Where will the energy come from, to run a Permanent Magnet Motor?
I hope we all know what we mean by PMM so a lengthy definition section won't be necessary.
Where does magnetism come from in the first place?
Well, it's a big mystery, but we do know this: all magnetic fields seem to be produced by moving electric charges.
And fundamentally, the electrons in their orbital shells and orbits are the moving charges that give materials (atoms) their magnetic properties. So electrons whirl around in their orbits (creating magnetic fields) and they also spin (creating magnetic fields.) The orbits and spins have definite orientations, and so do the fields they create. It turns out that in most atoms the orbital motions cancel, mostly, and so do the spins, so what's left over, for each atom, may only be one or two or three unbalanced spins or unpaired orbital electrons. Or none at all.
So a material has all these little atoms, each with a certain "magnetic moment" that is a result of its unbalanced spins and orbitals, if any.
The process of magnetization uses energy to do work on these atoms by producing a torque on the atoms' magnetic moments that will align the atoms (and their fields) more or less with the magnetizing field. Some of the magnetizing energy is lost, in hysteresis, eddys, and is dissipated as heat. NONE of the magnetizing energy actually affects the magnetic moment, or intrinsic magnetization, of the individual atoms--the source of the field.
Demagnetization, whether deliberate through the use of a deGussing system, or accidental, by moving magnets past each other in repulsion, is the reverse of this process, and also requires energy (not liberates it), some of which is lost in hysteresis, eddys, magnetic viscosity, and ultimately heat.
Now, the orbital and spin motions of electrons in the atoms are pretty much beyond our influence under the conditions any of us are likely to be able to achieve in our garages or basement kitchens. We aren't going to be able to access whatever energy it might be that keeps an electron spinning, or moving around in the unpaired orbital --- except, say, by chemical means: the ferrous ion has different magnetic properties than the ferric ion, due to different electron pairing, for example ---
So I ask the question: Disregarding for the moment all that stuff about closed paths in conservative fields of force, just Where TF is the energy to run our magnet motors supposed to come from? Because the Magnetic Field is not a source of energy, just as the Motion of your car isn't a source of energy. (You can extract power from a _change_ in motion, and also from a _change_ in a magnetic field. The problem, of course, is repeating the change indefinitely. That takes work, from outside.)
(Edit to add: If anybody chimes in with "cold fusion mode" or "zero point energy" or "Phase conjugated time-reversed Heaviside quaternions" I sure hope they have some references to actual real data to back them up.)
LOL if you do not think a moving car has energy, stand in front of one.
As for your argument, well folks want to believe, so they will. No mater what one does such will continue to be presented.
Ah magnets are good for an exchange of force.
Yep the question is were does the energy that could be used come from. Same goes with the gravity wheel or drive.
This with all of the devices in the game of OU is such a question. Where would or does the energy come from.
If I had such an answer, our energy problems might be solved ehh???
Hi TK,
I have no substantial data to back any of this up (at the moment):
Steorns ideas are pretty interesting. If the hysterisis curve of a material can be somehow made asymetric then a PMM is achievable. If this is possible then I can only imagine that any asymetry would be fuelled by background quantum noise:
If the the material exhibited some atomic scale mechanism (Maxwells demon) that could rectify the noise then perhaps it could be downconverted into the macro world by interacting with the hysterisis using PMs, but I suspect a very sharp field change will be needed for one side of the transaction to get useful energy so solid state would be best, perhaps the effect would be too small to see in a purely mechanical system, lost in the noise.
Another idea; If it´s possible to create a localised temporal distortion field then any half of an oscillatory system could be subjected to such a field which is phase locked to the oscillator, and OU would ooze out. PMs could be used, but the simplest way would be to subject the L or C of an LC tank to said field and badda bing... were running with gain, venturing boldly into the right hand side of the pole zero chart, without batteries.
Yet is really electricity energy?? Such is again just a transfer from other sources of energy and not the most efficient of that. That electron flow thing does not happen by itself.
Quote from: Chef on June 06, 2009, 06:56:41 PM
Are you sure? How do you think conduction works?
Didn't we use atoms every day to conduct heat, electricity, sound, etc.? Aren't those so called electrons a part of the process?
Then we get into why are they in motion?
Quote from: Chef on June 06, 2009, 07:44:27 PM
Right, but aren't those "electron's" (atom's) in motion, before we use them to transfer energy?
Edit: The point what I try to make, when we use an atomic system to conduct, transfer energy, we use a system which is already in motion.
Hi Chef,
Suggest you read:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7542.0
This is the ONLY energy source that can run a magnetic motor. Any YES it can be tapped but like burning any stored solar energy source, at a cost of the fuel sources altered atomic structure as the energy is drained off, turned into work and then heat.
So no OU, just tapping unconventional energy sources. Well not that unconventional as ALL the energy sources we currently tap originated in the sun and before that in the Big Bang.
IronShell3d
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2009, 02:06:20 PM
Where will the energy come from, to run a Permanent Magnet Motor?
Now, the orbital and spin motions of electrons in the atoms are pretty much beyond our influence under the conditions any of us are likely to be able to achieve in our garages or basement kitchens. We aren't going to be able to access whatever energy it might be that keeps an electron spinning, or moving around in the unpaired orbital --- except, say, by chemical means: the ferrous ion has different magnetic properties than the ferric ion, due to different electron pairing, for example ---
Hi TK,
Amazing statement. Have you read my thread?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7542.0
If not please do, so I don't need to repeat myself.
Nothing fancy here. Just energy stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons of every Iron atom that were created in the belly of our young sun a LONG TIME AGO. When those Iron atoms move from a random alignment to aligned, nature gives us what we need to grab some of what was stored there a LONG TIME AGO.
We tap stored atomic level hydrocarbon solar energy, we tap stored atomic level nuclear solar energy, we tap stored atomic level chemical energy and we tap stored atomic level Iron atom shell 3d electron energy. Doing so changes the storage mechanism (the atoms structure) as there are no free lunches in the energy world.
Tapping the shell 3d energy is not so obvious but it happens if you sit and think about the step by step energy flows as I have detailed. Read my thread.
IronShell3d
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2009, 02:06:20 PM
Where will the energy come from, to run a Permanent Magnet Motor?
...
Where does magnetism come from in the first place?
Well, it's a big mystery, but we do know this: all magnetic fields seem to be produced by moving electric charges.
And fundamentally, the electrons in their orbital shells and orbits are the moving charges that give materials (atoms) their magnetic properties. So electrons whirl around in their orbits (creating magnetic fields) and they also spin (creating magnetic fields.) The orbits and spins have definite orientations, and so do the fields they create...
How about a hypothesis? The hypothesis is that the electrons that whirl and so on, collect a static electric charge with their motion and travel path, and also maintain the electron charge up to a particular point like a capacitor that is fully charged? Then the electron would emit a magnetic field as a result of this charge that is in proportion to the charge and motion. This explanation might help us understand how a magnet can provide a supply of energy that does not deplete. Just my hypothesis.
Hi Liberty,
Why is it so hard to accept that when we tap the stored energy of the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons that this action will cause a change in the atomic structure of the Iron atom?
I mean when we tap stored hydrocarbon energy, the storage system (the hydrocarbon) changes as a result.
Likewise when we tap the stored nuclear reactor fuel rod energy, the storage system (the atoms in the fuel rod) changes as a result.
So why is it we somehow need to believe the Iron atom will not change as we tap the stored energy of the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons?
Just accept there will be a change in the Iron atom and get on with finding the best way to extract the energy that was put there by the fusion furnace in the belly of our sun a long time ago.
IronShell3d
Hi Liberty,
BTW a magnetic field is not a energy source. It is just an energy conductor / energy transfer system.
Likewise a pair of copper wires are not a energy source and are just an energy conductor / energy transfer system.
IronShell3d
May be the answer lies here :
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/052303.htm
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 07, 2009, 01:14:29 AM
May be the answer lies here :
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/052303.htm
Hi Omega_0,
To the best of my knowledge neither Bearden nor Johnson have every achieved an operational OU device. So why give this document any relevance?
The magnetic field interactions Bearden talks about for Johnson's devices as just that. Talk. They do not exist in reality.
However the spinning and rotating 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons which gives the Iron atom it's external magnetic field do exist and the energy stored there by our sun can be tapped for energy, made to to external work and then turned into heat
IronShell3d
Quote from: Chef on June 07, 2009, 02:27:41 AM
How can we do that? How can we tap the "4 unpaired shell 3d electrons"? ???
