PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-05-22, 20:18:28
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Do permanent magnets " DO " work?  (Read 5436 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1490


Buy me a cigar
A lively debate, thanks all.

It still seems to me that it's how we view the situation.

TK's flywheel analogy, with Lead weights attached will take longer to slow down than with the same mass PM's attached and acting on a coil. Take the coil away, we should see no difference.

From my perspective the PM's are doing the work by energising the loaded coil, the flywheel being nothing more than the carrier.

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
So do you think that you can extract more energy from the magnet than was used to magnetize the material in the first place , which produced the initial magnet field Bm? If so where does this energy come from? Does the material itself change in some way when you extract it? Does it ionize, does it transmute to some other elemental composition, does it get all crumbly and fall apart? Lose weight maybe?

None of those things.  I use the known laws of physics and apply them in different ways.  I know that I can create a magnetic field using current in a coil, and I can calculate the energy stored in that field.  And including losses in the coil that energy agrees with the electrical energy supplied from my power supply.   I can have a second coil interwound with the first one.  If I then supply current to that coil I get greater energy stored in the now increased field.  That energy is proportional to the square of the summed fields.  When I now do my energy balance I find that the new energy has three components each one proportional to the three components in the expansion of (B1 + B2)2.  One component is the initial energy supplied from the first coil, one component is the energy supplied by the second coil and the third component is energy supplied by the first coil at the time that the second coil is energized.  This is all trivial math that anyone can do.  The first coil supplies that 2*B1*B2 component.  Now if we replace the first coil with a PM we get the same math, the PM supplies that extra energy.  If you don't believe me do the math yourself.   

Quote
You can believe and postulate all kinds of things, but until you can perform some reliable experiment which _contradicts_ the results obtained from hundreds of years of experimentation, thousands of individual experiments, you are just believing and postulating.
The Marinov generator (the generator version of his motor bizarrely named Siberian Colei or something like that) produces DC that defies current accepted dogma.  I have carried out experiments with the help of a slip-ring manufacturer and witnessed this DC anomaly.  The Distinti Paradox 2 is another more complicated version that also produces anomalous DC.  While I accept that   neither of these examples has shown overunity, the anomalies are worthy of further investigation because they offer the potential to do so.  There is a valid explanation using a little known induction feature of the A field that uses the total time derivative, not just the partial derivative, that is still the subject of debate, and this does not require mechanical energy to be supplied to the slip-ring.  My believing and postulating has some credence.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
It matters not whether the magnets move or not. Some power is applied to the rotating parts to keep them spinning at a given RPM, or, in the unpowered state, the rotating parts continue to move for a certain time after power is removed (spin-down time). In all cases, the power needed to keep the rotating parts spinning at a given RPM will be less when there are no magnets present, and greater when there are magnets present, and in all cases, the time it takes for the unpowered rotor to spin down from a given RPM to a stop will be longer when there are no magnets present, and shorter when there are magnets present.  (Of course the rotational MoI is equalized by replacing rotor magnets (if any) with equal weights in the "no-magnet" case.)

I think your reasoning here is based on conventional motional induction where what you say is perfectly true.  Here we are interested in the unconventional.

Quote
Feel free to specify exactly what "Marinov Generator" you are referring to, and design an experiment _with appropriate controls_ that could either falsify or support your experimental hypothesis. Which is what, by the way?  I've already given several experiments and controls which could be easily performed, with specified hypotheses.
The experiment I have in mind looks for DC induction into a coil.  It uses a rotating slip-ring with diametrically opposite brushes.  A high direct current is made to flow across the slip ring.  A coil of many turns of fine wire is placed close to one brush contact point.  By my reasoning a small DC voltage should be induced into the coil.  If that is found to be true it opens the door to means for extracting energy from magnets.  Where does that energy come from?  IMO it comes from whatever keeps electrons spinning or orbiting, and that takes you to the virtual photons that invade our space.  Just what those virtual particles are remains a mystery, but the evidence suggests that they have zero rest mass, they have momentum and energy, and they have spin.  So instead of looking for any classical effects of extracting energy (such as your allusion to transmutation or fragmentation) we should look for changes in the density of those virtual particles.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1490


