Hello,
A newbie here. (with a bachelor's degree in physics that has not been utilized in a career situation)
Been interested in 'free' energy for quite sometime, however, I have really gone into high gear in the last month or so.
Experiments and/or reading nightly.
Here's the thing... MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY (or even magnetic susceptibility).
Why? Isn't this word being tossed around like like a baseball during the warm up for the 1st inning of a ballgame?
Yes... I didn't remember this completely, if even at all, til I started investigating.
Anyways... This is the jist.
Say a certain coil (CC) produces a magnetic field (MF) with a certain amount of current (I) going through it.
Fine.. the magnetic field is MF... or 1*(MF) would be the same thing.
Well, now stick a material with a Magnetic Permeablity of 5,000 (Soft Iron) in the middle of the coil,
...and...
taaaaaaa daaaaaaa
THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE 'COIL' IS 5,000 TIMES STRONGER with no extra current needed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is, what was 1*(MF) is now 5,000*(MF).
Last I checked with my algebra teacher... this is not equal and a far cry from a unity situation.
So where does the all that extra Magnetic Power come from?
Needs to be conserved you know.
The answer taps into an infinite source I tell you.
There are about a gazillion little rotateable coils in that piece of iron that run continuously energized by two unpaired electrons.
That is, each iron atom has a magnetic field produced by ... (same as always) electrons moving.
Now, under normal circumstances these little "coils" (iron atoms) are pointed every which way, which then ADDS up to a total magnetic field of about zero.
Yes... It ADDS up... a very very very key point... to zero. <--- a misleading figure that zero
Well, those dang debunker types like James Randi? are going to go silient (can I say shit their pants, here?)
when they realize that they can also ADD up to a net total of ALL the current running in those gazzilllions of atoms.
NOBODY is going to stop those electrons from going round the atom no matter how negative they may be.
This is the aforementioned infinite source. The source that powers atoms. Period
Here is what happens... the small magnetic field from the coil (CC) literally organizes the whole grid of Iron.
What added up to near zero now adds up to 5,000 !!!!
This is significant... this is awesome & this is a definite answer.
It happens that some materials, such as metal used in recording heads can have a MP of around 1,000,000.
That's right 1 F'in Million ! Whacks out my brain a bit... how bout you?
Ok, I'm going to calm down... but it is exciting to say the least.
Well, at this point, if ideas aren't running through your head like a pack of wild zebras, I can't do much else.
I have many ideas... but I have boiled it down to "something that sounds like this." Thanks Charlie D.
A coil... a 2nd coil around the 1st coil ... and a piece of (let's go big) the 1 MILLION grade ferromagnetic material in the middle !
Then, in the first coil a circuit that oscillates, perhaps at the Ferromagnetic atom's RESONANT FREQUENCY, with minimal energy used.
Finally, the second coil collects the changing magnetic field's resultant current. Presumably on the order 1 Million Times the power used in the first coil.
Heck....Even it were a 2 to 1 ratio it would work !
Well, I know this is a kind of transformer,
just tell me why the MP effect (a switchable magnetic power amplifier) cannot be utilized in a clever, simple and cheap fashion to create 'free' energy.
Well, that's all for now.
May we work together brilliantly and treat each other with the highest respect no matter what the circumstances.
God Speed,
The Observer
Hello all,
@Observer
look in Steven Marks TPU devices - the thread: Is Lindsays SM a fraud?....- my posts. Maybe it helps you??
Otto
Quote from: The Observer on June 02, 2008, 02:38:15 AM
Hello,
A newbie here. (with a bachelor's degree in physics that has not been utilized in a career situation)
...
Well, now stick a material with a Magnetic Permeablity of 5,000 (Soft Iron) in the middle of the coil,
...and...
taaaaaaa daaaaaaa
THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE 'COIL' IS 5,000 TIMES STRONGER with no extra current needed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
Assuming a current generator is powering the coil, you forgot the work needed to put the new core material inside the coil. It is the energy you will retrieve in the magnetic field.
No free lunch this way, Lenz law still applies! :)
@Observer,
And if core is in coil before power is applied, it takes more work in the form of current to create the stronger magnetic field. No free lunch this way either.
Hello,
Thanks for the response.
EXN... the energy to put the core in the coil?
I am definitely not counting the work it takes to initially put it together. lol
That's nutty dude,
and it has nothing to do with the result of magnetic dipoles lining up ....to ADD up to more than they ADDED up to... before a field is applied.
That is my point...
Xee... You say it takes more current for more magnetic field.
1stly I will refer to this page from the National High Magnetic Field Lab at Florida State.
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/magnets/page4.html
Here you will find the following statement....
We can improve the magnetic field power of this solenoid even more by inserting an iron alloy core in the middle. Remember our iron atoms of earlier, and how each was a tiny little magnet? Well, when you put the iron alloy core into a magnetic field, all the atoms in the iron align with it and, in so doing, boost the magnet?s field strength significantly ? yet without using more electricity!
2ndly I will recite 2 formulas.
The 1st is for the magnetic field (flux density) of a solenoid. The 2nd is for a magnetic field of a solenoid with a core.
You can find reference to this here .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance
Formula #1 that simply relates the Magnetic Field of a Coil
B = ( μ0 * N * i ) / l
where μ0 is the permeability of free space, N the number of turns, i the current and l the length of the coil.
Let's see... the magnetic field strength is proportianl to μ0....N... and i, and inversely proportional to to the length.
Lets break it down so there are no mistakes.
- μ0 is a constant. End of story.
-As N goes up.... so does B the magnetic flux or strength. simple algebra
-As i goes up.... so does B. Simple algebra
-As l goes up... B Goes down. More simple algebra
Alrighty, now onto
Formula #2 that simply relates the Magnetic Field of a Coil with a Core.
B = (μ0 * μr * N * i) / l
where μr is the relative permeability of the material within the solenoid.
Brake down time is same as above.... BUT with one minor... or perhaps major difference.
As μr (the Magnetic Permiability of the core) goes up... so does B... simple dang algebra.
So it all comes down to (since μ0, N, i and l will be a constant in a given system) is the value of μr.
Most materials have a value very close to 1... a few others have much more than 1.
And this (the others... the ferromagnetic materials) my friend, is what I am referring to when I quote numbers like 5,000 and 1,000,000.
Thanks for reading this.
May we be brilliant, open minded and resilient.
The Observer
@Observer,
You are using equations for after steady state current (which is after domains are lined up). The work is needed to line up the domains during the turn on transient current increase. To see difference in work you need to integrate current over time required to reach steady state.
Hey Xee,
Thank you for your reply.
You are saying that it takes quite a bit of force and time to turn the atom dipoles?
Thus inferring that the extra energy (work) has to do with the time and force required to turn them. hmmm
The time it takes for a piece of iron to be attracted to any magnet...is virtually nill, the last time I checked.
This is the time it take for the dipoles to line up that I am referring to.
As for the force to turn them... I don't have the statistics, but it ain't much, this is why they turn so fast.
Ever heard of NMR? Dipoles can be set to spin for a relatively long time after the right frequency is applied.
I think the friction can labeled as negligable.
If you really want to challenge this, please come up with some formulas or something concrete.
Please do not assume your high school physics teacher (and the oil companies) are right when it comes to
the notion that we must pay for energy. This is an AGENDA. The physics teacher just doesn't realize it.
"Ah Ah, you can't do that because someone told me it can't be so..."
This is where many get stuck... judging because of brainwashing as opposed to just observation.
By the way, there are numerous patents for magnet generators that use a small amount of electricity to produce a greater amount of electricity or power.
I am saying, this is how and why they work.
Refer here ..... http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-inventors
If you have been brainwashed enough.. you will say that the patent office has wrongly issued these patents. lol
(not all need electricity to work, I am referring to the ones that do)
Gotta go...
The Observer
Another thing is - that as long as there is no core -
the B is only limited by the current the coil can handle.
If put in a core with ur - this core has a maximum B -depending
on the ur. Cores with high ur have low B ratings and vice
versa.
Just look into datasheets.
The core bundles and focusses the magnetic field - this gives
it more power and strength to the "outside" world - so it looks
like the "power" increases. If you set up the differential equations
for the magnetic vector potential (which sould be easy with a master degree)
- you will see. Or try it out.
If you move the plates of a charged cap - the charge stays the same -
only the voltage changes.
If you move a core into a coil - and ignore the energy balance of
the power used to put it in or pull it out its similar.
(.....)
Hello again,
By the way Xee, I do think you did bring up a very good point that needs to be understood.
Thank you.
I will definitely investigate as that I may come up with a concrete explanation myself as opposed to a loose justification.
Sincerely,
The Observer
@Observer,
Yes, it takes time for domains to turn and some take more force to turn them than others. I do not seem to be much help to you. Perhaps someone else can explain better. I give up. You also might try re-reading your physics books.
@Observer
Now here is something I have been working on and off and may have some bearing on what you are discussing but in more rudimentary terms. Sort of like a super efficient transformer where you are working with the magnetism in the core. In the photo you will notice two iron wire rings coming out of the north and south side of a laminated core covered with a coil. This is taken from a small 120 volts fan motor. You will notice that the bottom ring starts on the left and stops on the right side iron laminate. Then the top ring starts on the right and stops on the left core laminate. This sends a north and south magnetism through the rings. Now when you send a reversing polarity pulse into the coil, this changes the north and south magnetism inside the laminated core and hence the rings and if you have a winding over the ring, this should produce some juice. Of course this is a small scale but the idea is instead of turning a rotor, just switch the magnetism in the core inside the windings. Now add a few magnets to this with another iron core and it could be interesting. The winding over the ring is a 175 strand 46 awg Litz wire. I now know there is not enough winding so I will redo it soon with more litz wire. I recently tried this by adding 2 neo magnets on each side and a top connected iron rod and plugged it into 110 volts ac. It was jumping all over the place. lol
You may also look at the Controller circuit thread where Jacks motor is using huge neo magnets and coils to produce OU (unofficially for now). I believe the magnet and the coil arrangement is producing much faster coil activation rates, promoting core saturation rates that are much much faster at much less driving energy. Pretty incredible and hopefully will be applied to so many other types of OU devices, mainly non-motive designs.
@Observer,
Maybe this will help. When you have electromagnet with core you actually have two magnets. One is the core which becomes equivalent to permanent magnet and other is coil which requires current. The magnetic field is sum of fields from both magnets but current is only required for the coil magnet (after the core domains are lined up). Thus magnet with core can have larger magnetic field than magnet without core for same amount of current use (after the domains are lined up). You could get the same thing by using a permanent magnet and a coil together and you can get same magnetic field with no current consumption by just using large permanent magnet.
Hey Fritz,
Thank you for you comment.
First, you wrote...
The core bundles and focuses the magnetic field.
I really think you mean the solenoid.
The solenoid squeezes it, or focuses the field of the wire into one general spot along the axis of itself..
A solenoid with a small radius will do this more than one with a large one.
The core really does no focusing...it does organize however.
By the way, I do not have a masters in physics... To my dad's dismay ( a physics prof ) I enjoyed life as a ski bum for 10 years instead.
In my first post I referred to a bachelor's degree in Physics & Math with a minor in Geology from a liberal arts college.
Second,
You are right in the sense that my above explanation leaves out some important details...
however, they do not interfere with what I am saying if you stay within the bounds.
Let me explain. (note... core referred to is of ferromagnetic material)
Yes.. a coil with no core will produce ..basically.. a magnetic field in accordance with Formula #1 above.
Yes... a coil with a core will have kind of a sweet spot so to speak, not to mention a gradient. (Formula #2 doesn't mention this)
That is, there is a point where the weakest weakest weakest magnetic field from the coil will only turn 1 atom of the core's matrix.
This is where amplification begins. The resultant field in simple terms is the MF of the Coil + 1 atom dipole.
Then the gradient... where there is not only an interaction between the Coil's MF and Core's Dipoles... but of the Dipoles and the other Dipoles.
I agree, this can be quite complicated. But the result leans toward total organization.
Then finally, Saturation... where no more dipoles are left to line up. It is maxed out depending on the # of atoms in the core.
More Magnetic Field can be produced with more current... but when you reach saturation, ONLY Formula #1 applies for the addition to the field.
At Saturation...the total MF is the MF of the coil + the MF of all the atoms in the core.
So, this magnetic amplification has a range...
from MFC + 1 dipole to MFC + all the dipoles where MFC is Magnetic Field of the Coil.
and is not infinite in terms of amplification, but is in terms of sustainability.
Again I will state... Conservation of Energy bites the 'everything has a price' believers and agenda...er's right in the ass.
Those electrons will not stop spinning, nor will they stop producing a small magnetic field.
It can add up to nothing... it can add up to something.
Whether nothing or something you must conserve the energy of those electrons.
WHAT, WHY or HOW those electrons keep moving is a damn good question, but irrelevant to this discussion.
They do, and it does not matter what you say or do, they will just a keep on truckin.
Ok... I am going to try and address all points.
You wrote.... If you move the plates of a charged cap - the charge stays the same - only the voltage changes.
I say that's neat.
Then you wrote... If you move a core into a coil - and ignore the energy balance of the power used to put it in or pull it out its similar.
I am going to assume you mean a certain amount of energy is required to put the core in the coil when it is running current.
Thus you are inferring that this energy subtracts from the amplification I am talking about.
First... This has nothing to do with inserting the core.
The core is there, in one place, statically positioned so that it may not move in relation to the coil
It was put there in the manufacturing process when no current was running through the coil.
Second...
I have news for you... a magnet will attract ferromagnetic material no matter what angles are involved.
I admit putting a magnet into a coil the the wrong way would be a project to say the least.... however,
this does not apply to ferromagnetic materials where magnetic direction and positioning of the material are not related.
Well, I think that is it.
Again, I thank you kindly Fritz. You aren't the only one with doubts.
All of these issues need to be addressed for a change of paradigm to occur !
May we look at this marvelous universe without judgment.
The Observer
Dear Xee,
I did go to my College Physics Book that covers this. It is an extensive well written big black book of physics.
Interestingly enough... I mean INTERESTINGLY enough, the book talks in length about Magnetic Susceptibility where the numbers are not obvious,
and gives a fine chart of these numbers with different materials. Only the materials are the Diamagnetic ones and the Paramagnetic ones.
The ones that react lightly one way or the other to an external magnetic field. FERROMAGNETIC ONES WERE LEFT OUT. hmmm
Then when it came to Magnetic Permeability... which is derived from the Susceptibility, they left it to a footnote calculation with NO CHART OF THESE #s !
The numbers that mean the magnetic field is literally amplified by that amount. Like 5,000 or 1,000,000 times.
Of course even figuring out the Ferromagnetic materials that lead to the big #s would be a challenge since the chart only mentions the Dia & Para Materials.
Gee Wiz Wally !!!
Only 1 single rather small paragraph !!! was dedicated to the fact that the magnetic field is increased without any extra current in a solenoid/core situation.
It was like finding a needle in haystack.
I can see a naysayer saying, that is because it is not important.
Well, we are going to have to differ on that and the reason it may have been brushed over.
As far as the domains turning... that is kind of a misstatement. The domains get bigger as a result of the the adjacent atom dipoles lining up.
It's not as if this big thing turns. Only the dipoles turn and the domains thus increase in size.
As far as trying to help me.. how bout saying 1 positive thing about this. Hell, I'd appreciate more if you got em !
With that, I do thank you for your comments. It does help clarify my thoughts.
Regards,
The Observer
Wattsup....
I not only thank you for your comment,
but also your courage, or just plain curiosity that enables you to look past the status quo of "I can't, you can't, we can't".
Or maybe you are just smarter than the average Watsssuppper. ;o)
Never-the-less, that contraption looks pretty cool.
And you are the first person who has imparted information to me that shows you understand how this works.
That is, there are no moving parts cept the atoms of the paramagnetic material and the magnetic field of the coil.
Your post gives me an idea that a magnet in the mix would really give the dipoles something to spin back to after the pulse.
A definite source of extra energy on the down side of the cycle.
Otherwise. it may be possible to get those dipoles spinning at their Resonant Frequency with just the coil, no magnets.
This would even use less energy than just any alternating current frequency since of spin or motion is accumulative in a Resonant situation.
Not only that... lower harmonic frequencies will trigger higher ones, which means the frequency of the pulses may not have to be all that high.
Keep going and keep me posted.
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
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
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
@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...
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
Hey Observer, you bring up some good points.
QuoteThen 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.
Wiki is not so correct about this. The power in equals the power out but the voltages and currents do not have to equal each other. Vin can be way larger than V-out, I-in can be way lower than I-out. But they are ratioed with each other. So whatever V-in or I-in are, V-out can be equal, larger, or smaller. In the case that V-out is smaller, I-out will be able to be larger than I-in. If V-out is larger, then I-out will be smaller than I-in. It works just like mechanical gears.
Now the reason they say that the primary does not consume any energy is because typically the inductance is very large. So the power factor of the primary circuit is close to zero - meaning the power in the primary is mostly reactive power. There is still resistance losses in the primary (plus things are never ideal and the power factor is probably greater than zero, meaning there is some real power consumption). When you apply the secondary, the secondary should have its impedance matched with the primary winding. This allows real power to transfer to the secondary (the turns ratios between primary and secondary can scale the voltage/current - but typically not the power).
The efficiency of a transformer is Pin/Pout. In the case of your test question, a stove generates heat through resistance. However, you want current to flow so you will make sure the resistance is lower so more current flows. The heating elements will then be made of a metal (and a size) that is not rated for the amount of current flowing in them. Clocks have a high resistance too, but usually have inverters inside to step the voltage down to probably ~12V or so. So, 12V divided by a large resistance is much lower current than 120V divided by a resistance. I would imagine a stove has a fairly low resistance compared to a clock - since you want more current to flow in the heating elements. I've never measured either of them so I wouldn't know.
You are correct that a transformer is just like a radio receiver. Also, I didn't say your idea would not work, I said it wouldn't work easily, I believe back torque can be overcome - I'm still working on that though. And I agree that they do not explain the way metals tend to amplify the magnetic field without any input energy - the energy required to align the poles is usually very very little - depending on the material of course.
