There is no Over Unity.
Never was. It is a bad name which creates a non useful expectation. The ability to do work / power (use energy over time) always must have a prime energy source.
What is really being sought is devices which source their ability to do external work / deliver power from unconventional (unconventional that is to the norm energy stream) prime energy sources. LENR is one example.
So I now use UED (Unconventional Energy Device) to describe such a device.
We know we can use a magnetic field to act like an energy conduit and convert the power of the prime energy source into a magnetic field and then into the ability to do work. Here the prime energy source is that which causes /drives the electron movement, which then creates the magnetic field, which enables the transfer of the prime energy source into the final load and creates the ability to do work.
You should look at a magnetic field as you would look at a pair of copper wires. Not the source of the energy but just the energy transport system.
A UED can then be seen to work by tapping the prime energy source that caused the 3D shell Iron electrons to spin. However tapping electron spin energy, will have an effect on the energy retained by the electron spin. Some suggest the electron spin energy will not be effect as it will be recharged by ZPE. I suggest that is more about hope that proof.
So there is a way for a UED to work but at a cost of the energy of the spinning electrons in the 3D shell of the Iron atom. What would happen as this spin was converted into external work? Over time the spin will reduce and the electron will drop out of the 3D shell and move inward or to another nearby atom resulting in a change in the composition of the Iron atom that lost the 3D shell electron and maybe resulting in the reduction / final loss of the external magnetic field.
No Free Lunches in UED research.
What is clear is there is energy stored in the 3D shell of the iron atom due to the unbalanced electron spins there:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qO8mYqgnqzkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=iron+subshell&source=bl&ots=FYFdCaHLqG&sig=rjL_EYv9C9nEu0uZwZIyHw_FqLE&hl=en&ei=8_8YSvy4DYKUkAXvsc38DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=20
It was stored there when the iron was created in the belly of our young sun just before it went Nova and then belched it out to help to form the planets.
So what causes that magnetic field of a magnet that we all like to play with? The SUN, when it created Iron.
Can the energy stored by the Sun in the 3D Iron atom shell be tapped to do useful work? Yes it can but like all energy sources, tapping it will come at a cost.
"You always need to pay the ferry man to get to the other side".
So guys there is energy stored in those 4 unpaired electrons in the 3D shell of Iron and other similar elements in that group. Don't let anyone tell you your quest to tap that energy it impossible because it is not. Just go forward with an understanding of where the energy is, how it came to be stored there and how the magnetic field created by those 4 x 3d shell electrons is acting like a energy conduit (a magnetic field is NOT an energy source) that is allowing you to tap the energy that was stored there by the Sun a VERY LONG TIME ago.
IronShell3d
Here's the best definition of over-unity that I could find.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=Over-unity&o=100074
The first sentence seems to imply "over-unity" can be considered either a perpetual motion device (which isn't likely to exist), or a closed system with a COP>1 (i.e. E=mc^2).
I will have to agree with this stuff. If such was found to be OU a study of it would show a bit more than was thought going on. Yet to disagree with folks looking for such, NO. They may find some thing unknown, and or different methods of energy than we use today.
Hi Lostcauses10x,
All energy MUST come from some where.
The energy that creates the magnetic field of a magnet comes from the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons, spinning forever around the Iron Atom.
They have energy, just like the forever spinning electrons in a super conducting magnet have energy.
In the case of the super conducting magnet, the energy came from the EMF source that caused the current / electrons to flow, which was in the end result, the sun.
Likewise the energy that creates the magnets magnetic field comes from the sun.
So a magnet motor would be powered by the Sun and there is no overunity, just a VERY LONG TIME between the energy being stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d spinning Iron atom electrons and it being used.
Thus the search for a magnet motor is not outside science at all. In fact it is research at the heart of what makes atoms and electrons exist.
I suggest we need to move away from using the terms Over Unity and Perpetual Motion as they are totally incorrect terms and bring unnecessary ridicule to those who seek to tap the energy that was stored in the Iron atom a VERY LONG TIME AGO in the belly of our young sun.
IronShell3d
Interesting concept! What about the nucleus?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/bermanseder8.pdf
Quote from: IronShell3d on May 31, 2009, 07:39:27 PM
Hi Lostcauses10x,
All energy MUST come from some where.
The energy that creates the magnetic field of a magnet comes from the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons, spinning forever around the Iron Atom.
They have energy, just like the forever spinning electrons in a super conducting magnet have energy.
Super conducting magnets/circuits do not require energy to keep a current moving. They just have extremely low resistance, so the current flows for longer periods of time.
Quote
In the case of the super conducting magnet, the energy came from the EMF source that caused the current / electrons to flow, which was in the end result, the sun.
Likewise the energy that creates the magnets magnetic field comes from the sun.
The energy used to create magnets could have come from many different sources, the sun, nuclear power plants, earth's crust, gravity even (in fossil fuel), since pressure is required to produce fossil fuels.. But what is the point of saying this energy is responsible for the formation of a magnet? It doesn't make sense to me.
Quote
So a magnet motor would be powered by the Sun and there is no overunity, just a VERY LONG TIME between the energy being stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d spinning Iron atom electrons and it being used.
Thus the search for a magnet motor is not outside science at all. In fact it is research at the heart of what makes atoms and electrons exist.
This isn't true either. If a magnet motor could convert the magnet field into usable energy, and slowly demagnetize the magnet and consume the 'stored energy' then it would me more likely (considering science).
