PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-02, 06:42:29
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 6 7
Author Topic: Energy from electron spin  (Read 11948 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
This paper describes the electron as a super fluid friction-less vortex.  So it is then a spinning mass.  And a spinning charge.
Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 545
It seems the vortex/twist model of atoms/particles may have been a common perspective among the 19th century electrical engineers

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-magnetic-nanoknots-evoke-lord-kelvin.html


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
Quote
I was stuck with a thought inline with the idea of this thread. I want to put out this question. What happens when you hang a magnet and have a coil with a changing coil around it.

As smudge mentioned the electron spin will remain constant forever. So will the changing current which applies a circular electric field mechanically torque the magnet?

This is kind of a rhetorical question as we all know no rotation is produced. So somehow this torqueing force or electrical field is "eating" up by the electron spin. This leads to another interesting thought.

That is that you might produce a mechanical force that has no reaction force due to the electron spin.

If you have an iron rod with a coil around it you do get a torque as the electron spins get aligned and each spin carries angular momentum (famous experiment Einstein-de Haas effect.  The opposite is true if you rotate the rod you get some magnetization, the Barnett effect).  That would also be true for a magnet (like alnico) where the applied current also aligns some spins.  Doesn't generally happen with Neo because it has no permeability, but if you could have some DC to get it close to the Hc reversal of magnetization then you could see an effect (but would require superconductor to eliminate losses).

Smudge 
« Last Edit: 2022-08-13, 10:46:34 by Smudge »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
Hey Smudge you tripped me up a bit. Because it looks like you edited my post instead of replied to it as I was sure I did not type that  :o.

As for your reply. I'm familiar with the Einstein-De Haas effect and as you point out this is due to the rotation of the electron spin, this rotation causes an interaction and energy exchange with the lattice which conserves angular momentum.

However with PM the spins are already aligned and immovable. As you also pointed out in your presentation, these spins act like a constant current source when a circular electric field is applied to them. My question is if the circular E-field does not speed/slow them then what does it do to them. Does it somehow impart a mechanical force instead which couples back to the lattice? If it does we should observe a rotation of the PM around its own axis. If it doesn't then this "longitudinal" force acting to reduce/increase the spin has no perceivable affect on these electrons or the whole lattice. The implications of this are big, as we can make a force "vanish" if applied in a linear fashion you can create a propelling force.

EDIT: I added a visualization aid of what I'm trying to say. The balls represent the positive and negative charges. The faded connections is their lattice coupling. In a non magnetized and non conductive material the changing E-field will interact both with the positive and negative particles. These force will be equal and oppesite in size so no rotation will occur. However in the magnetized case
there is an additional force acting on this virtual spin current. So the big question really is, does the force acting on the source of the electron spin couple back to the lattice or does it just vanish. As far as I'm aware no study has been done on this.
« Last Edit: 2022-08-14, 18:03:07 by broli »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
One reason that scenario B would be the right one is that if we see the spin as a rotating charge, and it rotates at a speed close to c, it no longer sees the electric field induced by the external current variation in the same way.

The electromagnetic effect is therefore no longer necessarily reciprocal, because the spin charge is not in an inertial frame of reference as are those of an ordinary electric current.


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

Posts: 253
One reason that scenario B would be the right one is that if we see the spin as a rotating charge, and it rotates at a speed close to c, it no longer sees the electric field induced by the external current variation in the same way.

The electromagnetic effect is therefore no longer necessarily reciprocal, because the spin charge is not in an inertial frame of reference as are those of an ordinary electric current.

This is what I'm also trying to highlight. If true this means you can apply this to a linear system too as you can see attached. When current flows momentarily in the single wire piece and due to the reaction forces not impressing on the electron spin, in theory the total MECHANICAL force of the system will be unbalanced and the system as a whole will feel a force. Attached I'm visualizing the forces in Weberian style (along the radial axis) but these forces are similar to what you find in a rail gun. The only difference in the railgun is that the current is a "real" current and thus the force acting on it will actually be felt as a longitudinal mechanical force in the rails.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
I have been scouring the internet for many hours now and have yet to find any definite conclusion on this. So far Scenario B remains to be the most plausible which also has the most interesting implications.