Buy me a cigar
I think your reasoning here is based on conventional motional induction where what you say is perfectly true.  Here we are interested in the unconventional.
The experiment I have in mind looks for DC induction into a coil.  It uses a rotating slip-ring with diametrically opposite brushes.  A high direct current is made to flow across the slip ring.  A coil of many turns of fine wire is placed close to one brush contact point.  By my reasoning a small DC voltage should be induced into the coil.  If that is found to be true it opens the door to means for extracting energy from magnets.  Where does that energy come from?  IMO it comes from whatever keeps electrons spinning or orbiting, and that takes you to the virtual photons that invade our space.  Just what those virtual particles are remains a mystery, but the evidence suggests that they have zero rest mass, they have momentum and energy, and they have spin.  So instead of looking for any classical effects of extracting energy (such as your allusion to transmutation or fragmentation) we should look for changes in the density of those virtual particles.

Smudge

Dear Smudge.

I think I might have asked this question on the thread where you first mentioned the above experiment.

Can the slip ring be made from Copper strip and rolled into a ring with a Silver soldered joint? I have several square feet of various Gague Copper and Brass sheets at my disposal.

I also have many different diameters of Brass rod that could be formed into jointed rings.

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1683
Everyman decries immorality


Buy me a beer
It still seems to me that it's how we view the situation.

TK's flywheel analogy, with Lead weights attached will take longer to slow down than with the same mass PM's attached and acting on a coil. Take the coil away, we should see no difference.

Introducing a Permanent Magnet system will always be a COP<1 (less than) 'enhancement'. TK is correct and demonstrable physics experiments will prove it.

When you remove the coil, The PM Mass is 'treated' the same as lead (a weight on the circumference of the spinning disc), but will in fact have slightly different properties.

The Element Neodymium

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele060.html

Density: 7.01 grams per cubic centimeter

The Element Lead

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele082.html

Density: 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter

The ratio between the two is 1.618

The Volume occupied by the less dense Neodymium will therefore be larger for the same weight.

This will change the interaction with the environment (air) by introducing an increased drag factor for the Neodymium. (larger surface area creates more drag)

You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment.

 O0


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1490


Buy me a cigar
Introducing a Permanent Magnet system will always be a COP<1 (less than) 'enhancement'. TK is correct and demonstrable physics experiments will prove it.

When you remove the coil, The PM Mass is 'treated' the same as lead (a weight on the circumference of the spinning disc), but will in fact have slightly different properties.

The Element Neodymium

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele060.html

Density: 7.01 grams per cubic centimeter

The Element Lead

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele082.html

Density: 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter

The ratio between the two is 1.618

The Volume occupied by the less dense Neodymium will therefore be larger for the same weight.

This will change the interaction with the environment (air) by introducing an increased drag factor for the Neodymium. (larger surface area creates more drag)

You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment.

 O0

My dear evolvingape.

One wasn't suggesting that the system described would, or could be COP>1.

One was however, suggesting that the magnetic field from the attached permanent magnets whilst acting upon a loaded coil caused the flywheel to slow down quicker than if the load was not present, represents work done by the said permanent magnets.

" You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment. "

Not a B****Y chance mate !!    ;D

Kindest regards, Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1683
Everyman decries immorality


Buy me a beer
I didn't say you were suggesting it was a COP>1 system, I know that you were not.

I was saying it is a COP<1 system (the PM's and coil) mounted on a separate mass based platform which itself is COP<1. In an attempt at greater system complexity you are introducing an additional loss.

One was however, suggesting that the magnetic field from the attached permanent magnets whilst acting upon a loaded coil caused the flywheel to slow down quicker than if the load was not present, represents work done by the said permanent magnets.

Technically you are correct it is "work done" but only in a thermodynamic sense, the work is dissipated as waste heat and electricity, an inefficiency to the system platform as a whole, whose primary foundation is kinetic (rotation of a solid mass) in 3D spacetime.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1683
Everyman decries immorality


Buy me a beer
" You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment. "

Not a B****Y chance mate !!    ;D


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3044
It's turtles all the way down


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
Dear Smudge.

I think I might have asked this question on the thread where you first mentioned the above experiment.

Can the slip ring be made from Copper strip and rolled into a ring with a Silver soldered joint? I have several square feet of various Gague Copper and Brass sheets at my disposal.

I also have many different diameters of Brass rod that could be formed into jointed rings.

