Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[EMJunkie]

Nope, there is no "charge separation."  A battery or the windings in a generator coil will raise the voltage of the electrons so that they continue on their merry way through the circuit.  It's like marbles that roll down a track and when they get to the bottom an elevator lifts them up so they can roll down the track again.  The battery or the generator will act like the elevator lifting up the marbles.  No charges are separated like in a capacitor or other static electricity example.

How MileHigh, How does a Magnetic Field Cutting the Conductor at right angles, raise the Voltage Potential? When normally we would see none!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

This is a fantastic read: Spin–charge separation

I quote, because its such a good read:

In condensed matter physics, spin–charge separation is an unusual behavior of electrons in some materials in which they 'split' into three independent particles, the spinon, orbiton and the chargon (or its antiparticle, the holon). The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital degree of freedom and the chargon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can become deconfined and behave as independent particles.

The theory of spin–charge separation originates with the work of Sin-Itiro Tomonaga who developed an approximate method for treating one-dimensional interacting quantum systems in 1950.[1] This was then developed by Joaquin Mazdak Luttinger in 1963 with an exactly solvable model which demonstrated spin–charge separation.[2] In 1981 F. Duncan M. Haldane generalized Luttinger's model to the Tomonaga–Luttinger liquid concept[3] whereby the physics of Luttinger's model was shown theoretically to be a general feature of all one-dimensional metallic systems. Although Haldane treated spinless fermions, the extension to spin-½ fermions and associated spin–charge separation was clear so that the promised follow-up paper did not appear.

Spin–charge separation is one of the most unusual manifestations of the concept of quasiparticles. This property is counterintuitive, because neither the spinon, with zero charge and spin half, nor the chargon, with charge minus one and zero spin, can be constructed as combinations of the electrons, holes, phonons and photons that are the constituents of the system. It is an example of fractionalization, the phenomenon in which the quantum numbers of the quasiparticles are not multiples of those of the elementary particles, but fractions.

Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic chargon and fermionic spinon is usually referred to as the "slave-fermion" formalism, while the formalism with fermionic chargon and bosonic spinon is called the "Schwinger boson" formalism. Both approaches have been used for strongly correlated systems, but neither has been proved to be completely successful. One difficulty of the spin–charge separation is that while spinon and chargon are not gauge-invariant quantities, i.e. unphysical objects, there are no direct physical probes to observe them. Therefore more often than not one has to use thermal dynamical or macroscopic techniques to see their effects. This implies that which formalism we choose is irrelevant to real physics, so in principle both approaches should give us the same answer. The reason we obtain radically different answers from these two formalisms is probably because of the wrong mean field solution we choose, which means that we are dealing with the spin–charge separation in a wrong way.

The same theoretical ideas have been applied in the framework of ultracold atoms. In a two-component Bose gas in 1D, strong interactions can produce a maximal form of spin–charge separation.[4]

So normally, we go from no Voltage Potential Difference at all, to a Voltage potential difference simply by cutting the Conductor at 90 degrees with a Magnetic Field... What is it that could be doing this to the Conductor?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[tinman]

Lidmotor:

Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also.   Six years later and you are still making clips!

Carroll:



It's not easy to do a full energy audit for a device.  In this case we are talking about a full energy audit without the rotor, and one with the rotor.  In the pie chart for the setup with the rotor, there is a slice, no matter now small it may be, that is the slice that goes into powering the rotor and making it spin.  There is no "magnet energy" slice in the pie chart.

MileHigh

The rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean.  Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn.  Brad is not stating that, and that's the sticking point

.

Here is what i stated in the very first line,on the very first post
Quote: I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's. ---> That is what i stated,and that is what i meant. 

Regardless of how or why the external magnetic field dose it--it dose it,and if the external alternating magnetic field is changing the operating parameters of that inductor ,so as the efficiency (electrical) is increased,then those magnets are doing useful work.

We are not here to discus how efficient boost converters can be made,or to compare an efficient boost converter to what we have here as a DUT. We have taken an inductor that was hand wound on non ideal core material with chicken scratching windings,and have increased the efficiency of that inductor with the introduction of external alternating magnetic fields.

All losses that have been mentioned (E.G-transistor,resistor-ETC) are all present in both situations.

Quote from MH-->The rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean.  Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn.

You have just proven my claim,which was(as can be seen in my first paragraph in this thread)-I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor. The part you have wrong is that it takes more electrical power to spin that rotor,than what the rotor(external alternating magnetic fields) dose in improving the efficiency of that inductor--as can be clearly seen in all the tests carried out. If what you say were true,then we would see an increase of P/in,or a decrease in P/out-->which we do not.