If the electrons align then the energy that exists in the galaxy suddenly begins to flow. It's like opening a valve. It does take some energy to get the electrons to align in a certain direction but once the phase and speed have been matched properly the energy begins to flow against gradients. Each atom behaves the exact same way each galaxy in the universe does because they are constitutes of the greater structure. A covalent bond is an interesting thing to study because I would view each atom as a theoretical galaxy. The alignment creates enough energy to release whatever is bonding that structure. It does perplex me because even the genome follows similar rules. The question is what happens when such a thing occurs on such a macro scale? What sort of bridge are we part of?
Quote from: Alien509 on June 02, 2009, 12:08:54 PM
If the electrons align then the energy that exists in the galaxy suddenly begins to flow. It's like opening a valve. It does take some energy to get the electrons to align in a certain direction but once the phase and speed have been matched properly the energy begins to flow against gradients. Each atom behaves the exact same way each galaxy in the universe does because they are constitutes of the greater structure. A covalent bond is an interesting thing to study because I would view each atom as a theoretical galaxy. The alignment creates enough energy to release whatever is bonding that structure. It does perplex me because even the genome follows similar rules. The question is what happens when such a thing occurs on such a macro scale? What sort of bridge are we part of?
Atoms are nothing like galaxies, actually. And what do you mean by "electrons align then the energy that exists in the galaxy suddenly begins to flow" ... This sounds like home brew physics to me. ;)
Quote from: newbie123 on June 02, 2009, 12:39:26 PM
Atoms are nothing like galaxies, actually. And what do you mean by "electrons align then the energy that exists in the galaxy suddenly begins to flow" ... This sounds like home brew physics to me. ;)
You need to study radioactive decay.
Quote from: Alien509 on June 02, 2009, 01:10:50 PM
You need to study radioactive decay.
I have, and nowhere does it speak of galaxy energy flowing when electrons align.. Radio active decay is more related to an unstable atomic nucleus, and the energy that "flows" or is emitted in energetic particles comes from the atom's whole "mass-energy".
Quote from: Chef on June 02, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
I think we could talk about that non-stop, but because of these things are out of our objective reality
I can come up with random thoughts and speculation on the atomic structure, and energy all day too but that doesn't make it correct.. What you are describing is pure none sense. Just because something (or a model) makes sense to you... Doesn't make that model a reality... And yes, the majority of sane people live in the same real world.
Quotewe all have to accept an analogy to write around, what we would never really see. Of course, to understand, we don't have to see.
Good analogies exist, but those have nothing to do with the garbage you're spewing here.
Quote from: Chef on June 02, 2009, 03:40:50 PM
What gives existence of the atom?
Let's look a copper atom. The electron called parts of the atomic cycle are in motion. Motion require energy. Do we power the copper atoms?
What is 'the atomic cycle'?
Quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and electron shell model are the best, and proven to describe the atomic electron.... If you throw an object in space it doesn't slow down because there isn't any resistance to slow it down.. A similar analogy might be used to show the electron 'movement' inside its shell.
Quote from: Chef on June 02, 2009, 04:05:45 PM
Atom's are receiving and radiating energy constantly, oscillating in the time line. That process is cyclic.
Do you have a reference?
Quote from: Chef on June 02, 2009, 04:27:01 PM
About the analogies in a scientific area, I recommend you to read that book from Heisenberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Part_and_The_Whole
Good book, have fun!
A whole book? Lol... Which parts of that book specifically relate to what you are saying? Do you have any quotes from the book?
Hmm if there is no OU, then CoE holds, so life has to be a function of Coe and were the motion and thinking; are a form of dispersal of excess energy: from the solar system with the earth in its location.
Even the believe in God, and disbelief in things like we are effecting our environment; of course other such things; falls under such a rule. It is easier to get the whole group at CoE with such beliefs and therefore ignoring the reality of our existence so we can progress faster of the destruction of the atmosphere, soil, and water.
Makes for a great story I think that way..
Only problem with this being a story, it does fit, so maybe a hypothesis. The study of histroy of man and the life on earth also suport such an idea. The proof, well it would be way to late to find such ehh.
On a different note: the book suggested by Chef it is a good read.
Hi Guys,
Energy is not power, which is the use of energy over time to do work.
The unpaired 3d shell electrons in the Iron atom are like a superconducting electron flow. As they have no resistance, they don't need to do work to retain their orbit and thus their energy level stays constant. Magnetically align Iron atoms and their individual magnetic fields combine to become strong enough for us to detect them.
However work was expended in causing the electron movement in the first place. For the Iron atom it was born from lighter atoms in the belly of our young star before it went Nova, belched out the Iron and other elements and over time formed our planets.
For the superconducting magnet, it was the original power supply that caused the current / electrons to flow that generated the magnetic field.
Either way they are the same. Constant electron movement, in a no resistance environment and the creation of a magnetic field as a result of the electron movement.
As for there the original energy came from, there is only one energy source that we have been able to tap so far and that is the sun. Burning fossil fuel is burning stored solar energy. So too is a atomic reactor as the fuel was made in the sun, like the Iron a long time ago.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 02, 2009, 06:02:03 PM
Hi Guys,
Energy is not power, which is the use of energy over time to do work.
The unpaired 3d shell electrons in the Iron atom are like a superconducting electron flow. As they have no resistance, they don't need to do work to retain their orbit and thus their energy level stays constant. Magnetically align Iron atoms and their individual magnetic fields combine to become strong enough for us to detect them.
However work was expended in causing the electron movement in the first place. For the Iron atom it was born from lighter atoms in the belly of our young star before it went Nova, belched out the Iron and other elements and over time formed our planets.
