted by theorist

Attachment 0forcefield.jpg

The blue represents the magnets and shape upright and flat.

the yellow my lighter

the red my flame

The flame starts from the lighter, comes out the other side of the magnet, leaves a void in the magnet gap, my paper does not burn in this gap,

Explain then please I was amazed obviously I have missed something?

Not even your diagrams are coherent.....

Originally Posted by theorist

Hi Flick, gas, a lighter uses gas, try that , i think that is why and the difference

I'm not sure why the fuel source would matter.

I don't have any lighters. I only have matches and candles. I don't have magnets big enough to attempt the experiment with my stove. I also don't really have the desire to try it again as my wife thought I was being weird when I asked her to hold the magnets over the candle.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What is the difference between a candle and a lighter flame? Please stun us with your scientific insight as to why the physics/chemistry is so different that one supports your bullshit and the other doesn't. You asked people to do the experiment, Flick did, did not see what your "observations" state "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS" therefore you are wrong. Again, crank, nutter, moron or troll which one?

A candle is a state of matter, gas is state of particle matter?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by theorist

Hi Flick, gas, a lighter uses gas, try that , i think that is why and the difference

I'm not sure why the fuel source would matter.

I don't have any lighters. I only have matches and candles. I don't have magnets big enough to attempt the experiment with my stove. I also don't really have the desire to try it again as my wife thought I was being weird when I asked her to hold the magnets over the candle.

I will get you a video done tommorrow , I will borrow a camera and record it, it works. Candle solid state matter maybe having a difference.

Theorist, once again you jump on the first thing that occurs to you and insist it is correct. A more scientific approach is to try and think of all possible explanations find find ways to eliminate them.

For example, in this case there is no plausible mechanism for a magnetic effect. What else could be causing it? Well, you have two large lumps metal. Metal is a good conductor of heat. Perhaps it conducts the heat of the flame away. Maybe you should try the experiment with two pieces of non-magnetic metal.

Then think of other possible causes & experiments to test them.

the oddest science - YouTube

I ALSO DID A DIFFERENT TEST, MAGNETS FLAT ON GROUND AS AT THE START OF VIDEO, PUTTING PAPER INTO THE VOID, IT did NOT IGNITE.

Originally Posted by Strange

Theorist, once again you jump on the first thing that occurs to you and insist it is correct. A more scientific approach is to try and think of all possible explanations find find ways to eliminate them.

For example, in this case there is no plausible mechanism for a magnetic effect. What else could be causing it? Well, you have two large lumps metal. Metal is a good conductor of heat. Perhaps it conducts the heat of the flame away. Maybe you should try the experiment with two pieces of non-magnetic metal.

Then think of other possible causes & experiments to test them.

Good advice as always Strange, I was excited as you can tell.

Originally Posted by theorist

Delusions of grandeur not.

I showed several freinds the test. They just think it's a neat party trick.

So, it's now no longer of such great importance that it needed to be reported in case you got hit by a truck earlier? Now it's a "neat party trick" instead of a demonstration of a "thermo-nuclear neutral magnet state?"

An electromagnet would of been ideal, well two of them, but I have neither.

All you needed to do was turn one of the permanent magnets around. Easy peasy.

The orange flame I sore

Maybe you saw it, not "sore" it?

I will reconsider my experiment, but i feel the outcome will be the same.

The reason we run experiments is to avoid reliance on "feelings," which in your case may be highly unreliable.

Maybe it is a frequency devised by shape.

What "it" are you talking about? And why would it have "a frequency devised by shape?" What does that even mean?

The jet of butane blows the air out from between the magnets. No air, no flame. It will work the same with non magnets, held at the same distance.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

Delusions of grandeur not.

I showed several freinds the test. They just think it's a neat party trick.

So, it's now no longer of such great importance that it needed to be reported in case you got hit by a truck earlier? Now it's a "neat party trick" instead of a demonstration of a "thermo-nuclear neutral magnet state?"

An electromagnet would of been ideal, well two of them, but I have neither.

All you needed to do was turn one of the permanent magnets around. Easy peasy.

The orange flame I sore

Maybe you saw it, not "sore" it?

I will reconsider my experiment, but i feel the outcome will be the same.

The reason we run experiments is to avoid reliance on "feelings," which in your case may be highly unreliable.

Maybe it is a frequency devised by shape.

What "it" are you talking about? And why would it have "a frequency devised by shape?" What does that even mean?

Apologies for the caps, posted before I realised it was on.