The magnets are not "generating power back into the coil."  The moving magnets are inducing a counter-EMF in the coil and that's a completely different thing.

This statement is absolutely wrong MH-->a quick circuit analysis along with the scope shots below should tell you that the magnets !are! generating power to the charge battery,and thus the magnets are causing the coil to generate. The 1N5408 diode on the collector has a voltage drop of .4 volt's,and the charge battery at this scope shot point was 12.58 volts. Any voltage generated across the coil that is above 12.98v,a current begins to flow to the charge battery. We can clearly see in the scope shot that without the rotor,we see only the run (supply) battery voltage across the collector/emitter junction,but with the rotor we see a peak of about 14 volts across the collector/emitter junction,and once a voltage above 12.98 is reached,then the collector diode will start to conduct,and current will begin to flow through the charge battery/coil loop.

Quote MH  Instead, we have "replaced" the counter-EMF with a small DC battery placed inside the coil that produces a DC counter-EMF that is equivalent to the moving magnet counter-EMF. We run the test and we get exactly the same results.  Can you imagine that?

If you did that,then the P/in would rise,and the small battery would be discharged,where as the magnets are not discharged. You should also know that the spinning magnets are creating a current flow in the coil that is in the same direction as that that is supplied by the source battery-->the collector diode makes sure of this.

MH--and other guru's
Regardless of how you guys try to twist thing's around ,or make them sound,i have proven that what i claimed is exactly what is happening here,and that is that an external alternating magnetic field has indeed increased the efficiency of this DUT. It would also help if you looked a little closer and understand as to how this simple circuit operates. We would then not have incorrect statements like !!The magnets are not "generating power back into the coil."  The moving magnets are inducing a counter-EMF in the coil and that's a completely different thing.!! being made here,as the magnets are clearly generating a current flow through the coil/charge battery loop during the off time of the transistor.

Next we will get down to the DC motor issue,which is electromagnet  V permanent magnet's. Here we will see how much electrical energy is save when we replace the electromagnet with a PM.
Once again,we will see how the PM increase the efficiency of an electric motor.


Brad

[tinman]

Lidmotor:

Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also.   Six years later and you are still making clips!

MileHigh

That is a different effect. What is going on with Lidmotors experiment,is when in the presence of the rotating magnetic field,it is the magnetic field that is doing the switching of the transistor,and that frequency of switching is much lower than when the coil is removed from the external alternating magnetic field,and the DUT go's into self oscillation mode. As can be seen in both Lidmotors experiment,and Jonny Darvo's replication,the self oscillating mode produces much more light output from the LED's. So that is why you are seeing a P/in decrease when the coil is placed within the external magnetic field. With my DUT,the frequency and duty cycle remain the same,so these two effects are not the same.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I will try to respond to the issues you raised.  For starters nobody is contesting that you get less waste heat when you add the spinning rotor.  PW suggested that it was the fact that the rotor was acting as a temporary store for the pulse energy coming from the coil and then kicking it back a fraction of a second later.  I was suggesting that the passing rotor magnets were inducing counter-EMF in the coil and thus reducing its current draw, reducing its waste heat, and still giving you a decent back spike.  For example, we have seen examples where the current draw drops in the middle of the ON time and then comes back up at the end giving you a decent back spike and also improves efficiency.  There is no argument there.  Effectively, the spinning rotor changes the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the pulse motor system and you get the same or perhaps an even better back spike with less waste heat.

However, here is a quote from you from the thread:

The only opposition you will meet in this sort of research is those that are fixed in there way's,and have no room for change. These guys will also be the one's that will not be able to back up there claim that your information is wrong. They will give you no other means of showing the same effect that we have,but they will still argue the point with you--> !! PERMANENT MAGNETS CANNOT DO USEFUL WORK !!. Even when providing controlled experiment's,they will still argue against you. No matter what we do,it will never agree with these guy's-->that much has become painfully obvious in this thread.

So are you arguing for this test that permanent magnets can do useful work or not?  I have heard you either post that claim in the past or perhaps you stated it in one of your clips.

I think that in the thread today before you recently posted that the general consensus was that permanent magnets cannot do useful work.  Really all that is happening is the use of the rotor magnets is changing the configuration.  Here is something for you to ponder:  Suppose you changed the bearing for a Cadillac bearing that was as smooth as silk and the current consumption went down.  Would you say that the new bearing was doing useful work?

I will try to respond to your comments in the next posting.

MileHigh