PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-02, 03:44:44
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
Author Topic: Energy from electron spin  (Read 11942 times)
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
broli, are the ones you ordered neodymium?   Looking forward to your experiences.

Yes they are N38 rated and should be arriving somewhere today. Meanwhile I also compiled all the videos related to the paper in a single video with some captions to make them easier to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oijGMLErqck


I would like to build a small setup of those raised tube to see how much force it will take to make these spheres rise. At least the tubes don't need to be touching which also reduces friction but I bet there will be a significant force to overcome to make them rotate. Of course the question then is if this force will be larger than the work done against gravity.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
@e2matrix

Thanks for the interesting feedback on your experiments.
I think that the friction coefficient of the spheres against the glass walls have a very important effect on the behavior of the spheres.
It is possible that the humidity of the air, or perhaps a question of temperature, generally very different between outside and inside, have an influence on this coefficient, which would explain the differences, as well as the time to recover the old behavior when we go from one environment to the other. It is also possible that the rolling of the spheres changes very slightly the surface state of the glass, leading to differences from one experiment to the other.
Only hypotheses...


...
I definitely find this phenomenon interesting that the magnets seem to know which way is up against gravity.
...

Magnets are subject to gravity, so they necessarily "feel" it.
The surprise is to see the same effect against gravity whatever the direction of rotation of the cylinders. This is why they talk about time symmetry breaking.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
...
I would like to build a small setup of those raised tube to see how much force it will take to make these spheres rise.
O0

Quote
At least the tubes don't need to be touching which also reduces friction but I bet there will be a significant force to overcome to make them rotate. Of course the question then is if this force will be larger than the work done against gravity.

The tubes are rotated at the same time and at the same speed, so there is no slippage. In theory, the fact that they are touching each other does not cause any friction loss.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
The magnets do not supply a force that opposes gravity.  The supply a torque force that causes the magnets to rotate to act like driving wheels.  It is those wheels in contact with the tube surface that then drive them one way or the other.  Gravity doesn't come into which direction the drive goes.  The upward force that holds the magnets against gravity is in the tubes, they are like legs.  Friction plays its part in this, the static magnets don't fall down because they are clamped to the tubes, if there were no friction they would just fall to the bottom.  It is a pity that the black spheres were not given some white markers so that you could see their rotations.

I disagree with F6 on the magnet orientations.  The maximum attractive force will be with the axes coaxial, with poles at the touching point.  There is no way the magnets can move along the tube from one static position to another in a pure rolling action so so the actual movement must involve some sliding.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
My ball magnets have just arrived and started playing with this, thus far purely manual and have mostly been testing the rolling causing a spin effect. However I think this may not be an intrinsic effect due to the electrons spin. I have a very difficult time replicating this, sometimes it starts spinning and sometimes it just rolls over its magnetization axis like a normal ball would. At first it seems there was some critical speed where above it started rolling like a normal ball would. So I tried this with two different ball sizes to see if there is a mass-volume/magnetic field ratio dependance but they behave seemingly equally random regardless of size or velocity. Sometimes they spin when rolled and sometimes they just roll normally.

What I'm starting to believe is that this effect happens because of earth's magnetic field or other nearby magnetic objects. This is especially obvious when you "bias" the sphere like in the glass plate video that was shown by Elena.

I have also played a bit with the rising tube magnet but I need to 3d print some parts as it was too clunky to do these experiments manually. However there does seem to be some interesting behaviors going on. But the sceptic in me is becoming more skeptical at the same time.
 
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2739


Buy me a cigar
Hi Guys.

Is there any relation to the Hammel disc phenomenon? It would be nearly 20 years ago when I attached a Ceramic disc magnet to a 2” diameter Steel ball bearing and watched it rotate whilst under the influence of an oppositely polarised 4” ring of magnets.

Cheers Grum.

And, just for laughs….

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2545.msg40063#msg40063


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

Posts: 253
Here's a first video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1UE5uVzuzA

Interestingly enough the lower the friction the better, the effect completely stops if you put something like a silicon oven mat under it. The easier the magnet can spin the better. So hard materials like glass are preferred.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
I just did some FEMM runs which are 2D simulations so not spheres but infinitely long rods.  They have a gap between them, and I just tried different magnetization directions.  Surprisingly the attraction force is the same for the side-by-side parallel magnetizations as it is for the end to end magnetizations.  I tried 45 degree (one tilted up and the other tilted down) and again got the same force,  So if this also applies to spheres then you get the same max force whatever the rotation provided one rotates CW and the other rotates CCW, so I was wrong about the rolling situation, they can roll up or down in the twin tube situation.