For the superconducting magnet, it was the original power supply that caused the current / electrons to flow that generated the magnetic field.
Either way they are the same. Constant electron movement, in a no resistance environment and the creation of a magnetic field as a result of the electron movement.
As for there the original energy came from, there is only one energy source that we have been able to tap so far and that is the sun. Burning fossil fuel is burning stored solar energy. So too is a atomic reactor as the fuel was made in the sun, like the Iron a long time ago.
IronShell3d
So what would be your suggestion to builders? Should we use round mags? How would you go about materializing your words?
Hi X00013,
Trying to get power from a magnetic field is like trying to get power from a spring. It is not the real energy source, just the reflection.
A magnet generates an H field, which can be used to magnetise other magnets. One magnet can make unlimited more magnets. In the new magnets, the new magnetic field is not borrowed or transfered from the original magnet. Instead the new magnetic field is created from the aligned Iron atoms in the new magnet. What causes the Iron atom alignment in the new magnet is the H field in the original magnet.
Now doing this does need energy as the original magnet must do work to cause the non aligned Iron atoms in the non magnetised material to be aligned.
Here is one thought experiment of how you can tap the energy source that creates the magnetic field.
So ok now you have done the above and created millions of new magnets from the original. Insert each into the centre of a coil, connect up the coil to a electrical load and heat the million magnets above their Curie point using a solar concentrator. As the magnetic fields in the million magnets decays, you will get power transfered into the load. That power came from the zillions of 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons in original magnet which originally came from the sun as the Iron atoms were created.
Probably a lot easier to bypass the middle man, the magnet which did some solar energy storage, and get the power directly from the sun.
IronShell3d
Did I suddenly wake up in a new and enlightened universe, where people actually make sense?
Next you'll be telling us that it's impossible to extract energy from a system of permanent magnets moving around a closed loop, or something like that.
No worries, there's always gravity....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(or buoyancy, or spiky electrical waveforms, or reticulated plasmonic persuasion...)
;)
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 02, 2009, 07:32:28 PM
Hi X00013,
Trying to get power from a magnetic field is like trying to get power from a spring.
I agree.
Quote
A magnet generates an H field, which can be used to magnetise other magnets.
One magnet can make unlimited more magnets.
Only with lots of energy input.
Quote
In the new magnets, the new magnetic field is not borrowed or transfered from the original magnet.
Yep.
Quote
Here is one thought experiment of how you can tap the energy source that creates the magnetic field.
So ok now you have done the above and created millions of new magnets from the original. Insert each into the centre of a coil, connect up the coil to a electrical load and heat the million magnets above their Curie point using a solar concentrator. As the magnetic fields in the million magnets decays, you will get power transfered into the load.
Eh?
Hi X00013,
The energy input is only small and is just to overcome the Hysteresis loss in the unmagnetised ferromagnetic material that becomes magnetised.
The magnetic field which is "Created" in the new magnet is supplied by the 4 shell 3d unpaired electrons of the now aligned Iron atoms in the new magnet and not by the original magnet.
Hi TK,
Magnetic fields are just energy conduits just like a pair of copper wires are. In both cases, the energy is not in the energy conductor but in the prime energy source. In a magnet that is the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons of the Iron atom. They are where energy is stored and tapping that energy is what magnet UED (Unconventional Energy Device) research should be about.
I suggest one way to do that is to tap into the H field of the magnet and not the B field.
IronShell3d
Ahh, I see. Hence your handle.
Whew. I was worried there for a moment, but I see that it's still the same old OverUntried Forum that we all know and love.
Carry on.
::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2009, 08:39:43 PM
Carry on.
I would suggest no one thinks they can get power from a pair of copper wires. I mean what comes out is just what goes in, minus losses. So totally conservative.
Likewise so it is for a magnetic field. It just transfers energy from the energy source to the load as in a transformer or motor. So like the pair of copper wires magnetic fields (the B field) are conservative and not a source of energy.
As I have already shown how a magnet's H field can be made to do work, I suggest the eager UED builders here should think awhile about the difference between the magnet's B field and the magnet's H field and understand the B field is just the effect / reflection of the effect of the H field on Iron atoms and not an energy source.
Maybe try to think about how to get energy from a superconducting magnet? I mean we all know there is energy stored there by the power supply that gave rise to the perpetually moving electrons that then created the magnetic field. In reality a magnet is just the same, perpetually moving electrons, expect the belly of our young sun was the energy source and not some high current power supply, which got it's energy indirectly from the sun anyway.
IronShell3d
The only part of that that I find objectionable is the part where you get the energy out of the orbiting electrons.
How can that happen without the electron's energy level -- its quantum orbital level -- decaying by a quantum, that is, a photon, of electromagnetic energy?
And how can the electron's level decay beyond the ground state, or go above the ionization energy, if iron is to remain iron?
Sure, you can use various processes to make an electron jump to a higher orbital or shell, and it absorbs EM quanta when it does so. The same total energy, but perhaps in different wavelength(s), that you get out when the electron decays back to its ground state. So the electron, just like the spring or the mag field, is not an energy source but only a store.
Now, there's beta decay, which is a different sort of event altogether -- but then we don't exactly have iron any more, do we.
(And isn't it the Sun, in your example, doing the work, not the H field?)
Hi TK,
Yup the spinning electron has stored energy that was put there in the belly of our young sun a LONG TIME AGO.
And yes the Iron will change as it gives up some of it's stored energy and the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons drop into lower and lower shells. However as long as they stay unpaired, the magnetic field will continue.
