To prove overunity, to the skeptics on here,
Couldn't someone arrange magnets in a circle, with all their N, or S poles focused on the center of the circle, and then in the middle of the circle, place some type of electrical-conductor-design, that will allow a lot of the magnetic-fields to pass straight though it, while at the same time generating some current from the undulating/moving fields at the middle of the circle.
To achieve that undulating/moving of the fields at the center of the circle, instead of placing the magnets so close to each other so that their fields are compressed against each other, they should be placed sufficiently far enough from each other so that their fields undulate/move in the middle of the circle, sort of like barely touching each other .
The electrical-conductor-design at the center of the circle, could be as simple as a very loosely-wound-single-layer-coil, so that the magnetic-fields could easily pass through it, or, it could be materials like graphene, or the newly invented very-ultra-light foams/gels( made from metals or other highly electrically conductive materials ) .
Even though very little current would be generated, if any current was able to be detected, that design could be presented to the skeptics on here.
Although, I assume that even if this device were placed in a high-vacuum, you might still be able to argue that any current generated would be due to the curie-point in magnets being affected by all types of em radiation in the environment .
Quote from: guest1289 on February 16, 2016, 08:49:57 PM
To prove overunity, to the skeptics on here,
Couldn't someone arrange magnets in a circle, with all their N, or S poles focused on the center of the circle, and then in the middle of the circle, place some type of electrical-conductor-design, that will allow a lot of the magnetic-fields to pass straight though it, while at the same time generating some current from the undulating/moving fields at the middle of the circle.
To achieve that undulating/moving of the fields at the center of the circle, instead of placing the magnets so close to each other so that their fields are compressed against each other, they should be placed sufficiently far enough from each other so that their fields undulate/move in the middle of the circle, sort of like barely touching each other .
The electrical-conductor-design at the center of the circle, could be as simple as a very loosely-wound-single-layer-coil, so that the magnetic-fields could easily pass through it, or, it could be materials like graphene, or the newly invented very-ultra-light foams/gels( made from metals or other highly electrically conductive materials ) .
Even though very little current would be generated, if any current was able to be detected, that design could be presented to the skeptics on here.
Although, I assume that even if this device were placed in a high-vacuum, you might still be able to argue that any current generated would be due to the curie-point in magnets being affected by all types of em radiation in the environment .
the best would truely be for you to set up a example of this.
to show exactly what your claims represent if they have been realized for you in previous experiment.
for levitation related ideas though, i noticed there are lots of them on youtube that might replicate more closely what you are describing.
do you have the magnets needed etc?
Quote from: guest1289 on February 16, 2016, 08:49:57 PM
To prove overunity, to the skeptics on here,
Couldn't someone arrange magnets in a circle, with all their N, or S poles focused on the center of the circle, and then in the middle of the circle, place some type of electrical-conductor-design, that will allow a lot of the magnetic-fields to pass straight though it, while at the same time generating some current from the undulating/moving fields at the middle of the circle.
To achieve that undulating/moving of the fields at the center of the circle, instead of placing the magnets so close to each other so that their fields are compressed against each other, they should be placed sufficiently far enough from each other so that their fields undulate/move in the middle of the circle, sort of like barely touching each other .
The electrical-conductor-design at the center of the circle, could be as simple as a very loosely-wound-single-layer-coil, so that the magnetic-fields could easily pass through it, or, it could be materials like graphene, or the newly invented very-ultra-light foams/gels( made from metals or other highly electrically conductive materials ) .
Even though very little current would be generated, if any current was able to be detected, that design could be presented to the skeptics on here.
Although, I assume that even if this device were placed in a high-vacuum, you might still be able to argue that any current generated would be due to the curie-point in magnets being affected by all types of em radiation in the environment .
Hi guest1289,
First I want to make sure you understand I am NOT a skeptic as far as believing OU may be possible. However you have some mistaken ideas about magnets and coils I am afraid. I am not sure where you got the idea magnetic fields would undulate. If you have some evidence of that then please post the information. Secondly I don't know why you think a coil would need to be loosely wound for the magnetic field to pass through the turns of the coil. The magnetic field will pass right through almost any size coil no matter how tightly wound the turns of wire are. You need to get some wire and make some coils and then play with magnets around the coils to understand how they work together.