Cheers Grum.
Dear Grum,

I composed a reply but lost my internet connection and lost the reply.  Now back home so I'll try again.  Yes you could make the slip-ring that way.  It needs to be mounted on a non-conducting disc somehow.  We need maximum surface velocity hence maximum practical diameter and RPM.  I envision the coil as a circular bunch of wires taped together to form a ring.  The diameter of the coil is not too important but it can't be too small.  The induction into the wires can be likened to the force on an undershot water-wheel where it is only the paddles in contact with the water that see any force.  It is only the electrons in that part of the wire that is close to the brush contact point that get the biggest push.  I'll knock up a sketch when I have finished checking all my mail.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1490


Buy me a cigar
Dear Smudge.

Looking forward to seeing a diagram.

How does a 1000 mm circumference sound? Brass or Copper? I have a huge selection of plastic sheets from Polycarbonate, HDPE, PVC etc.

What width?

Good start?  ;)

Kind regards, Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 811
The original Siberian Coliu used a "slip ring" as described by Marinov and tested by Kooistra and others, including myself, that was not like a short cylinder but rather was a planar ring.

Most of us have used pure copper vacuum flange gaskets, which are readily available on the internet, and "brush" contacts of liquid metal like mercury or GalInStan. Using this ring, and a triaxial arrangement of armature magnets, ring and brushes, all free to move in rotation with respect to each other, one can then observe and explore the truly interesting and seemingly anomalous behaviour of the system.

That is, when the magnet armature and the ring are both free to rotate, and DC high-current power is supplied to the outer edge of the ring by brushes at opposite points, the "stator" ring will rotate in one direction and the magnet armature will rotate in the opposite direction.

BUT... when the brushes are made to contact the ring on the _inner_ edge, at the same opposite locations, the ring will rotate in one direction and the magnet armature will rotate in the _same_ direction.

The direction of ring and magnet armature rotation depends on the polarity of the DC power applied. The system is set up to "start" with a particular orientation of the magnet armature. When current is applied, the magnet armature will rotate 90 degrees and "lock" into that position wrt the brush locations. The ring moves under power until the magnet armature locks, then it coasts freely, but slowed by the brush contact friction. If the magnet armature is prevented from rotating to the "lock" position, the ring will continue to rotate under power instead of just coasting.

If the DC power is supplied in properly timed pulses, the entire system can be made into a continuously operating motor, with both the "stator" ring and the armature magnets rotating in the _same direction_.


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
Grum,

I would go for copper to keep the resistance as low as possible, although that shouldn't be an important parameter.  How fast can you swing that 1 foot diameter disc, which I imagine to be about 1/2 inch thick?

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
@TK,

I have read most of the various reports on the motor.  But I have seen nothing on the generator version where the slip-ring is driven and the magnets are stationary.  I have done experiments using disc magnets, not the closed magnetic circuit where there is no external B field.  So my results are not conclusive, there is an argument that the results could come from the classical E=vXB motional induction.  But the geometry is not quite right for that and the values obtained did agree with a calculation of the non-classical E=-(v.del)A induction.  There is a private thread on this subject which has now meandered onto this one.

Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 811
With B flux leakage from a stationary magnet armature and driven slip ring, you pretty much have a classic homopolar DC generator configuration. It's harder to see this if the "slip ring" is an axial cylinder without much radial extent. It's easier to see if a disk or flat ring is used.  In my own experimentation I was more interested in the motor effect than the generator, but I was able to produce some _AC_ voltage by rotating the magnet armature with a stationary ring.

The motor's apparent violation of N3 with both stator ring and magnet armature moving in the same direction was my major research focus. Some workers who have studied this system apparently don't even believe this is possible at all, since they don't even mention it in their papers. Those that have gone this far may believe that the stator and armature are reacting against the brushes, but it is possible to arrange the geometry so that this "brush reaction effect" is eliminated, to the first order.
 
But flux leakage is apparently necessary for all the effects produced by this system. When I took extra pains to eliminate flux leakage from the magnet armature, all the effects weakened to the extent I was able to confine the B field to the armature. In my opinion the A induction effect is still unsupported by experiment. If you can demonstrate it, along with appropriate control experiments that enable you to definitely assign causality, that would be a pretty big deal, nearly as big as a violation of N3, and you should pursue the research further if you are able.