Hi Chef,
Imagine a solenoid with a ferrite rod inserted into it's central core.
Now apply a Dc voltage and resord the micro second by microsecond current consumed as the external magnetic field builds from zero to the max strength. During this process energy was drawn from the Dc power source in 3 forms:
1) Energy that is now stored in the magnetic field.
2) Energy that was lost to resistance heating in the solenoid wiring.
3) Energy that was lost to mechanical domain alignment inside the ferrite.
The final magnetic field strength (B) is based on the strength of the H field produced by the solenoid times (amp turns per meter) the magnetic permeability of the ferrite.
Overall most of the energy went into the external magnetic field but we do know that the power supply was required supply the energy that was lost in resistance heating of the solenoid wire and the energy that was lost in causing the mechanical realignment of the ferrite's internal magnetic domains.
BTW you can detect this mechanical realignment happening by placing a coil attached to an amplifier and speaker around one end of a ferrite rod and moving a magnet across the other end. It is called Barkhausen noise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect
Now take a ring magnet with a internal core sized as the above solenoid and sized to produce an equivalent H field in the centre of the ring magnet. Then place the same ferrite rod into the centre of the ring magnet. If you get the H field about the same, you will get around the same B field.
This means something needed to provide the additional external B field energy that results and also to supply the energy lost during the mechanical domain alignment in the ferrite.
That something is the zillions of shell 3d unpaired electrons of the Iron atoms in the magnet and the ferrite.
Is it possible to extract shell 3d energy via magnet to magnet interactions such as in pure magnet motors? I do not believe this is possible.
It is possible to extract shell 3d energy via magnet to ferrite interactions. Yes it is.
IronShell3d
Quote from: Chef on June 07, 2009, 03:41:41 AM
IronShell3d
I understand your example, but I really didn't get your point. Please explain in more depth, how do you think is possible to convert the stored energy from the "4 unpaired shell 3d electrons" to usable way.
Hi Chef,
Energy is energy. Scaling up how much we can tap is, well maybe, another issue. Not impossible as we know it is there and can be tapped.
Just maybe going for rotary system is not going in the right direction? Maybe heat generation is a better pathway?
IronShell3d
Magnets can make other magnets without loss to itself. Is this not already doing some work?
This might be a good place to start looking.
Theory example:
Suppose two strong magnets are moving in space and each is surrounded with heavy copper rings in close proximity to the moving magnets. As they approach the other they attract and the field stretches to reach the other pulling the field away from the copper. But the field is retained in the copper and attracts to the others approaching copper rings field. As the field dies out in the copper ring, the attraction is lost and the entire event had a greater attraction than the force needed to pull the magnets apart.
Once separated, the magnets set up the field once again in the copper ring at no cost.
@ironshell:
I've read your thread and your comments, never fear about that. I believe that you are wrong about many the things you conjecture. You may be right about some things. But I suggest you review the history of the mathematical physics of the B and H "fields". You may see that there are some inconsistencies in your view of things, that don't quite jive with the standard definitions. And unless you can come up with some references to peer reviewed work that supports your contentions, they will just have to remain that: conjectures and contentions. Not, as you have tried to present them, as proven facts.
And you have yet to explain how the energy in iron's electron orbitals (from, you say, stellar processes, hence actually from gravitation, hence actually from the original separation caused by the big bang...) can be extracted from the iron, without changing the iron into something else.
It may be possible to draw from the earths field.
LOL I have decided the best answer is MR HAND.
QuoteLOL I have decided the best answer is MR HAND.
I'm sure MR HAND may be working out for you, but I believe my goals are probably different.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2009, 12:29:34 PM
And you have yet to explain how the energy in iron's electron orbitals (from, you say, stellar processes, hence actually from gravitation, hence actually from the original separation caused by the big bang...) can be extracted from the iron, without changing the iron into something else.
Hi TK,
Correct, the spin and momentum stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons originally got that energy from the big bang via up conversion from hydrogen in the fusion furnace of our young suns belly a very long time ago.
I actually do say the Iron will change as the energy is tapped just as hydrocarbons change and nuclear fuel rods change. Where did you read that I said the Iron atom would not change?
As for the energy, where do you suggest the energy comes from when a magnet causes domain alignment in a nearby ferrite? And here I mean the energy needed to overcome the frictional losses inside the ferrite as the domains rotate from random into alignment with the magnets external magnetic field.
I use terms as used by the magnet industry:
http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/DesignG.htm
Flux Density: B, gauss, tesla
Magnetizing Force: H, oersted, ampere turns/m
Here is another:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/glossary.asp
Permeability (µ) - The ratio of the magnetic induction of a material to the magnetizing force producing it (B/H).
Magnetizing Force (H) - The magnetomotive force per unit of magnet length, measured in Oersteds (C.G.S.) or ampere-turns per meter (S.I).
Magnetic Induction (B) - The magnetic field induced by a field strength, H, at a given point.
B = H x Permeability of the ferrite. So the magnets H field causes domain alignment in the ferrite and the final B field of the ferrite is dependent on both it's permeability and on the strength of the aligning H field from the magnet.
Bottom line is: Tap any energy source and you pay for the use by causing the source to change. No Free Lunches.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 07, 2009, 07:11:41 PM
Hi TK,
Correct, the spin and momentum stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons originally got that energy from the big bang via up conversion from hydrogen in the fusion furnace of our young suns belly a very long time ago.
I actually do say the Iron will change as the energy is tapped just as hydrocarbons change and nuclear fuel rods change. Where did you read that I said the Iron atom would not change?
As for the energy, where do you suggest the energy comes from when a magnet causes domain alignment in a nearby ferrite? And here I mean the energy needed to overcome the frictional losses inside the ferrite as the domains rotate from random into alignment with the magnets external magnetic field.
I use terms as used by the magnet industry:
http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/DesignG.htm
Flux Density: B, gauss, tesla
Magnetizing Force: H, oersted, ampere turns/m
Here is another:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/glossary.asp
Permeability (µ) - The ratio of the magnetic induction of a material to the magnetizing force producing it (B/H).
Magnetizing Force (H) - The magnetomotive force per unit of magnet length, measured in Oersteds (C.G.S.) or ampere-turns per meter (S.I).
Magnetic Induction (B) - The magnetic field induced by a field strength, H, at a given point.
B = H x Permeability of the ferrite. So the magnets H field causes domain alignment in the ferrite and the final B field of the ferrite is dependent on both it's permeability and on the strength of the aligning H field from the magnet.
Bottom line is: Tap any energy source and you pay for the use by causing the source to change. No Free Lunches.
IronShell3d
To me, after reading the explanation of the B and the H fields, they are different units of measurement similar to voltage and current in electricity (both current and voltage are required in electricity to do anything of use). So I would guess that both B and H fields are also both necessary to do anything useful magnetically.
Quote from: Liberty on June 07, 2009, 08:56:32 PM
To me, after reading the explanation of the B and the H fields, they are different units of measurement similar to voltage and current in electricity (both current and voltage are required in electricity to do anything of use). So I would guess that both B and H fields are also both necessary to do anything useful magnetically.
Hi Liberty,
The H field is called the Magnetising field. It is what causes the initial domain alignment movement in a ferrite. As the ferrite's domains rotate into alignment with the applied H field, they produce their own field called the B field. The B field is MUCH larger than the H field.The ratio of B/H is called the permeability of the material. Vacuum / air has a permeability of 1. I have seen material with permeability of over 1,000,000. Most ferrites are around say 100,000:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Tables/magprop.html
Also note some material has a negative permeability.
So in air the B field of a coil of wire is B (telsas) = 1 * H (where H = amp turns / meter). Wrap the coil of wire around a Permalloy rod and you will get something like a B field of say 100,000 times more than the H field due to the aligned iron atoms in the Permalloy rod.
IronShell3d
Quote
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2009, 06:29:34 PM
QuoteAnd you have yet to explain how the energy in iron's electron orbitals (from, you say, stellar processes, hence actually from gravitation, hence actually from the original separation caused by the big bang...) can be extracted from the iron, without changing the iron into something else.
Hi TK,
Correct, the spin and momentum stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons originally got that energy from the big bang via up conversion from hydrogen in the fusion furnace of our young suns belly a very long time ago.
Correct? As in... Correct, You haven't explained how the energy can be extracted from the iron, without changing the iron into something else?
IronShell3d,
I find it amusing how you're trying to push your theory here. Someone can say anything and you'd probably say... "Yep... That's right.. The spin and momentum are stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons" ..