You could look at this process as momentum transfer from the electron to the load with the magnetic field being the transfer conduit.
There are no free lunches. Use the energy and you change the energy source. That is why I call it UED (Unconventional Energy Device) and not Over Unity, which is in effect, just not setting the square big enough to understand where the energy is coming from.
IronShell3d
LOL this one will be next.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602112259.htm
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2009, 07:53:55 PM
Did I suddenly wake up in a new and enlightened universe, where people actually make sense?
Next you'll be telling us that it's impossible to extract energy from a system of permanent magnets moving around a closed loop, or something like that.
No worries, there's always gravity....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(or buoyancy, or spiky electrical waveforms, or reticulated plasmonic persuasion...)
;)
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 02, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
Hi TK,
Yup the spinning electron has stored energy that was put there in the belly of our young sun a LONG TIME AGO.
And yes the Iron will change as it gives up some of it's stored energy and the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons drop into lower and lower shells. However as long as they stay unpaired, the magnetic field will continue.
You could look at this process as momentum transfer from the electron to the load with the magnetic field being the transfer conduit.
There are no free lunches. Use the energy and you change the energy source. That is why I call it UED (Unconventional Energy Device) and not Over Unity, which is in effect, just not setting the square big enough to understand where the energy is coming from.
IronShell3d
Assuming that the above theory is true, we should notice a weakening magnetic field as energy is extracted from the magnet. Is there any evidence of this after using magnets in attract for a while? (Such as in a permanent magnet motor with a coil). How long does a magnet in a motor last since energy is being used from the magnetic field almost continually to assist running the motor?
Quote from: Liberty on June 02, 2009, 10:51:10 PM
Assuming that the above theory is true, we should notice a weakening magnetic field as energy is extracted from the magnet. Is there any evidence of this after using magnets in attract for a while? (Such as in a permanent magnet motor with a coil). How long does a magnet in a motor last since energy is being used from the magnetic field almost continually to assist running the motor?
Hi Liberty,
Loading a magnet moves it's operating point up and down it's BH curve. In doing so energy is used as any BH curve movement causes Hysteresis losses. So any magnet used in a normal PM motor experiences BH curve operating point changes and Hysteresis losses. These Hysteresis losses generate heat in the magnet and may be enough to lift it's operational temperature above it's Curie point and cause the loss of it's Iron atom alignment and the loss of it's external magnetic field.
However the energy to drive the BH curve changes comes from an external energy source and not the magnet, so it's 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons do no work.
But if you let a piece of ferrite loose near a magnet, the two are attracted to each other and the H field of the magnet will need to expend energy to align the Iron atoms in the ferrite (drive it up it's BH curve). The aligning ferrite's Iron atoms will produce a external magnetic field which will result in mutual attraction between the magnet and the ferrite. As both move toward each other, kinetic energy is gained until they collide with each other and the kinetic energy is converted into heat.
So here again we have some of the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons doing work and that work being converted into heat via both BH curve Hysteresis changes / losses in the magnet and in the ferrite and magnet collision.
IronShell3d
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2009, 09:49:22 PM
The only part of that that I find objectionable is the part where you get the energy out of the orbiting electrons.
How can that happen without the electron's energy level -- its quantum orbital level -- decaying by a quantum, that is, a photon, of electromagnetic energy?
And how can the electron's level decay beyond the ground state, or go above the ionization energy, if iron is to remain iron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
This isn't related to iron, but this company claims to have discovered a sub ground state of hydrogen (hydrino), which supposedly releases lots of energy .. But their theories aren't proven.. And I doubt their information is even public, or available for peer review... (which makes it bogus, until proven otherwise, imo)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2009, 09:49:22 PM
The only part of that that I find objectionable is the part where you get the energy out of the orbiting electrons.
How can that happen without the electron's energy level -- its quantum orbital level -- decaying by a quantum, that is, a photon, of electromagnetic energy?
And how can the electron's level decay beyond the ground state, or go above the ionization energy, if iron is to remain iron
Hi TK,
You think the fuel for a reactor stays as it was originally? No it changes as it gives off energy. So too will the Iron atom as it's 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons give off energy.
Oh and by the way, it is good to see you understand that the energy in those 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons originally came from the nuclear fusion furnace in the belly of our young sun before it went Nova and created the planets with all those unwanted Iron atoms. Before that the energy came from the Big Bang. Before that ???
IronShell3d
Hi
planets are moving, rotating, revolving by themselves
WHAT IS THAT ???
even magnets have mysterious unseen energy, a little movements of a coil or vice versa produce electricity using falling water oviously makes a recycle and convertion and overunity.
the heart of a human or an animal pumps by its own using only a fraction of energy and the body makes an unmeasurable designs of gigawatts of energy.
do you know tesla? etc?
otits ;D
Hi Tito,
Planets are not electrons. Very different. May work for SiFi movies but not in reality.
A magnet's magnetic field is created by the rotating and moving 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons of the aligned Iron atoms. Nothing secret or unknown here.
As for the body generating GigaWatts of energy, if it was 99.9% efficient (and it is not) that is a Megawatt of heat it would need to get rid of. As the measured heat generated by a human body is more like 100 Watts, I suggest the GigaWatts figure may be a bit overstated.
Anyway all the energy we use was created in the Big Bang, then stored in the larger atoms created in the fusion furnace in the belly of our young sun before it got a belly ache, went Nova and formed the planets from the heavier atoms it had created.
So there are no OUDS (Over Unity Devices with more energy in than out). Just inventors working to tap unconventional energy sources using UEDs (Unconventional Energy Devices).