Hey Charlie,
Actually I owe you an apology in that, I may have insinuated that you said my idea (or something like it could not work).
Indeed you said 'work easily'. Thank You.
I think you can see what I am talking about... and greatly appreciate your input.
I am surprised more haven't jumped in on this.
It is nice to get feedback, because that causes new questions that need to be correctly answered.
Something I apparently find... fun.
Now you said, '"It works just like mechanical gears."
As in Pin = Pout and I and V match up when all is said in done to make P=IV (primary) = P=IV (secondary).
I know, this is what is accepted.
In fact my College Physics book says that everything I say that I am wrong.
Well, not quite, there are holes in their assertion, but anyways...
That is, they say .....Pin always ='s Pout,
where I am saying, "I'm not so sure about that !"
Here is what I say.
You (not you Charlie, the misinformed) are comparing apples to oranges.
Gears are a Newtonian device ... a transformer is a Quantum Mechanical device.
The rules are so different that old Lorentz's head would spin just looking at all the free lunches.
It is very useful, in understanding quantum physics to observe a stone that is thrown in a pond.
There is plenty I know I'm not seeing, but this is what I do see.
1) The wave created by the stone goes out in all directions.
2) The wave created by the stone has a constant speed.
3) The wave created by the stone makes a leaf on the water bounce up and down when it passes by.
4) The wave created by the stone can make many leaves bounce up and down.
5) Because of the finite and constant speed of the wave in water, when the wave passes a fixed object (say a stick in the mud),
The resultant wave from this interference can never interfere with any other portion of the original wave.
6) Oh, wait a minute... here comes a water bug, Let's call the bug Charlie.
Charlie's top speed seems to be the same as the wave of water's speed.
7) Charlie must have seen something, because he suddenly scurried across the water !
Charlie's movement created a wave. And Charlie was always the the for front of the wave produced.
8) When Charlie stopped, so did the creation of the wave produced by Charlie's movement.
9) A new bug with same top speed arrives on the scene wearing sunglasses and a straw cowboy hat, named Chuck.
10) Charlie suddenly decides to scamper over to the shore that is a long ways away. (Chuck looks a little strange)
This produces a wave.
11) Chuck who was standing near by (look'in cool), finds out that Charlie left when he felt that wave. (these bugs are blind)
The wake of Charlie's wave let Chuck know that something happened.
12) After Chuck recieves this information, Chuck decides that Charlie must be Stopped ! from reaching the shore.
Chuck likes Charlie and just wants a hug.
Alternately, Chuck is so cool, he doesn't even flinch at this new information, and just rides the wave like the leaves.
13) Chuck chases... "Must stop Charlie, Charlie cannot get to shore. Must conserve energy."
14) Do I have to tell you who loses the race?
When something else moves... it is a result of a previous action.
Sure it has an action (movement), but there is no equal and opposite reaction.
What happened, happened.
An equal and opposite reaction would have to reach beyond the bounds of time and space to achieve this.
Because of the nature of the medium in which it exists,
Nothing can really catch up with anything else.
As far a transformer goes, I hope you can see the analogy.
That is, what is forced in first coil, is just absorbed by the other.
The best way for the coil to conserve energy is to just bounce like a leaf in the pond, that's it.
I am pretty sure, but don't quote me yet.
That the back emf has to with the energy of all the dipoles turning back to their original position from the ferromagnetic material of the core.
This energy of course doesn't have to be a bad thing.
In fact, is probably an important factor in finding resonance in a the circuit I am talking about.
Thanks for reading.
There will probably be more as my exploration continues.
Any comments, thoughts, or even a thought experiment that continues the one I started with the pond, would be much appreciated.
And with that, I wave goodbye, ~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Observer
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Transformers:
Lets design a transformer.
A transformer is typically designed for its payload.
That means that the flux generated from the primary
coil is compensated by the flux from the secondary -
which gives an overall low flux compared to saturation
densities. N*I1 = N*I2.
If you don?t take the rated payload - the flux in the core
as well as the losses go up.
This means that a transformer has the worst efficiency
without load (gets warm) because of too much flux.
You can design a transformer for low losses without load -
then you need more iron.
You can even make a transformer with very less iron and big
coils - but this restricts your load range.
Another thing are the losses an resistance of the coil ....
....
Build one or think about it. There is no "transformer".
Every transformer is optimized for something.
A pulse transformer is something different than
a mains transformer - and a mains filter ....
Hello Fritz,
Thanks for your input.
I guess I have a hard time with the word compensated.
I really, really believe that the electrons in the secondary move only as a result of the wave or waves that pass by.
I don't believe they have any momentum, that allows them to create their own magnetic wave in the coil.
When the wave stops, so do the electrons in the secondary.
The wave is what makes them move, the absence of a wave means the absence of movement in the secondary.
Perhaps down line in closed circuit secondary, away from the primary's magnetic field, a new wave can be produced.
But, I really don't see how a new wave is created at the secondary to counter act the primary.
ESPECIALLY when nothing is connected to the secondary.
How could No Electrons Moving create a field to get back at the primary?
What is being said...(not me) is that...
A current will not run through the primary when there is nothing loaded on the secondary.
Yes, I know they say there will be a little leak do to imperfections.
Gee Wizz... what would happen if I put in a Thirdary, Fourthary, or even 10aries in the vicinity of the primary.
I guess they would all be communicating with each other to make sure Laws that have to do with Conservation of Energy are being upheld.
This means that a radio transmitter emits no power if no-one is tuned in.
This means that the radio transmitter could also determine how many are tuned in (with resonant circuits) at any given moment, since
it's power would be in direct relation to the power being used by the coils in the radios.
This is Bull Hockey. (that is a bull on ice doesn't stand up very well does he?)
Here is a real question.
What really happens when I short circuit the secondary of a transformer?
Let's say the secondary's circuit is made of some really hearty material that won't melt. (like the electric stove)
Will this blow the AC Circuit breaker in the house or melt the primary ?
I realize there is a lot of theory here, and not much for experiments.
I have taken apart a couple transformers (not an easy task), but I guess I would need to make my own from parts
and acquire a VARIAC (I think) to produce a variety of voltages as well as frequencies.
Well, this is not over for me.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Have a Glorious Day !
The Observer
QuoteThat is, they say .....Pin always ='s Pout,
where I am saying, "I'm not so sure about that !"
Yea I agree with you, science in general talks like they know everything - very arrogant if you ask me.
QuoteGears are a Newtonian device ... a transformer is a Quantum Mechanical device.
Yes, gears and transformers are completely different. A gear does not suffer from an effect like back EMF/Torque. A gear only has resistive losses. Really, I've tried to think of a mechanical analogy to Back EMF and there is none - this sets electrical phenomenon on a completely different playing field.
QuoteI am pretty sure, but don't quote me yet.
That the back emf has to with the energy of all the dipoles turning back to their original position from the ferromagnetic material of the core.
This energy of course doesn't have to be a bad thing.
In fact, is probably an important factor in finding resonance in a the circuit I am talking about.
I have no idea what back EMF really is and why it happens. It could be related to the ferromagnetic core but I'm not so sure since you get back EMF in air cores too. I don't think back EMF is a bad thing, I think it is necessary - I just don't know why haha.
QuoteBut, I really don't see how a new wave is created at the secondary to counter act the primary.
ESPECIALLY when nothing is connected to the secondary.
How could No Electrons Moving create a field to get back at the primary?
The counter acting wave only occurs when the secondary is loaded. If the secondary is open, there is no counter acting magnetic field. You get a voltage. When the coil is loaded (a short being the highest load it could see), electrons flow in a direction to create a magnetic field that opposes the applied field. IF your applied field (being a magnet of another coil) is directly coupled, the counter field will fight the movement.
So, if you want to stop them from fighting, you need to find a way that the coil sees a changing magnetic field, but the field it creates is in a position that it can't fight the applied field.
QuoteThis means that a radio transmitter emits no power if no-one is tuned in.
This means that the radio transmitter could also determine how many are tuned in (with resonant circuits) at any given moment, since
it's power would be in direct relation to the power being used by the coils in the radios.
Radio transmitters "radiate" their power away - their load is the surroundings. They cannot see nor do they care about the receivers. They put out X amount of power in all directions. The receivers collect a small fraction of that, depending on how far away they are. If you could cover 360 degrees of a transmitter with receivers, you could collect that X power divided by the number of receivers, in each receiver.
Now a Magnifying Transmitter (aka a Tesla coil - made the way Tesla intended) WILL see the receivers. Thats because a Tesla coil channels the energy directly to the receivers, it does not radiate the energy in all directions into space. SO the Tesla coil is only loaded when a receiver is on. The more receivers, the more load on the Tesla coil. A radio antenna is 99.9% loaded all the time, and whatever the receiver collects is a small fraction.
A radio antenna is like a water sprinkler spraying water in all directions, the receivers are like cups. You can place a cup some distance from the spraying sprinkler, you will fill the cup up with a very small amount of water. The closer to the sprinkler, the more water it will fill. A Magnifying transmitter shoots a stream of water directly into your cup no matter the distance. However, the more cups there are, the more streams the MT makes and the less water is available for each cup.
Hello Charlie,
Thanks for your input.
I will consider your response at work today.
Be Well,
The Observer
Back EMF (electro magnetic force)
is quite easy explained and simple.
Mechanics:
Accelerate a flywheel with a slipping belt and a dc
motor. On turning on the belt will slip, but finally the
flywheel will reach the motor speed. Now the flywheel
is "charged" with rotational energy @ x .rpm.
If you decrease now the dc voltage which powers the
motor - the motor will (wants to) spin slower. Because the flywheel
is turning now faster than the motor - you will get
a pull instead of a push what concerns the belt.
The energy in the flywheel is now consumed by the motor
which wants to turn slower - now the motor turns into a generator
which wants to get rid of the extra energy from the flywheel - by
charging the battery (current reverses).
Well, every motor has a mass and is a flywheel. thats it.
Thats Back EMF, quite simple.
Or accelerate a car - if you release the gas pedal it doesn?t
stand sill instantly, no it slows down - consuming its inerta
versus friction.
Or if you start to run - and want to stop with one step -doesnt
work, you have to destroy the kinetic energy which is stored in
your accelerated body.
If I understood you, you are saying that back-EMF's mechanical equivalent is inertia? I have to think about this some.
Ok, lets say you have a traditional dc motor with
high mass spinning at 500 rpm (because u supplied
a voltage x before which causes this speed).
Then you change the voltage (jump) to a value which
would finally ends up in 700rpm.
The motor takes now the same current - as if you
want to accelerate from 0 - 200rpm..
Why ?
The voltage "seen" by the motor - is the input dc voltage
minus the "inner voltage" == back EMF.
The current taken is always (
(outer voltage-inner voltage)/(inner coil resistance).
If outer voltage is lower current reverses.
There are lots of OU setups which somehow tweak around
with inner voltage, resonance and whatever claiming somehow
that in the inner voltage of the motor (in phases with no supply
current) powers back something) - here it gets difficult -
Back EMF itself is very simple.
Your not explaining what back EMF is, just how it works. I know how it works and yes it is simple. Very simple, when there is a change in magnetic field through a coil, the coil sets up a voltage. The polarity of the voltage is such that if current is allowed to flow through a load, the flowing current creates a magnetic field that opposes the initial change.
This change is geometrically dependent (unlike inertia which is independent - the mass of a weight will fight movement no matter which direction the change comes from). Back-EMF only fights change that is perpendicular to the cross-sectional area of the coil.
Back EMF is similar to inertia (or mass we should say since inertia is a mass phenomenon of rotating objects). Like the mass of a physical object, it does fight change.
I know how the back-EMF(back-Torque - which I equate to the same thing) works but I want to know why. I feel it is a balancing force, not necessarily a loss. I THINK its purpose is to balance the energy in the system. If you can unbalance it, then you might be able to collect or create energy. It would be the same if you could manipulate the inertia of a rotating object. Make it such that the force applying the rotation was not effected by the inertia of the object but the inertia of the object was present. Thus, the mass would gain a momentum but the inertia would not fight the driving force.
The only difference is that I don't see a way of doing this with a physical object, but with a magnet and coil it might be a possibility.
Hello,
Been Busy + my transmission just went out.
Anyways, back EMF is darn interesting.
I am with Charlie that I would like to know exactly how this works and what is going on.
I need to know what the waves are doing.
I did find an experiment that could shed some light on this.
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demopages/demo/em/demo/5j1023.htm
The peak of the back emf is always greater than the applied voltage.
By the way, the very nature of this guy's experiment shows back emf can be harnessed.
Be Well,
The Observer
OK.
You have an ideal current source with 1mA. (at this point you should
now what an ideal current source is).
Then you connect a capacitor with capacity C in Farad.
What happens ?
The voltage rises
Well, if you reached 100Volts you disconnect.
Now you have W= 1/2 C*U^2 energy in the cap.
Fine, the voltage on the cap is still 100V.
What happens if you short-circuit the cap ?
You got a pretty(relatively) infinite current pulse in the opposite
direction. In practic you got propably 20 Amps current pulse in the
opposite direction.
OK.
Now we take a coil with inductivity L.
We connect the coil to an ideal voltage source with 10 Volts.
What happens ?
The current rises.
Well, now we short circuit the coil if it reached 1 Amps.
What happens ? - the current goes down slowly.
(on a superconducting coil - the current would stay at 1 Amp)
The energy in the coil at this point in time is W = 1/2 *L*I^2.
If you open now the current loop - you got a very high and
negative voltage - lets say 200V, depending on material.
What does this all mean ?
Capacitors and inductors can store energy.
The cap stores the energy if left open, the coil stores
the energy if shortened.
The capacitor can release this energy in a negative current pulse
with current multiple of the charging current. (theoretical infinite)
The inductor can release this energy in a negative voltage pulse
with voltage multiple of the charging voltage (theoretical infinite).
If it comes to DC and you have no superconducting coil - the coil
is a lousy energy storage (because of wire resistance) - but there
are MEMS - superconducting storage with powerplants on coil
basis - so its no theory.
Thats ___________very_______________ basic.
Better we avoid "Back EMF" because everbody means something
different.
In the posts before I meant the inner voltage of a dc motor caused
by the inerta of its rotating mass - which can act as a generator -
the stuff mentioned here is something completly different - but also
effects the dc motor on commutation - you turn off the current in the
coils - so you have some energy to vanish ... (....)
I don't think you need super conductors to make coils store more energy, you just need bigger coils with thicker gauge wires - of course you won't ever be able to match the field strength of a super conductor. Besides, the energy storage in a coil is around 80-99 percent, not too shabby if you ask me. Plus, if you start factoring in all the support equipment required to maintain 30 degrees Kelvin, the superconducting coil is probably worse than a regular coil.
I'm not sure how else back-EMF is defined other than the way I defined it earlier. Its the coil producing a magnetic field that opposes the applied field. In a motor it causes the current in the coil to go to zero, by inducing a current in the coil that is in the opposite direction from the applied source current. When the motor is loaded, the rotation slows down (known as slip). This causes the back-emf to no longer cancel as much of the source current as it did at no load, and the source current is allowed to flow through the coil (consuming power from the source). In generators it tries to stop the shaft rotation (which is almost always some sort of rotor with either magnets or electromagnets).
What are some other ways of describing back-emf?
QuoteBesides, the energy storage in a coil is around 80-99 percent, not too shabby if you ask me.
By this I mean the coil's efficiency at storing energy. It can be really good for properly designed coils. Of course this value can be a lot lower too, depending on how the coil is made.
A capacitor can maintain a charge for hours,
a "loaded", then shortened coil for seconds.
Because of the resistance - the current will
always decay (if not zero).
so what ?
If you measure after an hour - the capacitor has 99% charge,
the inductor 0% charge - efficency -infinite.
If I measure after 1ms, I got 100%:99.9%; depends on.
I
I'm not sure you can measure efficiency of a capacitor or coil based on time? I'm not really sure how you can calculate that now that I think about it. I guess it would be energy-in divided by energy-out. So the amount of energy stored in a capacitor divided by the amount when it is discharged. So for the coil, it will be the amount of energy stored in the magnetic field verses the amount of energy that comes out when it is shorted.
I think time needs to be eliminated from the equation because once a capacitor is charged, the discharge could be nanoseconds or hours, but the same amount of energy will come out no matter what. Same with a coil (accept the time constant on a coil is typically much shorter), but the same energy stored in the coil's magnetic field should be damn near the amount that comes out when the field collapses (minus some resistance in the coil). Thats why with big wire gauges, the efficiency of the coil will increase. 500 feet of 10 gauge wire has about 0.5 ohms of resistance where as 28 gauge wire has 32.45 ohms. The 10 gauge will be more efficient at storing energy but the coil will be larger.
Plus, another reason why we shouldn't involve time is that a rare earth permanent magnet can hold its field for an estimated 400 years, where as the best electret (look up electrets if you don't know what they are) can last MAYBE 20 years? But the energy discharged in both at the end should equal the amount first stored in the beginning. I think if you do the calculation these devices are close to 100% - pretty amazing if you ask me.
Hello Again,
I have been studying the Back EMF and Energy stored in an inductor physics.
Quickly, a good example what an coil acts like with current is to imagine a waterwheel.
When water flows, it take a while to get up to speed.
Conversely, when potential stops( the water moving), it takes awhile to slow down.
I can visualize this effect as the wave of single electron passing through the coil would get to the next coil, before the electron,
as the electron needs to go around a circle where the wave does not.
This must be where the initial resistance comes in.
Then as current is stopped... it's wave needs to still pass through the coil...this is where the back emf comes in.
Now I looked the formula that has to do with energy stored in an Inductor.
Henries I believe.
Anyways, the effect is negligible, without a ferromagnetic core.
By that I mean...The energy stored (it's inductance) can be 5,000 times greater if a ferromagnetic material is used as it's core.
So, this does bring us back to MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY.
5,000 times greater is significant.
Wish, I could elaborate... but, I must get going.
Creativity is more important than knowledge - (thanks Einstein)
The Observer
The inductivity increases with a core,
but you can squeeze more energy in a coil without
a core due to the fact that there is no saturation.
And anything curious which has somehow to do with a coil
and is to big that it fits in the head is Back EMF. of course.
sorry.
