Magnetic Permeability ... I can't find anyone talking about this !!!!!

[The Observer]

Xee Man,

Sorry that the chronology of this response is a little out of whack.
I have been trying to address, understand and respond to every sentence of each comment.

                               Yes... Yes Yes    Yes           Yes.

A solenoid with a ferromagnetic core is in fact an electromagnet ( or at least can be called that ).                                                                                                                                                                                       

Yes, Yes...  I think you understand where the extra energy comes from.

Coil + Core... where the core always had energy.. nill when not organized... large when organized.

Now to produce electron movement in a second coil wrapped around the first... the field needs to change.
This is where a pulsed or AC current applied to the first coil comes in.

As I have mentioned, a resonant frequency of the atom dipoles could be a wise choice since motion is accumulative in this situation.

                                     None-the-less, I am happy that you can see what I am talking about.

I admit that I don't quite understand your comment about using a permanent magnet.
Wait, I get it.

You just stated the reason a permanent magnet is used in a loudspeaker !
It would be ridiculous to consume the energy of 2 pure coils to run the thing when you can use Mother Nature to help you out.

The permanent magnet in a speaker would consume an ENORMOUS amount of energy if it were just a coil.
And the coil that moves the whole thing is really a coil assisted by ferro core...so a pure coil here would also consume more energy than if it were just a coil.

This technically makes a Loud Speaker an overunity device since WAY more energy is required to run the thing without the magnet and the ferro core.

Just had an idea... I have a project for the naysayers.

    1. Calculate the energy needed to produce a magnetic field in a pure coil comparable with the magnet in any speaker you pick.
    2. Calculate the energy needed to produce a magnetic field in a pure coil comparable to the electromagnet in said speaker for any signal.
    3. Calculate how much energy is actually needed to just power the electromagnet of said signal ( the operandi mode of a typical loud speaker) to produce   
        same volume or decibel level as 2.
    4. Add 1 and 2 then compare that sum to 3.
    5. Explain why these are different.... if your calculations do not reveal an the equilibrium situation.

Just remember... to conserve energy in the classical agendized way... 3 CANNOT be less than the Sum of 1 and 2.
       They have to be equal or energy needs to appear to be lost for classical conservation of energy to make sense.

Well, perhaps you can see that this obviously is not the case.

The amount of energy it takes to run a loudspeaker is 1 + 2. Period. End of Story.
You need a strong changing magnetic field to to make the cone vibrate, there is 'no free lunch' as you like to say.
Since 3 is less than then a sum of 1 + 2 you better be damned sure the energy is coming from somewhere, and it does.

However, I am getting weary of saying where it comes from... so I will not repeat... it's late.

Optimism never hurts.
   
                                The Observer

[The Observer]

Hey Otto,

Still haven't checked out what you mentioned about the SM thread.

Busy today... but I will check it out.

Stay cool,
         
               The Observer

[The Observer]

Hey Xee,

I investigated the question having to do with the amount of force and time it takes for the dipoles to spin.

Turns out there is a characteristic number called COERCIVE FORCE that applies to ferro materials.
This is exactly what you were wondering  about... as was I.

My Physics Book had a pretty good chapter on this.

                      I have to get to work... so I will elaborate on this later.

But in a few words,

There is a huge range of this 'stickyness' of dipoles depending on the material. (Corecive Force)
Some stick alot... and some spin about as freely as you want.
A hysteresis diagram can show the entire loop which makes it obvious what is going on.

Something like soft iron doesn't need much to saturate, other materials need more (like magnets)...and some (like metallic glass) Way way less !!!

Also as you know. ferro materials have the domains where every dipole  is lined up, which is not explained by Newtonian Physics.
This can only be explained using Quantum Physics apparently.

Well, gotta get going.

Be well,
           The Observer

[Charlie_V]

@The Observer

You are correct that there is an amplification between a coil without a core and one with a ferrous core.  I'm surprised why no one has addressed the real reason why your idea will not work easily. 

