Your video, World Record 100 Tesla Magnetic Field Created -w/eerie sound, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's the Creature of the Id, tearing at the boundary between our universe and his. He knows where we are now. Stupid scientists. Stupid. Stupid scientists.

He will never be able to survive in this universe. Just to sustain himself he would need magnetic fields of at least 100 Teslas! That kind of power can't be found anywhere on our pla....oh.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

That sound is spooky.
Imagine all that energy trying to tear everything into little pieces--real quick.


It's the Creature of the Id, tearing at the boundary between our universe and his. He knows where we are now. Stupid scientists. Stupid. Stupid scientists.

>> ^Payback:

Uh... if these magnets are so damn much more than the earth's field, why do compasses not point at them from several miles away?


The Tesla unit measures magnetic flux density. The density of the Earth's magnetic field is very low compared to this magnet but it has much more total energy (no idea how much) and we're always within its field whereas this magnet might affect compasses for a few hundred feet.

>> ^Payback:

Uh... if these magnets are so damn much more than the earth's field, why do compasses not point at them from several miles away?


I think that sometimes they do, but magnetic fields loop, so power doesn't necessarily mean range. I think range just depends on the size of the magnet.

Wowee. Right up my alley.

I looked up this design on the wikitube. It's a design called the bitter magnet, named for its inventor (1933), Francis Bitter:

The strongest continuous magnetic fields on Earth have been produced by Bitter magnets. As of 2011 the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida, USA, houses the world's strongest resistive magnet. This system has a maximum field strength of 36.2 teslas and consists of hundreds of separate Bitter plates. The system consumes 19.6 megawatts of electric power and requires about 139 litres of water pumped through it per second for cooling.[2]. This magnet is mainly used for material science experimentation. For similarly designed examples of bitter coils see the external links below. The strongest continuous manmade magnetic field, 45 T, was produced by a device consisting of a Bitter magnet inside a superconducting magnet.[1]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Reno Dakota, Magnetic Fields' to 'Reno Dakota, The Magnetic Fields' - edited by calvados

From Cosmic Variance
Predictions for 2012
by Sean Carroll

So you don’t enter the new year completely unprepared, here are my most secure predictions for 2012. Unlike other prognostication websites, these predictions are based on Science!

1. Freely-falling objects will accelerate toward the ground at an approximately constant rate, up to corrections due to air resistance.
2. Of all the Radium-226 nuclei on the Earth today, 0.04% will decay by the end of the year.
3. A line drawn between any planet (or even dwarf planet) and the Sun will sweep out equal areas in equal times.
4. Hurricanes in the Northern hemisphere will rotate counterclockwise as seen from above.
5. The pressure of a gas squeezed in a piston will rise inversely with the change in volume.
6. Electric charges in motion will give rise to magnetic fields.
7. The energy of an object at rest whose mass decreases will also decrease, by the change in mass times the speed of light squared.
8. The content of the world’s genomes will gradually evolve in ways determined by fitness in a given environment, sexual selection, and random chance.
9. The entropy of closed systems will increase.
10. People will do many stupid things, and some surprisingly smart ones.

Happy New Year, everyone.

I just briefly read about it. Essentially below certain temperatures superconductors cannot have a magnetic field inside its body (I still don't know why), so the magnetic field flows "around" the superconductor, looking kind of like what air looks like going over an airplane wing. That seems oversimplified, but I'm dumb and I haven't taken E&M in 2 years...>> ^MycroftHomlz:

^jealous.
@rottenseed, It is the Meissner effect. I can go into it... are you sure you want that?

Well... Their diagram is a little funny. I think you could do it if the car or track was a superconductor, but I don't see the reason to make both superconducting.

Superconductors levitate by generating an equal and opposite magnetic field outside the superconductor to expel the magnetic flux inside (think Lenz's Law). The Meissner Effect is naively perfect diamagnetism.

I look at this and think it is totally doable. If you want I can send the video to guy I know that studies superconductors. I think most physicists would probably say that you could make this.

>> ^dannym3141:

Pretty sure that's possible, i don't care to speculate how in an engineering fashion, but sure, you can get them to follow a track and even suspend them upside down if you like, i don't how well they can stick to the track during fast turns, perhaps you'd need to tilt the surface gradually.
I assume it'd be easier to cool the track rather than the cars, otherwise you're gonna have to wire up the cars to deliver coolant which would destroy the point. The idea of nitrogen gas coming out of the tiny cars for the whole video is a bit of a suggestion it's not real. That's assuming he was putting nitrogen in the car in that weird pipe.
Shit, they do stuff similar to this with trains full of people in some places. Probably a bit of a tamer ride because of the much higher masses involved.
(I study physics, but maybe someone knows more than me about the current progress on all that)

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).

My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.

While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.

Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.

MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.

Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.

For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)

Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.

I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

Damn man, tears to my eyes. Beautiful disaster. Love, The Magnetic Fields at the end.

This + an ability to detect and adjust to existing magnetic fields = UFO?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^juliovega914:
Alright, this is unbelievably fucking cool.
You guys might (not) remember the Meissner effect I posted earlier (http://videosift.com/video/The-Meissner-Effect-Awsome-physics) This is exactly the same effect.
The fundamental difference is that the superconductor in my vid is thicker than in this case. In this case, a 1 micron YBCO layer is deposited onto a sapphire wafer (probably through physical vapor deposition [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9Slv1T1UM, go to 3:15 if you want to skip to PVD])
When you deposit a thin film with PVD you will inevitably form small imperfections at the grain boundaries in the film, usually only nanometers wide. When brought down below the superconductive transition temperature (IE, liquid nitrogen temp), the magnetic field lines are able to penetrate these grain boundaries in discrete quantities (unlike the thicker superconductor) forming what they seem to be calling "quantum tubes". The superconductor pins the field lines into these quantum sized tubes, and the force required to distort the field lines is greater than the weight of the superconductor.
Read this for a bit more: http://www.quantumlevitation.com/levitation/The_physics.html, but it doesn't seem terribly well translated, and it cant seem to decide how layman's terms it wants to be.

I didn't think that PVD would form YBCO.
I could easily be wrong though--my knowledge is out of date.
Great video about the Meissner Effect.


Physical vapor deposition (evaporation) pretty much works with any material that can be evaporated in a vaccuum without decomposing. Metals, semi-metals, and many ceramics and metal-oxides are candidates.