Hi The Observer,
You might find this interesting:
THE PARAMETRIC POWER CONVERSION
A STEP TOWARDS OVERUNITY......
Created on April 16th, 1997 - JLN Labs - Last update : January 10th, 2003
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraintr.htm
Also, this better EM theory might interest you
http://newelectromagnetism.com
Also, a recent effort regarding the classical - been discussed so many times before - cap anomaly:
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc/
Best wishes!
Hello Fritz,
You said,
The inductivity increases with a core,
but you can squeeze more energy in a coil without
a core due to the fact that there is no saturation.
I believe that is false.
Like I said, if you look at the formula, The MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY multiplies the energy stored or inductance.
Most Magnetic Permeabilities are about 1.
This doesn't do much ya know.... multiplying by 1.
I will tell you what does though.
Multiplying by 5,000 or more.
The materials that do this are of ferromagnetic classification.
Saturation refers a point when the core can no longer add to the magnetic field of the coil.
That is, when a coil with a core becomes magnetized, the dipoles (and thus domains) start to line up with the field.
With a very small current and magnetic field produced by the coil, only few of the domains start to line up.
This is where amplification begins.
Then there is a point, as the magnetic field of the coil increases (due to increased current), that all dipoles in the core line up.
This point is called saturation.
The current can be increased, but the resultant increase in magnetic field after saturation is as if there were no core.
Anyone exploring this... please consider what a coil does with air or any other material as it's core, then compare with a ferromagnetic core.
This is the reason this thread exists.
May the Sun Shine on your Back Door,
The Observer
Observer--
Pay heed to those who take the time to explain themselves and the theories they know. These gentlemen obviously KNOW about what they speak of. Your Degrees are impressive but they lack 'hands on' experience. Remember this 'grasshopper', youth and skill will never exceed old age and treachery..... Listen to what you cannot see, look for what you cannot hear........
My compliments on your levels of education, now welcome to the real world
LDVAN
Hello LDVAN,
I am trying to conceptualize what is going on when a ferromagnetic core amplifies the magnetic field of a coil by over 5000 times.
With this understanding I believe a machine could easily and simply be built that extracts the energy from the electrons
that spin around the atoms of ferromagnetic materials.
I really do thank anyone who brings in any point, because it has led me to questions and research.
Which has brought me closer to understanding this phenomenon.
My degree in Physics came 20 years ago, and I don't claim to remember the specifics of any given subject very well !
But for the last month or so, I have been reacquainting myself some basic concepts as well as learning new ones.
I ask you LDVAN, to think about this, and tell me what you think.
A coil with a ferromagnetic core has a magnetic field 1000's of times greater than the same coil without the core.
All this with no extra current or electricity.
There's a lot I would like to know about this.
If you have any ideas, please impart.
I Bid You GoodDay,
The Observer
Observer -- Read, and if necessary, re-read what has been told to you in this thread. Your questions were answered by people who, like myself, have had 'hands on' experience for the greater portion of their lives (or so it would seem by their writtings). I personally have over 50 years of learning to go with the 50 years of experience dealing with electricity and its effects. There is a bounty of information within these forums that cannot be purchased with any amount of money. One just needs to open the eyes, read and not feel that their way is the only way. Quit quoting, start understanding what is being explained to you. You are far, far from dumb. Use your knowledge to benefit from others knowledge. I'm not trying to be an ass hole here, you need to step back and look at the whole picture and what others are offering to you, free for the taking, no charge, nada dime.............
The more I know, the more I realize I don't know...........
LDVAN
Now will somebody throw in some schooling on leading and lagging power factors (KW/KVA) to really set this boy in a tail spin...........
Best Regards
LDVAN
P.S. I read through the thread again start to finish. Observer, take down your blinders and absorb what these men are trying to tell you. You cannot buy what is being given to you for free, education from experience. Years of it. So read it again yourself, with an open mind !!
Hello LDVAN
Thanks for your post.
I am not sure how I pissed you off in regards to not listening to others, but I am damn glad you are interested in this thread.
It sounds like you may be quite knowledgeable and I would appreciate anything constructive you have to say in regards to
Magnetic Permeability and the possibility that it may have some real overunity answers based on Quantum Physics.
As I have said, I have learned quite a bit from the comments. Thank you ! to anyone who has posted or read this thread.
If you say I am missing something or not comprehending correctly, then please tell me what I have missed.
Perhaps, you could explain some of the important concepts as you see them and the things you have learned.
Mystery isn't going to help any of us.
That's how we got here in the 1st place.
For the last few days, when free, I have been exploring back emf or inductance.
I have learned some, however I have come to realize that this is a tricky, perhaps misunderstood and maybe vague term.
More on this when I have a better grasp of what I understand it is, and more importantly isn't.
Imagine.
The Observer
hi Observer
interesting thread you've got going here!
i'm glad to see that you've continued in the face of initial lack of positive response
it seems to have eased into an open-minded consideration of various properties of EM with a lot of informed input in good nature and many interesting challenges posed to conventional 'received wisdom'
i'm interested in the recent comparison of the properties of inductance and capacitance - i'm trying to picture the possibly-anomalous behavior of capacitance in my own switched-charge experiment and i believe i'm seeing a parallel kind of 'inertia' in caps
inductors show a current-like inertia: slow to build up their field & then attempt to maintain it after applied current ceases
as a by-product of results (now measuring as OU!) with switched-charging of large-valued caps, i'm also seeing significant self-recharge after discharge of the input & output caps - there is a very inertia-like feel to it
i believe caps are 'slow' to establish their particular field (in fact, i believe it's been proved that it occurs in finite steps of charge 'quanta') and they appear to try and maintain their voltage
[polite note to other interested readers: please do not bother to mention again that this is a well-known effect seen in Electrolytic & other types of polarised caps - i fully agree, but i have only ever heard that fact - a well-known observation is not an explanation!]
i believe these inertia-like properties we're seeing in EM (and possibly also mechanical) systems are all linked to a fundamental background-property of space - a vacuum medium of quantum energy
not my theory, of course, but it appears to be gaining increasing credence with some scientists and engineers who are comfortable with the maths and open-minded enough to investigate anomalies
i'm seeing both charge and energy imbalance anomalies in my experiment - and that's before observing this so-called 'well-known' cap-recharge effect which is putting approx 230mWsec of additional energy back into the circuit immediately after tests consuming only about 2200mWsec of input energy with already OU results - ie. i'm seeing useful energy quotients > 1.2 in tests and then an additional 10% energy input after the test when the caps recharge!
i should mention that there is (ferrite-cored) inductance in my test circuit, too, so i can't rule out some of the issues you're raising, Observer, as possible contributory factors
my thread, if you happen to be at all interested in what could be a parallel sort of inquiry, is titled 'OU/COP >1 switched cap PS circuit...' in the Tesla technologies forum
i look forward to following your progress on this thread, and hope you get an opportunity to put some of the ideas and claims to the test
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site: http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Sandy,
Many thanks for your input.
a well-known observation is not an explanation!
So, so, so so true.
Of course observation without judgment leads to explanations, but I agree 100%.
Let me elaborate where it is pertinent here.
If you believe Newtonian Physics applies everywhere, (conservation of energy), then you will not see anything else.
Even when other phenomena have been right in front of your nose the whole time !
Only when one knows HOW & WHY something works... do they become a true master of subject.
I was wondering what you are experimenting with.
Is it an RLC resonant circuit?
If so, I ponder the energy to charge an inductor with a suitable core and the energy available during 'discharge.'
This is why.
The atom dipoles of a ferromagnetic material should not line up.
They should act like mini compasses too close together.
But there is an 'energy' that makes them wanna line up with the neighbor when no external magnetic field is present.
Only when the microscopic effect of the organization of magnetic fields gets big enough, do we see the 'compasses to close together effect.'
I really think this is the reason why domains look and behave the way they do.
Refer here for some pics... http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demopages/Demo/em/demo/5g2020.htm
I really haven't found 1 source talking about the effect of the dipoles collapsing to their original domain orientations after the pulse.
The inductance is directly relational to the MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY (so they say).
I will say it again, sorry about the redundancy.
This means that whatever the inductance is without a core... that same coil has 1000's !!! of times more inductance with a core.
Perhaps 1,000,000 !
This is what this thread is all about.
When something is that different from the norm, something extraordinary is going on.
Now, I almost believe the part about the apparent ENERGY STORED being 1000's of times greater (this is fantastic though)
But 1000's of times more energy to counter a 1000's times more back emf to charge the thing?
Why in God's Name would anyone do this. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Perhaps, just perhaps it doesn't take 1000's of times the energy to charge the same coil with a core.
Maybe the Energy stored is that... but 1000's of times more energy to charge... WHY DO THIS?
Makes no sense.
I think the answer to this lies in understanding Coercive Force and the Quantum Effect of dipoles in close proximity lining up when they shouldn't.
Coercive Force, as I interpret it, relates to how easily the dipoles turn.
How sticky they are when it comes to turning, is another way of saying it.
Some can turn easily... and do.
When I put a piece of iron next to one of my neo magnets, there is only instant attraction.
I can't see how the magnet got drained from the dipoles of the iron lining up, which is all they want to do anyways.
If a few dipoles line up, then the neighboring dipoles will start to feel the quantum effect mentioned earlier.
So the available energy to line up becomes External Field energy + Quantum Effect Energy.
In summary, does charging a coil (getting current to flow at max) take 1000's of times longer with a core as apposed to not?
Or does it take a voltage 1000's of times greater to charge the coil in the same time it would without the core?
Last night, I took my Voltmeter and tested the resistance of a coil with a ferro core. 1/2 of a transformer.
In theory, I had thought that the resistance would be high when I first connected the leads, then would go down as more current passed through.
It was opposite to this... 200 - 300 ohms initially.. then to 790 ohms in less than a second.
Dad ( happy fathers day !) said, just a few minutes ago, that is because the digital ohm-meter uses constant current, not constant voltage to test resistance.
I guess I would need an oscilloscope to see if this is true, or perhaps just another Voltmeter.
Well, these are my thoughts.
My quote for the day...
'a well-known observation is not an explanation' (thanks sandy)
The Observer
hi Observer
i agree, observation is vital to the real scientific process - and i think we're both also saying: but it's not a substitute for explanation
i emphasise 'real' because i feel that to claim something is impossible, based on rules that are ultimately founded on observation (ok, possibly via much intervening math modelling), is not REAL science
you can state with certainty that something exists (based on evidence, of course) - but if you claim that something doesn't exist you need to add the proviso: 'as far as we know'
three-legged ducks don't exist until you see one!
...(yes i've seen one)
...(no, you can't have any of what i was drinking at the time!) ;)
i would feel happier to settle for statements such as 'perpetual motion' machines are probably impossible- this at least would be a more honest approach than the sorry state of affairs we experience at the moment!
i do believe that the prevailing attitude of the 'scientific establishment' (such as the people who belittled & cold-shouldered folks like Laithwaite and Catt) is that they are arrogant (hopefully, not stupid) enough to believe they can omit the 'as far as we know' clause
the general public will usually take their lead from the 'scientific establishment'
i think it's ironic that, hundreds of years ago, dogmatists in the church told Galileo he was wrong - now we have the situation where dogmatists in science are telling independent 'researchers' they are wrong
that's an apt paradox: 'history teaches us that history teaches us nothing!'
my experiment does contain R,L & C elements - but so far, i haven't investigated any possible resonance contribution to the effects i'm seeing (i don't discount them)
it is possible that there is some interaction in the energy transfer between L & C (& therefore, tuning for resonance may improve the results)
some nagging doubt still worries me that we have only discovered the tip of the iceberg when we start to talk about the electromagnetic behaviour & characteristics of L & C components - that we're still dealing with the effects, not the fundamental cause
Oliver Crane had some interesting things to say about magnetics - if you haven't already discovered him & you have time sometime, try Googling him & 'Space Quanta' - he's apparently made some useful predictions about possible EM behaviour based on his 'theories'
have a trawl through Aspden's papers & reports too, if you haven't already - he has a lot of first-hand experience of things electromag - discovered the 'Aspden effect' (atheric inertia?) - approaches anomalies honestly & with open-mind
i like the magnetic domain pics you reference - reminds me of a vid (from Stanford? or MIT?) showing magnetic 'paste' or dye (i think?!?) responding to an extreme magnetic field, can't remember if there was a frequency element to the experiment - as power was increased, the magnetic material started to form an enfolded spiral-based configuration related to the patterns shown in your ref.
Aspden talks about the rotational & spin-effects that fields impose on the crystal-lattice structure of the aether/space-medium and, whilst i was looking at the shape evolving in the vid, i could imagine that i was actually looking at an emergent feature of the fabric of the universe - very sobering (& it takes a lot to sober me up!)
i don't have much experience of working with inductance - but what i have noticed in my experiment is that i can make significant improvement to the charge transfer efficiency by piling additional ferrite material around my inductor
i know that the 'received' explanantion for this is that the Q-factor of the inductor is being increased - BUT - i feel we're back in the 'Twilight Zone' of observations being offered in place of explanations again!
i agree with your Dad about using a DMM to measure inductors, and there's so much more to see in the time domain - so, yes, use a scope! vital when dealing with things which have time-dimension characteristics
all the best - good hunting!
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Observer -- I think you are getting way out ahead of yourself in your efforts to try to understand magnetic field / inductance thing. The first thing I'll say is that I'm a piss poor teacher, but when I get some free time (day or two, sorry) I'll attempt to clear some of the muddied water for you. Although my father (passed on now) was a college professor in the field of electricity, my knowledge was acquired by a life time of playing with 'trons', bending them, folding them, making them jump through hoops or generally getting the shit shocked out of myself while learning about what can be done with them. Give me a couple of days to catch up on my other work and I'll give this a shot.
Best Regards
LDVAN
LD,
Thanks for your reply.
I look forward to seeing your take on some of these important concepts.
Interesting, that your dad, a prof of electricity... my dad a physics prof who specialized in electronics.
Gotta go to work, but I'll be back.
The Observer
I think what Fritz meant is that a coil with an air core can be more efficient due to the fact that there is not a ferromagnetic core. Most or all magnetic metals have a hysteresis loop and maintain a small amount of the field after the coil collapses (when the current is zero). When the current starts to flow in the opposite direction (assuming AC here) a small amount of the energy goes into reversing the direction of the flux. Just the alignment of the dipoles back and forth produces heat and is considered a loss (look up Magnetocaloric effect).
There are also eddy currents. Air cores do not have any of these problems and therefore are less lossy. However, flux in the air core is not concentrated and this means they are not very good for motors, generators, etc. You'll find air cores in places where sharp resonant peaks are needed (like radio).
I've often wondered how good having a liquid oxygen core would be. It shouldn't suffer from eddy currents or have a hysteresis loop yet should concentrate the flux nicely. Also, I wonder if you could see a difference with just pressurized oxygen.
hi Observer
interesting post on a new thread today by Butch LaFonte, about importance of OU inventions not using the wrong core material - struck a chord...
"Of those 30 [permanent magnet/electromagnet designs] I feel we got overunity indications from 3 maybe 4. We put loads on the generators and got no indication of increase in load on the drive motor. We had limited funding and we used solid mild steel for core material. If we had been able to use laminated electrical steel like the type used in transformers we would have seen a very dramatic difference in results."
"We were working with a permeability of 300 when electrical steel would have had as high as 5000. I'm still amazed we got any power at all using the mild steel with the low permeability and problem of eddy current losses due to the steel not being laminated and having high electrical conductivity as compared to silicon electrical steel"
...
"I have attached links that list the permeability of different materials and other useful information on the role of permeability of core material. Eddy current losses are very important also when choosing a material. Our mild steel would get to hot to touch and we had to stop the test runs due to this eddy current induced heat."
...
"Interesting note: Ultra high permeability materials The material with the highest magnetic permeability is Metglas Magnetic Alloy 2714A (Cobalt-based) [7] with a high frequency annealed permeability of 1,000,000 (Maximum DC Permeability (?)). Hydrogen annealed (pure iron - N5 grade) can have a permeability of 160,000 (?) but is very expensive.
Thanks,
Butch laFonte"
almost looks like Butch has been validating your hypothesis for you! ;)
all the best
sandy
Sandy,
Thank you for your references , I will most definitely explore them.
A few cool guys I have found out about are John Keely who predicted E = M 25 years before Einstien.
Another is Oliver Heaviside who coined many words used in electronics today.
You said,
"i have noticed in my experiment is that i can make significant improvement to the charge transfer efficiency by piling additional ferrite material around my inductor"
I am not surprised, however my interpretation of adding ferrite material around the inductor has nothing to do with efficiency.
I believe that, as I have been saying, ferromagnetic materials ADD energy to the dynamic.
That is, there is always energy in the ferromagnetic materials... magnetic dipoles which get their energy from whatever keeps the electrons moving.
When all are lined up in different directions, it APPEARS as if there is no energy in that piece of iron.
However, when they all line up ( or the majority of them ) they ADD ( I really mean it...) ADD up to enhance or ADD to the magnetic field of the coil.
This is what I am so damned concerned about. ;o)~
Peace,
The Observer
Hello all,
@Observer
I will be short:
Im working on the TPU.
In the first time we all used coils without a core. With more or less success I lighted a bulb. Then i got a tip to use a core. As I had only cores from TV yokes I used them. The core is an iron powder core.
Results are expected: a 100W bulb is lighted without any problems. OK, with a high current but anyway lighted. When I used the same coils without a core I had almost no light. I see that my little TPU is very dangerous.
I hope I dont have to say what my next step is because its obvious.
I have to say that your posts are very good and please continue with them. I see you know exactly what youre wrighting because I see it in my little 4" TPU.
Otto
Hey Charlie,
Hysteresis loop... yes
Although some materials have a shape that looks like an S.
This means that the remnant magnetic field is virtually nil.
Concentration less in air core...I think this is confusing to say and perhaps incorrect terminology.
A straight wire produces an electromagnetic field (with current)
When you coil the wire... THIS is where concentration takes place.
It's from coiling the wire and pushing the electromagnetic field of the wire (with current) into the center axis
of the coil..