Respectfully,
Carroll
( I'm guest1289, this is my other account, for other things I'm doing )
Regarding, undulating fields between magnets,
I first found possible evidence for that idea from the following webpage, http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st30 , although that is between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth.
So, to replicate the interaction between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth, I thought it would be logical to space two magnets sufficiently far apart, and that there must or may be a very specific distance at which that could happen .
( of course it's possible I may have misinterpreted the above webpage too much, because when I look at diagrams on other webpages, of the sun's magnetic-field affecting the earths magnetic-field, the earth's field looks like it's in an aerodynamics test, with it's field totally blown backwards as if it were in a storm )
Here's my proof
In attempts at All-permanent-magnet-levitation ( on youtube etc ) you can see how unstable the levitating components are, that constant instability is supported by the mathematical-proofs in Earnshaw's-Theorem, which states it is impossible to achieve stable levitation using permanent-magnets.
Regarding magnetic-fields passing straight through copper, yes, now you have reminded me, that is correct, but here's the reason I got a confused about that, it's because of what happens if you drop a neodymium-magnet down a copper pipe, and how the hoverboards( containing rotating magnets ) float above copper, although of course they are moving magnetic-fields, but even in the copper-pipe, and the copper-surface for the hoverboard, the magnetic-fields must still pass through the copper.
I should post this in the figueras thread, but it doesn't matter
If you had already achieved, either overunity, or a self-sustaining device( therefore perpetual motion ), using the rotating-tesla-switch, it's odd that you're interested in the figueras-device, because as far as I know there is still no proof it ever worked, even though it certainly doesn't seem that it was a hoax .
According to 'Earnshaw's Theorem', which says that if full-levitation is achieved just using permanent-magnets, then it will be 'Perpetual-Motion', because it will be continually unstable.
I'm not able to build any of my full-levitation-designs which just use permanent-magnets, but I am informed that other people have achieved that .
So, 'Samuel-Earnshaw' basically proved the existence of overunity in his mathematical proofs .
It is against the TOS (terms of service) for this website to be using 2 accounts. It is also against common sense rules for engaging in a forum such as this one.
I suggest that you eliminate one of your accounts before the Admin eliminates both of them for you.
Thank you.
Bill
Quote from: forumblog on February 17, 2016, 12:14:37 PM
( I'm guest1289, this is my other account, for other things I'm doing )
Regarding, undulating fields between magnets,
I first found possible evidence for that idea from the following webpage, http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st30 (http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st30) , although that is between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth.
So, to replicate the interaction between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth, I thought it would be logical to space two magnets sufficiently far apart, and that there must or may be a very specific distance at which that could happen .
( of course it's possible I may have misinterpreted the above webpage too much, because when I look at diagrams on other webpages, of the sun's magnetic-field affecting the earths magnetic-field, the earth's field looks like it's in an aerodynamics test, with it's field totally blown backwards as if it were in a storm )
Here's my proof
In attempts at All-permanent-magnet-levitation ( on youtube etc ) you can see how unstable the levitating components are, that constant instability is supported by the mathematical-proofs in Earnshaw's-Theorem, which states it is impossible to achieve stable levitation using permanent-magnets.
Regarding magnetic-fields passing straight through copper, yes, now you have reminded me, that is correct, but here's the reason I got a confused about that, it's because of what happens if you drop a neodymium-magnet down a copper pipe, and how the hoverboards( containing rotating magnets ) float above copper, although of course they are moving magnetic-fields, but even in the copper-pipe, and the copper-surface for the hoverboard, the magnetic-fields must still pass through the copper.
I should post this in the figueras thread, but it doesn't matter
If you had already achieved, either overunity, or a self-sustaining device( therefore perpetual motion ), using the rotating-tesla-switch, it's odd that you're interested in the figueras-device, because as far as I know there is still no proof it ever worked, even though it certainly doesn't seem that it was a hoax .