It, been the magnetic field , shaped by the different shaped magnet. A field of crossed frequencies or strenght of the pressure it makes.

I see that atmosphere is in some way compressed, allowing it to absorb the enrgy of the flame.

Originally Posted by AlexG

The jet of butane blows the air out from between the magnets. No air, no flame. It will work the same with non magnets, held at the same distance.

Look closely at the video, the flame comes out of the other side. IT re-ignites ther is avoid in the space.

Originally Posted by theorist

It, been the magnetic field , shaped by the different shaped magnet.

Makes no sense, as usual. A permanent magnet generates a static magnetic field. It does not have a "frequency."

A field of crossed frequencies or strenght of the pressure it makes.

More made-up stupid.

I see that atmosphere is in some way compressed, allowing it to absorb the enrgy of the flame.

Still more made-up stupid.

When you're finished with your Psych 101 paper ("Response of science enthusiasts to endless string of aggressively stupid posts"), let us have a peek, ok?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

It, been the magnetic field , shaped by the different shaped magnet.

Makes no sense, as usual. A permanent magnet generates a static magnetic field. It does not have a "frequency."

A field of crossed frequencies or strenght of the pressure it makes.

More made-up stupid.

I see that atmosphere is in some way compressed, allowing it to absorb the enrgy of the flame.

Still more made-up stupid.

When you're finished with your Psych 101 paper ("Response of science enthusiasts to endless string of aggressively stupid posts"), let us have a peek, ok?

I am lost, my video shows you. The flame does not push the air out of the way, I have tried this test with the magnets flat side by side.

Meaning loads of air space.

Same result, void and paper not burning.


OK I will go away and forget science, obvous my wavelenght sees things much different

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by AlexG

The jet of butane blows the air out from between the magnets. No air, no flame. It will work the same with non magnets, held at the same distance.

Look closely at the video, the flame comes out of the other side. IT re-ignites ther is avoid in the space.

Yes, you ding-a-ling, it reignites when it hits air and flame from the side.

Originally Posted by theorist

I see that atmosphere is in some way compressed, allowing it to absorb the enrgy of the flame.

That's what you see, eh? Why you would fantasize that magnets could somehow compress the atmosphere would have surprised me in the past, but given all the other completely idiotic things you've said, it's now par for the course.

What I (and other sentient beings) see is two cool objects being inserted in the vicinity of a flame, causing cooling to occur. That's what I said back in Post #11. Naturally, you ignore that explanation because of the danger of it making sense.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

I see that atmosphere is in some way compressed, allowing it to absorb the enrgy of the flame.

That's what you see, eh? Why you would fantasize that magnets could somehow compress the atmosphere would have surprised me in the past, but given all the other completely idiotic things you've said, it's now par for the course.

What I (and other sentient beings) see is two cool objects being inserted in the vicinity of a flame, causing cooling to occur. That's what I said back in Post #11. Naturally, you ignore that explanation because of the danger of it making sense.

cooling can not stop the paper burning, the flame surrounds the paper, there is a void, the flame does not ignite on flames around the magnets.

The flame goes in, vanishes, comes out the other side.

My flat test, the same, except I put paper into the flame.

There is a void, not two cold objects, and beleive me after several experiments the magnets are not that cold, and it still works.

On the video that ligther is at the bottom of the magnets.

Look at the flame that residules at the end, the paper should of been burnt.

20 seconds into the video look

and 55 seconds

look where the lighter is relative to my fingers.

Originally Posted by theorist

There is a void, not two cold objects, and beleive me after several experiments the magnets are not that cold, and it still works.

The two magnets are cool objects RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FLAME.

You are continuing to make assertions (e.g., "the magnets are not that cold") without any intelligent or logical basis whatsoever.

That persistent lack of logical and critical thinking guarantees that you will forever remain ignorant.

Blissful, isn't it?

[QUOTE=tk421;408021]

Originally Posted by theorist

There is a void, not two cold objects, and beleive me after several experiments the magnets are not that cold, and it still works.

The two magnets are cool objects RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FLAME.

You are continuing to make assertions (e.g., "the magnets are not that cold") without any intelligent or logical basis whatsoever.

Hmmm, I pick the magnet up it is still hot from the lighter .

I re-run test.

Basic logic and asertion, my fingers are burning it is not cold yet.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

It is cold RELATIVE TO THE FLAME, you cannot be this fucking stupid surely.

I thought cold did not exist?

The flame came out of the other end, the paper was protected, the video shows this to you, cold sides would not cause this. Would the flame not create more speed and energy like a fire storm when getting compressed?

