There's another aspect I haven't seen mentioned. A moving magnetic field induces a current in metal. A magnetic field powerful enough to pull a nail might just heat it up enough to burn the wood it's in.
m
wave vs. particle duality.
or field vs. photon.
photons have a velocity vector (2d), fields have strength(3d)
Stormin only believes in God particles.
Because it doesn't.
Visible light does not decrease with the inverse square rule.
Visible light from a point source decreases with the inverse square rule.
Visible light from a line source like a fluorescent tube decreases with a simple inverse, no square involved, rule. Until you get far enough away that a line source appears to be a point.
Visible light from a plane source doesn't decrease at all, until you get far enough away that it appears to be a point.
It is written: Thou shalt have no other particles before me.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .
I'm reasonably sure that those seeming contradictions are because a given point is receiving light from many areas of the large source. If one were to measure the light fall off of each of those areas, the inverse square rule would be true.
It's called math.
Weren't you required to derive the inverse square rule at some point? It's a straightforward application of geometry.
But you always have to check your assumptions. Those assumptions require a point source, or a reasonable approximation.
Because there are always two magnetic poles, and the magnetic field in any point is the DIFFERENCE between the fields created by those poles. The difference decreases with cube of the distance.
i
I don't recall having to do so but I used it daily for more than 40 years.
Indeed. Small enough so the light doesn't "wrap". Or distance...the sun is a "point source". In practical terms, source size relative to subject size.
I used to do just that while chanting, "Brother go find your brother".
(It didn't work very often....)
Jeff
I asked myself why anyone on earth would waste their money preparing and filing a patent application for something that anyone with an engineering or science education would immediately realize couldn't ever be made to work.
My best guess is that the "inventor" got hooked in by a greedy "patent assistant."
Or maybe even by a firm like the one George Forman is pushing on radio and TV ads lately:
Jeff
Yah, a homeowner wearing a medical implant like a pacemaker or insulin pump and a powerful magnetic pulse from a nail remover...what could possibly go wrong?
I suspect you're right. Shows like "Shark Tank" also feed on the "become rich through invention" scams that seem to have cropped up like mushrooms after a spring rain.
replying to Fake ID, Patent Ending wrote: Fake ID: not a problem: the magnet would be a steady field produced by a direct current.
However (to all) this is NOT a "patent". It WAS an application that has been abandoned, almost certainly because a patent examiner asked the author (who obviously knew almost nothing about which he was writing) to overcome an objection the examiner made ("the government" didn't "fail"), and the author was unable to do so.
For example, one (an examiner) would inquire as to how this instrument would work as an "impaler" when such action would require the nails to also be powerful magnets (of polarity opposite to the applied magnetic field) themselves to even begin to work (by "repelling the nails into" a surface).
But even then, because the applied field falls off so rapidly, the tool would have to be constantly moved forward, with very considerable force, to "impale" the nail into the surface. There is already a simple and elegant solution to that problem. It is called a hammer, and it doesn't require magnetic nails.
ETC. !
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.