Can you explain exactly what this means? I don't think you're talking relativistic properties, radioactive decay, or energy levels... (and If i remember right, orbital electron spin is directly related the energy level)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2009, 12:29:34 PM
(from, you say, stellar processes, hence actually from gravitation, hence actually from the original separation caused by the big bang...)
assumption. the big bang THEORY is an 'extraordinary claim' with no evidence, ordinary or otherwise.
Quote from: newbie123 on June 07, 2009, 11:35:57 PM
You haven't explained how the energy can be extracted from the iron, without changing the iron into something else?
Hi NewBie123,
I never said the Iron would not change. Tap energy stored in molecular and atomic structures and you will change the structure. There are no free lunches.
Please take some time to read what I have written as your statements sure make it sound like you have not.
IronShell3d
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 07, 2009, 11:46:28 PM
assumption. the big bang THEORY is an 'extraordinary claim' with no evidence, ordinary or otherwise.
Hi WilbyInebriated,
So how about the theory that Iron was formed from Hydrogen in a multi step fusion process in the belly of our sun, then when it finally had a gut full of heavy atoms our sun went Nova and belched out all the heavy elements that over time formed the planets?
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 07, 2009, 11:35:57 PM
I find it amusing how you're trying to push your theory here. Someone can say anything and you'd probably say... "Yep... That's right.. The spin and momentum are stored in the 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons" ..
Can you explain exactly what this means? I don't think you're talking relativistic properties, radioactive decay, or energy levels... (and If i remember right, orbital electron spin is directly related the energy level)
Hi NewBie123,
What is it you object to:
1) The Iron atoms 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons are responsible, when aligned to other Iron atoms for the external magnetic field of a permanent magnet?
2) That this external magnetic field is composed by both a H field and a B field?
3) That the magnets H field can induce domain alignment in an adjacent ferrite?
4) That energy is required to overcome frictional losses in the ferrite as the domains physically rotate into alignment.
5) That this energy comes from the H field of the magnet.
6) That the magnets H field comes from the shell 3d electrons.
7) That magnetic fields are not energy sources but just transfer energy.
8) That the shell 3d electrons provide the energy needed in the ferrite to overcome domain alignment frictional losses via the magnets external magnetic field.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 09:00:27 AM
5) That this energy comes from the H field of the magnet.
This is what have a problem with... An H field is not an energy source. What physically moves that H field, is the energy source.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2009, 02:06:20 PM
Where will the energy come from, to run a Permanent Magnet Motor?
Nowhere
If you knew where the energy was to come form and how, then we would already have a working device.
The fact is, it's impossible until it isn't. At that time you will know where the energy comes from.
One can only test different principals and concepts looking for the one stone no one has rolled over. It is likely they have all been turned over!
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 08:49:16 AM
Iron was formed from Hydrogen in a multi step fusion process in the belly of our sun,
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 09:00:27 AM
Hi NewBie123,
What is it you object to:
IronShell3d
How about the word "Belly"? It sounds so redneck ::)
Quote from: newbie123 on June 08, 2009, 10:47:10 AM
This is what have a problem with... An H field is not an energy source. What physically moves that H field, is the energy source.
Hi NewBie123,
You understand the H field is amp turns/meter? You know what that means? The energy source is the moving and spinning 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons in every aligned Iron atom in the magnet. We are not talking B field here.
IronShell3d
Quote from: -[marco]- on June 08, 2009, 11:14:07 AM
Nowhere
Hi Marco,
Incorrect. The 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons in the aligned Iron atoms of a magnet can and are tapped for energy all the time.
IronShell3d
Quote from: lumen on June 08, 2009, 12:23:33 PM
If you knew where the energy was to come form and how, then we would already have a working device.
The fact is, it's impossible until it isn't. At that time you will know where the energy comes from.
One can only test different principals and concepts looking for the one stone no one has rolled over. It is likely they have all been turned over!
Hi Lumen,
Turning over stones is an interesting process. Sometime you don't really know what to look for and miss that which you seek. Then many years later you repeat the process and discover that what you sought was there all the time.
I'm now telling you what to look for as you turn over those stones and that in small measures you are tapping it now, just you never realised it.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 09:00:27 AM
Hi NewBie123,
What is it you object to:
1) The Iron atoms 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons are responsible, when aligned to other Iron atoms for the external magnetic field of a permanent magnet?
2) That this external magnetic field is composed by both a H field and a B field?
3) That the magnets H field can induce domain alignment in an adjacent ferrite?
4) That energy is required to overcome frictional losses in the ferrite as the domains physically rotate into alignment.
5) That this energy comes from the H field of the magnet.
6) That the magnets H field comes from the shell 3d electrons.
7) That magnetic fields are not energy sources but just transfer energy.
8) That the shell 3d electrons provide the energy needed in the ferrite to overcome domain alignment frictional losses via the magnets external magnetic field.
IronShell3d
IronShell3d
This has been intresting what you have been talking about but I have been trying for years to build magnet motor and found no real net gain. So I ask you how does one build a simple test jig to see this gain in energy. Could you please draw something out then we could all test this out. You talk alot about using ferrite and have heard about this, so how
Thks
Wayne
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 09:15:27 PM
IronShell3d
This has been intresting what you have been talking about but I have been trying for years to build magnet motor and found no real net gain. So I ask you how does one build a simple test jig to see this gain in energy. Could you please draw something out then we could all test this out. You talk alot about using ferrite and have heard about this, so how
Thks
Wayne
One other note ferrite I thought absorbs magnetic flux, and in the perendev motor they used this in the rotor's. So how can shielding ferrite used to gain energy.
wayne
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 09:15:27 PM
IronShell3d
This has been interesting what you have been talking about but I have been trying for years to build magnet motor and found no real net gain. So I ask you how does one build a simple test jig to see this gain in energy. Could you please draw something out then we could all test this out. You talk a lot about using ferrite and have heard about this, so how
Thks
Wayne
Hi Wayne,
First there is no energy gain. Only energy transfer from source to load to heat.
Have a ok at a BH curve for a ferrite then think about a ferrite being attracted to a magnet. Understand that as the ferrite gets closer to the magnet and moves up the BH curve, more and more domains are being rotated into alignment and that heat is being generated inside the ferrite as a result. Now heat makes the alignment process more difficult as it increases randomness in the domain alignments. Too much heat and the ferrite reaches its Curie temperature and can not do any domain alignments. BTW the Curie effect is not a black and white line that says below this temperature everything is ok and above it every thing stops. It is a gradual process, Some ferrites have a Curie temperature below 100 deg C.
Lets say we make the magnet stationary and the ferrite attached to the edge of a rotor. Now think about what happens as the ferrite gets closer and closer to the magnet, almost on a micron by micron basis. We do know the ferrite will follow the left hand BH curve pathway (going low to high) as it approaches the magnet and the right hand BH curve pathway (going high to low) as it leaves the magnet.
We also know the ferrite's internal temperature will increase as it approached the magnet due to the frictional losses of domain rotation into alignment and it will increase again as it leaves the magnet and the domains return to their random state, which again requires energy to overcome frictional rotation losses.
What does this tell you?
IronShell3d
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 09:22:14 PM
One other note ferrite I thought absorbs magnetic flux, and in the perendev motor they used this in the rotor's. So how can shielding ferrite used to gain energy.
wayne
Hi Wayne,
Ferrites don't adsorb magnetic flux. They do provide a low reluctance pathway and in some way can act like magnetic wire. That is until they are saturated and then act like air to any flux above their saturation point.
So shielding flux maybe sends the wrong image. More like redirection of flux as long as the flux is below the saturation point.
IronShell3d
Ferrites are tricky critters. Have a look at curve 3 on page 77:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gNJDb4O-A3oC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=permeability+ferrite+curie&source=bl&ots=ntmhqnUiu_&sig=fLbrNx6YpJcZKh2yO3oG4ubAbdo&hl=en&ei=L8ItSv-6GpSNkAWL66mLCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13#PPA77,M1
Note how the permeability peaks at just above room temperature and then drops as the ferromagnetic material temperature rises. At around 70 deg C the drop / change in permeability is VERY rapid and sharp.
So ferromagnetic materials are not all the same and must be selected to give you what you seek, as well as biasing the material at just the right operational temperature.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 09:43:33 PM
Hi Wayne,
First there is no energy gain. Only energy transfer from source to load to heat.