According to 'Earnshaw's Theorem', which says that if full-levitation is achieved just using permanent-magnets, then it will be 'Perpetual-Motion', because it will be continually unstable.
I'm not able to build any of my full-levitation-designs which just use permanent-magnets, but I am informed that other people have achieved that .
So, 'Samuel-Earnshaw' basically proved the existence of overunity in his mathematical proofs .
guest1289 or forumblog or whatever.
I started to not respond to your post because it is so confusing but decided to see if you could clear up what you are posting. First you need to drop one or the other of your usernames. Almost all forums do NOT allow a person to have more than one username.
Secondly I am not sure if this post I quoted was directed to me or someone else. But since you referred to my question about the undulating magnetic fields I believe the post may be directed towards me. As far as the undulating magnetic fields I think you are confusing an active device (the sun) with an inactive device (a magnet). The sun is constantly producing new energy and magnetic fields. The magnetic field of a magnet is static. All you need to prove this is to place a magnet on a non-metallic surface and then bring a compass slowly nearer and nearer until it just starts to respond to the magnet. Then let it sit there. You will see it will never move or change at all. So there is no undulating field you could harvest any power from. Not even a few microwatts.
If your post is directed at me I have no idea where you got the idea that I had a working Tesla Switch or that I was interested in the Figuera device. And I haven't seen anyone else posting about either in this thread.
As far as Earnshaw's Theorem, I will admit I have not heard of it. But I don't understand how levitation by magnets proves perpetual motion. I would have to read his information and see how he came to that conclusion. But I have seen devices that suspended an object by using magnets and all of them did after a while settle down and became stable. So I have doubts about his theorem or maybe it is your interpretation of his theorem that is confusing me.
Respectfully,
Carroll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis
Unstable...?
I definitely did not know there's an actual rule( terms of service ), stating that you cannot have more than one account. I did wonder though .
I do have a very valid reason for having to use 2 accounts, I won't detail it on the forum, but there must never be exception to rules, or the site won't work etc .
The mistake I made is that I actually stated that I am guest1289, but again, I didn't know it's against the rules .
There are probably a lot of people on here that have 2 accounts, for all sorts of reasons, but of course they don't state that they have 2 accounts, so it won't be a problem for them .
It will affect me, no longer being able to use 2 accounts( and stating on my posts that I am the same person as another account ), but obviously I will no longer be able to do that .
That youtube video in the previous post, that's a super-cooled magnet, so it turns the magnet into a super-conductor, and the effect is called the Meissner_effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect )
The Meissner_effect is an exception to Earnshaw's-Theorem and is not all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation, those super-cooled permanent-magnets become super-conductors, and are no longer normal-permanent-magnets.
That Meissner_effect is exactly what I was trying to achieve, in the stable all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation designs I posted, but by only using normal-room-temperature-magnets, those designs are designed to work at any angle in relation to gravity, I posted them here :
http://overunity.com/16298/my-levitators-and-bearings-and-other-designsinventions/msg469748/#msg469748
citfta
Yes, what you say about the magnetic-field of a permanent-magnet being static, is exactly what I think.
But I can't help thinking that there might be a very-very specific-distance between an N-pole and S-pole, at which the fields might briefly reach each other, in an undulating manner, either due to the interaction of the fields at that very specific distance, or, due to things like very slight temperature changes( magnets have a 'curie-point' relating to temperature, temperature affects magnets which affects their fields , thats also how the meissner-effect is achieved) .
I have re-read your following post on another thread below
http://overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg471641/#msg471641
QuoteI was able using Matt's design to get a Tesla Switch to run for a full week lighting some LEDs the whole time. At the end of the week my batteries were still fully charged. In addition to the LEDs the batteries were also supplying the power for the electronic switching circuit. It can be done but it is very tricky getting it to work and if you change the load then you have to start the tuning process all over again.
Now I realize the device you built was solid-state, not mechanical, and I have read that LED's can draw very little power.
( I had even read articles on other websites stating that some types of LED's could be an actual source of overunity ).