Smudge
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2838


Buy me a beer
Great video and very instructive.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
The magnets do not supply a force that opposes gravity.  The supply a torque force that causes the magnets to rotate to act like driving wheels.  It is those wheels in contact with the tube surface that then drive them one way or the other.  Gravity doesn't come into which direction the drive goes.  The upward force that holds the magnets against gravity is in the tubes, they are like legs.  Friction plays its part in this, the static magnets don't fall down because they are clamped to the tubes, if there were no friction they would just fall to the bottom.
...

I agree, friction is the means by which the two forces are exerted, the rotational and the linear. A priori it would be in our interest to have the highest coefficient of friction so as not to lose anything in sliding (I am talking about the experiment with the two tubes in which the spheres climb).

I just did some FEMM runs which are 2D simulations so not spheres but infinitely long rods.  They have a gap between them, and I just tried different magnetization directions.  Surprisingly the attraction force is the same for the side-by-side parallel magnetizations as it is for the end to end magnetizations.

As said above, in both cases the field lines have an equal path length in the air, so it is not really surprising. On the other hand, the smaller volume of the configuration in the "side by side" mode does not lead to a minimum of potential magnetic energy, contrary to my intuition.
Your simulation is extremely instructive. The effect must therefore be difficult or impossible to obtain with magnets of other shapes, for example cylindrical. That's likely why everyone missed it, spherical magnets are more for games or decoration, until now I had seen few experiments with them.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
I agree, friction is the means by which the two forces are exerted, the rotational and the linear. A priori it would be in our interest to have the highest coefficient of friction so as not to lose anything in sliding (I am talking about the experiment with the two tubes in which the spheres climb).

You might think that but that's not true. Infact when I use plexiglass the magnets don't even spin and seize. The best results so far is using glass. The magnets smoothly rise up then. There's definitely a sweet spot but softer materials actually all perform worse right now. It's very counterintuitive. You can also definitely feel a resisting force when rotating the glass containers but it gets weaker when the magnets start spinning and moving up.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
You might think that but that's not true. Infact when I use plexiglass the magnets don't even spin and seize. The best results so far is using glass. The magnets smoothly rise up then. There's definitely a sweet spot but softer materials actually all perform worse right now. It's very counterintuitive. You can also definitely feel a resisting force when rotating the glass containers but it gets weaker when the magnets start spinning and moving up.

Very interesting.
One could assume at first that it is a set of torques (magnetic, frictional force for rotation, gravity) that combine to provide a component that allows the sphere to roll upwards along the wall.
Your observation shows that the effect is more complex than that.  Couldn't this mean that sliding is also needed? For example a sliding for the vertical axis rotations and a friction for the horizontal axis rotations? Or the opposite? We would need a non-isotropic wall surface.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
Very interesting.
One could assume at first that it is a set of torques (magnetic, frictional force for rotation, gravity) that combine to provide a component that allows the sphere to roll upwards along the wall.
Your observation shows that the effect is more complex than that.  Couldn't this mean that sliding is also needed? For example a sliding for the vertical axis rotations and a friction for the horizontal axis rotations? Or the opposite? We would need a non-isotropic wall surface.

Actually I tried one with a glass bottle that was slightly wet. The magnets would then spin too but they would stay in place as the friction was too low due to the wet wall. Interestingly the force to rotate the bottle "felt" equally strong too. I'm also starting to think that perhaps the larger diameter of the cylinder the smoother you can turn the cylinders. In fact now that I think about it you could probably just use flat pieces of glass instead.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
...
In fact now that I think about it you could probably just use flat pieces of glass instead.

I think so. But how to rotate the spheres ?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
I think so. But how to rotate the spheres ?

See attached illustration. Basically moving the glass panes in opposite direction and unlike the cylinders there would be no resistance due to curvature to overcome. Imo this would be the most low energy system you could make for this effect.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
But with this scheme the rotations are in the same direction while with the tubes they were in the opposite direction.