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2894
tExB=qr
see attached
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 811
Yes, Phipps is one of those who seem to have entirely missed the co-rotation of magnet armature and ring when current is fed to the inner edge of the ring... this, in spite of citing Kooistra several times in his paper. Phipps treats the ring as a simple circular line, rather than a volume with both axial and radial thickness. So for him there is no "inner edge" and the torques of ring and magnet armature are always opposite, no matter whether one or the other, or both, are actually free to move.

What this co-rotation with inner edge current injection phenomenon does to all that math in Phipps's paper and the conclusions he draws in spite of the Fig. 11 data .... it's an interesting question.

Here's a video by someone who has shot himself in the foot already by his apparatus geometry. He does demonstrate a continuously running motor but hasn't implemented the "ring" and brush setup properly to be able to observe the more interesting phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuDrJVzCpo

Unfortunately I have no photos of the triaxial apparatus I constructed at ISSO in 1999, and the apparatus itself is long gone from my control. I keep thinking about building another one, but Kooistra's method is so simple and easy to reproduce that it's not worth the trouble for me any more. Kooistra just used a copper vacuum gasket cemented to the rim of a styrofoam coffee cup, which was suspended from a thread, so that the ring hung downwards and just barely made contact with two pools of mercury in little wells on the surface of a board. Current was provided by wires sticking into the mercury. A pair of cylinder magnets stuck together and simply placed on the center of the ring, resting on the table, made up his "armature". If I was going to do this today I'd use a transparent plastic cup, so it's easier to see what the magnets are doing. By making two sets of mercury wells, one set spaced for outer-edge contact on the ring and the other set spaced for inner-edge contact, the co-rotation and opposite rotation senses of ring and rotor can be observed.


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
Here are two papers of mine dealing with this subject.  The first paper gives the math for an electron accelerating near a closed current loop where it induces a voltage impulse into that loop, hence either extracting energy from or feeding energy to the source of that loop current.  It is shown how this is related to the canonical momentum qA of the electron, or more importantly the canonical energy qAv.  Acceleration along the A field direction causes an electrical power flow at the coil, i.e. from a position outside the coil we can influence what goes on inside the electrical circuit.  Energy is conserved because the total kinetic energy of the electron (which is the sum of its mechanical energy and its canonical energy) changes.  If the electron is taken away to a distant position where the A field is zero it loses its canonical energy, and to maintain energy balance its mechanical energy (hence velocity) has to change, i.e. it endures a force.  We can extract power by using that force to do work while not changing the velocity of the electron.  The force is represented by an electric field inherited from the electron movement through the non-uniform A field.  It is shown that this anomalous E field can be obtained by using the total time derivative of the A field as seen by the moving electron, which leads to the classical E=vXB induction plus another term that is the gradient of a potential Swarzschild used in his electro-kinetic potential.  This missing term in our electromagnetic teachings explains all.

The second paper was written earlier and deals with the same subject from a slightly different perspective, before I had mastered the intricacies of the vector math and discovered the link to Swarzschild.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
Grum,

Here is a picture of the proposed experiment.  What equipment do you have that can measure small DC voltage, like microvolts?  I have here a piece of kit built for me by Graham Gunderson (the very fellow with his magnetic implosion transformer).  It is a DC amplifier that enables a 'scope to measure DC microvolts.  It has a low pass filter to get rid of noise, so it is slow to respond to any changes to the DC level, and of course to the initial connection to any DC voltage.  It even senses the Seebeck voltage changing as the body heat that you put into the croc clip leaks away, so you really need a permanent connection to the DOT then switch on the voltage.  In your case the sudden appearance of current will induce an enormous voltage transient via its magnetic field that might take a long time to disappear, so you may need to ramp up the current slowly.  If you need this device I can send it to you.

Smudge
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3044
It's turtles all the way down
Your papers rang quite a few bells here, though I do not admit to fully understanding all of it.

The idea of the coexistence and spontaneous unfoldment of a static E field and B field without the attendant phase shift normal to an inductive circuit is intriguing.

DC production or the acceleration of electrons by impulse is exactly what SM was alluding to in his attempts to explain what he was doing. Like Gunderson, he did not fully understand his own creations.