B = ( μ0 * N * i ) / l
where μ0 is the permeability of free space, N the number of turns, i the current and l the length of the coil. *
The Magnetic field is proportional to the number of turns.
Now, a coil with a core.
B = (μ0 * μr * N * i) / l
where μr is the relative permeability of the material within the solenoid.
Do you see the difference?
The difference is μr which is the MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY of the core.
This number is very near 1 for almost every element in the known universe!
Then there are the rare few that have a number exceeding 1000 if not 1,000,000.
NOTE... there is no mention in these formulas about needing extra current to produce a greater field when a
core is used. The only thing that it depends on is the magnetic permeability of the core !
Now if really want to talk about concentration, this occurs in greater magnitude as the coil's diameter gets smaller.
So then Flux Density is in inverse relation to the area.
That is... as the coil's area gets smaller... the flux gets greater... more is being squished in the center.
So, I hope you can see where I say the Core ADDS to the field and actually Concentrates nothing.
Oxygen as the core... interesting.
Does Liquid Oxygen exhibit ferromagnetic qualities?
Have a great day and thank you for your participation in this thread.
The Observer
QuoteDoes Liquid Oxygen exhibit ferromagnetic qualities?
Yes I've read it is close to steel - I don't know what the number is off the top of my head though.
I've always thought of the increase in flux density due to the core as a concentration of the flux (AKA the same flux was there but the core helps concentrate it toward the center). Looking at the formulas, μr definitely is an amplification.
So, does μr add more flux to the coil or does it concentrate flux that the coil already made? I guess what I'm asking is without the core is the same flux created by the coil already there but greatly spread out so that when the core is brought near it starts to concentrate the flux? OR, does the core actually generate more flux, so the coil produces X and the core adds Y to that amount?
Now, I've read that μr is like resistance in a wire. So the flux is like current (in fact the equations are almost the same). μ0 is the same as having a very high resistance. So the flux generated by the current has a high resistance and therefore a smaller amount is produced. Now adding a core will be the same as lowering the resistance, so the flux generated by the same current will be stronger. So, I think what your saying is true, it is an amplification. The coil produces more flux with a core (it does not concentrate it like I originally thought). Theoretically, 1mA around a 1000 turn coil could produce 100 Teslas if the core material permitted it.
The only problem is that the back torque is going to keep the energy levels balanced. Find a way around back torque and you'll have a very nice energy amplifier.
Sandman, (my nickname for you, hope you like it)
Thanks so much for bringing this information (about Butch LaFonte) to the Magnetic Permeability thread.
It looks as if this guy is well on the way to tapping into the free energy offered up by the 2 unpaired electrons in ferromagnetic materials.!
It would be nice to get a hold of some of that really high permeability material.
Damn, I'd pay $20 for a small piece, if it's going to amplify the magnetic field of a coil by over 100,000 times !
Have to look into that whenever I get experimental apparatus together.
Be Well,
The Observer
Metglas will send you one free sample of any of their metal foils. They won't do any of the special annealing with the free samples though. The problem is that it takes them MONTHS to do this. I called and talked to a representative and they put me down for Magnetic Alloy 2714A. After about 3 months I gave up. Then about a year later it came in the mail haha!
It turned out what I was doing needed a high saturation material, not so much high permeability. So the foil kinda went to waste. It being a foil made it difficult to work with as well, and man was it sharp.
I looked at those La Fonte schematics. Its an interesting concept but it doesn't address the back torque problem, I don't think it will produce over unity.
Quote from: The Observer on June 17, 2008, 10:02:21 PM
Sandman, (my nickname for you, hope you like it)
definitely an improvement over
'Lady Sherlock' ..from a bemused forum-member who seemed to think i was a woman - with well-developed - er - deductive powers!
(in his defence, 'Sandy'
is the common nickname for Sandra in many cultures - apart from Scotland where it's a common nick for Alexander, as in my case)
Quote from: The Observer on June 17, 2008, 10:02:21 PM
Thanks so much for bringing this information (about Butch LaFonte) to the Magnetic Permeability thread.
It looks as if this guy is well on the way to tapping into the free energy offered up by the 2 unpaired electrons in ferromagnetic materials.!
i ought to have looked into his work more - i've seen his name crop up from time to time - but i think he's majored on motor/generator Apps so i've tended not to follow up (usually prefer my components to remain stationary!)
Quote from: The Observer on June 17, 2008, 10:02:21 PM
It would be nice to get a hold of some of that really high permeability material.
Damn, I'd pay $20 for a small piece, if it's going to amplify the magnetic field of a coil by over 100,000 times !
Have to look into that whenever I get experimental apparatus together.
it's ironic, a little while back, before you started this thread, i saw another mention about the highest mag perm material being used in tape heads - and i had one of those off-the-wall moments thinking it would be funny if it turned out that tape-heads were actually OU in nature all along!
i wondered what the possibility would be of just plugging a tape-head into one of my experiments as an inductor (since they already have a coil built-in) and seeing if there were any anomalous results
(wish now i'd kept the massive heads off the old Ferrograph reel-to-reel deck i once rescued ...dayum... wish i'd kept the whole deck!)
er - seem to rambling again - meds must be wearing off...
how feasible would it be to strip one or more heads (fabricated with suitable material) from some old reel-to-reels and use them as 'cores' in a custom inductor?
Quote from: Charlie_V on June 17, 2008, 10:28:53 PM
I looked at those La Fonte schematics. Its an interesting concept but it doesn't address the back torque problem, I don't think it will produce over unity.
hmmmm - are we both thinking of his latest developments? the most recent schematic i've just seen appears to be
all about addressing the back-torque problem
if i understand it correctly, he believes he's seeing evidence that a magnet
entirely enclosed within a solenoid doesn't experience the same back-torque as one which extends anywhere outside the coil
and on a subject possibly related to the above - and definitely related to what we discussed briefly earlier about stacking ferrite core around inductors - increased Q factor - increased efficiency, etc:-
you mentioned a couple of posts above:
>
my interpretation of adding ferrite material around the inductor has nothing to do with efficiency.
I believe that, as I have been saying, ferromagnetic materials ADD energy to the dynamici would say that if you can "ADD energy to the dynamic" then it has
everything to do with efficiency - since the ultimate goal of all our endeavours on this forum (hopefully!) is to develop technology where (Energy out) / (Energy In) > 1
we're certainly trying to add energy to the dividend of that equation - and of course (Energy out) / (Energy In) = Efficiency :)
now, i think you were probably referring more to the 'efficiency' aspect of the conventional description of 'Q' which is a measure of the 'quality' or 'efficiency' of a coil - but what i probably didn't make clear was that this 'Q' factor of coils
seems to me to be an attempt by conventional science to 'cook the books' in order to balance an otherwise anomalous (in their eyes) energy equation
since we discussed that, i re-read a paper with an excellent treatise on optimising design characteristic of ferrite-cored coils (from an amateur radio rather than 'free energy' POV, i believe)
the author was referencing results which indicated that there is a significant difference in Q (efficiency) between the case where the coil is almost the same length as the core and the case where the core extends significantly beyond the coil
i seem to remember he was saying that an optimum was about 3:1 core-to-coil length ratio (which, rather spookily, is what i see as i look over at the inductor in the test circuit next to me while i'm writing this - i've stacked a ferrite of the same dimension as my core at both ends of the inductor)
ok - that's more than enough from me
goodnight all
sandman
Dr. Otto,
Seems as if you are seeing some good results with your little contraption.
I have observed the Vid on Youtube where S. Marks shows a few devices to some guys.
I am not sure what is technically meant by TPU
I am guessing it's the toroid thing that lights up the TV, Drill etc.
If you could impart a brief explanation of a TPU here, I would appreciate it.
Otherwise, seeing the device in the Vid I mentioned, I theorized that it could be 2 coils wrapped around a ferromagnetic donut.
1 coil sends out a small pulse, the other coil receives the emf of the small pulse + the emf of the ferromagnetic materials magnetic field lining up for a brief second.
Then of course, on the back end, when the magnetic field of the donut + the coil collapses, it produces another emf on both coils that could be used.
If you set all this up with a resonant tuned circuit using a capacitor and perhaps a resister, there may be extra energy always available.
Maybe not exactly what he did, but that is my thoughts.
Basically a donut shaped transformer with coils wrapped over each other.
As far as you saying... 'I can see you know what you are writing about, because I can see it in my experiments.'
Umm, feels good and inspires me to keep this thing alive until all the questions are sufficiently answered.
We can make it to the Promised Land.
The Observer
Hello all,
@Observer
I see you know your "job".
TPU = toroidal power unit.
3 collectors, multiturn wound in a horizontal direction. In this moment with a lamp wire.
3 controls, bifilar wound over the 3 collectors.
The 3 controls are feeded with 3 frequencies with square waves. In our TPUs we see the kicks as we call them. That are spikes that builds up when the square wave hits in the first moment the control coil. With square waves of say 12V we see in our controls spikes - kicks in hundreds of volts or even in kilovolts. Of course, this is useless if you dont know how to use such kicks in kilovolts.
This is in short.
All the time we used air cores until I got a little advice to try it with cores. I really dont have to mention the difference because its obvious. We all know this from our books. Thats classic, to say so.
The point is in the metal we, or I, as Im alone for now, use in this TPU.
As I didnt had better cores I used TVs yokes. That are iron powder cores. With just a 5 turns lamp wire wound inside the core and 15 turns for the control coil wound over the core and the lamp wire in horizontal direction I lighted almost my 100W bulb. Without this core I would have NO light.
Then I wound the same over a core from a toroidal transformer. We know what core such a transformer has. I had NO light, nothing. Maybe a little glowing but a much lower frequencies. We all should know why.
For myself is now the question what kind of core to use. Yes, Metglas with high permeability. You mentioned 1 000 000. Yes. Metglas magnetic alloy 2714A.
This is really worth a try.
The point with the cores in a TPU is that such cores are Ok but there is a "limit": in the last 3 weeks or so I wound every day a TPU to get more power out of my cores: NO WAY. My iron powder core limited me to use only a 100W bulb. Nothing more.
From my earlier tests, you can see them i the ECD TPU pdf, I saw that for a collector would be the best solution to use an alloy of various metals and as I see for the core is also the best solution to use alloys.
In your 1. post you mentioned that the magnetic field ADDS up......I only can agree because I can see and feel it. When I pulse my coils at low frequencies and I hold a little magnet inside my TPU, I can clearly feel the strong magnetic field inside my TPU.
Yesterday? I think, Butch la Fonte jumped out that cores we use are important.
I alreday posted once that we are now entering the age of pulsed coils but it seems that I was wrong!
WE ARE ENTERING THE AGE OF PULSED COILS AND CORES!!!
Ha,ha, what a statement.
Otto
PS: keep up your good work.
Mister Charlie,
I am pretty sure you have come to understand what I am talking about.
It is very important (from my interpretation) to understand that there is energy in the iron in the first place.
The energy comes from 2 unpaired electrons spinning around an atom.
This is like a mini coil that produces a magnetic field without a battery.
We really don't know what powers it... but it is there, and it's energy can be used.
It is important, to view this atom as a magnetic dipole that can spin 360 degrees about its center.
It has a "stickyness", I call it, called COERCIVE FORCE.
Some materials have a very high coercive force (Very Sticky) this is what magnets are made from. The dipoles are pretty much fixed.
Some materials have a very low coercive force (Lubed Up and Ready To Spin). This is what transformer iron does. The dipoles spin freely.
It is important to grasp that there is a quantum effect that causes these ferromagnetic dipoles to line up with their neighbors when they shouldn't.
That is, if you put 2 compasses too close together, they will spin and line up N to S Not N to N.
This means there is energy that overcomes the energy that would make the dipoles line up N to S.
Finally, it is important to fathom when these dipoles and their magnetic domains (refer above) are "randomly" oriented, the energy of the dipoles ADDS up to basically nil.
When they are organized (by a surprisingly small amount of energy), they ADD up to a something significant that can not only be measured by doing a simple electromagnet experiment,
but also could be used in a device to do usable work or energy generation.
(which by the way already happens... it's just not recognized as such... consider a loudspeaker using only coils)
Now you talk about back torque to keep the energy balanced...
I say let's stop trying to balance energy. Quantum Physics doesn't play by those old fuddy duddy rules.
Electrons, Protons and other various Quantum Particles aren't all that concerned with the way things appear here in Big Land.
It's time for a new paradigm, and I'm pretty sure you and I are on one of the forefronts of this change.
Let the Good Times Roll,
The Observer
@Otto
I find it surprising that there is so much difference in using cores from a TV yoke or a toroid with the same windings. Have you considered that maybe the shape is a factor and not the difference in kind of core? I refer you to here:
http://rexresearch.com/boutard/boutard.htm
Scroll down to fig. 3b. What you have with the TV yoke winding is the top half of this shape!
To determine if shape is a factor, you could add the bottom half of the winding? Take your existing TV yolk setup and place it wide part up. Find a suitable size paper cup that fits the diameter and tape it down to use it as a winding form. If you wrap the cup with double sided tape, it will help hold the wire as you wind it. Now place the bulb across the whole winding as in fig. 3b. If the bulb is brighter, it proves that the shape is a factor. This would be good news, because we can use this patent as a guide to what is happening. The patent is difficult to read because it is a translation from French.
It could be that the vertical control winding you added has taken what was a passive aether tapping device and converted it into an active aether tapping device? In other words, by pulsing the control winding you are stressing the aether and it is rebounding which is driving the light bulb to full brightness?
I hope this helps.
Tishatang
@ Observer
Sounds good to me, my fingers are crossed.
@otto
Thanks for explaining what TPUs are, I've read the forums and kinda grasped pulsing and the like. If you are powering 100W light bulbs, what is the wattage entering from the 12 Volt battery? I assume you are using a car battery - because of the 12 volts - and your chopping it with a relay or transistor?
I'm wondering this because car batteries have quite a bit of power in them, its 12 volts at like 900 amps or something - crazy energy. Now 100W light bulbs are usually rated for 120V, and your step up circuit TPU could be resonantly stepping up the voltage so that there is enough pressure to make the light bulbs light up. Sorry, I guess what I'm getting at is have you been able to achieve overunity with your TPU yet? If not, what are the limitations you feel that are holding it back. If you are achieving overunity, what do I need to power my house haha.
@nul-points
Quotehmmmm - are we both thinking of his latest developments? the most recent schematic i've just seen appears to be all about addressing the back-torque problem
if i understand it correctly, he believes he's seeing evidence that a magnet entirely enclosed within a solenoid doesn't experience the same back-torque as one which extends anywhere outside the coil
All I saw is the pictures on that link that was given. He had pictures and graphic animations. Maybe I was looking at the wrong thing but what I saw didn't seem to say anything about addressing back torque. By looking at the animations I could deduce that back torque would still be a problem - I could be wrong though, and I could be looking at the wrong thing.
Giving the flux another path to travel will help, but it will also reduce the amount of flux used to make electricity. So in the end everything balances back out. What is left that interacts will suffer back torque - I say this because I've tried similar experiments as La Fonte and those were my results. Although my setups were not quite the same, it was the same principle. You have to map out how the flux will interact from the coil.
The setup I have right now (which I just added the motor to yesterday) SHOULD leave the flux in the coil no place to go when generated. In reality it seems to couple slightly to the moving magnet part BUT this coupling SHOULD be an additive coupling, not subtractive like in the normal case. HOWEVER, I'm saying SHOULD and BUT because I need to test these.
My plan is to use a motor to spin everything up and monitor the current in the motor. If I short the coil, I should see an increase in the current to the motor IF it suffers from back torque in the normal way. If it follows the way I've mapped the fields out (which seems to be the way the flux behaves when I measure it with a gauss meter) then I should see either no change in the current to the motor or even a REDUCTION in that current. Both of those results I feel would be amazing.
If I don't get a chance to do this tomorrow it will be sometime next week. This weekend I'm trying to finish building a magnifying transformer as an overdue class project. I'll let you know how my generator experiment works once its conducted.
Best Regards,
Charlie
Hello all,
@tishatang
only the core counts!
Im always somehow thinking about my ECD and now, about the iron powder core TPU.
I see some similarities:
In some way the ECD had also cores: the windings of my controls. That was a biiiig copper "core" for every control coil, to say it in this way. A core AND a control coil. Or how would you explain the very good work of my ECD?
Now I have the "iron" TPU.
I see that what ever I do with the windings this TPU always needs around 2 - 3A from my PS. I used 12V from the PS or 24V. The same current but a better light with 24V. Of course, when I use 24V from the PS then I have to find a higher frequency mix to get a better light but this is for me well known.
In my setup it seems that Im NOT stressing the aether for now. Im stressing the little particles inside the core. And this is why a core material is very important. From Observers posts you can read much better informations about the cores, how they work....I can see it. I hope not to feel it but....
For this little "thing" is the shape NOT important. About the shape we can discuss when we get to bigger TPUs.
@Charlie
Im using a power supply and when I see the wanted effects then a car battery.
Maybe you noticed or not, Im NEVER talking about overunity or such nonsense. The point is this:
If my TPU needs 0,1A or 5A from the power supply I dont care because I have to feed back only a little fraction of the output into the input to sustain the particles swirling inside my TPU. So, if my TPU is "happy" with amperes or miliamperes then Im happy too. If we use a 9V battery as we "see" in a video, this battery drives only 1 transistor....
For tis statement maybe somebody will hang me but Im wrighting what I see.
The important point for all TPUs is: high voltage kicks inside the TPU, then converting this high voltage ( kilovolts) into a low voltage (100 - 300V) with a transformer ( this knowledge is NOT from me, as alreday said but from a very clever man who has much more knowledge the I have) and connect a bulb or more and enjoy. You remember the videos? There are extra toroids in the middle of the 15" unti - output transformers! In the 6" unit a toroid sitting on top of the TPU - output transformer!
Heeeey, you cat use a voltage in kilovolts!!
Got it?
Otto
PS: what a boring post!
I bet if you guys worked at it, you could take that energy in your TPU and transmit it to very large locations with minimal loss - since it appears you guys are using a form of reactive energy transfer - converting real power to reactive, then converting it back to real somewhere down the line.