The current flowing in the first coil will produce a magnetic field.  This magnetic field will be amplified (intensified) by the iron core.  This will produce a larger voltage in the secondary coil (assuming that the turns ratios are the same - but this is not important since they could be different and the effect is the same).  The MAIN problem, is that when you apply a load to the second coil, current in the second coil will flow in such a way to CANCEL the current flowing in the first coil. 

This cancellation causes the power in the second coil to be equal to the power in the first coil.  The same thing happens in generators and motors (thankfully it happens in motors, otherwise they would spin so fast they would fly apart!)  On the flip side, IF this cancellation effect could be neutralized, then you would get the sought-for energy amplification in the second coil. 

The cancellation effect I'm speaking of is named after Hendrik Lorentz, who mathematically described it in the 1890s.  I've spent a great deal of time studying this effect.  People commonly use the Lorentz force - which is what the effect is called - to claim there are "no free lunches."  However, they are not entirely correct.  The Lorentz force is NOT the same as friction (I associate friction as the "no free lunch" force).  Lorentz is a completely different phenomenon and not well understood.  Yes there is a classic formula to represent it, but the true explanation (i.e. why does it happen) is not apparent nor explained.

The reason I attribute it to being different from friction is that friction takes energy from the system.  The Lorentz force balances energy.  There is a huge difference between taking and balancing.  Once something is taken, its gone! Where as in a balanced system, nothing is taken away, everything just stays equal.  Unfortunately, we have been working with balanced generators/motors/transformers for so long, we have come to lump this strange force with "losses".  No one can tell their apples from hemorrhoids anymore

Now, most things that are balanced can be unbalanced.  I feel the same thing can happen for Lorentz.  I built a testing apparatus that I'm still taking measurements on.  The results, so far, are promising.  It has gotten further in testing than any of my other designs - fingers crossed!!

ADD:  Here is a picture of Hendrik Lorentz.  If you look closely at the chalk board behind him, you will see a list of all the good boys and girls - which I'm sure he's checked twice.  I believe the reindeer and sleigh are parked out front...

[The Observer]

Hello Charlie,

       I appreciate your interest in Magnetic Permeability and your invention, what-ever it may be.

Alright, I looked long and hard at the reason you say my machine, as I have described it, would not work.

     (In short, a transformer possessing a ferromagnetic core that uses resonant frequencies to achieve more energy out than energy in
      using the total organizable electric current of ferromagnetic atoms that results in a switchable and magnified magnetic field
      and the properties of forced resonance which results in increasing the magnitude of motion of the ferromagnetic atoms.)

I do have a hard time with the CANCEL out thing.
I am very suspicious that a transformer takes more energy out of a primary whether a load is on it or not.

  I had to learn more about transformers... and a few things just don't make sense.

                               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

1.  Since the efficiency of a transformer is hard to calculate... ? ? (VI = P in vs. VI = P out) THEY instead refer to the
     hysterisis loop of the core & loss in copper windings to get an effieciency #.   Which happens to be around 99 %.
     A pretty damn impressive # in and of itself.

     But it is Very, Very Misleading...
              That is, one would assume the efficiency has to to with the ratio of power in vs. power out..
                This is the very thing we, at overunity.com, are concerned about by definition.
                   Yet THEY quote the efficiency of the device that I claim ADDS ENERGY to the situation + the resistance of copper windings (give me a break).
                       That device being the ferromagnetic material used in the core.
                            Hmm, Hmm, Hmm.

              Why in God's name would they do this?

     Perhaps, just perhaps... the energy required to run a transformer is equal to what 2 coils would be?
     Adding a piece of metal to the equation cannot add energy under conservation laws.
        and.. YET IT DOES.     Conundrum.