Will my cold walls in my house prevent the material in the surrounding area from burning?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Oh for fucks sake, what is the point of trying to explain anything to you, you are aware of the concept of temperature, describing something as cold relative to something else means it has a lower temperature i.e. less thermal energy. Cold does not exist in terms of something that can be transferred as you were trying to say in an earlier post, it doesn't exist in this sense. You are either the densest person I have ever come across or are deliberately winding people up. Watch the video in post #48 you could have a glittering career.

Science is about facts, This test shows you some facts.

You can not pass this off as cold sides.

You use magnetic bottling to contain plasma, and you think my test is garbage.

Now that is not logical sense.

The flame changes its energy state on passing throught the magnetic field, on exiting the field it regains its natural state.

I have witnessed this, shared the video, singed my fingers again.

But no problem, you not have to believe me.

Originally Posted by theorist

Will my cold walls in my house prevent the material in the surrounding area from burning?

Of course, IF THE WALLS REMAIN COLD (AGAIN, RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN BURNING).

The fact that the magnet heated up to a temperature that a human (you, presumably) found uncomfortable is completely irrelevant. The fact that you thought otherwise reveals the staggering breadth and depth of the void between your ears. It is evidently necessary to point out the blindingly obvious: What matters is the temperature of the magnet RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN BURNING.

Originally Posted by theorist

Science is about facts, This test shows you some facts.

The experiment you ran yielded some observations.

You can not pass this off as cold sides.

Of course I can. You cannot dismiss this with a wave of your stupid-wand. You've not done any experiment to investigate the "cool heat sink" hypothesis, so you cannot dismiss it. That's science, not your "I made up this story, you must believe me" crap that you're fond of.

You use magnetic bottling to contain plasma, and you think my test is garbage.

Yes we do think your test -- and the conclusions you've jumped to -- are indeed garbage. You didn't create a magnetic bottle, for one thing.

Now that is not logical sense.

If by "that" you mean "pretty much everything that I, theorist, wrote" then I would agree.

The flame changes its energy state on passing throught the magnetic field, on exiting the field it regains its natural state.

Seeing as you have neither defined nor measured any of these quantities, you are once again just making wild assertions. We see again that you don't "simply ask questions." You just make up crap and stubbornly insist on it.

I have witnessed this, shared the video, singed my fingers again.

And all that proves is 1) you have a camera and computer; and 2) flames can burn fingers.

Neither 1) nor 2) is a particularly earth-shattering revelation.

But no problem, you not have to believe me.

I believe that flames burnt your fingers. The rest is your usual nonsensical bullshit.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

Will my cold walls in my house prevent the material in the surrounding area from burning?

Of course, IF THE WALLS REMAIN COLD (AGAIN, RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN BURNING).

The fact that the magnet heated up to a temperature that a human (you, presumably) found uncomfortable is completely irrelevant. The fact that you thought otherwise reveals the staggering breadth and depth of the void between your ears. It is evidently necessary to point out the blindingly obvious: What matters is the temperature of the magnet RELATIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN BURNING.

OK i agree with you completely the walls were cold so inside the magnet gap the cold took away the flame, and then by magic the flame re apeared out of the other end.

I believe I have just seen a miracle then.

You are talking rubish. Cold walls will not suck away the fire and make it lose its energy, fire sucks in oxgen, the butane was at good pressure, there is no way cold walls, you are jesting with me.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

You, accusing someone else of talking rubbish, Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle, unfortunately there is only one poster in this thread spouting (pun intended) rubbish, can you guess who?

No I can not guess who, It is obvious not me has I have evidence to show what I am saying about the magnets.

I have not ruled out some sort of halomethane process yet, and I am still researching into it.

At high temperatures, halons decompose to release halogen atoms that combine readily with active hydrogen atoms, quenching flame propagation reaction even when adequate fuel, oxygen, and heat remains.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

wrong again...

halomethane process wtf has this got to do with anything? if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing you are bloody lethal.

For your next post do a google search for another science term you can misinterpret and misuse, this could become a good comedy act.

Because Halons, a fire extinguisher are on that page on wiki.

Originally Posted by theorist

OK i agree with you completely the walls were cold so inside the magnet gap the cold took away the flame, and then by magic the flame re apeared out of the other end.

You are too ignorant to know how ignorant you are. That's unfortunate, but solidly established.

Flame extinction and reignition are well-studied phenomena.

I believe I have just seen a miracle then.