Greetings,
I have found answers to some important questions in a College Solid State Physics book written by Charles Kittel (Introduction to Solid State Physics / Sixth Edition).
1st of all, in my last post, I claimed of an energy that keeps the dipoles lined up when they shouldn't.
This claim was more of an observation, however...
The Book has a word for what I was talking about. I am going to quote.
"There is an energy in a ferromagnetic crystal which directs the magnetization along certain crystallographic axes called directions of easy magnetization.
This energy is called the magnetocrystalline or anisotropy energy.'
Then another seemingly important term...
"A Bloch Wall in a crystal is the transition layer that separates adjacent regions (domains) magnetized in different directions."
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe252%2Fmrbsman%2FBlochwall.jpg&hash=8942833e3eddb429313e423538b80eaafadaa8b2) (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe252%2Fmrbsman%2FDomains.jpg&hash=bb0b32b3c4c0ca247e44733acbef0637c4dc5e1e)
The book also says ... "The wall would thicken without limit were it not for the anisotropy energy."
It is implied that when domains grow, as a result of an external magnetic field, there is a rolling effect on the edges of the domains as they get larger.
That is, the domains that were in the right position anyways (with respect to the external magnetic field), grow larger by means of the Bloch Wall moving/expanding.
Then, just for the sake of being kind of complete in a very abbreviated fashion...
It talks about Bloch Walls "being an example of a fascinating class of physical and mathematical problems known as solitons.
... A Solitary Wave that shows great stability in collision with other solitary waves.
Ahh, I will have look into that because right now, those words mean little to me.
Any experts on Solitons in the house?
Now there is quite a bit more about crystal this and molecule that to read, if I am to become an expert on ferromagnetic materials.
The reference list at the end of the chapter has about 15 books dealing with magnetism.
But that will have to wait, because...
The very next chapter I found keenly interesting...
Chapter 16 Magnetic Resonance,
with a specific section on FERROMAGNETIC RESONANCE.
Mmm, music to my ears !
I will have to elaborate in my next post.
Good Day Sunshine,
The Observer
hi Observer
you've been busy!
i seem to remember some discussion about the possibility of Solitons being generated electromagnetically using so-called 'Scalar Waves' (which in themselves have some interesting properties!)
IIRC the J L Naudin site has some examples of related experiments (possibly using Cadeuceus (spelling?) coils)
these coils are like humbucking guitar pickups in reverse - excuse my aging guitarist analogy here - they are essentially a coil folded back on itself to cancel the magnetic field whilst still allowing current to flow thro' the coil
you showed a pic a while back with mag domains showing & i mentioned the Stanford/MIT vid with massive Em fields present - i believe the patterns shown in your pics & the vid were formed by the areas occupied by the domains bounded by lines of Bloch Walls
great stuff - keep it coming!
all the best
sandy
Quote from: The Observer on June 18, 2008, 02:19:23 AM
Mister Charlie,
I am pretty sure you have come to understand what I am talking about.
It is very important (from my interpretation) to understand that there is energy in the iron in the first place.
The energy comes from 2 unpaired electrons spinning around an atom.
This is like a mini coil that produces a magnetic field without a battery.
We really don't know what powers it... but it is there, and it's energy can be used.
"That's not entirely accurate."
It's not the movement of the electrons in their *rotating* orbits which causes most of the magnetic moment (MM). True, this motion does make a contribution; however, it is the intrinsic quantum spin of the electron which causes most of the MM.
This is very important because electrons in motion cause a MM due to a well understood relativistic effect. However, we don't have a clue what particle quantum spin is nor why quantum spin causes a MM.
The electron is a 1/2 integer spin fermion. 1/2 integer spin particles must go through 720 degrees of rotation before presenting the same "face". Isn't that bizarre?
Terry
@Sandy
Here is a reference that supports your view that the structure of the aether causes the quantizations of observed phenomena:
http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=36
You may have to read the entire chapter. It is presented very logically.
Hopes this helps.
Tishatang
@The Observer
Magnet block wall, I suggest to investigate a bit here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1182.msg105374.html#msg105374
http://www.scivee.tv/node/5988
and suggest to download the *paper" here
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/sbowman.htm
In the magnet the flux lines are quite different from the standard model......
Marzio
Indeed, 'field' is a poor description. See the double vortices on page 10 of this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson)
Terry
Good Day,
Terry,
Thanks for pointing that out (that an electron does not make a perfect elliptical orbit)... as well the book by Howard Johnson.
I had run into him when I was interested in making a permanent magnet motor.
In fact,,, I have pretty much made one (a magnet only motor), aside from purchasing a bunch of magnets and precisely putting them around a wheel.
Since Howard has come up, I will shortly tell of a device I came up on the 5th day of a 10 day binge playing with magnets from dawn till dusk in April '08.
1. Squeeze cylinder magnets around a wheel that spins on a central axis of at least 12 inches in diameter. (a kids bike wheel works nicely)
Place magnets the whole way around with no gaps or imperfections in geometry. N up S down.
They won't wanna go together, but they need to be, for this to work.
Duct tape can temporarily do the trick, but glue &/or holes precisely drilled is what needs to be done.
2. Take another magnet and place or hold it next to the wheel, experiment with different orientations.
That's it !
If you only have 10 small magnets (preferably neo-magnets), you can line up 9 together on the wheel, and use the 10th on the outside.
Squeeze... did I mention Squeeze the 9 together... it will not work unless they are squeezed as close as physically possible.
The wheel won't go all the way around, cause you would need a lot more magnets,
However, you will be able to observe a tendency of the wheel to wanna spin 1 way or the other depending on the orientation of the outside magnet.
Although I've wondered how this works... I do know why it works from simple observation.
It works because if you slide 2 magnets together with opposite poles facing up, holding 1 magnet...
the other magnet FLIPS over and jumps on top of the other magnet so S can be next to N.
It's the Energy of that Flip that powers what I call the Atom Motor, by forcing the angular torque to one place, the axis in middle of the wheel.
Remember that N is up on the wheel, well if the outside magnet has N up also, no FLIP will occur.
The outside magnet would just jump over since S is already facing down.
Here, you will find the wheel will not turn at all... No FLIP Energy, no turn.
Then as the outside magnet is rotated to it's 180 degree opposite perpendicularly... you will find more and more torque as you reach the point where S is up.
More Flip Energy, More Torque.
Finally, as you pass this point (past 180 degrees rotation), the magnet would then want to flip the other way to satisfy it''s "needs'.
This subsequently causes the wheel to spin the other way.
I'm pretty sure if I had to prove why this works to a bunch of physicists, I would quote the Lorentz Force... force on a current carrying wire in a magnetic field.
I do want to construct The Atom Motor... however, I have found Magnetic Permeability very interesting and realized that ultimately a coil/core OU
device would be an easier to make (once fully understood) and spread to the world, not to mention no worries about moving parts.
Now I did read about Ferromagnetic Resonance in the Book I quoted in the last post.
I find these words very interesting... "Saturation effects occur at low power levels".
This is what I have been looking for !
It means with the right frequency, very little power is needed to produce maximum movement of the already amplified magnetic 'field'.
The Journey Continues,
The Observer
That's sort of the idea behind the Sprain motor:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Harry_Paul_Sprain_magnet_motor (http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Harry_Paul_Sprain_magnet_motor)
Terry
Hello Observer,
I'm about to go to bed so I have to make this quick. The wheel you describe will not work. I found the same affect when I started playing with magnets. It was so tempting I bought 150 rare earth magnets and finished my wheel. When you close the gap the wheel no longer spins. The more magnets you put on it the slower it will spin too. I think its because when you have a few magnets, theres a sharp gradient and the gradient is what makes it spin. The more you add the less the gradient becomes until the circle is completed and the gradient is gone.
I delve a little bit into soliton waves about a year ago. The math was beyond me but the concept wasn't. Soliton waves were first discovered in the 1800's by a mechanical engineer (I think he was mechanical - either that or a mathematician) who observed them in water. Unfortunately no one payed much attention to him until 100 years later. In the 1980s a bunch of research was done and people started taking it seriously when soliton waves could be reproduced in the laboratory. They also discovered that soliton waves were quite common in nature - which until then they thought they were extremely rare and "flukes".
If the boundary conditions of any wave in any medium are just right, it produces a wave that acts like a moving particle. It carries momentum and will transfer that momentum on impact with other soliton waves or the boundary itself - normal waves don't do that, they go through each other and do not affect themselves or the boundary. There are several papers where some engineers designed a tube with resonant bell chambers placed along the tube's length. When a pressure wave was started at the beginning the tube, the wave developed into a soliton and they could make measurements. In fact, they discovered this setup because someone built a tunnel for one of those super fast trains and they put air "chambers" down the tunnels for ventilation. Unfortunately for the designers, when the train went zooming by at like 300mph it created a soliton wave inside the tunnel and when the wave went into the passenger boarding area (also in the tunnel - I think it was like a subway tunnel or something, I can't remember the details) the wave was like a bomb and it collapsed the tunnel. I don't think anyone was hurt because it was preliminary testing of the tracks.
Unfortunately, the EM theories grew up without soliton waves. It appears to me that electrons and photons are probably not both a particle and a wave, but are simply soliton waves. Matter itself is probably a form of soliton wave too. The electromagnetic equations should be redone using the soliton model - I feel this would be more accurate (if not fit better). The interesting thing is what media are these waves really traversing, since technically they are in a vacuum.
Good night,
Charlie
hi all
some interesting synthesis of knowledge coming together here on this thread - kudos, Observer for your persistence!
i've been reading about the work of some physicists who have re-visited Maxwell's work on magnetism - it's heavy stuff, full of Divs, Grads & Curls
i always wondered if i'd ever get to actually use any of this stuff in real life after i left college and for 30+ years the answer has been a definite NO
so, it's a bit late for me to pick up the pieces now, but i'm really glad that those math tools have an important part to play in understanding the real fundamentals of electricity and related energy issues - i believe there is going to be a revolution in physics (and elec eng in particular) when this finally becomes the accepted understanding of what's going on, down at the particle level
things like: fields of force being due to a double-helix of electron-positron pairs - energy exchange between electron & positron due to the interaction between these helices and the all-pervading background fabric of the universe (the vacuum medium - or 'aether', as was)
explanations which show that magnetic permeability is the factor which measure the ability of a material to concentrate the 'aether' and hence magnify the energetic effects associated
it appears that Maxwell knew full well that the underlying 'mechanism' of the universe was of such a nature, that it operated with a multitude of vortex interactions - hence the math operator 'curl' being applied where necessary in the equations to describe those interactions
Maxwell (and others around his time) envisaged the 'aether' to be a 'sea' of particle vortices - in Maxwell's time it could only be attributed to the particles of which they were aware
Bernoulli developed his useful fluid equations on the basis of such a fundamental aspect of our physical universe
current 'open-minded' physicists believe that the aether operates at a much finer level - the modern concept (still in development) of the aether is that it can pass through matter like an open-weave basket passes through water; it can detach locally to move with objects (eg the magnetosphere around the earth is likely an 'aether' phenomenon) - and it appears possible that it is involved in many aspect of inertia that we experience, such as the 'Aspden effect'
H Aspden found that when measuring the power required to start up electric motors (possibly with flywheel or generator loads), less power was needed to re-start a motor within a few minutes of a previous runup than when the motor had not been run for a longer time
gyroscopic & precessive action also appear to be explained by the existence of a vacuum medium which exhibits this 'sea of vortices' behaviour
thanks to TishaTang for the link above - yes, very interesting reads - i've dipped into David's writings before - inspirational and an important link in the chain bringing a lot of these concepts together
re: soliton waves - an interesting example from nature can be found in the 'Severn bore' - a solitary wave which occurs, when the right pre-conditions exist, along the river between Wales & England - real enough to allow attempts to surf it!
keep the momentum going, Observer
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quotecurrent 'open-minded' physicists
Haha yes, all 5 of them! :D
@Observer and Charlie_V
The ring of magnets reminds me of a pulse motor concept I came up with a couple of years ago. Link here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1086.msg8420.html#msg8420
Someone said it would not self-run, so it seemed to have died on the vine. I still think it would make a good pulse motor design for a hub motor for a bicycle. There are millions of Ebikes here in china. They are only getting about 20 mile range. I bet a pulse motor capturing the energy to charge a second battery ala Bedini would give maybe 40 mile range?
Tishatang
Charlie,
Wow, you came up with the same idea and ordered 150 magnets to see if it would work.
That's cool !
Sounds like something I would do, cept I didn't have the cash for all the magnets at the time.
You say It would not spin once the circle was completed.
I found this too, cept I had constructed a very small one... about 3 1/2 inches in diameter using a Rollerblade Wheel.
It didn't work and was maybe uneven, but I also attributed failure to it being too small... where the magnetic field of the other side of the circle interfered.
In fact.. I had first put some magnets on a my Mt Bike wheel (20 inch I think), cept 6 magnets where positioned on the wheel vertically and angled,
then I positioned magnets around the outside to keep it spinning.
I ran out of magnets, but if the circle on the wheel doesn't work for some reason, I really think the other configuration (1 or 2 rows on the wheel), then magnets around the edge would.
Well, I digress since this thread is about constructing a device that utilizes 2 coils, an appropriate ferromagnetic core,
a resonant circuit and ferromagnetic resonant frequencies to achieve 'overunity'.
By the way, Terry did post a link to Howard Johnson's work which (in my opinion) should considered by anyone serious about magnets.
Mario may have brought this up in his post too...
Thankyou kindly gentlemen.
Link... http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson
To summarize briefly, Howard Johnson appears to be one of the first (if not the first) to meticulously measure and map the field of a magnet with a Hall Effect Sensor.
By this I mean, measure 1000's of points around a magnet, and a measurement of x,y and z at each point.
Clever guy rigged up an IBM computer and a few servo motors to do this automatically as well as accurately.
What you get looks NOTHING like the iron fillings (which become small magnets) test that we are all accustomed to.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe252%2Fmrbsman%2FDoubleVortexfromaMagnet.jpg&hash=8f7138cfdcd39f3d9d87ee18ea9ce6e62474398d)
This is a picture of the N end of a magnet... 2 Vortexes !
Apparently the S end is like this, except the Vortex on the left is a bit bigger.
He uses these vortexes to understand how to make magnet motor like devices and to explain how they work.
Sandman,
Thanks for you post.
Sounds like you have been dipping your head into the rabbit hole a bit yourself.
I looked at the Soliton Waves of Severn-Bore in Great Britain.
Pretty neat, I would definitely like to see this some day.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.severn-bore.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fbore2.jpg&hash=3991b98a50ccee400b08069d2402d77523c5d4df) (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.severn-bore.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fbore3.jpg&hash=16b0b3e9fa9619578e68c481280b6b72b0d067b7)
Tango,
I looked at the post you mentioned.
It looks interesting.
Perhaps some information about Magnetic Permeability uncovered here gives you some new ideas.
Now... I have come across another device that may be of use in the 'transformer' I am conceiving of.
It is called... an Electro Magnetic Resonator or Cavity Resonator.
This is what it is....
"A hollow conductor that uses resonance"
This is what it does...
"amplify an electromagnetic wave"
Refer here....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonator
From what I understand,
the frequency amplified in this device has to do with the size of the cavity
relating to the size of that specific frequency's wavelength.
In other words... a frequency with a wavelength of 1 cm would resonate and be amplified in a cavity that has a diameter of 1 cm.
I ask anyone with knowledge of Electromagnetic Cavity Resonators to post their understanding of it !
So, in light of this new information, the device I hope to build has these properties...
2 coils wrapped around a ferromagnetic core (of Low Coercivity and high Magnetic Permeability).
This core also has 1 or many resonant cavities .
The cavity resonance is the same as the ferromagnetic core's Ferromagnetic Resonance.
A low power resonant circuit is set up on the 1st coil (I will let you guess the frequency of this circuit) ;o)
The 2nd coil enjoys the bounty.
Tesla, can you hear me knocking?
The Observer
@Observer
I am going to guess the resonant frequency of the first coil would be 174.7 K hz or 180 K hz This frequency has been mentioned by several researchers. The cavity frequency would have to be a high harmonic because a cavity at 180 Khz would be pretty big?
If I recall, magnetron tubes use resonant cavities to amplify the microwaves.
Tishatang
QuoteI ask anyone with knowledge of Electromagnetic Cavity Resonators to post their understanding of it !
It is the exact same thing that happens to sound in a guitar or organ or any other acoustic resonator. A wave goes in and is bounced back and forth (taking a while to decay). Before it decays another wave enters, and another and another. All the waves entering add to each other before they decay. Thus, you have an amplification of the initial source which is at the same frequency but much lower in magnitude. Electromagnetic resonators are the same.
That vortex thing with the magnets is neat, but has anyone verified it?
Alright I looked at that Howard Johnson book while at lunch. After looking at it I knew who he was, I've read about him before. Firstly let me add that people have built his motors completely following the patents he made and none of them work. Secondly, the magnetic field lines are not the way he draws them, conventional science is correct, Howard is wrong.
Howard makes elegant drawings/measurements but anyone who has worked with a hall detector before will know that the measurements of the field are only valid if the sensor is placed 90 degrees to the field. Measurements taken at different angles are not accurate. It will give you strange readings if you do not measure it correctly. Unlike the iron fillings, the hall detector works on current change. We all know that current is effected at a 90 degree angle when placed in a magnetic field. A moving charge WILL form a vortex in a magnetic field. He is plotting what the current in the hall sensor is doing, which indeed would be a vortex shape. This is not the magnetic field lines, these are the vortices that the moving charge in the sensor is making!
But this was not the final blow in my eyes. The problem I had is that if you use his vortice model, then a halbach array could not work. The way he has drawn the fields swirling at 4 points do not add up correctly if you place a series of magnets in a halbach arrangement. However, the conventional model of the permanent magnet field does yield the proper effect in a halbach arrangement.
I feel Howard Johnson's concept is very erroneous and I would warn against it.
Hey Charlie,
My Dad was very skeptical of Howard Johnson's work..
of course he is skeptical of anything new.
Personally, I don't like to discount things as easily as that.
There must be something valid Howard is measuring.
I doubt he didn't know how a Hall Effect sensor works.