I'ts possible your equipment wasn't good enough to measure the very little power consumed in a week.
It would be interesting if the solid-state device you built actually had an effect of charging the batteries, from that switching-effect, at the same time that the batteries ran the device.
I'ts important to read the entire post by another person, on another thread, below
http://overunity.com/16295/all-permanent-magnet-complete-levitation/msg469712/#msg469712
QuoteWhat the Theorem clearly states, is that, in accordance to both Gauss's Law, and Laplace's Equation:
Is that any "permanent magnetic" levitation, will result in perpetual motion.
QuoteSimply put, Earnshaw;s Theorem states that, WHEN permanent magnetic levitation occurs,- It cannot be perfectly balanced. (i.e. - without motion)
In the devices that person built, he observed
QuoteThere was, in fact, a motion within the magnetic field.
I doubt anyone( including me ) on this page has ever observed all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation, but it seems, according to the post above, that some people have achieved it, and in the last 2 or 3 months, I have posted quite a lot of all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation designs.
Maybe anyone here could build an all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation device, to present to the skeptics on this site, the device could either generate a very tiny micro-current, or just be a perpetual-motion device.
Quote from: forumblog on February 19, 2016, 12:22:20 PM
I definitely did not know there's an actual rule( terms of service ), stating that you cannot have more than one account. I did wonder though .
I do have a very valid reason for having to use 2 accounts, I won't detail it on the forum, but there must never be exception to rules, or the site won't work etc .
The mistake I made is that I actually stated that I am guest1289, but again, I didn't know it's against the rules .
There are probably a lot of people on here that have 2 accounts, for all sorts of reasons, but of course they don't state that they have 2 accounts, so it won't be a problem for them .
It will affect me, no longer being able to use 2 accounts( and stating on my posts that I am the same person as another account ), but obviously I will no longer be able to do that .
The term most folks use for this is "sock puppet". I agree that, as far as I know, you have not used your multiple accounts for any nefarious purposes and, it is true that you have made it clear who you are and that you have 2 accounts. I suggest that you pm our gracious host and Admin, Stefan (Hartiberlin) and see what he thinks about it but, as almost anyone will tell you, this is never allowed on any site I have been a member of.
Thanks,
Bill
I'm always amused by the outside perception of free energy research...
that somehow once we "found a device" we would all just stop looking at all the rest.
and the ones that think they can get rich piggy backing off someones "OU" design.
or these newly emerging attempts to psychologically profile us, to figure out why-
there are so many of us trying to do that which is impossible.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 20, 2016, 05:34:35 AM
I'm always amused by the outside perception of free energy research...
that somehow once we "found a device" we would all just stop looking at all the rest.
and the ones that think they can get rich piggy backing off someones "OU" design.
or these newly emerging attempts to psychologically profile us, to figure out why-
there are so many of us trying to do that which is impossible.
Well said. You can better be an artist than doing OU research. The artist fit's in a
cultural and mental framework. No questions about his/her attemps to do the impossible.
I think that, we OU explorers, have a lot in common with the artists. The same aspiration.
Not understood by even my sons. They think what I am doing is a waste of time.
Even worser; "Daddy I don't want to talk with you about FE and all this nonsense".
It is also a non-item for my family and friends. No person in a radius of 100Km interested.
Nobody understands my fascination for creating OU devices. This hobby is hard to share...
Same loneliness as an artist, same social isolation, other scene, other status.
I am glad to meet you guys here, (where are the women?). Last months I am learning a lot.
Not only about principles and technics. I know we are with many passionated people.
I hope at a "coming-out" of this community, this year. There will be the OU day, once a year.
The national media ignore our existence. Do we want more understanding of our endeavor?
I think we are in some way loners. A touch with the magic wand made me bewitched.
On the other hand, I feel also as an alchemist or techno shaman, with an unexplainable joy
making energy devices with sound and sparks and lights and magnets and coils and
maybe OU, one day.
Quote from: citfta on February 17, 2016, 09:05:10 AM
I am not sure where you got the idea magnetic fields would undulate.
