STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[lumen]

When you pulse the coil, the current at the beginning of the pulse creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field aligns the electron spins along its flux. These spins were previously aligned along the field lines of the magnet, thus they have to be rotated by the coil field against the magnet field. To do it, the coil has to exert a work dW= T*dA where T is the torque and dA the angle between the first and last angular position of the spin alignments. This work is done at the expense of power in the coil during the switch-on transition time.
Only the energy in the final magnetic field can be recovered later but it is weak because the coil inductance is low when the ferrite core is saturated. The work initially done to rotate the spin aligments is lost.
A best way to improve the energy efficiency could be to gradually reduce U/I during the pulse because when the magnet moves away a lesser magnetic field should be enough to maintain the spin alignment.

So along this line of thinking then, If the spins were previously aligned from the magnets along the same direction the coil was about to align the spins to, then in one half the core no energy would be required. At TDC the magnets should be aligning the cores with half in alignment and the other half out by 180 degrees.

The two directions would cancel out each other and act the same as with no magnets at all EXCEPT the permeability will have changed, lowering the inductance.
With lower inductance it will take less energy to saturate the core.
As the magnets move away, the inductance will increase and energy will be gained. Although, the waiting for the magnets to move away will consume more energy than what can be gained.

Unless the approach by the magnets was slower and produced free energy longer and the retract was shorter and consumed less energy!

[gravityblock]

The two directions would cancel out each other and act the same as with no magnets at all EXCEPT the permeability will have changed, lowering the inductance.
With lower inductance it will take less energy to saturate the core.
As the magnets move away, the inductance will increase and energy will be gained. Although, the waiting for the magnets to move away will consume more energy than what can be gained.

Unless the approach by the magnets was slower and produced free energy longer and the retract was shorter and consumed less energy!

You will only have an energy gain if the field of the magnets are sitting on the linear portions of the M-H Curve of the core material during their departure from TDC.

GB

[void109]

PL - "Real quick for legit researchers"

<sarcasm>Yes - after reading that, all of the illegitimate researchers immediately ceased reading the rest of your post...</sarcasm>

Please stop.  Please.  Your scattered comments that are blanket insulting everyone on the forum are souring the content -

PL - "I keep telling you ding dongs"

PL - "The problem at this forum is either a lack of mental power or paid posters" -

Please stop.

[gravityblock]

Look at the delayed response of the magnet being attracted to the material.  At 1:57 in the video the magnet is attracted to underneath the material at TDC moving along the surface of the table, then the magnet stops for a brief moment and has a delayed response before lifting off the table and attaches itself to the material.  This is showing the magnetic viscosity between their interaction.  It doesn't always do this.  Most of the time it lifts immediately off the table with no delay.  Watch between 1:50 - 2:00, but the effect happens right at 1:57 after I flip the magnet over.  Don't forget to turn your head 90^o to the left for the correct persepective.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBDVTLx_aTM

[Edit:]  Does anyone know how I can flip the video 90 degrees so it is showing the correct perspective.  Thanks.

GB

[happyfunball]

Am I nuts or is J-L Naudin now showing OU on youtube? Any comments on the lack of apparent current draw while lighting LED's?