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 02, 2009, 11:37:20 PM
Hi Liberty,
Loading a magnet moves it's operating point up and down it's BH curve. In doing so energy is used as any BH curve movement causes Hysteresis losses. So any magnet used in a normal PM motor experiences BH curve operating point changes and Hysteresis losses. These Hysteresis losses generate heat in the magnet and may be enough to lift it's operational temperature above it's Curie point and cause the loss of it's Iron atom alignment and the loss of it's external magnetic field.
However the energy to drive the BH curve changes comes from an external energy source and not the magnet, so it's 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons do no work.
But if you let a piece of ferrite loose near a magnet, the two are attracted to each other and the H field of the magnet will need to expend energy to align the Iron atoms in the ferrite (drive it up it's BH curve). The aligning ferrite's Iron atoms will produce a external magnetic field which will result in mutual attraction between the magnet and the ferrite. As both move toward each other, kinetic energy is gained until they collide with each other and the kinetic energy is converted into heat.
So here again we have some of the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons doing work and that work being converted into heat via both BH curve Hysteresis changes / losses in the magnet and in the ferrite and magnet collision.
IronShell3d
If I understand Hysteresis changes correctly, it means that the magnetic particles move or flip with a changing magnetic field. This would be nearly impossible in a permanent magnet because if the magnetic particles flipped, you would destroy the magnet itself. We know that the pinning material in a permanent magnet holds the magnetic particles in place and little if any heat is generated by flexing because these particles don't flip, thus making a permanent magnet. Hysteresis does occur in iron due to changing magnetic fields in things like a motor armature. They anneal the metal to lessen the effects of hysteresis in a motor armature.
Hi Liberty,
Your understanding is ok for a perfect magnet but magnet are not perfect. Magnets do have BH curves. Take a short rod magnet. Working open circuit, the external field will be limited by the internal flux path (inside the magnet), in effect shorting the magnet and reducing the external field. Short the magnet by placing a C ferrite flux path for the internal and external flux and the magnet will move way up it's BH curve. However the available external field will be very small.
Overall a longer rod magnet will have a higher open circuit available field than a shorter rod magnet.
BTW, non Neo magnets in starter motors can get VERY hot and over time loose strength due to non pinned domains rotating, absorbing energy and getting hot. Neo work much better as they generally are stiffer due to their much better pinning of the aligned atoms / domains. However magnet manufacturing quality can also effect how much of the domains are pinned and how much internal heat is generated as the magnets operating point on it's BH curve moves up and down.
Not all magnets are created equally and all magnets can be demagnetised if a strong enough reverse magnetic field is applied. They can also be remagnetised. Sometime magnets are shipped unmagnetised and magnetised on the job. So ALL magnets can experience domain rotation.
Magnets have a designed operational range and the max reverse field strength is also specified. Keep with-in the magnet's design specs, use a high quality magnet and it's field strength will not decline.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 02, 2009, 09:12:53 PM
As I have already shown how a magnet's H field can be made to do work,
I'm a bit curious how a magnet's H field can do work. Seems to me the H field is an externally applied field, not something intrinsic to the magnet. Take one of your favorite neo magnets and set it in the center of a wooden table all by itself. Where's the H field? How can it do any work?
Here's an interesting presentation I stumbled on recently. Maybe someone here can learn something from it:
Magnetic Microstructure of Magnetic Materials
http://141.223.122.174/schaefer/
Magnets alone can not perform work just like gravity.....
If you pull two magnets apart, you then have a potential energy that can be realized once you release the magnets and they come together. Gravity is the same way.. A rock on the ground is affected by gravity but doesn't have energy... Pick it up off the ground, then it has potential energy... Release it.. then there is the work/energy when it hits the ground.. It is the changes within these fields on an object (electrons in a wire, or a rock on a hill, etc)... That creates energy.. Some examples:
Lenz's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
Changing magnetic fields will induce a current (move electrons) within a wire.
The hall effect is interesting as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect
Quote from: 0c on June 03, 2009, 10:09:08 AMTake one of your favorite neo magnets and set it in the center of a wooden table all by itself. Where's the H field? How can it do any work?
Hi NewBie123,
Put a battery in the centre of the table. How can it do any work?
You do need to put the energy source in contact with a load for work to be done.
When a magnet's H field encounters the unaligned magnetic domains in a nearby ferrite and causes them to become magnetically aligned, where do you think the energy that overcame the Hysteresis losses involved in the ferrite's domain alignment process came from?
It came from the magnet's Iron atoms 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons.
When you release a ferrite close by a magnet and the magnet and the ferrite are drawn to each other, where did the energy come from that caused the physical movement that caused them to become in contact?
It came from the magnet's Iron atoms 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons.
Do you understand why when you put two identical magnets facing say S/S and then facing say S/N an equal distance apart, the repelling and attraction forces are different?
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 03, 2009, 12:58:58 PM
Magnets alone can not perform work just like gravity
Hi Newbie123.
Correct.
But place the magnet near a ferrite and it will do work in overcoming Hysteresis losses during the ferrite's domain alignment process and in causing physical movement that attracts the two together.
This is something gravity can't do and so lets agree that the two "Forces" are very different in this way. Gravity can not induce physical changes in a ferrite and a magnet can.
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 03, 2009, 12:58:58 PM
Changing magnetic fields will induce a current (move electrons) within a wire.
Hi NewBie123,
You need to ask yourself why a changing magnetic field density will cause an outer shell copper atom electron to leave it's orbit and move to take up a place in the outer shell of a nearby copper atom. Why will it not do this with a non changing magnetic field. Why must the field density change?