No, just physics in action. What you have been invoking -- your made-up crap about "thermo-nuclear neutral magnet states" -- that's a "miracle."

You are talking rubish. Cold walls will not suck away the fire and make it lose its energy, fire sucks in oxgen, the butane was at good pressure, there is no way cold walls, you are jesting with me.

No rubbish, no jesting, just science. You are simply too small of mind to grasp the concept.

Do a search using terms like "flame propagation quenching reignition" and read some of the papers that pop up. You lack the capacity to understand them, certainly, but other readers will see that no miracles need to be invoked to explain reignition after quenching.

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by PhDemon

wrong again...

halomethane process wtf has this got to do with anything? if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing you are bloody lethal.

For your next post do a google search for another science term you can misinterpret and misuse, this could become a good comedy act.

Because Halons, a fire extinguisher are on that page on wiki.

And Morons are on another wiki page, among other places.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What are you on about, you are talking about the effects of magnets on a flame with absolutely no mention of fire extinguishers or a source of halon. Which page on wiki? Do the magnetism gremlins have small fire extinguishers to put out the flame?

Halomethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No gremlin, just chemistry maybe

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What are you on about, you are talking about the effects of magnets on a flame with absolutely no mention of fire extinguishers or a source of halon. Which page on wiki? Do the magnetism gremlins have small fire extinguishers to put out the flame?

Halomethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No gremlin, just chemistry maybe

Moron (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I'm a chemist, I know about chemistry and one of the first things I learned is that for chemistry to occur the chemical has to be actually present. You still haven't answered the question as to where the halon came from. Are you in the habit of letting off fire extinguishers in your front room or did the little pixies put it there.

No fire extinguister, I do not no where Halons may or may not have come from and at this time I could only supposition.

Maybe when I push my magnets to together I compact a certain amount of atmosphere, that is what it feels like to pus to magnets together.

Then maybe the heat has effect on the magnet, if there is carbon in a magnet. And a reaction occurs creating Halons.

Maybe my atmosphere I have compressed is more hydrogen than air. BUt I do not know.

Originally Posted by theorist

Maybe when I push my magnets to together I compact a certain amount of atmosphere

Not even remotely close to what happens.

Originally Posted by theorist

No fire extinguister, I do not no where Halons may or may not have come from and at this time I could only supposition.

In other words, you invoked magic. Or bullshit. Or magical bullshit.

Maybe when I push my magnets to together I compact a certain amount of atmosphere, that is what it feels like to pus to magnets together.

No. Yet another phenomenon about which you are ignorant is the equalization of air pressure at approximately the speed of sound.

The repulsive force you feel between like poles of a magnet has nothing to do with the atmosphere. You can remove all the air and you will still feel a repulsive force.

Then maybe the heat has effect on the magnet,

Magnets generally weaken with increasing temperature. You said the magnets came from speakers, so they are likely Alnico magnets. These have a very high Curie temperature, so are unlikely to lose their magnetism in the types of experiments you have run to date.

if there is carbon in a magnet. And a reaction occurs creating Halons.

Utter bullshit. Does this stuff actually make sense in your head as you type it?

Maybe my atmosphere I have compressed is more hydrogen than air. BUt I do not know.

That's not all you do not know.

Please, mods, do something about this troll.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by theorist

Maybe when I push my magnets to together I compact a certain amount of atmosphere

Not even remotely close to what happens.

explain please?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Exactly, supposition. This is your big problem post a stupid idea without thinking is this even remotely possible. Do you even think before googling for specious nonsense t o support your wildly inaccurate and stupid claims?

Second part is rubbish, moving magnets together will not compact the atmosphere, it moves out of the way the pressure remains the same. More absolute rubbish.

As your second statement is rubbish there can be no heat effect on the magnet, also what makes you think any carbnon in the magnet will produce halons, the key thing about halons is that they conatain halogens, you even underlined it in a previous post.

There is almost no hydrogen in air at ground level and you didn't compress it.

I do not know is possibly the only correct thing you have posted in this thread. You are a fool.

I am not a fool, you asked, i made an assumption and told you it was only an assuption as i did not know.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

see posts #71 and #72 dickhead

you are out of line post 71 and 72 was not there when i was replying to flik

Originally Posted by theorist

I am not a fool, you asked, i made an assumption and told you it was only an assuption as i did not know.

And the assumption was foolish.

We aren't fooled by the faux-innocent "I'm just an uncertain seeker of knowledge." You have strong beliefs and you obstinately assert them. These beliefs are by and large stupid, in the sense that they are easily found to be contradicted or unsupported by the evidence. Or not even being logical.