I conjecture this is one of the reasons a misleading number is quoted...that conservation laws would then be violated .(whoo whoo and flashing lights)

Another reason has to with frequency which I will get to later. (perhaps in another comment, as I need to investigate this phenomenon a bit more)
        Suffice it to say that Voltage increases in the secondary as Frequency increases in the primary.

2. Then is mentioned (in the wiki article on transformers) that V in = V out... I in = I out... therefore P in = P out. Where IN is the primary and OUT is the     
    secondary.  V is Voltage, I is Current and P is Power.     P=IV    or     PIV as I like to say.

    Not only that, but a resistance R on the secondary side will produce a resistance R*(ratio of windings) on primary side (and vise versa, reciprocate ratio.)

     Fine, if these are the "rules" lets break it down for a "transformer" with equal windings on the primary and secondary.
          This means that R is going to be the same on both sides. That's what THEY say..

But first this...

I remember a question on a physics test in College.  I was one of the only ones in class to get it right.  It's a simple question.

                        What household appliance has greater resistance, an electric stove or digital alarm clock?

                                                  Answer...  Digital Alarm Clock

The reason is  V=IR.  The current needed to power a clock is way less than needed to power the stove.
Therefore, according to ohms law, the resistance of the clock is way more than the resistance of the stove.

       This is not an intuitive answer because resistance implies energy used.
       Resistance takes energy (swimming against the current)... going with the flow does not (swimming with the current).

Anyways as R goes up, I goes down in a circuit for any given Voltage.   V = I *R
  To be more clear... the higher the resistance... the less the current.

      As that dude Archer would say... Do we agree with this?   lol
         Yes or No.

Now Power... what needs to to be compared, is P = I * V     PIV      as aformentioned.

So now we would agree... that when voltage is constant.. more Current equals more Power...less Current equals less Power?
     Yes or No ?

Finally, there is the aforementioned coils (of exact equal dimensions)  sitting next to each other.
          The secondary is not  hooked up to anything.. this means 0 electrons are flowing which means the I = 0..
           The primary is hooked up to ... lets say   110 AC Volt at a frequency of 60 Hz.
         
          Because  P (primary) = P (secondary)   this means that    VI (primary) = VI ( secondary)

Do we agree ...Yes or No?

    If you have agreed to this, you have also agreed that NO POWER is being consumed in the primary of a transformer
            when the secondary is not hooked up to anything  !

    That is, P of the Secondary has to be 0 since no electrons are flowing, therefore P of the Primary must be 0.
                                         P=IV   No electrons moving, no power.

    In other words, THE LAW that states all must be equal and no energy extra energy can come from unrecognized sources,
                                                      then postulates that NO CURRENT will flow in the primary.

I DISAGREE.

Ever heard of a wall vampire? 
It's the black square transformer used to transfer 120 V AC to smaller DC voltages which are used by cell phones and a jillion other things.

According to LAW, these devices should use NO POWER when not hooked up...  YET THEY DO.

   There are People Laws now about building a circuit in transformers to detect if the secondary is loaded, so that current is only used when it is hooked up 
   to something. Apparently, MANY watts of power are wasted each year due to the fact that Transformers DO NOT consume less power when the secondary is
   not loaded or bear a very high resistance.

This is a direct contradiction to P(of primary) equals P(of secondary).

I say, simply...that the secondary of a transformer is a reciever.  No different than a radio reciever.
There is simply no way for a radio transmitter to have any idea how many radios are tuning in (interestingly enough... with resonant tuned circuits).

The truth is, the primary of a transformer always consumes the same power no matter what is hooked up to the secondary.

I realize this statement flies in the face of many people, laws and agendas...
                                                                                                             however I am an Observer not influenced by others, always thinking for myself.

So, perhaps I have overlooked something, but I have not accepted what someone else said on the surface.
                                                       For that I am satisfied.

Please think about this and the loudspeaker example mentioned previously.
Ferromagnetic materials (including magnets) have energy that can be tapped into, and are everyday.
It just isn't recognized as such.

May you perceive that which is true,
                                                    The Observer