I mean free electrons are easily controlled and directed with a static magnetic field. That is how a old style CRT based TV deflection system works as well as very big atom smashers.
Why then does the outer shell electron in a copper wire need a changing magnetic field density to get movement and current flow?
IronShell3d
@ Ironshell3d, so how do I build it?
Question, is the ultimate power source coming from heat or coldness? ( B vs. H ) , seems like the coldness rules, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31068574/
Quote from: X00013 on June 04, 2009, 12:31:56 AM
@ Ironshell3d, so how do I build it?
Hi X00013,
Build what?
IronShell3d
Quote from: X00013 on June 04, 2009, 01:18:47 AM
Question, is the ultimate power source coming from heat or coldness? ( B vs. H ) , seems like the coldness rules, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31068574/
Hi X00013,
All the energy in the universe that we know of was created by / during the Big Bang.
All we now do is to tap into various energy storage structures (normally hydrocarbon based, a bit of nuclear and a very small amount of real time solar derived energy (wind / PV)) that the original energy formed into and in the end turn that released energy into desired work and then into heat.
I'm about tapping the stored Iron atom's 3d shell energy that resides in the 4 unpaired spinning electrons that create the magnetic field we associate with a magnet. No OU here, just tapping a unconventional energy source.
Can you make a "motor" or a non moving device to tap that energy store? Yup, but not the way most of the inventors here are trying to do. You see they do not understand the nature of the energy source they are trying to get at. I'm trying to fix that lack of understanding and provide some guide lines along the way.
I have already given you thought experiments (which are easy to replicate) which show you can access the energy stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons of each Iron atom of a magnet to generate heat.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 03, 2009, 07:22:58 PM
Hi NewBie123,
You need to ask yourself why a changing magnetic field density will cause an outer shell copper atom electron to leave it's orbit and move to take up a place in the outer shell of a nearby copper atom.
Changing magnetic fields will induce an electric current in wire ... That's just the way nature is. Without this feature we'd have no electricity.
QuoteWhy will it not do this with a non changing magnetic field. Why must the field density change?
Lets try this analogy... Say you have a puddle (the copper wire) and a stick (the magnetic field), you can hit the puddle to create waves (or electricity). To keep waves (or electricity) in the puddle you need to hitting it with the puddle (wire) with the stick (magnetic) field.
You can't place a non moving stick in a puddle and expect waves to magically appear, right?
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 01:38:07 AM
Hi X00013,
All the energy in the universe that we know of was created by / during the Big Bang.
All we now do is to tap into various energy storage structures (normally hydrocarbon based, a bit of nuclear and a very small amount of real time solar derived energy (wind / PV)) that the original energy formed into and in the end turn that released energy into desired work and then into heat.
I'm about tapping the stored Iron atom's 3d shell energy that resides in the 4 unpaired spinning electrons that create the magnetic field we associate with a magnet. No OU here, just tapping a unconventional energy source.
Can you make a "motor" or a non moving device to tap that energy store? Yup, but not the way most of the inventors here are trying to do. You see they do not understand the nature of the energy source they are trying to get at. I'm trying to fix that lack of understanding and provide some guide lines along the way.
I have already given you thought experiments (which are easy to replicate) which show you can access the energy stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons of each Iron atom of a magnet to generate heat.
IronShell3d
"It came from the magnet's Iron atoms 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons."
Do you have a estimate of how long this stored energy source will last if it is tapped, and what happens to the magnet when it is depleted?
Have you successfully made any devices to extract energy from a permanent magnet?
How did you make this discovery?
Quote from: newbie123 on June 04, 2009, 02:00:25 AM
Changing magnetic fields will induce an electric current in wire ... That's just the way nature is.
Hi NewBie123,
What I asked you was to think about why this happens?
A non changing magnetic field can and does cause electrons to move. So why don't the electrons in a copper wire move when the wire is exposed to a non changing magnetic field? Why must the magnetic field density change to get electron movement in a wire when free electrons will move when exposed to a non changing magnetic field?
Start thinking outside the square if you want to find what you seek.
IronShell3d
Quote from: Liberty on June 04, 2009, 07:27:53 AM
1) Do you have a estimate of how long this stored energy source will last if it is tapped, and what happens to the magnet when it is depleted?
2) Have you successfully made any devices to extract energy from a permanent magnet?
3) How did you make this discovery?
1) The real question is now many Joules are there per cm3 of Iron as reference the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons per Iron atom.
2) Yes. Have explained one way to do it.
3) Basics physics.
IronShell3d
Why must the magnetic field density change to get electron movement in a wire when free electrons will move when exposed to a non changing magnetic field?
It's always in a state of change there is a deficit when it is converted to work which is allowing the flow to continue.With out the "it" having a place to go or fill or wiggle back and forth there is nothing but a shinny string or two with a machine or source of electron storage on one end doing nothing.Tesla's energy sink.
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 08:38:12 AM
Hi NewBie123,
What I asked you was to think about why this happens?
I know exactly what happens to ferromagnetic lattice in a magnetic field, but I'm having hard time figuring out what you are trying to say. It seems like you think you've come up with a way to harness an electrons orbital spin energy (btw, spin and quantum physics isn't anything like our world) ... Which, if true, AFAIK is a brand new concept in science... So, I have serious doubts that you can actually do this by heating up magnets and putting them in a coil, or as you previously described :P.
But an experiment is far more valuable than a theory on this, so why don't you show us a 'simple' demonstration rather than a thought experiment.