Example: Invoking a halomethane process as an explanation clearly requires certain chemical species to be present. Without any reason to suppose that this requirement is met in your setup, invoking it is foolish and/or plain stupid.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

It could only be dignified by the term assumption if there was a logical, reasonable way that halons could be present. What it actually was is an attempt to explain your observation using something that could not possiby be there. This is the danger of allowing someone so scientific illiterate to speculate about science you are so dumb you don't know how dumb you are and yes you are a fool (and that's being generous).

Where I am from, it is called ruling out other possibilities. My test is solely based on magnetic force, but to not look for any other reason the paper did not ignite would be foolish.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by theorist

I am not a fool, you asked, i made an assumption and told you it was only an assuption as i did not know.

And the assumption was foolish.

We aren't fooled by the faux-innocent "I'm just an uncertain seeker of knowledge." You have strong beliefs and you obstinately assert them. These beliefs are by and large stupid, in the sense that they are easily found to be contradicted or unsupported by the evidence. Or not even being logical.

Example: Invoking a halomethane process as an explanation clearly requires certain chemical species to be present. Without any reason to suppose that this requirement is met in your setup, invoking it is foolish and/or plain stupid.

Unsupported evidence hmmmmm, try re reading you will see that I was looking into halmethane processes and not explaining that to be the course.

Originally Posted by theorist

Where I am from, it is called ruling out other possibilities. My test is solely based on magnetic force, but to not look for any other reason the paper did not ignite would be foolish.

Ok, then you need to rule out an infinity of other possibilities, like pink unicorns that sing close harmony, magic gremlins that eat only beef, etc.

Your method of learning is, in a word, stupid.

Science doesn't proceed by treating all possibilities as having equal probabilities. You lack even the common sense to realize there's a difference, to say nothing of recognizing the need to order one's thinking appropriately with a knowledge of probabilities.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Actually you said you had ruled out the halomethane process, again thinking this could have anything to do with your test shows how woefully ignorant you are.

Since he has not, to date, ruled out the close-harmony-singing pink unicorn theory (CHSPUT), I must declare that theory to be in play. It's every bit as supported as his "thermo-nuclear neutral magnet state" theory (especially as he's never even bothered to define what that term means, despite having been asked to provide a definition).

CHSPUT rules.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I prefer my magnetism gremlins with little fire extinguishers theory, with the subtheory of little pixies releasing halons when theorist isn't looking.

Fair enough. I cannot provide any evidence that falsifies your theory, so I concede that it should remain in play as well.

Theorist - Please stop posting these foolish theories. If you have a question about something, ask.

Originally Posted by theorist

I have no way of recording a video, the test is simple, two magnets, 1 lighter, 1 cigerrete paper.


push the magnets together opposite poles so they repel.

hold them in place.

place flame in the gap of the magnets

the flame changes

then the paper

the paper does not burn

lasted about 5 seconds before the lighter was to hot

When I was a kid, I used to use a certain tree bark to heat water in.
Seriously.

I'd take the bark in strips and weave a bowl- very tightly.
I'd put water in the bowl and the bowl was set into a a gap between two stones and the fire beneath.

So... why didn't this normally quite flammable bowl burn? Well, the bottom ended up scorched; I couldn't use the same bowl twice, really... but it did perform and was easy to make. The heat was pulled out of the bark by the cooler water within before the bark could reach ignition temperature.

I suspect that if your magnets were that close to the paper, the heat was pulled into the cooler magnets before the paper could ignite.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Actually you said you had ruled out the halomethane process, again thinking this could have anything to do with your test shows how woefully ignorant you are.

Since he has not, to date, ruled out the close-harmony-singing pink unicorn theory (CHSPUT), I must declare that theory to be in play. It's every bit as supported as his "thermo-nuclear neutral magnet state" theory (especially as he's never even bothered to define what that term means, despite having been asked to provide a definition).

CHSPUT rules.

You mean the pink unicorn is a real theory and you were not winding me up, Ok, I will look that up.

And Thermal-nuclear neutral magnet state Is just what I called it.

OK definition,

Thermal Nuclear- heat that can be nuclear

Neutral magnetic state - The heat/energy is neutralized my magnetism.

Pink Unicorn you have got to be joking.

Nothing supernatural about two magnets.