Have a ok at a BH curve for a ferrite then think about a ferrite being attracted to a magnet. Understand that as the ferrite gets closer to the magnet and moves up the BH curve, more and more domains are being rotated into alignment and that heat is being generated inside the ferrite as a result. Now heat makes the alignment process more difficult as it increases randomness in the domain alignments. Too much heat and the ferrite reaches its Curie temperature and can not do any domain alignments. BTW the Curie effect is not a black and white line that says below this temperature everything is ok and above it every thing stops. It is a gradual process, Some ferrites have a Curie temperature below 100 deg C.
Lets say we make the magnet stationary and the ferrite attached to the edge of a rotor. Now think about what happens as the ferrite gets closer and closer to the magnet, almost on a micron by micron basis. We do know the ferrite will follow the left hand BH curve pathway (going low to high) as it approaches the magnet and the right hand BH curve pathway (going high to low) as it leaves the magnet.
We also know the ferrite's internal temperature will increase as it approached the magnet due to the frictional losses of domain rotation into alignment and it will increase again as it leaves the magnet and the domains return to their random state, which again requires energy to overcome frictional rotation losses.
What does this tell you?
IronShell3d
Hi IronShell3d
Well when you explain it this way there is no energy gain, and agree a energy transfer from one to other, then back again. When you said the internal temperature of ferrite raises as it approches the magnet is this time frame in micro seconds or even nano seconds. As I see it almost like a flip/flop gate the B/H curve. you seem to know allot and thanks for explaining.
Wayne
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 10:48:39 PM
Hi IronShell3d
Well when you explain it this way there is no energy gain, and agree a energy transfer from one to other, then back again. When you said the internal temperature of ferrite raises as it approches the magnet is this time frame in micro seconds or even nano seconds. As I see it almost like a flip/flop gate the B/H curve. you seem to know allot and thanks for explaining.
Wayne
Hi Wayne,
Not quite.
With proper ferrite selection and operating temperature, it is possible to reverse the normal BH curve of the ferrite and get more inward attraction than exiting drawback as the slightly heated ferrite drops it's B field strength upon the exit due to hysteresis loss heating on the inward and outward legs and the selected ferrite's negative temp to permeability / B field effect. Normally it is the other way around.
Then you have a self running motor powered by the shell 3d electrons in the magnet.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 11:06:17 PM
Hi Wayne,
Not quite.
With proper ferrite selection and operating temperature, it is possible to reverse the normal BH curve of the ferrite and get more inward attraction than exiting drawback as the slightly heated ferrite drops it's B field strength upon the exit due to hysteresis loss heating on the inward and outward legs and the selected ferrite's negative temp to permeability / B field effect. Normally it is the other way around.
Then you have a self running motor powered by the shell 3d electrons in the magnet.
IronShell3d
IronShell3d
Sounds like a tricky thing to do, with just the right temp. I have some 1/2" rod ferrite from my radio days, but really don't know type. Will try some simple test and get back.
Thks
Wayne
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 11:15:22 PM
IronShell3d
Sounds like a tricky thing to do, with just the right temp. I have some 1/2" rod ferrite from my radio days, but really don't know type. Will try some simple test and get back.
Thks
Wayne
Hi Wayne,
It is tricky as you need to use the Curie effect to reverse the normal BH curve. Most ferrites have a Curie temp of around 300 deg C. You need to get a ferrite with a room temperature Curie temp and a permeability peak (climb and drop) that is VERY sharp.
Then I suggest you need to use a strong Neo which can pump a lot of H field into the ferrite to get as much internal ferrite heating as you can. Also generally the lower the permeability the more hysteresis loss there is and the more hysteresis loss heating that will occur. You need to design the magnetic circuit to saturate the ferrite at the ferrites closest approach so as to get the max BH curve movement and of course the max internal heating.
IronShell3d
Quote from: magpower on June 08, 2009, 11:15:22 PM
IronShell3d
Sounds like a tricky thing to do, with just the right temp. I have some 1/2" rod ferrite from my radio days, but really don't know type. Will try some simple test and get back.
Thks
Wayne
Hi Wayne,
I suggest checking out this link may help you on your quest for a ferrite with a sharp room temperature Curie effect:
http://www.nec-tokin.com/english/product/temperature_sensor/operation_make.html
Note one version of their Thermal Reed Switch will switch on and off over a 1 deg C temp change. Now that is a very sharp / large permeability change over 1 deg C!
Their break type Thermal Reed Switch may be a better source of ferrite material to pay with:
http://www.nec-tokin.com/english/product/temperature_sensor/operation_break.html
Using this ferrite material you at least know what the Curie temp is and what operating temp to target.
They may even provide the BH curve for their material.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 08, 2009, 05:35:26 PM
Hi NewBie123,
You understand the H field is amp turns/meter? You know what that means? The energy source is the moving and spinning 4 unpaired shell 3d electrons in every aligned Iron atom in the magnet. We are not talking B field here.
IronShell3d
Well, since H fields are defined as:
H = B/μ0 - M
you are talking about B fields indirectly since it is considered more fundamental than H fields (The units are actually A/m not ampere-turn/meter, btw)
Regardless, I'm still not sure what you're claiming exactly... You keep saying "there is no free lunch" wrt energy, though, which I guess is true (if you don't think fusion energy is FE)...
Are you saying the heat generated from hysteresis loss in magnets is sort of like "Free energy" that can be extracted from iron? You're kind of dancing around your point(s) without getting into specifics, imo.
edit:
If you really want to show that you're onto something you should perform a simple experiment then publish (or post here) if you get any interesting results... Maybe you can achieve some interesting results by exploiting hysteresis (?), but I have serious doubts...
Curie point magnetic / heat motor video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWrTvB-oK94
The metal Monel 400 has a curie temperature of 35 deg C / 95 deg F.
So as a magnet will heat an approaching ferrite as it drives the ferrite up it's BH curve, can a magnet deliver enough heat (via hysteresis loss) into a ferrite to cause it's permeability to drop lower than when it approached the magnet?
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 09, 2009, 12:24:08 AM
Well, since H fields are defined as:
H = B/μ0 - M
you are talking about B fields indirectly since it is considered more fundamental than H fields (The units are actually A/m not ampere-turn/meter, btw)
Regardless, I'm still not sure what you're claiming exactly. You keep saying "there is no free lunch" wrt energy, though, which I guess is true (if you don't think fusion energy is FE)...
Are you saying the heat generated from hysteresis loss in magnets is sort of like "Free energy" that can be extracted from iron? You're kind of dancing around your point(s) without getting into specifics, imo.
edit:
If you really want to show that you're onto something you should perform a simple experiment then publish (or post here) if you get any interesting results. Maybe you can achieve some interesting results by exploiting hysteresis (?), but I have serious doubts.
Some references from:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/glossary.asp
Magnetic Field Strength (H) -
Magnetizing or demagnetizing force, is the measure of the vector magnetic quantity that determines the ability of an electric current, or a magnetic body, to induce a magnetic field at a given point; measured in Oersteds.
Magnetic Induction (B) -
The magnetic field induced by a field strength, H, at a given point. It is the vector sum, at each point within the substance, of the magnetic field strength and the resultant intrinsic induction. Magnetic induction is the flux per unit area normal to the direction of the magnetic path.
Oersted (Oe) -
The C.G.S. unit for magnetizing force. The English system equivalent is Ampere Turns per Inch (1 Oersted equals 79.58 A/m). The S.I. unit is Ampere Turns per Meter.
Permeability (µ) -
The ratio of the magnetic induction of a material to the magnetizing force producing it (B/H). The magnetic permeability of a vacuum (µo) is 4π×10-7 N/Amp2.
So B = H x Permeability.
BTW the heat from the ferrite hysteresis loss (provided by the Iron atoms shell 3d electrons stored energy), just drives desirable permeability changes in the ferromagnetic material. It is not a direct energy source. The negative relationship between ferrite temperature and B (as permeability drops in the ferrite so to does the ferrite's B contribution) caused by the heating is also part of the effect.
Fusion is not free energy. Just releasing a bit of energy that is no longer required. There NO FREE ENERGY. Using energy always comes at a price.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 09, 2009, 01:47:07 AM
BTW the heat from the ferrite hysteresis loss (provided by the Iron atoms shell 3d electrons stored energy), just drives desirable permeability changes in the ferromagnetic material. It is not a direct energy source. The negative relationship between ferrite temperature and B (as permeability drops in the ferrite so to does the ferrite's B contribution) caused by the heating is also part of the effect.
Fusion is not free energy. Just releasing a bit of energy that is no longer required. There NO FREE ENERGY. Using energy always comes at a price.
IronShell3d
Well, some do actually consider fusion energy to be "free energy" even though it comes from somewhere, but this isn't what I'm asking you about.. you didn't answer my question.
