Moving magnet=AC, static magnet=DC ?

[dieter]

Simple thought, great dogma, tho the lobby scientists certainly claim to know the explanation:


When we apply DC then we get a "permanent" magnet. At least as long as there is the DC on. So why  I ask you, don't we get DC when we apply a static magnet ?!?!?!?


This contradicts the basic modus operandi of nature. And to make things even worse, why is a closed magnetic loop in a low-leakage core permanent when dc is turned off? (see permanent motion holder)


I tell you, I ain't got a solution, but I'm pretty sure that the sooner or later someone willl come up with something like a magnet diode, that would be THE simplicity, by definition. Maybe a crystal mesh. Maybe elementary magnets follow schaubergers theorem about the drop shape?


Regards

[Newton II]

If you inject a DC pulse in a superconducting coil and close the coil,  current flows in the coil permanently without any losses producing a magnetic field permanently around it. 

A permanent magnet also produces a permanent magnetic field around it.    Does it mean that magnet is a superconductor??!!

[gyulasun]

Hi Dieter,

On your second question:

"why is a closed magnetic loop in a low-leakage core permanent when dc is turned off? (see permanent motion holder)"

The answer (by conventional science) is remanence magnetism,  for those in need of looking it up what it is, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanence   

Please watch these 2 videos made originally by member Nali2001 but some guys uploaded his tests on two kind of transformer cores again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR1TaQJAxWQ    Part 1 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsN2sr3U0PY       Part 2

The tests show how important the ferromagnetic properties of cores are when used in DC pulsed mode.  When used in normal AC current mode, the reversing current direction 'resets' the particles in the core,  they would not maintain their previous state like they tend to do with a single directional DC pulse.

Gyula

[dieter]

Newton,


absolutely. A permanent magnet is a superconductor, in terms of permeability, at least below the curie temperature.


Gyula,


I disagree with the remanence explanation. If that was the case, you could open the loop and close it again without to alter the remanent orientation or stenght. But you can't, as soon as you open the loop mechanicly, the magnetism vanishes. But remanence is the feature of permanent magnets. I think this shows how quickly established science comes up with answers, not bothering too much about the truth.


Although I agree, in core materials remanence is a serious issue.


Regards

[gyulasun]

Hi Dieter,

I think you are too fast when saying that established science comes up quickly with answers, not bothering about the truth. Ferromagnetic material science is a vast territory to digest, see this just to peep in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis_loop#Magnetic_hysteresis 

You surely have heard about soft and hard ferromagnetic materials, the difference is between their crystal structure where the 'hard' materials have much more defect in their crystal lattice than the 'soft' materials and this can be influenced during the various manufacturing processes and treatments. A big difference is seen between these two material types when you look at their hysteresis curve: a soft ferromagnetic material has a relatively narrow while a hard material has a wide, fat B-H curve. This means that a soft material is able to respond to an outside magnetic field or excitation much more readily than a hard core material, this latter is already in a "perpetual" saturation, it is difficult to influence.

Of course in case a soft material is suddenly exposed to a huge current pulse like Nali 2001 gave to his laminated transformator core then many particles were arranged into their saturation state but due to the originally soft magnetic characteristic of the crystal structure, the particles would gradually retain to their unmagnetized state, while in case of a hard material structure this could not readily happen because of the lattice defects.

So if you just consider that conventional science produces for instance ferrite cores (which does forget magnetization) and permanent magnets (which maintain their magnetism for several hundreds of years) then you may ponder on how much this material science bother about the truth. My problem rather is that the operation of the 'perpetual motion holder' can be explained by established science, hence there may be no free lunch from them.

Remanence is not exlusively the feature of permanent magnets: it is a feature of many so called 'hard' magnetic materials and can also be a temporarily feature of soft magnetic materials when they are overexcited, when their crytal structure is 'shocked' by heavy current pulses and their particles need time to recover to their 'soft' state.

Of course you do not need to accept these answers conventional science give you, you are free to find your own answers, for which I wish you success.

Greetings,  Gyula