Chemistry or magnetic bottling take your pic?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by theorist

I have no way of recording a video, the test is simple, two magnets, 1 lighter, 1 cigerrete paper.


push the magnets together opposite poles so they repel.

hold them in place.

place flame in the gap of the magnets

the flame changes

then the paper

the paper does not burn

lasted about 5 seconds before the lighter was to hot

When I was a kid, I used to use a certain tree bark to heat water in.
Seriously.

I'd take the bark in strips and weave a bowl- very tightly.
I'd put water in the bowl and the bowl was set into a a gap between two stones and the fire beneath.

So... why didn't this normally quite flammable bowl burn? Well, the bottom ended up scorched; I couldn't use the same bowl twice, really... but it did perform and was easy to make. The heat was pulled out of the bark by the cooler water within before the bark could reach ignition temperature.

I suspect that if your magnets were that close to the paper, the heat was pulled into the cooler magnets before the paper could ignite.

Agreed the bark's heat is transfered through conduction into the water.

However the magnet may of conducted some of the heat, but certainly not enough heat to transfer to the other end to re-ignite the flame. I had my fingers there, I could feel what was going on.

There was no flames going around the side on either test, when I did the flat side by side test I could see clearly the void, this allowed me to place my paper in it. The flame was still there but in different form.

I could see the entry point of my flame, and the exit point, the central point where the field was created , the heat, flame had different form.

Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by theorist

You mean the pink unicorn is a real theory and you were not winding me up, Ok, I will look that up.

It's as "real" a theory as your halomethane notion. They are both equally supported by the evidence. If you find the pink unicorn theory difficult to swallow, then you begin to understand the absurdity of your halomethane idea, and the associated rationale (if one can call it that) you offered for thinking about it ("just going through the list of possibilities").

And Thermal-nuclear neutral magnet state Is just what I called it.

That's obvious, and just as obviously not the question.

OK definition,

Thermal Nuclear- heat that can be nuclear

And you have shown that the magnet experiment involves nuclear processes in the same way that pink unicorns are involved. That is to say, there is zero evidience.

Neutral magnetic state - The heat/energy is neutralized my magnetism.

Another unsupported notion.

See why you have been compared -- unfavorably, I might add -- to a bag of hammers?

Originally Posted by theorist

Pink Unicorn you have got to be joking.

It fits the data as well as your "theory." Again, if you find pink unicorns absurd, then you should also find your halomethane idea absurd, yet you don't. The only difference is that I thought of the former, you thought of the latter. Thus, you base your decision not on the evidence, but on a bias for your own ideas. That's not scientific.

Nothing supernatural about two magnets.

And no one ever said there was.

Chemistry or magnetic bottling take your pic?

Why is there a choice? Chemistry is a valid science, and magnetic bottles exist. However, you have not shown what chemical process is taking place, nor have you shown even an understanding of how a magnetic bottle works, let alone proved that your arrangement of magnets produces a magnetic bottle. Hint: Like poles in apposition (that's not a typo) do not produce a closed field configuration, which is a basic, necessary (but not sufficient) condition for creating a bottle. Once again, you are throwing around buzzwords without understanding their meaning. You are play-acting at doing science, but not doing any science at all. You would feel very comfortable in a cargo-cult society, no doubt.

Thank you TK, points taken into consideration.

So forgetting the first part now , with the magnets, for the time been.

Atmosphere, earths atmosphere is that in a neutral state?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Neutral in terms of what, charge? If so in the lower atmosphere yes, the atmosphere is composed of closed shell molecules and radicals that do not have an electric charge. In the upper atmosphere, there is enough solar energy to create ions but this has no bearing on your experiment.

Thank you , yes neutral state in terms of charge.

What keeps the lower atmosphere at a neutral state of charge?

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you , yes neutral state in terms of charge.

What keeps the lower atmosphere at a neutral state of charge?

Because free charges tend to cancel each other out. Why are you going off on this irrelevant tangent?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by theorist

Thank you , yes neutral state in terms of charge.

What keeps the lower atmosphere at a neutral state of charge?

Because free charges tend to cancel each other out. Why are you going off on this irrelevant tangent?

It is not irrelevant, it was a part of my title "neutral state", what do you mean by free charges, I do not understand, I have not read that any where on the net.

A working understanding of a subject cannot be attained via Google.

Originally Posted by theorist

It is not irrelevant, it was a part of my title "neutral state", what do you mean by free charges, I do not understand, I have not read that any where on the net.

If the atmosphere was electrically charged, that would be due to free electrons (or, even more implausibly, free protons). Any such free electrons will quickly find a way to re-combine with the atoms they were taken from.