The man dedicated his entire life to magnets... and if he has patents, that means they were scrutinized beyond belief,
before the patent office put it's stamp of approval on it.
I would like to see if anyone else has done this sort of test.
Gotta get going, sorry for the short post.
The Observer
I don't know Howard so I don't know what he knew or didn't know. But from what people have tried, his setups do not work. Now maybe he didn't give the full story so that what you try from his published works are futile - many inventors do that.
As for what he put in his book, like I said it does not describe the Halbach array where as the conventional science does. If his model cannot describe something that is well known, then the model is not correct. Thats all I'm saying. I feel the measurements he made with his hall sensor are really mapping the vortex the charges inside the sensor, not the magnetic field. I'm sure there is some interesting things that could come out of his work - perhaps even a more improved magnetic sensor.
By the way, my tests have been inconclusive as far as my setup goes. My coils are too small. I've determined I need to produce about 100-150mV to see a large enough effect in the current of the motor when the coils are shorted- otherwise the signal is lost in noise. Right now they are producing 50mV. I'm trying to wind the coils a little larger so maybe I can get it to 100mV. I'm also building a slightly larger, simplified version of the same experiment. I'm hoping it will produce more voltage and allow me to determine the nature of my setup. More than likely it will respond like a conventional generator, but maybe not.
Hey Charlie,
Because conventional measurements with the Hall Effect sensor only measure 1 component of the magnetic field at a particular point in space,
I really don't think this is a very complete measurement.
That is, it is my understanding that only the maximum reading at any point has been acknowledged and interpreted.
One would think a comprehensive 3D reading at every point would give one a better idea of what is going on
Perhaps both models can be useful in understanding the characteristics of a Magnetic Field.
I was wondering, are you using a core with your coils?
The Observer
I agree a 3d image would be best.
Yes I use a core with my coils. Yesterday I spent a great deal of time winding more turns on my test coil. I doubled what it use to be and attained the 100mV I needed. I had to move away from battery operation because the current in the battery was always declining (cheap batteries haha). I was able to verify that my method increased the current in the supply by about 0.5mA while using a conventional setup with the same output voltage increased the supply by 1mA.
So it appears that my method, producing the same voltage, used half a milliamp less than the conventional. I still need to work on this though because the test results were noisy. Although this is interesting, it should be noted that it took about 200mA just to get those readings. So in the conventional setup the current went from 207 to 208mA in the driving motor while my setup went from 207 to 207.5mA. I think I can do much better than this.
Until next time,
Charlie
Greetings,
Sorry it's been awhile.
My keyboard is messed up.
Got a tiny bit of water on it. :/.
Typing with on-screen keybaarkd.!
Have seen many using a coil/core.
Even ZeroFossilFuel is going to use one in a new HHO cell design.
Someday, people will give more attention to the subject of this thread.
May the force be with us,
The Observer
hi Observer
welcome back!
maybe now is a good time to start thinking of some experiments you can run which will show the practical effects of high value magnetic permeability cores on the energy stored and recovered in coils?
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
I have run some finite analysis models in Vizimag to specifically investigate the effect of permeability on the torque response of a permanent bar magnet placed at right angles to an external B field. The results were interesting. Higher permeability pulled energy out of the external field and progressively concentrated the interaction of the internal and external fields at diagonally opposite corners of the permanent magnet. There was significant increase in torque response and changes in force vectors as permeability was increased from 1 up to about 23 or so. Above that there was little change.
Greetings,
I have acquired a sweet 200 in 1 electronics experimental device.
In the next week, while at a cabin on a lake, I plan to get going on some experiments.
I got this from amazon for $45 including shipping.
Has about anything you would want to get started.
www.amazon.com/200-In-1-Electronic-Project-Lab-ELEMX-907/dp/B0002AHR04/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1217220422&sr=1-10
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41NATYW4D7L._SS500_.jpg&hash=6bd878f392cbcf331e34eed7dc2c6c744b01e4d8)
The Observer
Carry on Observer,
I just *LOVE* original thinkers!
Carry on, keep going...you may be on to something.
People with a mindset similar to yours, are world changers, the negativists or status quo supporters, are shallow, world stagnators.
Keep up the 'outta the box' thought patterns matey, if ultimately nothing of value (energy wise) comes from it, what have you/we lost? Absolutely nothing!
At the very least, the VERY least, we would all have had our neurons positively occillated, and perhaps as a free bonus, a few more synapses would have developed, making us all that little more clever!
So, it's a win-win situation as far as i can see.
Keep on keeping on man.
spikey.
heheh - welcome to the 'get-yer-hands-dirty' brigade, Obs!
taking your experiments on vacation - that's just way too much devotion to 'the dream' ;)
but who knows... maybe all that solitude & beauty will prove to be an inspiration & opportunity to focus?
looking forward to your name starting to bear fruit!
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
:D
congratulations. You just "invented' an automotive spark plug coil, just like the ones henry ford used on his first model t gas/spark engine.
Greetings,
It has been ~ 1 and 1/2 years since this Topic has been addressed.
A little history... I became very interested in how magnets work after tinkering with magnet motors.
Why is this important?
Because Ferromagnetic Materials (FMs) can amplify a magnetic field.
and
Understanding how Magnets/FMs work is imperative to utilizing them properly.
_______________________________________________________________________________
So last I looked... a year and a half ago... this topic had been read about 1000 times.
Now it is at 4800 !!! a difference of almost 4000.
How the hell did it get read that many times
buried in the forum
without a single comment for that long??
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ok, so the time is right to bring this up again &
keep it at the forefront of the consciousness here at OU.com
Briefly,
1. A coil produces a magnetic field.
2. An iron core coil produces a magnetic field 5000 times stronger. (same current)
3. A piece of iron turns into a powerful magnet in the presence of a small magnetic field.
The big deal is the number 5000.
The coil's magnetic field is assisted (or amplified) by the iron by a ratio of 5000 to 1.
Therefore the Magnetic Permeability of Iron is 5000.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I came across a good video of a guy testing the difference between an air core and an iron core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tIaT_EZbMk
Please check this out... to see the magnetic field (of the coil) amplified (by the iron) without any extra current.
Best Regards,
The Observer
This is not discussed because there is no free lunch here. What you are observing is inductance. When you place an iron core in a coil, you increase the physical space contained within the coil, therefore its ability to store energy. It is like comparing a 8oz cup to a 55 gallon drum. Both can be filled with water, but one will hold much more. Look at the equations for induction, Faradays law, learn how each turn of a coil induces on its neighbor to create an internal BEMF causing a storage of energy. Look at the inductive rise time of an air core and an iron core, these should spell out the difference.
Hi folks, Hi Observer, I just noticed your thread and agree that as Joseph Newman and Robert Adams also realized that the energy for the magnetic field comes from the material itself and the input is only a catalyst to release some of the energy within copper, iron, etc. I had started a thread at the other forum similar to what your pointing out and here is a graph from Joseph Newman's book. So if this applies to copper then it surely applies just as well to iron atoms when the two are joined.
peace love light ;)
Sudo,
A Newbie who's first words include "no free lunch". hmm
Then Gibberish such as this.
QuoteWhen you place an iron core in a coil, you increase the physical space contained within the coil,
You either miss the point that a piece of iron has zillions of rotatable magnetic dipoles...
or
you are an infiltrator who's purpose is to confuse and misdirect.
Either way...
I ask you have some knowledge of what you speak of, before commenting in this thread.
The subject is Magnetic Permeability and the fact the most material's
value is around 1 while Ferros are from 1000 to 1,000,000. which relates to these subjects as well...
Magnetic Domains, Anisotropic Energy, Block Walls and Magnetic Coercitivity.________________________________________________________________________________
SkyWatcher,
You said...
QuoteJoseph Newman and Robert Adams also realized that the energy for the magnetic field comes from the material itself
Thankyou... Thankyou... Thankyou.
I so appreciate someone else besides me saying this.
Now I don't make any claims about copper and other materials that have a Magnetic Permeability near 1.
Meaning, they don't amplify or resist (diamagnetic)... Magnetic fields much... hense the number 1.
But... FERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS
do amplify Magnetic Fields by factors of 1000 to 1 Million !!!!
hense the number 1 Million !
Key Points Include...
1. Unpaired electrons in Ferros are mini coils that produce a magnetic field.
2. These "coils" (aka magnetic dipoles) rotate... some easy, some hard (Magnetic Coercitivity)
3. Iron has a large magnetic field not observable until another magnetic field reveals it (Magnetic Domains/Block Walls)
4. Dipoles align when Newton says they shouldn't. (Anisotropic Energy)<--- Unexpected Quantum Effect
Or simply.. When you take 1 billion randomly orientated magnets and get them pointing all in the same direction,
the result is a very large magnetic field not previously observable._______________________________________________________________________________
Look for a diagram in the near future explaining this.
Non-Linear Systems Rule,
The Observer
Steorn has made my thoughts divert a bit into this thread.
I believe you are correct, there is no free lunch it went beyond that...there's a mountain of food instead, if you don't see it you are blind.
For the ease of a thought experimentation. Imagine having a super conducting coil which is shorted and has a 10 amps current going through it. It will have a certain amount of magnetic energy stored according to this formula E=0.5*L*I^2. Now we ask ourselves what happens if we slowly approach this coil with a cylindrical ferromagnetic material. We will see two things happen at the same time. The flux will rise from the point of view from the coil as more and more iron dipoles are being orientated. BUT at the same time the inductance is also rising at the same rate! For instance if the flux was rising by 1 webers/second the inductance would be rising by 1 henries/second.
So what is happening to the current and core during this period??? As the core is being attracted closer to the center of the coil more flux is being made, but also more inductance is made since you are effectively changing the permeability. So could it be possible that these two changes cancel out so that the current remains equal? But wait if that's so then we just increased the magnetic energy for free. Oke maybe the current falls down so that the magnetic energy stored remains constant since L increased. This means if we dump this energy instantly in a capacitor it would receive all the starting energy.
That's more reasonable. But wait a second......after we dumped all the energy into a capacitor. Why does the iron core have a net kinetic energy ??? OMG this system completly ignored the mechanical work it has been doing by attracting the core closer by itself. ;D
People will probably not understand this reasoning as they are not used to changing flux and permeability at the same time. There are some things that I still have to figure out though.
Broli,
Thanks for your comment.
You Brilliantly Stated...
Quotethere is no free lunch it went beyond that...
there's a mountain of food instead,
if you don't see it you are blind.
I also like your experiment involving... moving a piece of iron into the static field of an energized coil.
This is essentially the same as putting a piece of iron next to a magnet.
__________________________________________________________________________________
As promised, I created a rough diagram to help explain Magnetic Permeability.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
The Observer
Hi all.
look here fo the basics and read it to the end of the page :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)
escpecially here the paragraph about the "long range order"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)
Last sentence :
"This statement has exceptions and limits, since you do reach a saturation magnetization of the iron core quickly, as illustrated in the discussion of hysteresis."
Hysteresis ;:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)
QuoteOnce the magnetic domains are reoriented, it takes some energy to turn them back again
Now can this be the reason why the new MEG-Design operates beyond the maximum of permeabilty and let the permanent magnet do the work of bringing the magnetic alignement back ? ( not to zero but swinging between the
left and the right side of the permeability peak ?
post #149 :
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.135 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.135) picture INKOMP_possible_explanation.jpg
We are entering here the area of the magentic amplifier ( transductor-technique)
You use a diode to feed the primary and saturate the core ( saturable reactor)
Regards
Kator
Quote from: The Observer on December 29, 2009, 12:50:40 PM
Sudo,
A Newbie who's first words include "no free lunch". hmm
Then Gibberish such as this.
You either miss the point that a piece of iron has zillions of rotatable magnetic dipoles...
or
you are an infiltrator who's purpose is to confuse and misdirect.
Either way...
I ask you have some knowledge of what you speak of, before commenting in this thread.
The subject is Magnetic Permeability and the fact the most material's
value is around 1 while Ferros are from 1000 to 1,000,000.
which relates to these subjects as well...
Magnetic Domains, Anisotropic Energy, Block Walls and Magnetic Coercitivity.
________________________________________________________________________________
SkyWatcher,
You said...
Thankyou... Thankyou... Thankyou.
I so appreciate someone else besides me saying this.
Now I don't make any claims about copper and other materials that have a Magnetic Permeability near 1.
Meaning, they don't amplify or resist (diamagnetic)... Magnetic fields much... hense the number 1.
But... FERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS do amplify Magnetic Fields by factors of 1000 to 1 Million !!!!
hense the number 1 Million !
Key Points Include...
1. Unpaired electrons in Ferros are mini coils that produce a magnetic field.
2. These "coils" (aka magnetic dipoles) rotate... some easy, some hard (Magnetic Coercitivity)
3. Iron has a large magnetic field not observable until another magnetic field reveals it (Magnetic Domains/Block Walls)
4. Dipoles align when Newton says they shouldn't. (Anisotropic Energy)<--- Unexpected Quantum Effect
Or simply.. When you take 1 billion randomly orientated magnets and get them pointing all in the same direction,
the result is a very large magnetic field not previously observable.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Look for a diagram in the near future explaining this.
Non-Linear Systems Rule,
The Observer
I am no detractor, my other screen name is Armagdn03 and I have been around for a loooong time, I just dont always like to make waves, so have an alternate name.
Take for example a coil with no iron core, measure the ammount of energy it takes to reach saturation for the current input. In other words, if you put in X energy, how long before the inductive rise curve flatens out. This will be rather quick, because you have little indcutance, thus a fast inductive rise time. Now calculate the energy stored within such an inductor, energy equals one half inductance times current squared.
Now compare to a coil with such a core, and a huge permeability. The inductive rise time is many times slower, but the energy stored within the coil is larger.
It is a trade off. One reaches full energy potential really quickly but holds little, the other takes time to fill, but holds much. Time is of the utmost relevance because we are dealing with electrical units with respect to time, thus power.
for example, say you take an air core coil, apply power and note the time it takes to reach a steady current in the coil. Now place a core with permeability 1000 within. Apply power for that exact same time interval, it will NOT reach 1000 times the energy as the air core. It will be nowhere near saturation because the inductive rise time is a thousand times larger. To reach steady current state that the coil with the core, it will take many many many times longer.
All of these questions you have, and wish to work on can be easily calculated using nothing but simple algebra and the equations for inductive rise time and energy stored in an inductor. Give it a try, show the math, and you will find its a wash.
also, in the future, it is not polite to call people detractors with no inkling of proof other than the person who speaks disagrees with what you have to say. In professional world that is called a
"red haring" or calling attention to an outside idea to subtract from the message of the speaker. The most respected retort to a statement you disagree with is to share a well thought out response offering insight rather than accusation.
Sudo,
This is a great point... the inductive rise time.
I can do approximate math.
Say the Magnetic Field with air core is 1 and the inductive rise was .5 seconds at 1 amp.
Since the Magnetic field with iron core is 5000 you think the rise time is ~ 5000x(.5 seconds).
or 2500 seconds which equals 41 minutes !!!!!
My Friend, this isn't even close... turns out it's faster not slower as you say.
There is no Trade-Off
If you study this video closely, you will see that the rise time to max current ~ 1.24 amps
is shorter with the Iron Core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tIaT_EZbMk
Without the iron core it appears to take about 1/2 second.
With the iron core it is almost instantaneous.
What you are saying is that a magnet repels iron before it attracts it...
which is, of course, pure fiction.
The reason there is a ferro core inside a speaker cone coil
is because ferro amplifies the small magnetic field of the coil... instantly and effortlessly.
Grand Regards,
The Observer
P.S. I realize you think there is no "free lunch" here,
which leads to the question....
Where do you think there is a "free lunch?"
Ill do the math for you even though I believe you are capable.
.
Inductive rise time = Inductance / Resistance. 5 time constants = 99% "full"
say you have 10 amps at 99% and this is where it levels off.
Say the inductance is one, the resistance is one, in 5 seconds, you will be at 99%
The energy stored in this coil after this time will be equal to one half the inductance times the current squared with comes to 50 joules.
Now lets take inductance at 1000, resistance at 1 and 10 amps. All we have changed is the inductance.
now our rise time will be 1000/1 for one time constant, after 5 of these the current will be 10 amps, but it will take 5 time constants to get there, or 5000 seconds.
energy in the coil at this point is, 500 *10 squared, or 50,000 joules.
Example one took 5 seconds and we end at 50 joules
example two took 5000 seconds and we end at 50,000
Divide it out, 50 joules over 5 seconds = ten watts of energy
50,000 joules over 5000 seconds = Ten watts of energy
percentage difference = 0
It sounds like 5000 seconds is alot of time for the rise of a coil, but consider we are dealing with a 1 ohm 1000henry coil in this example, which is almost to large to concieve, but I chose to show the extreems so that the point is clearly illustrated.
I really don't enjoy raining on parades, I just know that I would like someone to inform me if I was incorrect so that I spend less time with incorrect assumptions,and progress can be made faster.
Where is the free lunch? I think you are on the right track, it is important to have a very good understanding of the basics, because even they are not totally understood in their present form, having a grasp on these things that you are now questioning will prepare you to make some frightful progress.
P.S. The video you showed is not evidence of rise time. One would need a source which chops a DC current into segments longer than the rise time, then measure with an oscilloscope where the signal flattens. Then I would divide by 5, pull out the ol Inductance meter and Ohm meter, measure these two variables, plug em into the equation, and see if my experimental results match my predicted. I would never trust my eyesight and pocket watch to measure like I assume you did with this video (since the person who created it never goes over this) because the time increments are way too small to do effectively. I can guarantee his time constants are getting larger as the core goes in.
These equations are time tested and good, all modern broadcast of radio, tv, cell phones etc, rely on the correct calculation of resonant circuits, of which inductors are one half. If you find a way to break this you would have something, but as of yet.....I dont see any gain. .
Sudo,
Thanks for doing a better calculation than me.
My rough approximation was 41 minutes for a permeability of 5000.
*note... this was a low guess because the average current would be on the order of 1/2(max Current)*
Perhaps 2x41 minutes would be a more accurate estimate which would be 82 minutes.
Your calculation was 83 minutes for a permeability of 1000.