The above youtube video shows an interesting effect (without any excess energy) the moving magnet is getting it's energy to move from the flame.
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 09, 2009, 01:27:02 AM
Curie point magnetic / heat motor video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWrTvB-oK94
The metal Monel 400 has a curie temperature of 35 deg C / 95 deg F.
So as a magnet will heat an approaching ferrite as it drives the ferrite up it's BH curve, can a magnet deliver enough heat (via hysteresis loss) into a ferrite to cause it's permeability to drop lower than when it approached the magnet?
IronShell3d
IronShell3d
Thanks for the links and still thinking it over. I did try my 4" long ferrite by 1/2" dia with same size on rod magnet, but then thought the I need very large magnet to saturate the ferrite rod. I think these are old and have curie temp 300c. so will hunt for some low temp ferrite to test.
Then the big question will the magnet flux cause the ferrite to heat fast enough and cause a change, maybe but might not be good for a engine. Maybe you might know!
Thanks Again
Wayne
If such is going to happen, uses of a different force will com into play. Such as gravity.
Finsrud for one, and here is a vidio..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
Such is what might work with such.
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 09, 2009, 01:47:07 AMThere NO FREE ENERGY. Using energy always comes at a price.
IronShell3d
Sounds logical, but one nagging question is; what price was paid to form the universe? The universe does exist, of that we are pretty sure, so where did the energy come from if it was just a void before? The mainstream theory "big bang" IS overunity, going from zero to something is infinite COP. I suppose this is the point where any form of logic just breaks down.
P.S.
Your theories are interesting, have you read much about the VSG reaction, and have you heard of transmuting carbon using a high current density electric arc? Do you have any ideas about this?
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 09, 2009, 01:27:02 AM
Curie point magnetic / heat motor video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWrTvB-oK94
The metal Monel 400 has a curie temperature of 35 deg C / 95 deg F.
So as a magnet will heat an approaching ferrite as it drives the ferrite up it's BH curve, can a magnet deliver enough heat (via hysteresis loss) into a ferrite to cause it's permeability to drop lower than when it approached the magnet?
IronShell3d
Gadolinium is ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature of ~18 C to 21 C.
ROTARY CURIE POINT MAGNETIC ENGINE (oh yes, already invented !)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3743866.html
You don't need another magnet to heat up the ferro material. You can just use any conventional heat source.
Now the real question is - can the energy wasted in heating Gd to curie point be recovered by this motor ? So that one can feed it back to the piece of Gd again and again. Somebody with proper resources needs to set up an experiment.
This paper has some data on energies involved, but its not free to download
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000057000003000223000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
I've been thinking over the problem of turning off the magnet at command and another option, besides heating, seems to be connecting the magnet momentarily to a HV +ve terminal, which will drain it out of most of its free electrons. No electrons = no magnetic field.
Connecting it back to the -ve should replenish the electrons, and if the magnet is already placed in magnetic field of another magnet, it will re-magnetize at no cost.
So pulsing it with HV pulses should do the job.
Just thinking ....
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 03:32:05 PM
I've been thinking over the problem of turning off the magnet at command and another option, besides heating, seems to be connecting the magnet momentarily to a HV +ve terminal, which will drain it out of most of its free electrons.
That's not how it works, positive potential alone won't drain out any electrons or reduce its magnetism.
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 03:15:06 PM
Gadolinium is ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature of ~18 C to 21 C.
ROTARY CURIE POINT MAGNETIC ENGINE (oh yes, already invented !)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3743866.html
You don't need another magnet to heat up the ferro material. You can just use any conventional heat source.
Now the real question is - can the energy wasted in heating Gd to curie point be recovered by this motor ? So that one can feed it back to the piece of Gd again and again. Somebody with proper resources needs to set up an experiment.
This paper has some data on energies involved, but its not free to download
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000057000003000223000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Hi Omega_0,
Here is the referenced patent with drawings:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=4lx8AAAAEBAJ&dq=United+States+Patent+3743866
Here it is as a downloadable PDF.
http://www.google.com/patents/download/ROTARY_CURIE_POINT_MAGNETIC.pdf?id=4lx8AAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1UEI2B74VT0BTXf4XiNIqD9FfOGw
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 09, 2009, 05:45:35 PM
That's not how it works, positive potential alone won't drain out any electrons or reduce its magnetism.
Hi NewBie123,
Correct.
IronShell3d
Quote from: newbie123 on June 09, 2009, 11:01:47 AM
Well, some do actually consider fusion energy to be "free energy" even though it comes from somewhere, but this isn't what I'm asking you about.. you didn't answer my question.
Hi NewBie123,
Which question?
IronShell3d
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 03:15:06 PM
Gadolinium is ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature of ~18 C to 21 C.
ROTARY CURIE POINT MAGNETIC ENGINE (oh yes, already invented !)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3743866.html
You don't need another magnet to heat up the ferro material. You can just use any conventional heat source.
Now the real question is - can the energy wasted in heating Gd to curie point be recovered by this motor ? So that one can feed it back to the piece of Gd again and again. Somebody with proper resources needs to set up an experiment.
This paper has some data on energies involved, but its not free to download
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000057000003000223000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Hi Omega_0.
Gadolinium is a very interesting material.
IronShell3d
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 03:15:06 PM
You don't need another magnet to heat up the ferro material. You can just use any conventional heat source.
Hi Omega_0,
Ok.
IronShell3d
IronShell3d,
This question:
Are you saying the heat generated from hysteresis loss in magnets is sort of like (an unconventional energy source) that can be extracted from iron?
And this question:
Where do you think the energy will come from? (afaik, the only energy obtainable from the big bang on earth is nuclear)
Quote from: newbie123 on June 09, 2009, 10:24:24 PM
IronShell3d,
This question:
Are you saying the heat generated from hysteresis loss in magnets is sort of like (an unconventional energy source) that can be extracted from iron?
And this question:
Where do you think the energy will come from? (afaik, the only energy obtainable from the big bang on earth is nuclear)
Hi NewBie123,
ALL the energy we use comes from the sun, either in real time or from processes that took place a long time ago.
Burning Hydrocarbons (gas, liquid or solid) is using solar energy stored in their molecular structures a long time ago.
The earth itself is the result of the heavy elements that were created in the suns fusion furnace and blown out when the sun went Nova to form the planets. All the atoms other than Hydrogen were formed that way unless you know of currently ongoing Earthly fusion or fission processes?
So ALL the energy sources that we currently tap can be traced back to the sun and then back to the Big Bang.
As for the ability of a magnet to cause domain alignment in a nearby ferrite and thus to overcome the hysteresis losses involved is very clear. That is how it works.
As we know the source of the magnets H field (magnetising field) we know that the energy source that caused the electrons to move will supply that energy just as would happen if we used a solenoid and power supply to supply the H field.
IronShell3d
Quote from: IronShell3d on June 10, 2009, 12:20:18 AM
So ALL the energy sources that we currently tap can be traced back to the sun and then back to the Big Bang.
Most heavier elements were created at the time of the big bang but not really by our sun.
Quote
As for the ability of a magnet to cause domain alignment in a nearby ferrite and thus to overcome the hysteresis losses involved is very clear. That is how it works.
Ok.
Quote
As we know the source of the magnets H field (magnetising field) we know that the energy source that caused the electrons to move will supply that energy just as would happen if we used a solenoid and power supply to supply the H field.
IronShell3d
Ok. So we agree there is no way for a self running magnet motor to work.
Hi all
i have been following this post for some time and think it is a really good idea to discuss this for many reasons.
electrostatics produce the same field lines and with more than just iron fileings.
magnets can be destroyed with heat but i have seen some go through a smelter and retain there properties while others for the most part are destroyed. what makes this one different from all the rest about 1 in 50 heated to about 2000 degrees.
there are cooling processes that use magnets to stabilize domains for removal of heat.
ultra violet reduces electrostatic effect as well
static wires in static magnetic fields produce no effect so the question remains is there energy input to a magnet at all or is it merely a state of organization loadstone is Fe3O3 so how does it become magnetic of itself.
if there are two energies present at all points all the time then it would be possible to explain some of these occurances as ratio difference of one energy against the other such as reactive power to actual power but we have little proof that this is the case.
@newbie123
Quote:
"Most heavier elements were created at the time of the big bang but not really by our sun."