The fields from stationary permanent magnets will not undulate ...unless you're Sweet.
Quote from: citfta on February 17, 2016, 09:05:10 AM
Secondly I don't know why you think a coil would need to be loosely wound for the magnetic field to pass through the turns of the coil. The magnetic field will pass right through almost any size coil no matter how tightly wound the turns of wire are.
Better yet - a varying magnetic flux will induce voltage across that coil even if the magnetic flux
does not touch the coil's winding.
Quote from: verpies on February 20, 2016, 06:08:01 PM
Better yet - a varying magnetic flux will induce voltage across that coil even if the magnetic flux does not touch the coil's winding.
Someone didn't do the math.....
Magnetic fields extend infinitely.
(at exponentially decreasing magnitude)
there is no point at which the magnetic flux does not touch the coil.
Quote from: Berto3 on February 20, 2016, 05:07:52 PM
Well said. You can better be an artist than doing OU research. The artist fit's in a
cultural and mental framework. No questions about his/her attemps to do the impossible.
I think that, we OU explorers, have a lot in common with the artists. The same aspiration.
Not understood by even my sons. They think what I am doing is a waste of time.
Even worser; "Daddy I don't want to talk with you about FE and all this nonsense".
It is also a non-item for my family and friends. No person in a radius of 100Km interested.
Nobody understands my fascination for creating OU devices. This hobby is hard to share...
Same loneliness as an artist, same social isolation, other scene, other status.
I am glad to meet you guys here, (where are the women?). Last months I am learning a lot.
Not only about principles and technics. I know we are with many passionated people.
I hope at a "coming-out" of this community, this year. There will be the OU day, once a year.
The national media ignore our existence. Do we want more understanding of our endeavor?
I think we are in some way loners. A touch with the magic wand made me bewitched.
On the other hand, I feel also as an alchemist or techno shaman, with an unexplainable joy
making energy devices with sound and sparks and lights and magnets and coils and
maybe OU, one day.
like Archimedes the Great, Leonardo Da Vinci , or Orville Wright
those who are 'woke up'...
the sheep will never understand, nor care to.
When we save them they won't even know what happened.
Quote from: forumblog on February 17, 2016, 12:14:37 PM
Regarding, undulating fields between magnets,
I first found possible evidence for that idea from the following webpage, http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st30 (http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st30) , although that is between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth.
So, to replicate the interaction between the magnetic-fields of the sun and the earth, I thought it would be logical to space two magnets sufficiently far apart, and that there must or may be a very specific distance at which that could happen .
( of course it's possible I may have misinterpreted the above webpage too much, because when I look at diagrams on other webpages, of the sun's magnetic-field affecting the earths magnetic-field, the earth's field looks like it's in an aerodynamics test, with it's field totally blown backwards as if it were in a storm )
What you missed in the article at that link is the solar wind. It's a plasma of charged particles. Of course you are looking at static images of the solar wind but you have to remember that the planet is also rotating. That rotation sets up somewhat of an undulation as viewed from a fixed point on the ground. Picture the rotating earth with a fixed point rotating into that pressure from the solar wind as the fixed point reaches sunrise, peaking at noon, and rotating away from the solar wind at sunset, reaching the minimum at midnight, and progressing back into the solar wind again. Of course that's a 24 hour period which is rather long and it's still not even close to any kind of regular rhythm because the solar wind speed and density also vary.
You also have to factor in the van Allen radiation belts that capture some, but not all, of the charged particles ejected in the solar wind and the van Allen belts themselves are variable.
Another thing that's missing from those static images is that the earth's magnetic field is also variable and not at all fixed as shown in the images. So is the sun's magnetic field.