I think it is obvious that this isn't how the real world works !!!!!!
Can You imagine the Electromagnet Operator at the junkyard waiting a few hours every time he picks up a car???
Not !!!
Again,I ask you look at the video... you can see that the rise time to 1.24 amps is SHORTER with the Iron Core..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tIaT_EZbMk
A charging iron core solenoid displays non-linear properties as do forced resonant systems.
Have a Good Day,
The Observer
P.S. Let us know what your OU/ nonlinear-system ideas are.
I think you are mistaken, and this is exactly how the real world works. The electromagnet in a junk yard is nowhere near 1 ohm 1000 henries, it is a fraction of that, yet they pour a ton of current through. This way you have a strong magnetic field which develops quickly.
Let me do another calculation to show you how big such a coil in my example would be.
http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/Calculator/Inductor/
I used this online calculator for which I have checked the math and it is decent.
For a one henry coil, 8 guage wire, 10inches diameter, and 10inches high, you would have a
Wire Length of 6601.87 feet
Copper Weight of 329.93 pounds
at an ohmic resistance of 4.23 ohms
to get one ohm you would need to use guage 2 instead of 8 which would give around 1.03ohms
http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html
http://www.interfacebus.com/Copper_Wire_AWG_SIze.html
which gives us a coil weight of 1675 pounds!
This a ONE OHM ONE HENRY COIL!
we haven't even put the core in which throws our Heny's up to 1000,
Magnetic field strenght put out by an inductor is measured in amp turns, or amps x turns
Therefore you can pick up cars by reducing turns, increasing amps, and you have powerful magnet which has fast inductive rise time, this is exactly how it works.
My "non linear" systems are on youtube under user Tortuga0303
My brainchild is eccentric transformer theory, which I have discussed on the Energeticforum.com and now in depth with the stiffler scientific forum,
I am not here to share my systems, I am here keep people from being mislead, which is a waste of time for us all.
(note: the above calculations are not 100% accurate because as wire size changes so does the physical dimensions of the inductor causing a difference, but either way this is a close approximation to illustrate an example)
Sudo,
You seem to have failed to examine the video where a Scandinavian Dude tests a coil with and without an iron core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tIaT_EZbMk
The rise time to max current is faster with the iron core.
Which is completely opposite your theory.
Let's be clear...
You are defending a Conservation of Energy Theory based on Macro Mechanics..
Ferromagnetics is WAY more complicated than you acknowledge.
There are Quantum Forces acting in very unNewtonian ways..
Also, I am talking about ferros displaying
LOW MAGNETIC COERCIVITY (check Diagram below)
with a very thin Hysteresis Loop.
These dipoles spin easily and effortlessly to align...
Anisotropic Energy to thank...
otherwise you would probably be right !
What you are basically saying is that when a magnet encounters a nail...
there is initially resistance before the attraction.
I hope you agree that is Nonsense.
I ask your definition of Magnetic Coercivity and Anisotropic Energy.
Extra Credit...A Ferromagnetic Hysteresis Loop.
Regards,
The Observer
I am not forgetting anything, the test done by that man was not imperical, nor was it testing what you are trying to straighten in your head.
Instead of citing a poorly done video with equipment never intended to measure what you are looking for, why not try the tests for yourself, it has nothing to do with the attraction of a magnet. It has only to do with how quickly the inductor reaches its maximum current, and the energy contained within the inductor at that point.
Inudctive rise time is inductance / resistance. As resistance increases the current ceiling lowers meaning that the coil reaches "saturation" for that voltage more quickly. It also means that the inductor with all of its "electrical inertia" will come to a halt faster, meaning its inductive discharge time gets faster too. But in all cases increasing inductance causes an increase in inductive rise time. Grab an OSCOPE, Grab a signal generator, or 555 timer, or any current chopping device and test for yourself.
Question....if you make an LC tank circuit, and increase either L or C what happens? the frequency decreases...This is for the very same reasons as I have described prior. say we increase inductance through adding one of two cores, one core has low coercivity, one high, what happens??? The frequency of resonance is equal for both cores, but because of the differing histerisis loops, one will dissipate more energy. The tank circuit Q values will be different but the resonant points will be the same, meaning that inductive rise time has increased in both cases to the same degree.
Now like you said lets be clear....
I am not defending conservation of energy, I am defending the mechanics of inductors. I know personally how complicated ferromagnetics is, as it is my career.
Newtonian mechanics is known to be flawed, I did not defend it....
Also, I have never once claimed that there is a resistance before attraction. I do not know where you heard me claim this, but if you want me to argue it...ok, its called inertia, the nail has mass, and thus takes energy to move....an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside source. There is always an innate resistance to motion or change in motion, relative or not, INCLUDING the current in inductor.
I have explained this several times, it is flawless, I have never seen it fail, if you want to prove me wrong, I will gladly accept you showing me otherwise, with a video of your own, proving that adding inductance decreases rise time. In the mean time I will make just such a video showing my point, using met-glass nano crystalline material, best on the market. That will be my last post on the subject, people can read your claims, my claims, and decide for themselves.
I dont think I have to defend my OU beliefs here, and wont be dragged into such an argument, but I will call out bullshit when I see it, because people are hear to learn fact, and most here would be upset if they were misinformed.
I also dont think it is time to start discussing histerisis loops and such concepts when the uber simple concepts have been missed!!!
Sudo,
I appreciate your time on this.
Let me explain an important difference between Newtonian Magnets and Quantum Magnets.
If you take 2 compasses and put them next to each other, or nearby, they skew and try to line up N to S.
If you take 2 ferro dipoles and put them next to each other... they align N to N.. pointing in the same direction..
The energy that overcomes magnetic force and makes them align
when they "shouldn't" is called Anisotropic Energy.
This energy, combined with the natural magnetic energy of ferros, are what can be tapped into.
Basically... a common speaker uses these energies.
If you build a speaker without Ferros it takes ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more energy to run the same volume output.
Get it?
Ferro System Energy - Coil System Energy = Energy Contributed by Ferros
Understanding Coercivity and Hysteresis is imperative to understanding what energy is needed to saturate the core.
The very thing we are discussing.
- A Magnet takes ALOT of Energy to turn the dipoles.
- Iron takes a little energy to turn the dipoles.
I think the fellows at the National High Magnetic Field Lab at Florida State are probably right.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/magnets/page4.html
QuoteWhen you put the iron alloy core into a magnetic field
all the atoms in the iron align with it and, in so doing,
boost the magnet's field strength significantly,
yet without using more electricity!
If it took soooo much more energy to turn the dipoles... don't you think they would mention it ???
I welcome your experiment, and eagerly anticipate your results.
If you can show me a ---- 1 second vs. 1 hour rise time ----- (low C core), you got me.
Good Luck !
Regards,
The Observer
First and foremost...thanks for keeping things civil!
now on to the show....
This video shows the voltage across a pick up coil giving us a peak at the inductive rise of the inductor under test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bi3bj9asyY
Because we are using an oscilloscope, we are taking a look at the voltage across the inductor. We can see that voltage is at its peak when the signal generator first turns on giving us a a steep almost vertical component to our viewed wave form. Then as the inductors amperage steadily increases durring its 5 time constant period, the voltage drops in the expected way. As it levels off, the signal generator reverses polarity and we get a mirror image on our trace.
The the time it takes for the inductor to go from its highest peak, back down to zero, is 5 time constants.
If we have no core, or in this case only half of a core, we have the steep vertical component, followed by a quick fall to zero, this indicates that all 5 time constants are squeezed into a very small time frame. As we add ferromagnetic material into the center, the time it takes to fall to zero increases, which is literally equivalent to saying...as we add ferromagnetic material into the inductor, the time it takes the inductor to reach maximum current increases. In both cases maximum current is the same, the only difference is how long it takes to get there, and how much energy it holds when its all done (see previous mathematical proof).
This is ONE proof, that addition of ferromagnetic material increases the inductive time constants, or in other words, makes it take longer to reach its "current ceiling". But as pointed out earlier, this equates to more total energy stored within the inductor, so it is a trade off. More energy is stored, but it takes longer to get there. As I showed earlier in my mathematical proof, this equates to nothing gained, nothing lost.
Another proof is to do the same test with an LC circuit. Measure the resonant frequency of the LC when the inductor is an air core. Add a core, and watch as the resonant frequency drops considerably, because we have added to the time constant factor of the coil. Remember frequency will drop because it is an inverse function of time meaning that as the cycles take longer and longer the frequency gets lower and lower.
Here is a good website I found after the fact, which will show the same results I showed in the video with explanations as well.
http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses/p112/labs/node9.html
here is a good quote from it that states what I just said in different words.....
The moment the switch in the circuit shown in Figure 20 is closed, there is no current flowing, and the voltage across the inductor is the same as the emf of the voltage source. The current immediately starts to increase from zero, changing rapidly at first, and leveling off as it reaches its steady-state value. The potential difference across the inductor decays exponentially with the rate of change of the current
I hope this clears things up a bit for the curious mind. Keep in the back of your head though that this is standard inductor behavior and applies to standard coils and standard cores, this does not apply to anything "exotic"
Sudo,
Great Video !
It's getting late here, so I think I'll call er a day..
Thank you,
The Observer
No problem, thank you for the compliment.
I would definitely like to applaud you for your willingness to look at the real core of the issue. I have found many interesting and overlooked facts by taking a very careful look at the so called fundamentals. It is discussions like these that really challenge both the layman and expert alike.
I have a strong "inkling", that what we are all looking for will not be found in some exotic theory or complicated embodiment. Refined, the concepts that free us will be simple and profound.
Also, don't be afraid to look up the math involved with alot of this. Most of it is very simple using nothing more than 7th grade pre algebra. You will find that you can learn alot from this approach but only if you marry the concept to the math, because we all know the math alone is crap till it is connected with reality in our minds. Think of it less as math, and more as relationships....if we change this..what happens to that?
Either way, thanks for the good discussion, and your many good observations of which many still stand.
Sudo,
Gotta get to work, so this will be short.
1st, I have gained a lot of respect for you since looking at a few of your videos.
It seems that we are both interested in Transformers and it appears you have a lot more experience than I.
With that said,
Although your video does definitely shows longer rise time, I am still suspicous that it is 1000's of times longer.
If you were using Metglass then it would be on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 times longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my assertion claiming a regular speaker would take Magnitudes more Energy to run without using ferro.
(without Magnet or Iron Core inside coil)
Is this a statement you would agree with?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year... New Energy,
The Observer
The reason it was not more of a change because I went from half a core to a full core. With no core, the coil was much lower on the inductance, into the nano henries. Also, metglass has many alloys which have different permiabilities, for example the small round c cores I showed were for high freq and had less permeability. Also I had the cores aligned up backwards, they are marked to get as flush a face to face connection as possible but as you could see, once they are properly pressed together the inductance goes way up. I pressed lightly in the video on miss matched faces, and it doubled.
You may be correct about the speakers, but one could re design them to work with a magnet and no ferro, you would need many more turns to make up for the missing ferro, meaning you need higher voltage to run them. Also speaker design is a science which is almost opposite of what we are looking for. Speakers are designed to have very flat response to frequency change, they design them, to have time constants larger than the slowest frequency so that you don't waste energy. If you lower the inductance, and play a low freq tone, the coil in the speaker will reach its current ceiling quickly and you will get terrible sound reproduction. From my studies, I have found that resonance is what we want, not the opposite of resonance like in speakers.
i have been following this discussion for the past few days and have enjoyed the points of view of everyone but i am left with a few questions at this point that just keep nagging at me and they have seemed to be passed by.
the first to my thinking is just a bit unusual it deals with the saturation point if a transformer is saturated there should be no current induced in the secondary if what you are saying is correct i have not seem this to be so so if you could explain why it would be appreciated.
the second is a bit more complicated and it would be very difficult for me to ask but here goes anyway you stated that a body at rest stays at rest and a body in motion stays in motion this does not make any sense to me everything is in motion but it is relevant to other bodies so what keeps them at rest might be more appropriate to ask. i know that conductive fluids make the best lubricants so is the state of rest only due to resistance or a lack of current flow or rate of flow somebody is wrong here and am trying to sort this out please help.
Martin
QuoteI have a strong "inkling", that what we are all looking for will not be found in some exotic theory or complicated embodiment. Refined, the concepts that free us will be simple and profound.
Interesting statement, and research, Sudonym...
Then perhaps experiment with the magnetic beam amplifier patented by Boyd Bushman in tandem with Lockheed. Flux quanta made to intersect at or near right angles liberate more electrons without penalty, such that quite a floodgate can be opened and directed as one wishes. Think of the common dipole twisted sideways, in effect employing magnons as a cumulative key to achieving a stable magnetovortex, from which electrons may be scooped away at will.
http://www.rense.com/general54/babalc.htm
Or one may wish to closely observe the results of Howard Johnson, Qin Gang, and Perendev. While most are interested in duplicating such research in the hope of replicating observed effects/anomalies, most also miss the fact that many, many field fluctuations are being achieved with very little kinetic energy losses. At some point, an "Aha" moment arises from which there is but a small jump to a solid state solution.
MR
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2006/RX/RX54S-siebert.html
Sudo,
On your video,
At 1:49 you pull out the 1/2 core and the peak voltage drops by 1/2.
Then when you put it back, it stays at 1/2 the previous peak voltage.
That's wierd !
Doesn't seem like you changed the physical characteristics of your setup that much.
Would be nice to see the inductance of a serious copper wire coil without any ferro vs. w/ferro.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You said...
QuoteYou may be correct about the speakers, but one could re design them to work with a magnet and no ferro
Well, when I said no ferro.. I mean the High Coercivity Ferros as well as the Low Coercivity Ferros.
This means you can't use a magnet that utilizes the free limitless energy that powers atoms.
Ferros add energy to the speaker system...
Ferro System Energy - 2 Coil System Energy = Energy Contributed by Ferros.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said...
QuoteFrom my studies, I have found that resonance is what we want
I couldn't agree with you more !As the only other thread I have started here... why is an Acoustic Guitar is Louder than an Electric?
is about the non-linear behavior of Resonant Systems.
I guess you know that a RESONATING TRANSFORMER exhibits some PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS..
________________________________________________________________________________
Nueview,
If I understand your first question correctly,
You want to know what happens to the current in the secondary after the primary has reached the current
sufficient to saturate the core, thus not allowing any further "amplification" from the dipoles from the core?
My guess is that Sudo will agree with me...
any further current adds only what difference in magnetic field
is supplied by the primary...
A Magnetic Hysteresis Loop will show this.
Your second question... I'm gunna need pictures.
I do agree that everything is moving... The Universe... Galaxies... Star Systems....
Planetary Systems... Atomic Systems...
Subatomic Systems...
______________________________________________________________________________
New Decade... New Energy,
The Observer
What i want is an explanation of why it is when i put a square wave into a transformer it gives out spikes but when a sign wave goes in it can saturate the core and the wave does not spike on the output instead it just truncates?
to the second part of my question you are partly correct with an answer of hysteresis but if the item is not a contained loop put opened the drag stops and motion frees up. so if motion is determined by open and closed current loops space without matter should not be magnetic is that correct? and if so all gravity would be controled through the hysteresis looping of matter.
i am still confused because photons have no matter so no magnetic sometimes i think and everything people say just doesn't add up at all.
Martin
Sudo,
When reviewing your video today I SUDDENLY REALIZED that you were using a pickup coil hooked up to the oscilloscope. !
Stupid me... I suppose, just I assumed you would be taking the voltage across the charging coil.
As that what this whole discussion was about.
(note... it was about 5 minutes before bed, when I viewed the video the first time)
I still think you are a pretty smart guy...
but you DID NOT do the experiment to confirm that a coil takes 10,000 times longer to charge with a decent Ferro Core.
The pickup coil may give clues to what the charging coil is doing...but it is not definitive by any stretch.
You may want to try again... otherwise, I guess I need to find a signal generator and metglass so I can give er a try.
I suppose ole Radio Shack probably doesn't have a clue about metglass. ;o/
Regards,
The Observer
the site usually times out on me so i found a better way to write and get a long responce to some of what i am thinking. there are some thoughts along the way just to keep things straight as to what i will be asking because it can get very confusing along the way and i don't want anyone getting lost.
i am also assuming that most of us are beyond the basic magnetic field theory which is good for children but i have put away childish things and am ready for the more complex answers that are going somewhere.
the term permeability refers to a specific energy field property and its relation to matter by density per volume it does not state or imply anything else about the field or the substance.
then there is the reluctance the ability of the substance to resist change which is how we get magnets.this is what allows me to see the repulsion of magnets which Faraday demonstrated was related to flow direction and spin of the field and no ELECTRONS.
i have struck many an arc and seen evidence of this as electrons in motion usually matter is moved or distorted under these circumstances. i have also energized many iron bars and pulled them apart and never have i seen the slightest inkling of a spark.
so how does the field move this electron?
electrons work great for chemists they put the whole chemistry thing into perspective but they fall apart under real scrutiny of energy fields.some examples from the physicist book include buckey balls which need a lack of gravity to form and exotic elements from nuclear reactions to cold fusion reactors producing anomalous water excess.if one asks a chemist if you can make gold they say no if you ask a physicist he says possibly but we haven't figured that out yet.many times i have been told i do not understand so i study but often i am still left with my questions in tact such as a chemist says there is no alchemy but the periodic table contains elements made in a reactor they are not natural yet this is the basis of alchemy we are taking apart chemical reactions and remaking them with heat pressure magnetic fields and charge state and making oil from the waist in our dumps even as we recycle steel and other metals.
SUDO said that magnetics is a property of dipole manipulation i comprehend this concept then he speaks of current i have seen magnetic fields about electrostatic machines where little current is present we talk about aligning domains fine for matter but in its absence what?
i have been watching the joule thief circuits growing to bigger and bigger toroids using less turns and getting more output this makes sense if the volume of the material is considered and there is low reluctance the power to align domains would be small and the alignment would compound giving a better push back when the domains fall.any increase in output would there fore be tied directly to the total number of domains possible.
a resonant circuit is a single domain yet it passes what energy is not resonant through without interference i was never aware of electrons having two or more non concentric vibration rates so how does this happen?