LOL, you sound like one of those personality types that likes to state everything they have read in a textbook as absolute fact. I have found modern science to be more like a form of religion than what it was in the early 1900's when the likes of Faraday,Maxwell and Tesla were still around. Maybe you should ask yourself why in this modern age of science our cars are only 15% effeicient, why nuclear power is less than 10% efficient, why over 50% of most all generated electricity never performs actual "worK" for the consumer, LOL, modern science would seem to be a contradiction in terms. As for the Big Bang and an expanding universe, it is only a "theory" based on less than a couple hundred years of observation, considering the universe is stated as being Billions of Billions of years old I hardly think this qualifies as fact.
@All
I think to understand where the energy could come from in a magnet motor first you should understand "what" magnetism is. It's funny that many educated people know some of the "effects" related to magnetism as science is the study and observation of effects, but in all my years I have only met a few people who can actually tell me what magnetism is fundamentally---not what it does, what it "IS".
Here are some clues---
--Faraday stated that to induce a current in a conductor, a magnetic field or conductor must move relative to one another. There is however a homopolar generator in which the magnet moves with the conductor thus there is "NO" relative motion between them and yet a strong current is generated in the conductor. This should tell you that the magnetic field is not a property of the magnet, it is a property of the "space" surrounding a magnet because the field remains stationary in space. Is the energy "IN" the magnet or is it "IN" the field?
--Magnetic fields are expansive, that is they will form closed loops external to the source which produced them. If the magnetic poles attacted one another then why is the field external and not inside the magnet? As well the magnetic field produced is a function of surface area exactly like an electric field, both following the inverse square law. If a magnet is built with a very large south pole and a very small north pole then the smaller north pole would seem to be stronger but both are equal, only the surface area thus density of field have changed.
The reason most people cannot understand how to build a permanent magnet motor is because they do not understand "what" magnetism is,or electricity or gravity. How could you possibly build something that you do not make an effort to understand fully. Worse are the fools who say it cannot be done because they honestly believe that if they cannot do it then nobody can, the human ego at work.
Regards
AC
AC
Why do magnets have a north and south pole?
Why is there a dead spot in between?
No matter how many you stick together, the strength remains the same?
Magnets can SHIELD themselves?
AC you make a lot of seance
Chet
Quote from: allcanadian on June 11, 2009, 02:06:50 PM
@newbie123
Quote:
"Most heavier elements were created at the time of the big bang but not really by our sun."
LOL, you sound like one of those personality types that likes to state everything they have read in a textbook as absolute fact. I have found modern science to be more like a form of religion than what it was in the early 1900's when the likes of Faraday,Maxwell and Tesla were still around.
This is always a funny/ironic argument coming from the true FE believers.
It is true some real scientists can be very closed minded with regard to new ideas and concepts (LENR/CF is a good example of this), and they will sometimes follow each other like sheep and even refuse to consider experimental evidence... But the majority aren't this closed minded, but they're all skeptical of extraordinary claims (which is a good thing).
Here is an example of a very open minded physicist (and nobel laureate). In his intro he talks about CF, but he also researches the "mind over matter" type aspects of quantum physics.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5994673126675909042
Saying "science is like a religion" is pretty much ridiculous, because everything you believe WRT "Free energy" is faith based, imo... Everything scientists believe WRT "Free energy" is science based... By "science based" i mean experimentally proven again and again... Do you have any experimental evidence for "Free energy"? Has it been widely replicated and verified?
Btw, even one instance of a "Free energy" device (if it exists) isn't proof, because people do make mistakes... lots of verifications/replications = acceptance.
Theories such as the "Big bang" are just that... Theories. But so far the big bang theory (which is evolving as we speak) is the best theory with the most supportive scientific EVIDENCE, and DATA.
The only things created in the big bang were EM radiation, protons, electrons, and maybe alpha particles. Some condensed into hydrogen and helium gas, which later condensed into the first stars. In these first stars the hydrogen and helium could, under the pressure caused by gravity, fuse into heavier nuclei--all the way up to iron. Hence ironshell3d's position.
These stars, some of them, eventually collapsed further and went supernova. This spread all those elements up through iron into interstellar space. Some of this matter condensed into a new generation of stars. In these stars, sometimes they went through a further collapse and explosion (supernovae) that created, again by gravitational pressure, all the nuclei heavier than iron. These stars too blew up and scattered their elements in space. Sol, the Earth's sun, was condensed from these gases and dust which have already been through at least two cycles of condensation and nova explosion.
All the energy comes from gravitation--that is, the initial explosion of the big bang spread all the stuff apart--imparting gravitational potential energy, which is negative-- and clumps of it fall back together as stars, galaxies, and etc. whereupon gravity does work on the stuff.
Hi All
i once read a book by carl seagan and it really opened my eyes to some of the debate that goes on over this subject and about the big bang theory and the fact that at a certain point in a millionth of a second all the matter of this universe came into existance but at some point less than that there was nothing no wave theory no gravity no charge no anything yet something started all this from some form of steady state to an imbalance through which all came into existance.
within us is this bazarre truth as doctors have never removed any part of the human brain that removes the personnel intent of the individual so as to say that our bodies are merely clothes we ware and not we our selves which is the aspect of quantum physics you can look at the matter with an electron microscope or you can watch the energy but you can't watch both.
one would then think that all this is just an illusuion we play in and delude ourselves too and since these points are not yet discovered by science they are not allowed to be fact only religion yet the evidence seems to remain that this is what we are attempting to prove correct.
Newton developed the fundamentals of gravity using electrostatics which governed the attraction of bodies in relation to speed and distance this has had further additions in that changing the charge on a body alters its attractive force making gravity stronger these things were discovered by volta and expanded on by faraday as charges were put in motion it is interesting that a charge wants to collapse to nothing while voltage tension wants to expand and a magnet cannot exist with out current motion charge allone is not enough as related to in maxwell's theories iluding to an alter energy state which we often term as reactive power it is interesting that an expanding universe can only exist when charge states are equal in all other states energy attracts to density this is caused by any imbalance bonding to form matter as reactive states causing its influence to spread if we only work from the state of mind of matter without reactance then we will always be at odds with energy we try to manipulate and low efficiencies will be the best we can hope for.
I could go on for hours citing examples that contridict main stream science and that is only because people do not grasp the basic begining principles on which it was built and it is worked by control of what we need to know which isn't much according to some people but i do not believe this to be so as we can learn as much as we want but imparting what we have learned to others is about how much they are willing to accept.
all matter seems to exist along the bloch wall plain it is formed by spins relative and disparent such as those of copper and iron when uniform and aligned they attract and condence when contrary they repell and can be brought to generate heat which moves as conductive and reactive by infrared wave all heat seems to be relative to 642 ohms per circular mill being a ratio of charge to tension area yet this fact is little understood.
Martin
@newbie123
Quote:
"Anyway, you saying "science is like a religion" is pretty much ridiculous, because everything you believe WRT "Free energy" is faith based... Everything scientists believe WRT "Free energy" is science based... By "science based" i mean experimentally proven again and again... Do you have any experimental evidence for "Free energy"?
I don't need faith to believe in free energy(Wind,Wave,Hydro,Solar,EM ect...), energy is force producing motion, we are surrounded by forces and motion on both the subatomic and astronomical scales. To say we can never harness other forms of energy in a new way seems counter-productive. The main misconseption is that free energy is not free, they say there is materials and labor involved to harness free energy so it is not free but the energy that drives the machinery is free irregardless of the energy required to produce a machine to harness it. So this is nothing more than a play on words to confuse the weak minded, the energy that drives the machinery is free. A crystal radio is a good example of free energy, some mysterious invisible force sets the speaker in motion, LOL, But again there is the nonsensical arguement that a radio station is required to set the speaker in motion. Hmmm I wonder what all that noise is inbetween the radio stations, you know on all bands where no stations broadcast? that can charge a capacitor or light LED's from the output of the crystal radio. There is also the misconception that a requirement of free energy must be that it is useful, If I have a small crystal radio not on or near any populated band that flashes an LED once every couple seconds is this free energy? --- even if the device seems absolutely pointless? Of course it is, so why is there such hostilty and labelling and namecalling directed towards people who just want to find a cheaper/better way of doing things?. I am absolutely sure that what many people call impossible has a valid scientific explanation. As far as the scientists and the governments are concerned regarding free energy, I think there are very many good people who are placed in bad situations, as many of us are sometimes. I think these new technologies will start to appear for no other reason than they are needed and the time is right like no other time in history.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on June 11, 2009, 05:57:55 PM
I don't need faith to believe in free energy(Wind,Wave,Hydro,Solar,EM ect...), energy is force producing motion
AC, I think you know what I meant by "Free energy" .. gravity wheels, Mylow-type magnet motors, "special" circuits, pyramids, etc .. Not known renewable source.