Quote
a magnetic field can and does cause electrons to move. So why don't the electrons in a copper wire move when the wire is exposed to a non changing magnetic field? Why must the magnetic field density change to get electron movement in a wire when free electrons will move when exposed to a non changing magnetic field?
In order for electrons to be affected by a magnetic field they need to be moving through it (have a relative velocity between the field and electron)
If you have a vacuum tube full of electrons, you can't put a magnet next to it and watch electrons zip around in circles.. That's not how it works.
But if you have a magnetic field, and you're shooting an electron beam at it the electrons' path will curve depending on the strength of the magnetic field.
As seen here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Cyclotron_motion.jpg
The curve, and how an electron or point charge will behave in a magnetic field can be determined with the Lorentz equation, seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
Quote from: Doug1 on June 04, 2009, 10:20:50 AM
Why must the magnetic field density change to get electron movement in a wire when free electrons will move when exposed to a non changing magnetic field?
It's always in a state of change there is a deficit when it is converted to work which is allowing the flow to continue.With out the "it" having a place to go or fill or wiggle back and forth there is nothing but a shinny string or two with a machine or source of electron storage on one end doing nothing.Tesla's energy sink.
Hi Doug1,
Lets talk real physics that can be demoed anywhere. Take a transformer. Apply DC to the primary. What comes out of the secondary? This is not a trick question. You may need to do this with a scope and load resistor attached to the secondary so you can observe what happens. What happens may not be what you think.
IronShell3d
Hi NewBie123,
Simple question:
1) Ferrite domain alignment needs energy to overcome the Hysteresis loss, which by the way heats the ferrite both from the physical movement of the aligning domains and heats the ferrite due to the entropy alteration of moving from a random state to a ordered state. Placing a ferrite near a magnet will cause domain alignment and entropy alteration in the ferrite due to the influence of the magnets H field on the ferrite.
So where do you suggest the energy came from which caused the ferrite domain alignment to occur and altered the ferrite entropy from a random state to a ordered state?
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 04, 2009, 11:18:43 AMIf you have a vacuum tube full of electrons, you can't put a magnet next to it and watch electrons zip around in circles
Hi NewBie123,
What you never played with magnets next to vacuum tubes? You missed a lot of fun. Even better still was placing a magnet against a old colour CRT screen and watching the magnets field patterns displayed in colour on the screen. Try Googling "magnetron".
My question is still not answered. Why does the magnetic field density / direction need to change to cause copper atom to copper atom electron exchange and flow to occur?
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 11:38:49 AM
Hi NewBie123,
Simple question:
1) Ferrite domain alignment needs energy to overcome the Hysteresis loss, which by the way heats the ferrite both from the physical movement of the aligning domains and heats the ferrite due to the entropy alteration of moving from a random state to a ordered state. Placing a ferrite near a magnet will cause domain alignment and entropy alteration in the ferrite due to the influence of the magnets H field on the ferrite.
So where do you suggest the energy came from which caused the ferrite domain alignment to occur and altered the ferrite entropy from a random state to a ordered state?
Simple answer:
It comes from the power source that is moving the magnet, which in turn is causing the Fe magnetic moments (domains) to try to align.
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 11:49:25 AM
Hi NewBie123,
What you never played with magnets next to vacuum tubes? You missed a lot of fun. Even better still was placing a magnet against a old colour CRT screen and watching the magnets field patterns displayed in colour on the screen. Try Googling "magnetron".
I have before actually.
Quote
My question is still not answered. Why does the magnetic field density / direction need to change to cause copper atom to copper atom electron exchange and flow to occur?
I thought I explained this already, but I'll try again.... If a magnet is just sitting next to a wire (wrapped around the magnet, or whatever), electrons (and whole atoms) aren't excited or moving (other than their movement due to temperature), but a changing magnetic field will 'push' the electrons in one direction (or two directions for alternating directions) and create a current. But the PUSH is what is required, not just a stationary magnet.
There is a "relative velocity" between the magnet and the electrons in the wire, but unlike the beam image in my previous post, the electrons are more stationary and the magnetic field is moving (the opposite effect).
Quote from: newbie123 on June 04, 2009, 12:36:09 PM
Simple answer: It comes from the power source that is moving the magnet, which in turn is causing the Fe magnetic moments (domains) to try to align.
Hi NewBie123,
Who said the magnet was moving? Stop thinking about motors as we are discussing a single isolated event.
That event is: does the H field of a stationary magnet cause domain alignment in a nearby stationary ferrite or not?
If it does cause domain alignment, then where does the energy come from that was needed to overcome domain alignment losses (Hysteresis losses) in the ferrite?
Second question which you have not addressed:
If we then release either the magnet or the ferrite or both, they accelerate toward each other and in the process do work and increase the kinetic energy of the moving item.
So where then does the energy come from that caused the kinetic energy increase in the moving items as they accelerate toward each other?
Note the acceleration increases as the distance between them decreases and the ferrite domain alignment become more complete. So here again more and more energy is sourced from somewhere and used to do work.
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 04, 2009, 12:50:26 PM
I have before actually.
I thought I explained this already, but I'll try again.... If a magnet is just sitting next to a wire (wrapped around the magnet, or whatever), electrons (and whole atoms) aren't excited or moving (other than their movement due to temperature), but a changing magnetic field will 'push' the electrons in one direction (or two directions for alternating directions) and create a current. But the PUSH is what is required, not just a stationary magnet.
There is a "relative velocity" between the magnet and the electrons in the wire, but unlike the beam image in my previous post, the electrons are more stationary and the magnetic field is moving (the opposite effect).