It's still interesting to do, maybe the magnets will tend to go down?


Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
But with this scheme the rotations are in the same direction while with the tubes they were in the opposite direction.

It's still interesting to do, maybe the magnets will tend to go down?

You can see in the original Elena videos that it doesn't matter in which direction the tubes rotate relative to each other the behavior is the same and I also confirmed this.
The magnets will always go in the opposite direction of gravity. In my illustration above if the glass panes would be parallel with the horizon the magnets will just spin in place. So there needs to be a slight tilt on the magnets which the force of gravity provides.


Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?

Her equation does contain the gyromagnetic ratio which is due to the electron spin and its mechanical angular momentum. But if it's indeed too distracting for Smudge we could spin up a different thread.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
You can see in the original Elena videos that it doesn't matter in which direction the tubes rotate relative to each other the behavior is the same and I also confirmed this.

I had missed that, I thought that the two tubes had to rotate opposite each other.  :(

So it's even more amazing than I thought. It could also work with only one magnet  (maybe by replacing one with a ferromagnetic plate placed against the glass one?)

Quote
The magnets will always go in the opposite direction of gravity. In my illustration above if the glass panes would be parallel with the horizon the magnets will just spin in place. So there needs to be a slight tilt on the magnets which the force of gravity provides.

I see things the same way.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
So it's even more amazing than I thought. It could also work with only one magnet  (maybe by replacing one with a ferromagnetic plate placed against the glass one?)

Indeed the other side does not have to be a magnet. Even a test with a spoon did the same.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?
Let's leave it here for the moment as it is aligned electron spin that is the basis for permanent magnetism.  I note broli has drawn his spheres with the magnetic axes in axial alignment.  Is that how they start and end up?

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
Let's leave it here for the moment as it is aligned electron spin that is the basis for permanent magnetism.  I note broli has drawn his spheres with the magnetic axes in axial alignment.  Is that how they start and end up?

Smudge

It's near impossible to align ball magnets with their poles anti parallel. They only tend to align axially at close range.

I did find some interesting orientations for most optimal vertical movement. By using a sphere magnet and a smaller "holder" magnet which goes up with it. Depending on the orientation of this holder magnet the sphere rolls up, in place, or even down against gravity.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
I did find some interesting orientations for most optimal vertical movement. By using a sphere magnet and a smaller "holder" magnet which goes up with it.

What is the diameter of your magnets?

I ordered 19mm ones, and I think I have some 5mm magnets in a kids game at home from where I am away right now. I'll be able to experiment with both sizes in about 10 days.

Quote
Depending on the orientation of this holder magnet the sphere rolls up, in place, or even down against gravity.

Hard to make sense of it all.  :(



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
I thought I might have an idea of why the spheres go up due to the direction of spin on a curved surface which I could see causing a climbing motion as they are pulled against the surface by the other magnet.   However I can no longer get them to climb up at all in the same containers.  No matter how long I rotate the containers they don't seem to want to climb at all now - not even a tiny bit of upward motion now.   I thought maybe the surfaces inside the bottles had become more smooth and polished from doing these tests.  So I took a rough dremel to the insides of the plastic bottles thinking that might give the magnets a better surface to grab onto and help pull them up.  But no luck with that either.   If I had gotten the results I've observed in the last two days initially I would have assumed some sort of hoax or some problem with my setup.   Now I'm still left with a mystery of why it worked initially but seems even less able to climb now than at first.   That leads me again to wonder if there isn't something related to the moon and it's effect on tides being part of this phenomenon.   I'll be trying again to see if the effect is different on the next full moon.   That might sound a bit far out for a theory but at this point I don't have any other explanation for the change in how the magnets are acting now versus the first tests.

broli,  I also did clean the magnets and inside of the containers with no difference noted.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
The coefficient of friction seems important, so the force with which the magnets attract each other, too.
The forces exert torques that depend on the size of the sphere while the weight is proportional to the volume, this could explain that all sizes of spheres may not be suitable...

When everyone reports their results, specifying the size of the magnets, their weight, and the quality of the neodymium (N38 ? N40 ?...) or its force of attraction could facilitate the lessons to be drawn.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
Has anyone considered the sphere contact area when rotating might create tribo-electric charging of the contacting surface?  Then there could be electrostatic forces coming into  play.

Smudge
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-02, 03:44:44