Thank you very much for reading this it is intended to ask the questions i do not have the answers for but would love the discussion.
Martin
QuoteSecondly, the magnetic field lines are not the way he draws them, conventional science is correct, Howard is wrong.
Conventional science is a shadow of it's former self. Or, more accurately, a silhouette of a cobweb of a shadow....
HJ attempted to peel back but one of the myriad layers of our reality. He was a bit ahead of his time. He discovered that a magnetic field looks very different from the inside than out. He also discovered, though only related such fact in so many words, that the 'skin of the onion' was very thin indeed, and that once penetrated, a magnetic field has a way of bursting out.....and changing itself to fit one's perspective.
HJ admirably maintained quite a balancing act while on the right track. Problem was, he was never allowed to see the half of it.
God does not play dice with the universe. He does however allow man to do so, which is why man is always rolling 'craps' for himself. He has loved playing dice, when all he had to do the whole time was play NICE instead.
Blessings in Yeshua
Hi Observer, I too have researched extensively the concept of permeability. Like most of the posts here, I've found that a magnetic coil in a closed system such as a transformer or inductor is restricted in magnetic strength by CEMF or negative feedback. I've found that it isn't really necessary to use exotic and expensive materials(Metglas, SuperMalloy, Hyperco, etc.) as long as the magnetic circuit is in a closed loop such as in a reluctance motor. Most applications only require ur of about 200 which can be obtained at the local hardware store with ordinary steel such as 1010 or 1018. It seems an electro-mechanical system produces the best efficiency such as is found in an electric motor. I have some facts and figures to illustrate this claim if you might be interested. Just let me know.
Please do i am always interested as i may have missed something and could learn.
Martin
Xaver,
Thanks for you comment.
You probably have done more experiments than me.
It would be great if you could post a simple synopsis of your findings here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where I am currently at...
RISE TIME OF AIR CORE vs. RISE TIME OF FERRO CORE
I know t=L/R
And L of a coil = L*ur
So for a Magnetic Permeability(ur) of say 10,000..
this means the rise time is 10,000 times longer !
This really true?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to get a signal generator in the near future to do some tests myself.
Regards,
The Observer
From what i have seen it can all be adjusted with the plate thickness and the plate gaping as well as the material used that is what saturable reactors are all about altering the B-H curve i have a good book on this from the 1930's and it goes into allot of detail.
Martin
I made a more in depth thread about energy gain by permeability change:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8576.msg219635
@ Nueview and Observer, yes it's correct, it would be 10,000 more. Please remember that L (inductance) is determined by many factors including the number of turns of wire, cross-sectional area, length, permeability, etc. Also one Henry (L) is a very large value, most inductors do not have that high a value. And last, think of an inductor with a very large rise time as a sort of semi-permanent magnet. A permanent magnet would have a rise time of infinity.
Anyway, I am currently working on a project that involves a C-shaped EM. It requires 6V and 2A. This produces a flux density in the core of about 1T. If the gap is shorted by a soft ferrous pole (non permanent magnet) then force is about 12 pounds and the distance shorted is about 7/16". This produces about 50 watts output as compared to 12 watts input. The relative permeabilty of the core is about 200. So at relatively low ur a magnetic/electric circuit can be optimized to produce a super efficient electro-mechanical system. Hope this can help with some of your ideas.
this relates allot to what john ecklin was attempting to get at with his motional magnetic field generators i built a few but stopped as there was something wrong permeability seems to go hand and hand with reluctance there is more field retention in a solid bar than a bunch of steel wire due in part to hysterisous.
also i have been looking at the coil formula and doing allot of thinking on it and it seems that a wire has a given amount of inductance be it straight or wound into a coil the wire diameter plays a part but not really the coil size it is one of the things i am trying to find the origin of such as when were and who came up with the formula and why. if you have come across this information it may help allot with the calculations.
Martin
Xav,
Sounds like some interesting research you got going there... keep up the good work !
Ok... 10,000 times longer is enough for me to do the calculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I calculated that a l = 1 meter long Coil
A = (.1)m2
N = 2886 turns
R = 1 ohm
will have a rise time of 1 second.
L = (uN2A)/l. u = 1.2(10-6) t = L/R
So throw in a Relatively Low Permeability core with a ur = 10,000
L = ur(uN2A)/l (with core) t = ur(L/R)
You get 1 sec *10,000 = 10,000 seconds = 166 minutes = 2 hours 46 minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no experimental data to back me up I emphatically say...
A 3 Hour Rise Time??? No F__ing way !
So Super Perma Alloy with a permeability of 1,000,000 would take 300 hours? or around 2 weeks ! ?
I don't believe that for a second,... pun intended !
Heck, I wouldn't even believe a rise time of 1 day !
An Hour? Wouldn't beleive it !
I place my bets in the minutes to seconds category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess the only way to really know will be to do the tests myself.
With at home parts, I suppose I can make a core out of paper clips and estimate the ur at 2,500 or so.
I have a bead on a cheap signal generator, so I am hoping that works out.
Good Day !
The Observer
Quote from: The Observer on January 06, 2010, 10:25:47 AM
Xav,
Sounds like some interesting research you got going there... keep up the good work !
Ok... 10,000 times longer is enough for me to do the calculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I calculated that a l = 1 meter long Coil
A = (.1)m2
N = 2886 turns
R = 1 ohm
will have a rise time of 1 second.
L = (uN2A)/l. u = 1.2(10-6) t = L/R
So throw in a Relatively Low Permeability core with a ur = 10,000
L = ur(uN2A)/l (with core) t = ur(L/R)
You get 1 sec *10,000 = 10,000 seconds = 166 minutes = 2 hours 46 minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no experimental data to back me up I emphatically say...
A 3 Hour Rise Time??? No F__ing way !
So Super Perma Alloy with a permeability of 1,000,000 would take 300 hours? or around 2 weeks ! ?
I don't believe that for a second,... pun intended !
Heck, I wouldn't even believe a rise time of 1 day !
An Hour? Wouldn't beleive it !
I place my bets in the minutes to seconds category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess the only way to really know will be to do the tests myself.
With at home parts, I suppose I can make a core out of paper clips and estimate the ur at 5,000.
I have a bead on a cheap signal generator, so I am hoping that works out.
Good Day !
The Observer
You will probably not have to wait that long depending on your voltage. Mumetal will long been saturated before you hit the ohmic current limit or the rise time constant.
According to this: http://www.magnetica.fr/repository/Fig26.gif Mumetal reaches its maximum permeability at around 0.05 Oersted which is about 4 ampturns/m. With your coil data that becomes a current of 1.4mA, after that current has been reached the permeability starts decreasing. So if you want to keep that long rise time you will need to use a voltage of 1.4mV or lower. The rise time formula says nothing about saturation but you have to take it into consideration.
thank you Broli
you have raised two excellent points as to suturation and voltage from what reasoning did you add these to the equation i have seen voltage changes alter the resonance of tank circuits i know it effects the capacitance current flow perhaps not said properly but as to the inductor that as voltage goes up and frequency is any the current rises or falls i would think falls off hand should probably test this as well.
Martin
Quote from: The Observer on January 06, 2010, 10:25:47 AM
Xav,
Sounds like some interesting research you got going there... keep up the good work !
Ok... 10,000 times longer is enough for me to do the calculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I calculated that a l = 1 meter long Coil
A = (.1)m2
N = 2886 turns
R = 1 ohm
will have a rise time of 1 second.
L = (uN2A)/l. u = 1.2(10-6) t = L/R
So throw in a Relatively Low Permeability core with a ur = 10,000
L = ur(uN2A)/l (with core) t = ur(L/R)
You get 1 sec *10,000 = 10,000 seconds = 166 minutes = 2 hours 46 minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no experimental data to back me up I emphatically say...
A 3 Hour Rise Time??? No F__ing way !
So Super Perma Alloy with a permeability of 1,000,000 would take 300 hours? or around 2 weeks ! ?
I don't believe that for a second,... pun intended !
Heck, I wouldn't even believe a rise time of 1 day !
An Hour? Wouldn't beleive it !
I place my bets in the minutes to seconds category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess the only way to really know will be to do the tests myself.
With at home parts, I suppose I can make a core out of paper clips and estimate the ur at 2,500 or so.
I have a bead on a cheap signal generator, so I am hoping that works out.
Good Day !
The Observer
Thanx for the encouragement, Observer, we all need all we can get! In response to your example, this particular coil has fantastic dimensions: 1 meter in length, 16 square inches in cross sectional area, 2300 turns of wire at 1 ohm so three hours does not seem so impossible. It's hard to imagine I know, but notice that Broli makes the good point that high ur materials have a low saturation level so these materials would have their rise time shortened before they could reach a large magnetic density.
BTW, how will you use a signal generator for the experiment. It would be very difficult to verify the rise time of a device like you described because of construction limitations. Good luck with what you pursue.
Quote from: Sudonym on December 30, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
I think you are mistaken, and this is exactly how the real world works. The electromagnet in a junk yard is nowhere near 1 ohm 1000 henries, it is a fraction of that, yet they pour a ton of current through. This way you have a strong magnetic field which develops quickly.
Let me do another calculation to show you how big such a coil in my example would be.
http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/Calculator/Inductor/
I used this online calculator for which I have checked the math and it is decent.
For a one henry coil, 8 guage wire, 10inches diameter, and 10inches high, you would have a
Wire Length of 6601.87 feet
Copper Weight of 329.93 pounds
at an ohmic resistance of 4.23 ohms
to get one ohm you would need to use guage 2 instead of 8 which would give around 1.03ohms
http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html
http://www.interfacebus.com/Copper_Wire_AWG_SIze.html
which gives us a coil weight of 1675 pounds!
This a ONE OHM ONE HENRY COIL!
we haven't even put the core in which throws our Heny's up to 1000,
Magnetic field strenght put out by an inductor is measured in amp turns, or amps x turns
Therefore you can pick up cars by reducing turns, increasing amps, and you have powerful magnet which has fast inductive rise time, this is exactly how it works.
My "non linear" systems are on youtube under user Tortuga0303
My brainchild is eccentric transformer theory, which I have discussed on the Energeticforum.com and now in depth with the stiffler scientific forum,
I am not here to share my systems, I am here keep people from being mislead, which is a waste of time for us all.
(note: the above calculations are not 100% accurate because as wire size changes so does the physical dimensions of the inductor causing a difference, but either way this is a close approximation to illustrate an example)
see my above post, The inductor you are talking about with such a huge rise time would be inconcievably large. Do you know how big a 1 henry inductor is? Its big, and certainly not 1 ohm, it will be many many more, meaning a quicker time constant, because we are dealing with a kinnetic force. Equate it to your breaks on the car, the higher the friction (ohmic resistance) the quicker it slows down. If you had an inductor the size you are talking about, it most certainly would take that long to rise.
Tell you what, make, build or get the biggest freaking coil you can get, measure its inductance (tutorials are online, or you can buy a cheep meter) and then try and measure its rise time. You will never get the long rise times you are talking about because you will not find coils that large!
Broli,
You said...
QuoteYou will probably not have to wait that long depending on your voltage
Mumetal will long been saturated before you hit the ohmic current limit or the rise time constant.
I say... this is what I am talking about.
The Saturation of the Core depends on Current in the coil as depicted in a typical Hysteresis Loop.
Ferro Dipoles can turn easily.
The energy that needs to be conserved is that of electrons hooked up to an infinite battery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again... A common speaker "leads out" unpaired electron energy.
In other words each electron in a ferro can be appreciated as a small coil hooked up to a battery.
The Battery (whatever makes it spin or vibrate) is infinite
When a stray electron encounters an atom that will take it...
It gets in there, hooks up to the 'infinite battery, and starts producing a Mag Field.
You can build a speaker without Ferro... this means NO ferro core OR magnet.
Now... Build two speakers... one regular... and one with 2 coils (1 for the magnet and 1 for the cone)
1) Tune Regular Speaker to a certain tone and volume.
2) Tune Non Ferro Speaker to same tone and volume.
What's going to happen is that the Non Ferro Speaker is going to take WAY more energy to run. Thus, one can arrive at a difference in energy calculation.
Regular Ferro Speaker Energy - Non Ferro Speaker Energy = Energy Contributed by Ferro
To conserve energy we find that the unpaired electron loops = the missing energy.
There is no debunker in this world that can challenge this...it's too obvious !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xav thanks for you comment.
That is a big coil... to make 1 henry.
I guess whoever made up that unit must have been working with some big coils !
I don't plan on building one that big.
I did, however, acquire a GoldStar Signal Generator for $35 yesterday.
So I will be able to make some simple coil/core setups and get some hands on experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone get what I am saying about the speaker??
The Observer
Any interesting finds yet with that new signal generator? Do you have a scope also? I can see there are a lot of people here with way more understanding of this than I have but I can try some things if I know what to try. I've got scope, sig gen and lots of junk parts to play with. But I'm really not clear as to what kind of tests can be done at this point. I've been following Gotoluc's thread on his work with an oscillating toroid coil and magnet but I'm not sure that's related as he is using ferrite core material rather than iron. I've got a huge steel or iron core toroid that came out of a UPS - like over 10 pounds and if I could do anything with that I'd be glad to try. It's got two coils already wound on it - one about 50 turns and one about 350 turns. I have tried putting it on a signal generator and scope but so far I haven't noticed anything interesting. It does have certain resonant points where the power out goes up several times over non-resonant points. I'm mostly rambling now but hopefully this may get this thread started up again.
E2,
In my humble opinion... I have three ideas for you to start.
1. Experiment with Resonance.
Take signal generator and hook it up to primary... OScope to Secondary.
Try every frequency you can and observe what happens at resonance.
2. Make a Joule Thief Circuit... this circuit causes a sudden cut off of the coil...
leaving the iron(a magnet at that point) to collapse on it's own.
Where a large pulse is created... which then lights the LED.
The energy that lights the LED is called Anisotropic Energy.
It causes the dipoles to orient themselves into random Domains.
3. Experiment with parallel resonant circuits.. as well as series.
Good Luck !
The Observer
the problem is you were told what to know with your degree "That is, what was 1*(MF) is now 5,000*(MF).
Last I checked with my algebra teacher... this is not equal and a far cry from a unity situation."
No modern school system tells you to seek the truth and to question the gun. When was the last time time your teacher said, I dont know everything and for all i know the world you live in is a complete lie. Now if you had a techer that said that, that is one you could trust.
I meant to say your degree is a lie
Greetings,
It's been awhile since I posted here.
Long story short, I have only started 2 threads here at OU.com.
Both of which pertain to what I believe are Unrecognized Sources of Energy.
1. one entitled Magnetic Permeability ... I can't find anyone talking about this !!!!! (http://www.overunity.com/4831/magnetic-permeability-i-cant-find-anyone-talking-about-this/msg101969/#msg101969)[/color]
My concern here is the fact that a "piece of iron" can magnify the magnetic field of a coil by 5000 times
... without using any extra energy. (iron has a Magnetic Permeabliity of 5000)
2. the other Why is an Acoustic Guitar so much LOUDER than an Electric Guitar? (http://www.overunity.com/7810/why-is-an-acoustic-guitar-so-much-louder-than-an-electric-guitar/msg215082/#msg215082)[/color]
My concern here is Resonance and that 2 tuning forks ring louder and longer than 1 when only 1 is struck.
Or that, an Acoustic Guitar is ~1000 times louder than an Electric Guitar (same strings, same strum)
After posting virtually every day for about 2 years (later in other threads),
and receiving Flack from both paid posters and a lot of honest members
that just couldn't see what I was talking about.. I stepped down from my soapbox.
I purposefully stopped posting more in my threads as to keep them short and to the point
for anyone who was asking the same questions as me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, the other night I listened to an interview by Kerry Cassidy from Project Camelot.
She interviewed a man named Ralph Ring who has been at this game for quite sometime.
His story is amazing and a lot of what he talked about probably goes farther than most if not all threads here.
What made me jump for joy was his statements about Magnetism and Resonance being sources of Free Energy.
In fact, he said "What they really don't want you talk about is Resonance." !!!!
Hmm, well... if you read just about any one of my posts you might get an idea as to why.
Apparently, they (Ralph's compatriots) have well organized "pods" of people around the world with free energy devices
ready to be released, when the time is right and heavy suppression from the "bad guys" won't occur.
In fact, he mentioned middle school students will be able to replicate the devices with the proper instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I so advise any Free Energy Researcher to listen to this.
You will be amazed and jumping for joy after listening to Ralph's story.
Here is the link to the archived version of the show ...
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Project-Camelot-32k-021512.mp3 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Project-Camelot-32k-021512.mp3)
Best Regards,
The Observer
hi
i'm electrical technicien i read +- all in this thread sorry i speak french
first a metal core does'nt just amplifi flux but concentrate also with the best core mumetal all flux of coil is in the core no more escape
and i have an idea since +- 1 month to control big flux with a small one
anybody talk about multi turn coil with 1 core
but i think at multi turn core like a isolated iron wire
can made a one wire transmit or a small flux control a big with the flux in one wire
Can someone explain this ?
I put 1 uF capacitor in series with hot line (50 Hz, 220 V) and connect it to a light bulb. About 80 mA goes through and light lits very dimmly. Capacitor limits the current.
Next I put coil with iron core in series with hot line and again through a light bulb. Light hardly lits, self inductance of the coil is so high that it prevents current flow so it is a choke. Normal behaviour for this coil as it is ripped from a working transformer.
Finally I put the same capacitor in series with iron cored coil through a lamp. Lamp lits almost to full brightness. I add a second coil in parallel in the same core so that coils oppose each other. They generate flux in opposite direction and thus feed each other. Lamp lits to full brightness. Funny thing happened here. In my test I got two E shaped cores face to face. When I added enough load those cores broke apart because of bucking magnetic fields. When this happened, brightness of the lamps went down.
I understand that adding a C with L forms a series LC circuit and C makes self inductance to go down in the coil allowing current to pass. But why more current passes with L and C (resistance of coil 165 ohms) than with plain C ? I would have expected that since C limits the current then 80 mA is the maximum that can get through.
If the iron core was such that there was no loop, I-core, then there was just a little increase in brightness of light.