Quotewe are surrounded by forces and motion on both the subatomic and astronomical scales. To say we can never harness other forms of energy in a new way seems counter-productive.
This is where the delusions reside (not you personally but some folks around here)
What OTHER forms of energy can we possibly harness? We have nuclear... Which is the most promising, but we're far from mastering... zero-point energy (at 0 kelvin), We have vacuum energy, cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmic rays sometimes (but their energy rarely reaches us)...
Most of these sources have been shown to be insignificant... They can make a neat experiment sometimes, but they're just not practical as a useful energy source.
It is funny that it seems that no matter what configuration, whirling, gearing, Whiping, channeling, that all-magnet motors add up to a drag and come to a halt. Lets say you give one a whirl and we will call that speed 5, and when it stops eventually, we will call that 0. No matter what configuration, thus far known to the common people, it always comes down to a drag(stopping power) and will always reach zero. Doesnt that seem strange?
2 things I would say is, the problem is with the magnets themselves. They tend to remain in the state they are in, until altered, by other magnets, other metals, air, they will always cause negative effects against the goal of a working pmm. The constant ON of the fields of the PMs make things tough when interacting with other materials, and magnets.
The other thing is the strength of the magnets field remains constant.
Now if we were looking at an electric motor, even one with PMs for half of it, we have easier pole control, off, on, reverse fields and adjustable field strengths, this will be the ingredients to a design that will achieve OU before a pmm. It just has to be made differently than we are taught or shown.
It has to be made in a new way. Or an old way...
My Great grandfather had 2 motors connected at the shaft and the wires went to a box with a switch on the outside. This was in the 1910s. Turn on the switch, give it a whirl by hand and off she went. My grandfather told me it many times. At the time, Grandpa didnt get the importance of something like this. He was a kid. The setup was showed around town, and soon he began to recieve threats from big biz. So he tossed the box and that was the end of that. Later when Grandpa realized what his dad had, he looked and looked for that box, but never found it.
So what was in that box that was so special? Resistors? Old school capacitors? Inductors/transformers? Diodes? Not in those days unless it was tubes and the motors provided heater current.
What was in that box? Well maybe Great Grandpappy was smarter than Grandpa thought. Maybe it was just a switch and connections. Maybe the secret was in one or both of those motors. ;D Did Tesla have this back then? Did Great Grandpappy hang out with Tesla? I know that he knew Westinghouse, due to Great Grandpappy inventing a valve for the Air brake to improve it and they had dealings. And Westinghouse knew Tesla. Maybe.
Magluvin
@newbie123
LOL, I know what you meant, I just wanted to clarify the terminology a bit for the members here. I agree with you on almost all points, I hold no grudge against any one or group of persons for what they may believe or not. What I have found personally however doesn't always coincide with what most people consider normal or sometimes even possible. I remember three or four years ago I had built a device to light a 20w bulb 20ft away with only one wire and no ground leads, another was wireless power transfer lighting 10 Led's from four feet away. I remember that I was always much more interested in people's reaction to these devices than the actual devices themselves as it all seemed fairly straightforward from a technical standpoint. What was odd was that the people I demonstrated the machines for were technical people themselves and friends, but after they told me that they honestly had no idea that this was even possible let alone how I did it. Once I explained it was nothing more than a very high frequency/high potential resonant electric field then they understood what was happening and really had no issue with it. During the demonstration however they were dumb struck, their jaws dropped and they said things like "how in the hell are you doing that", LOL. My lesson here was that psychology often plays a greater role in technology than the technology itself, for instance how can you build something you honestly believe will never work --- why would you even try. As well, do people believe that their opinion or others could somehow sway the actual reality of an event or fact?, ie.. could my friends not believing my experiments validity change the outcome?. In any case I have found there are people that know and understand many things not regarded as common knowledge, to such an extent that what they "know" is probably regarded by most of the world as impossible. I can also say these people have a determination or will to learn and understand like nothing most people can imagine, make no mistake it is an obsession which is why they succeed.
Regards
AC
I think allcanadians related experience can be summed up in a quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )
...if you can prepend "ignorance of" in front of "Any sufficiently advanced technology".
The ignorant aren't always that way because they choose to be and most, given the chance or reason, can usually graduate to being referred to another way given time.
As far as magnetic engines go, we just need to keep pushing the envelope with new discoveries about magnetism and other technologies to find where it (the envelope) opens.
i.e. lodestones may have been around and recognized for what they are for centuries, but superconductors we now know they can float above have not.
Nice post and good object lesson AC!
;)
Quote from: allcanadian on June 11, 2009, 08:31:47 PM
ie.. could my friends not believing my experiments validity change the outcome?
Nope... The placebo effect doesn't apply here.
Quote
In any case I have found there are people that know and understand many things not regarded as common knowledge, to such an extent that what they "know" is probably regarded by most of the world as impossible.
Like what?
@newbie123
Quoteie.. could my friends not believing my experiments validity change the outcome?
Nope... The placebo effect doesn't apply here.
Are you absolutely certain of this? I will give you an instance which may also answer your next question.
QuoteIn any case I have found there are people that know and understand many things not regarded as common knowledge, to such an extent that what they "know" is probably regarded by most of the world as impossible.
Like what?
After the experiments described in my last post I continued to evolve the technology. I produced miniaturized self-oscillating tesla coils(3"x3"),there is no set frequency of oscillation as the devices trigger themselves. I found by adjusting the sensitivity I could turn these devices on and off from six feet away by simply moving my hand. Of course there is no mystery here, we are simply interacting with a HV/HF electric field. Next I duplicated this circuit and placed the two open loop self-oscillators at the equivalent of one radius away from one another. We have now set the stage whereby one oscillator may trigger itself and the other nanoseconds later producing a constructive interference pattern between the two in the mid-Mhz range. The field geometry would equate to one circle overlapping another, in sacred geometry this is called the "Vesica Piscis" which plays a very important role that many have yet to understand. It was found that if I placed myself at the midpoint between the oscillators the slightest twitch of my finger could produce large frequency deviations in the oscillators because in order to effect one you must effect both,they are dynamically linked. After some tuning the apparatus could detect not only motion but stress level, you could literally think something and modulate the frequency of oscillation. I understand to the layman this would seem beyond reason but in reality it is not that difficult to understand. The two oscillator fields produce a lensing effect in their central interference pattern in much the same way a microscope would, in fact the premise was based on optical phenomena. Now to my former question---"could my friends not believing my experiments validity change the outcome?", In this case yes my friends belief could literally dictate the outcome of an experiment because they have become an integral but distant part of it. This also relates to people and there preoccupation with tangible matter, they see what they know and what they have been taught to see but that is not all there is. We are immersed in dynamic fields and we have an electric field surrounding our bodies which some call an "aura", you can detect this field with a simple oscilloscope. So you see in this instance what we believe may have effects we have never considered.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on June 12, 2009, 09:59:09 AM
After the experiments described in my last post I continued to evolve the technology. I produced miniaturized self-oscillating tesla coils(3"x3"),there is no set frequency of oscillation as the devices trigger themselves. I found by adjusting the sensitivity I could turn these devices on and off from six feet away by simply moving my hand. Of course there is no mystery here, we are simply interacting with a HV/HF electric field. Next I duplicated this circuit and placed the two open loop self-oscillators at the equivalent of one radius away from one another. We have now set the stage whereby one oscillator may trigger itself and the other nanoseconds later producing a constructive interference pattern between the two in the mid-Mhz range. The field geometry would equate to one circle overlapping another, in sacred geometry this is called the "Vesica Piscis" which plays a very important role that many have yet to understand. It was found that if I placed myself at the midpoint between the oscillators the slightest twitch of my finger could produce large frequency deviations in the oscillators because in order to effect one you must effect both,they are dynamically linked. After some tuning the apparatus could detect not only motion but stress level, you could literally think something and modulate the frequency of oscillation. I understand to the layman this would seem beyond reason but in reality it is not that difficult to understand. The two oscillator fields produce a lensing effect in their central interference pattern in much the same way a microscope would, in fact the premise was based on optical phenomena. Now to my former question---"could my friends not believing my experiments validity change the outcome?", In this case yes my friends belief could literally dictate the outcome of an experiment because they have become an integral but distant part of it. This also relates to people and there preoccupation with tangible matter, they see what they know and what they have been taught to see but that is not all there is. We are immersed in dynamic fields and we have an electric field surrounding our bodies which some call an "aura", you can detect this field with a simple oscilloscope. So you see in this instance what we believe may have effects we have never considered.