There is an interesting animation of the solar wind at the following link. I built a version of Tesla's radiant energy collector and logged voltages over several months along with local conditions such as time in relation to sunset/sunrise, temperature, humidity, wind speed direction, UV level, etc. and found no correlation between local weather and the voltage readings. But when I started recording the solar wind density and speed I found an inverse relationship between the solar wind density and the voltage measured - lower density gave higher voltage and higher density gave lower voltage readings. It's similar to a cloud passing between the sun and a photovoltaic panel. My theory is that the higher density of the solar wind plasma causes the more energetic charged particles from the sun to be absorbed in collisions between those particles and the particles of the solar wind and thus fewer reached the collector I built. Or it may be that the higher density gives the van Allen radiation belts a higher charge so they capture more of the higher energy particles. Here's the link:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/wsa-enlil-solar-wind-prediction (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/wsa-enlil-solar-wind-prediction)
When you click the play button on the animation it downloads the current data so it takes a bit to start up.
The interesting part of this is the "magnetic reconnection". They say reconnection releases energy at the time of the reconnection but I haven't found anything yet on exactly how that occurs and I don't think they know. It might be that the magnetic field lines capture charged particles and when the reconnection occurs these particles are thrown off and so might be captured for measurement. I think this is what is happening in "Barkhausen noise" also but on a tiny scale rather than a planetary scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLXVLDysroY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLXVLDysroY)
I suspect that magnetic flux lines in the magnetic material are shifted in the material and as the flux lines pass over impurities in the material they are broken and a tiny amount of energy is released when they reconnect. So the Barkhausen noise would be the released energy from those reconnections occurring. Of course, the material will have hysteresis so I don't think moving the flux lines across the impurities and back can be done at high enough frequencies to obtain any meaningful power.
Capturing charged particles with magnetic flux lines is also used in magnetron sputtering to increase the sputtering rate but that is done in a vacuum so it is sort of like an artificial van Allen belt in that application. That it works in magentron sputtering gives some credence to my theory about the solar wind density affecting the Tesla radiant energy collector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf2kkqZhL7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf2kkqZhL7U)
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=644&tbm=isch&q=magnetron+sputtering&revid=329862273&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix__a38r_KAhVPxGMKHcQECPYQ1QIIIg&dpr=1#imgrc=_ (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=644&tbm=isch&q=magnetron+sputtering&revid=329862273&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix__a38r_KAhVPxGMKHcQECPYQ1QIIIg&dpr=1#imgrc=_)
I hope this might be helpful.
Yes, I actually did know that the article also involves the solar-wind, and that because the earth is rotating( and it's magnetic-field is from the earth's-core, which itself is rotating in a different axis ), and the sun is a dynamic-device, etc.
I have never heard about 'Barkhausen noise' . I assume this occurs in household permanent-magnets.
You explanation/theory of it sounds very logical.
But what if you are wrong, and it could actually be a potential source of either creating kinetic-motion between two magnets, or to achieve undulating-fields between two magnets.
- What about superconductors( super-cooled-magnets ), and maybe graphene( and the new superconductor version of graphene ), and stanene, do they have 'Barkhausen noise' .
Strangely enough, in the permanent-magnet-motor thread, a few months ago, I posted an idea of adding impurities to the surface of a permanent-magnet, to try and create a spray-effect emanating from the permanent-magnet, to provide a dynamic-traction between 2 permanent-magnets, to achieve successful rotation in a magnet-motor.
Also, currently a theory has been presented on this site that the magnetic-field is made of tubes, vortices, vortex-tubes, and the evidence is observed with an electron microscope, below
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxVqO5zPmvU
Apparently this theory existed before einstien , it's well worth looking up the theory and research etc.
I believe Earth magnetic field is induced. Cheers ;D
Quote from: guest1289 on March 05, 2016, 06:20:58 PM
I have never heard about 'Barkhausen noise' . I assume this occurs in household permanent-magnets.
You explanation/theory of it sounds very logical.
But what if you are wrong, and it could actually be a potential source of either creating kinetic-motion between two magnets, or to achieve undulating-fields between two magnets.
- What about superconductors( super-cooled-magnets ), and maybe graphene( and the new superconductor version of graphene ), and stanene, do they have 'Barkhausen noise' .
The Barkhausen effect actually is demonstrated in unmagnetised ferromagnetic materials (iron, ferrite, etc) when a magnetic field is brought near and moved away the material, not the magnets themselves. It's best demonstrated with neodymium magnets because they are strong but I think any sufficiently strong magnetic field source will work.