The windup effect (time to accelerate), gyro properties (resultant side effect of electrons accelerating at very high speed in a ring conductor), DC without rectification seem to be clues not to be ignored. In place of a moving ring, he stumbled upon the method of using acoustic vibration of conductors IMHO.

Sorry to diverge again.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1490


Buy me a cigar
Dear Smudge.

My apologies for not replying sooner, just getting through the result of my latest " pummelling " at the clinic !! 

How fast do we need to go? It seems my Copper sheet is imperial so I'm looking at a 36" ( Inch ) maximum circumference. 

I have a 400 MHZ, 4 channel analogue scope and on the basic end a moving coil micro ammeter ( 0-50 ) if memory serves correctly.

For the pickup coil how does a " Hard drive " actuator arm sound ?

I've got to go, can't sit here any longer !! 

Kind regards, Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2894
tExB=qr
Here are two papers...

In the first paper, Fig. 3 shows a current loop. The current loop is powered with a steady DC.

Don't both the loop and the moving electron have magnetic fields the will couple together, and vary with distance as the electron passes the loop?

 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 749
In the first paper, Fig. 3 shows a current loop. The current loop is powered with a steady DC.

Don't both the loop and the moving electron have magnetic fields the will couple together, and vary with distance as the electron passes the loop?
Certainly if we consider a single electron it will create a magnetic field associated with its movement.  I don't like the words "couple with" because that suggests some special effect associated with the combined fields.  Its field will add vectorally and temporally to the static field from the current loop.  The current loop would see the temporal change as an induced voltage impulse of one polarity as the electron approaches and of opposite polarity as it recedes.  Because of the sudden acceleration the approach velocity is less than the receding velocity so the two impulses have different magnitudes and widths.  But the exchange of energy with the loop's current source is zero, it gains as much energy from one pulse as it loses from the other pulse.  Of course we don't have single electrons, we have a current stream of zillions of electrons so those impulses all cancel out and we don't need to consider them.  We have constant current arriving and leaving the acceleration point so the magnetic fields from those trajectories is constant.  It is only the radiation from the accelerating region that is "seen" by the current loop.  Of interest is just what is that radiation?  You can argue that over the small accelerating region the current is constant because the changing density of electrons negates the effect of increased velocity, so there is no magnetic impulse to create an induction E field, hence there is no radiation.  That is certainly a possibility.  But my gut feeling is that there is a radiation E field there and that is what we are looking for.

Smudge 
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1683
Everyman decries immorality


Buy me a beer
Electric field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

An electric field is a vector field that associates to each point in space the Coulomb force that would be experienced per unit of electric charge, by an infinitesimal test charge at that point.[1] Electric fields converge and diverge at electric charges and they can be induced by time-varying magnetic fields. The electric field combines with the magnetic field to form the electromagnetic field.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3044
It's turtles all the way down
Certainly if we consider a single electron it will create a magnetic field associated with its movement.  I don't like the words "couple with" because that suggests some special effect associated with the combined fields.  Its field will add vectorally and temporally to the static field from the current loop.  The current loop would see the temporal change as an induced voltage impulse of one polarity as the electron approaches and of opposite polarity as it recedes.  Because of the sudden acceleration the approach velocity is less than the receding velocity so the two impulses have different magnitudes and widths.  But the exchange of energy with the loop's current source is zero, it gains as much energy from one pulse as it loses from the other pulse.  Of course we don't have single electrons, we have a current stream of zillions of electrons so those impulses all cancel out and we don't need to consider them.  We have constant current arriving and leaving the acceleration point so the magnetic fields from those trajectories is constant.  It is only the radiation from the accelerating region that is "seen" by the current loop.  Of interest is just what is that radiation?  You can argue that over the small accelerating region the current is constant because the changing density of electrons negates the effect of increased velocity, so there is no magnetic impulse to create an induction E field, hence there is no radiation.  That is certainly a possibility.  But my gut feeling is that there is a radiation E field there and that is what we are looking for.

Smudge

A wire is in proximity to a PM field. It is given a sharp  impulse so has sudden acceleration in one direction, and much reduced acceleration as it's direction reverses and returns to it's rest point. Would it's radiation E field effect a buildup of direct current in a nearby loop? Would some small current need to be initially flowing in the loop?
 Or would it result in a null. Maybe you have already answered it above.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-05-22, 20:18:28