Regards
AC
Honestly, It sounds like you're just trying to write us a creative story now... I'm not saying it is impossible that an external circuit can be influence by brain activity (IR spectrum radiation can really be used to "read minds"), but come on... Saying their belief in the circuit working directly influenced it's functionality, is pretty hard to swallow... This sounds like some BS story you're trying to relate to my question, imho..
How did you confirm that their belief was directly influencing the circuit? Did you have them sit in a chair between the two circuits and say...
"Ok... start believing in my circuit ... NOW!" (watch the circuit run) Then say... "Ok.. Stop believing in my circuit... NOW!" .. (the circuit stops working)
Lol.. Sorry this just sounds insane (even if it is true!)..
@newbie123
LOL, I believe Excommon was correct in his quote--
Quote"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )
You will believe whatever you wish and there is little if anything I could ever do to change this fact. We will agree to say this was nothing more than a load of B.S then and leave it at that.
Regards
AC
Quote from: newbie123 on June 09, 2009, 05:45:35 PM
That's not how it works, positive potential alone won't drain out any electrons or reduce its magnetism.
Why?
And how to achieve this ?
Quote from: allcanadian on June 12, 2009, 11:45:28 AM
@newbie123
LOL, I believe Excommon was correct in his quote--
You will believe whatever you wish and there is little if anything I could ever do to change this fact. We will agree to say this was nothing more than a load of B.S then and leave it at that.
Regards
AC
Sorry.. But, this is another one of those stories that requires independent replications/verifications to be consider factual (for logical people). But seriously, you could do a scientific research paper on this phenomena (mind control circuit) and have it published in a respected scientific journal.. It you're weren't joking around.
To All
this is a bit off topic and yet could be right on topic as far as were this is all going so here goes.
i once read a book about native dance and it had to do with the efficiency of these dance rituals to bring rain or the like and the man studing these dances from around the world found that they were quite structured and seemed to follow the same type of pattern that is used in electrostatic machines and that these could be duplicated and did show very promissing effects.
so here is potentially to open structured circuits of people and mind set to an influence.
I myself watch clouds quite often any more and find that they will show areas were water condenses and areas it seems to be evaporating from in a clear open sky i can only attribute this to an energy difference that causes a flow much like watching a candle flame in a high wind storm moves the candle flame before the gust of wind comes and yet electrostatics can make a flame do the same thing i heard firemen talk about the fire as a beast when i was young but looking back now after much study of energy fields and properties the flow and manner it seems to follow is purely predictable by charge flow and can be very controled but that is just stupid for some even when demonstrated.
energy is in abundance about us it seems to be the belief or the control of it we are lacking.
Martin
@newbie123
QuoteSorry.. But, this is another one of those stories that requires independent replications/verifications to be consider factual (for logical people). But seriously, you could do scientific research paper on this phenomena (mind control circuit) and have it published in a respected scientific journal.. It you're weren't joking around.
The truth be known, I am one of those person's who has independently replicated the device in question, LOL, I replicate everything time allows to prove the matter for myself. Both Nicola Tesla and T.H.Moray had proven this technology around the 1930's and gave fairly accurate descriptions as to how the device works. In the 1980's another scalar wave researcher (Warren York) reproduced this experiment using high frequency sound waves and produced near the same results. As far as research papers in scientific journals are concerned I am just too old for that crap, LOL. I was never one to "buck" the system to much, it seemed kind of pointless. I prefer to convert people one on one, on a personal basis so they understand the underlying principals. In any case, my opinion has been fairly consistent over time -- believe what you want, I have nothing to prove to anyone, nor could I prove anything to anyone who is unwilling to prove the matter for themselves.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on June 12, 2009, 11:23:35 PM
@newbie123
The truth be known, I am one of those person's who has independently replicated the device in question, LOL, I replicate everything time allows to prove the matter for myself.
Proving the matter for yourself (only) is a waste of time.... Proving to the world is not. What if you made a mistake in an observation/experiment (mistakes and miscalculations can happen)? Would you rather go on believing an error is the truth rather than open your experiment to review or criticism?
What good is replicating everything you can without every showing anyone else? Can you imagine if real science was like this, and all researchers kept their findings confidential? We'd be in the stone age still.
In scientific research you need to prove things to other people and stay open to criticism, or you're just wasting your time. Period.
QuoteAs far as research papers in scientific journals are concerned I am just too old for that crap, LOL.
Naw..
Where does the energy come from?
From what I have found it follows standard physics calculations with only a one change.
If I have a 1kg mass and ask how much energy will I get if I drop it? Well the question then is, how far will it fall? and the answer is it will fall forever!
Using gravity,this is impossible because it will soon run into something and stop it, but this is not true with a magnetic field.
In a magnetic field, a path can be made to "fall forever" and simply produce endless output in a way like electrons in orbit around an atom.
Don't forget an electron orbiting atom has 0 resistance in the vaccum, there is nothing to slow it down, therefore it will move forever (not necessarily "orbit") ... Just like if you thrown an object in outer space, it will move forever ... And no "work" or energy will occur unless it hits another object.
Quote from: newbie123 on September 19, 2009, 09:03:10 PM
Don't forget an electron orbiting atom has 0 resistance in the vaccum, there is nothing to slow it down, therefore it will move forever (not necessarily "orbit") ... Just like if you thrown an object in outer space, it will move forever ... And no "work" or energy will occur unless it hits another object.
Hi Newbie.
Electrons are smeared across a nucleus in the form of an electron cloud or shell, it does not orbit around the atom. I think you're using high school classical particle physics and not current day Quantum mechanics.
the only time an electron is a point particle is when it is a mean free particle and under the correct conditions like in the double slit experiment.
Jerry ;)
Quote from: lumen on September 19, 2009, 08:56:43 PM
Where does the energy come from?
From what I have found it follows standard physics calculations with only a one change.
If I have a 1kg mass and ask how much energy will I get if I drop it? Well the question then is, how far will it fall? and the answer is it will fall forever!
Using gravity,this is impossible because it will soon run into something and stop it, but this is not true with a magnetic field.
In a magnetic field, a path can be made to "fall forever" and simply produce endless output in a way like electrons in orbit around an atom.
Hi Lumen.
are you making this up as you go a long or did you read this some where?
Jerry :)
If there is a delay in electric, then there is a delay in magnets.
In the world of energy it is all uttered.
Jerry,
Exactly. That's what it meant by "not orbit" .. The "electron's motion" would have been more accurate... or density/probability.
Who cares about magnet motors , they are too expensive to machine .
Forget about magnet motors , you will waste your life and $ .
And plz , stop acting like you knew wtf you were talking about .
Quoteare you making this up as you go a long or did you read this some where?
It is what I found in an experiment I did. I then constructed the path in Maxwell and found it to actually produce a constant force of a very significant amount, much to high to be error.
I am in the process of building the device so I can confirm the results in practice.
The partial device I built does already confirms the principal of operation but I will need to build a fully functioning device before I would believe it operates.
I can say this, all forces are balanced, the device does not use any push or pull from the magnets to operate and in fact it is required that the forces are balanced and not used for motion.
I have lots of data and field renderings on this method of operation, and I cannot find anything in the path that causes it not to operate.
So at this time I will continue on with the impossible!
Quote from: dankie on September 19, 2009, 10:39:44 PM
And plz , stop acting like you knew wtf you were talking about .
If this comment is for me. I did/do understand the quantum nature of an electron. In this example it doesn't really matter, the bohr model will work the same as the quantum (jittering) motion of electrons... Either way you look at it they move without resistance, just like objects through space.
most fail to remember the amount of work done with magnetic extremes in one field and that is nuclear fusion ... A lot of cash is dumped into this and we have a working model we wake up to every morning.
Quote from: newbie123 on September 20, 2009, 01:31:29 AM
If this comment is for me. I did/do understand the quantum nature of an electron. In this example it doesn't really matter, the bohr model will work the same as the quantum (jittering) motion of electrons... Either way you look at it they move without resistance, just like objects through space.
Hi Newbie.
Electrons when in wave form around an Atomic nucleus do not tend to move unless acted upon by either a isotope decay force and or an outside energy influence like that of light or pressure or additional electron charge.
stable isotope electrons stay in 'stagnate wave form' around an atomic nucleus to conserve their energy bond to the other potential Atoms within its proximity.
I think researching radioactive magnets would be quite fascinating because the radioactive decays would cause random fluctuations in it magnetic fields.
Jerry ;)