I don't know that much about supercondcutors but I've read that one of the effects is that the magnetic field is ejected from the material so it's unlikely there would be much or any Barkhausen effect.
I've seen some papers on graphene and stanene but they mostly focus on conductivity, i.e. "room temperature superconduction". I remember one paper said that stanene could conduct electricity without losses to heat which kind of implies no magnetic excitation but it wasn't really very clear. I think most of the work on stanene is still in computer models. As far as I know neither are ferromagnetic so I don't think an approaching or receding magnetic field would have any effect. I don't know enough about them to even guess whether doping with ferromagnetic materials cause the effect.
forestQuoteI believe Earth magnetic field is induced.
geodynamo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
It seems the actual origin of this induced magnetic-field is
QuoteTidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors.
Makes me wonder if this occurs between electrons and protons/neutrons, or between atoms, or between materials. I had read theories wondering that if you could completely insulate any material, then it should build up heat, but I doubt that any material exists that could completely insulate something, it all leaks via radiation.
-------------------
It would be a good idea if someone here starts up a thread, on the magnetic-sputtering idea, and maybe include the words 'magnetic-sputtering' ( or spray ) in the title and maybe include the words 'dynamic' magnetic-fields' from 'static magnets', since people with knowledge about that wouldn't think to look at a thread like this.
The main idea is to put things on, or coat the surface( or, in the original mixture ) of a permanent-magnet, with something, to try and cause a constantly changing, dynamic, magnetic-field, even if the movement is very small.
The material to cause that effect could be piezoelectric( like crystals ) or ferroelectric, or even permanent'magnets made of another material( to see what the incompatibility causes ).
But what about coating a magnet( or somehow mixing ) it with superconductors like the different versions of graphene, and stanene( which hasn't actually been created yet ), since superconductors eject magnetic-fields, maybe the time-difference between an-ejected-field and the field of the permanent-magnet could cause a sufficiently large enough permanent-motion.
Could the time-difference( some difference in electron-spin ) between 2 separate magnetic-fields, cause a sufficiently large enough permanent-motion.
Thats a reason why full-levitation, just by using permanent-magnets, interests me so much.
( I posted a lot of designs on how easily that should be achieved, and it doesn't contravene earnshaw's-theory, because the levitation is not stable enough, even though it does remain fully-levitating )
But it occurred to me, that if you'd have a large-neodymium-magnet fully-levitating from the fields of static-permanent'magnets, that any tiny movement by the fully-levitating-large-neodymium-magnet, would be greatly amplified at the outermost-tips of it's magnetic-field , turning it into a useful source of energy.
( also, maybe you could coat the surface of a magnet with tiny magnets that are somehow fully-levitating, and then that causes a bigger constant-movement, and then that causes a bigger constant-movement, and that cycle repeats until the movement is big enough to generate useful energy )
guest1289QuoteBut it occurred to me, that if you'd have a large-neodymium-magnet fully-levitating from the fields of static-permanent'magnets, that any tiny movement by the fully-levitating-large-neodymium-magnet, would be greatly amplified at the outermost-tips of it's magnetic-field , turning it into a useful source of energy.
( also, maybe you could coat the surface of a magnet with tiny magnets that are somehow fully-levitating, and then that causes a bigger constant-movement, and then that causes a bigger constant-movement, and that cycle repeats until the movement is big enough to generate useful energy )
The Amplification Of The Oscillating Magnetic-field Of A Fully-Levitating Permanent-Magnet
So this oscillation is amplified at the very outer-tip( point-x1 ) of the magnetic-field( measurable-field ) of a fully-levitating permanent-magnet( magnet-x1 ) just levitating on the fields of other permanent-magnets( via the different simple methods I have posted ).
Now what if you used point-x1 to cause another fully-levitating permanent-magnet of the same size as magnet-x1, to oscillate more than it normally would, and then keep on adding more and more levels of magnets further amplifying the oscillation, eventually the oscillation would be big enough to produce useful energy.