Hi NewBie123,
The Copper electron is moving. It is in orbit in the outer shell of the Copper atom.
I suggest you need to think about the binding energy needed to break the outer shell Copper electron away and now that energy is delivered to the spinning, in orbit and moving Copper outer shell electron to cause it to break away and move to an adjacent Copper atom outer shell.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 08:22:14 PM
Who said the magnet was moving? Stop thinking about motors as we are discussing a single isolated event.
That event is: does the H field of a stationary magnet cause domain alignment in a nearby stationary ferrite or not?
If you move a magnetic field near a ferromagnetic material, the magnetic domains will align. Once the magnet is near the material the magnetic moments will stay aligned, until the external magnet is removed.
Quote
If it does cause domain alignment, then where does the energy come from that was needed to overcome domain alignment losses (Hysteresis losses) in the ferrite?
This is the part you seem to be having a hard time understand (or I'm just misunderstanding you). Once a magnetic field is affecting (magnetizing) a ferromagnetic material, NO ENERGY required to hold the atomic dipoles in their alignment. As the magnetic dipoles align (when you first move in a magnetic field) this is when the hysteresis losses occur ... overcoming the repulsion or attraction of a magnet, AFAIK.
Quote
Second question which you have not addressed:
If we then release either the magnet or the ferrite or both, they accelerate toward each other and in the process do work and increase the kinetic energy of the moving item.
So where then does the energy come from that caused the kinetic energy increase in the moving items as they accelerate toward each other?
It's the same energy that was used to separate them. If you have two magnets that you've separated (with force), then let them come together ... The energy of the magnets coming together is the same as the energy required to bring them apart. This energy is stored as potential energy within the system.
Quote from: newbie123 on June 04, 2009, 09:43:04 PM
If you move a magnetic field near a ferromagnetic material, the magnetic domains will align. Once the magnet is near the material the magnetic moments will stay aligned, until the external magnet is removed.
This is the part you seem to be having a hard time understand (or I'm just misunderstanding you). Once a magnetic field is affecting (magnetizing) a ferromagnetic material, NO ENERGY required to hold the atomic dipoles in their alignment. As the magnetic dipoles align (when you first move in a magnetic field) this is when the hysteresis losses occur ... overcoming the repulsion or attraction of a magnet, AFAIK.
It's the same energy that was used to separate them. If you have two magnets that you've separated (with force), then let them come together ... The energy of the magnets coming together is the same as the energy required to bring them apart. This energy is stored as potential energy within the system.
Hi NewBie123,
Obtaining domain alignment requires real energy to overcome the frictional losses as the domains move internally inside the ferrite from random to aligned. The entropy level inside the ferrite also changes. So lets focus on the energy input into the ferrite that is needed to overcome the real frictional losses as the domains rotate into alignment with the applied H field from the magnet.
Once aligned there is then an attractive force generated (no repulsive forces in ferromagnetic to magnet interactions). If either the magnet or ferrite or both are free to move, there is energy needed to cause the movement / acceleration / gained kinetic energy.
So both the act of overcoming frictional losses during domain alignment in the ferrite and the movement of either or both the magnet / ferrite toward each other require the use of energy.
What I keep asking you is to understand where this energy is sourced from? By the way both energy uses do turn into heat, which can be measured.
As for what happens when you try to pull the ferrite away from the magnet, that has nothing to do with this discussion so lets focus on the initial domain alignment and mass movement energy requirements that need to be sourced from some energy source.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 04, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
Hi NewBie123,
Obtaining domain alignment requires real energy to overcome the frictional losses as the domains move internally inside the ferrite from random to aligned.
I'm familiar with this concept.
Quote
The entropy level inside the ferrite also changes.
But not with this one.... Do you have a reference?
Quote
So lets focus on the energy input into the ferrite that is needed to overcome the real frictional losses as the domains rotate into alignment with the applied H field from the magnet.
Once aligned there is then an attractive force generated (no repulsive forces in ferromagnetic to magnet interactions). If either the magnet or ferrite or both are free to move, there is energy needed to cause the movement / acceleration / gained kinetic energy.
So both the act of overcoming frictional losses during domain alignment in the ferrite and the movement of either or both the magnet / ferrite toward each other require the use of energy.
There really is no mystery here, but I'm not sure what else to say.... The energy required to overcome frictional losses in the domains comes from the two objects coming together and accelerating toward each other.
Maybe you could make some illustrations or a mini movie for him... to help him out a bit?
Quote from: newbie123 on June 05, 2009, 01:06:47 AMThe energy required to overcome frictional losses in the domains come from the two objects coming together and accelerating toward each other.
Hi NewBie123,
The entropy change in a ferrite undergoing domain alignment / dealignment is called the "Magnetocaloric effect":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
The ferrite's domain alignment is caused by the magnet's H field and not any motion between the ferrite and the magnet. Placing the ferrite near the magnet does not add energy, it actually reduces it as you reduce the magnetic potential. And so where does the energy that causes the moving object/s to gain kinetic energy come from?
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 05, 2009, 02:47:46 AM
Hi NewBie123,
The entropy change in a ferrite undergoing domain alignment / dealignment is called the "Magnetocaloric effect":
Ok.. You meant magnetic entropy, not total entropy. right?
Anyway, the key to the magnetocaloric effect is a CHANGING magnetic field, not STATIONARY. I believe this is the source of some confusion..
QuoteAnd so where does the energy that causes the moving object/s to gain kinetic energy come from?
What do you think?