EDIT: Shortly after making this post I found a paper that was literally published a few days ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17766-z

I haven't read the whole thing but look at this abstract:

Quote
The classical laws of physics are usually invariant under time reversal. Here, we reveal a novel class of magnetomechanical effects rigorously breaking time-reversal symmetry. These effects are based on the mechanical rotation of a hard magnet around its magnetization axis in the presence of friction and an external magnetic field, which we call spin revolution. The spin revolution leads to a variety of symmetry breaking phenomena including upward propulsion on vertical surfaces defying gravity as well as magnetic gyroscopic motion that is perpendicular to the applied force. The angular momentum of spin revolution differs from those of the magnetic field, the magnetic torque, the rolling axis, and the net torque about the rolling axis. The spin revolution emerges spontaneously, without external rotations, and offers various applications in areas such as magnetism, robotics and energy harvesting.

This is so mind blowing, how can such an effect been hidden for so long :o

   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2838


Buy me a beer
Thanks for finding this, Avery interesting paper

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: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
Hey Smudge you tripped me up a bit. Because it looks like you edited my post instead of replied to it as I was sure I did not type that  :o.
Sorry about that, having trouble with my new computer running microsoft 365 that is so different from the windows XP of my old one. :-[

Quote
As for your reply. I'm familiar with the Einstein-De Haas effect and as you point out this is due to the rotation of the electron spin, this rotation causes an interaction and energy exchange with the lattice which conserves angular momentum.

However with PM the spins are already aligned and immovable. As you also pointed out in your presentation, these spins act like a constant current source when a circular electric field is applied to them. My question is if the circular E-field does not speed/slow them then what does it do to them.
If you imagine that the spin and angular momentum are genuine rotations that have circumferencial movement that is inherited from the aether background, then the circular E field applies reverse force to whatever is driving it. Since this does not change the spin movement the background has to apply an equal forward force hence the background supplies energy.  The spin does not change, the virtual current does not change, so its like an induced voltage on a constant current source, the source supplies energy.

Quote
Does it somehow impart a mechanical force instead which couples back to the lattice? If it does we should observe a rotation of the PM around its own axis. If it doesn't then this "longitudinal" force acting to reduce/increase the spin has no perceivable affect on these electrons or the whole lattice. The implications of this are big, as we can make a force "vanish" if applied in a linear fashion you can create a propelling force.

EDIT: I added a visualization aid of what I'm trying to say. The balls represent the positive and negative charges. The faded connections is their lattice coupling. In a non magnetized and non conductive material the changing E-field will interact both with the positive and negative particles. These force will be equal and oppesite in size so no rotation will occur. However in the magnetized case
there is an additional force acting on this virtual spin current. So the big question really is, does the force acting on the source of the electron spin couple back to the lattice or does it just vanish. As far as I'm aware no study has been done on this.
It's a good question.  It seems like a simple experiment to perform.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
I just happen to have a couple spherical magnets about an inch in diameter.  I didn't see any round glasses off hand so I had a couple empty plastic round vitamin bottles and put a magnet in each one.  Starting at the bottom and rotating the bottles the magnets just stayed on the bottom regardless of what directions I rotated them.  Even turning the bottle on their side and even slightly tilted downward they did not move off the bottom so I thought maybe there is a slight widening near the bottom. 

I then pulled the magnets about half way up each bottle and did more rotation.  At that point the magnets did move upward to the top of the neck.   Fascinating although it would seem to be a rather weak force as they wouldn't come up off the bottom and to my eyes I didn't actually see any widening at the bottom of the bottles.   Even when fully upside down they won't move off the bottom.  However that may be explained by the slight upward convex shape on the bottom of the bottles which I assume now kept the magnets from rotating.   
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
I just happen to have a couple spherical magnets about an inch in diameter.  I didn't see any round glasses off hand so I had a couple empty plastic round vitamin bottles and put a magnet in each one.  Starting at the bottom and rotating the bottles the magnets just stayed on the bottom regardless of what directions I rotated them.  Even turning the bottle on their side and even slightly tilted downward they did not move off the bottom so I thought maybe there is a slight widening near the bottom.  I then pulled the magnets about half way up each bottle and did more rotation.  At that point the magnets did move upward to the top of the neck.   Fascinating although it would seem to be a rather weak force as they wouldn't come up off the bottom and to my eyes I didn't actually see any widening at the bottom of the bottles.   Even when fully upside down they won't move off the bottom.  However that may be explained by the slight convex shape on the bottom of the bottles which may keep the magnets from rotating.

I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.

You could observe this effect also if you put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.

You could observe this effect also if you move put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.

I'll try that in a while.  Fascinating effects.  Currently charging up a head mounted camera so I can try doing a brief video of the anti-gravity effect in the bottles I used. 
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
Anti-gravity Eyeballs in video ;)  :   Background sounds were accidental but somehwhat fitting  8)
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.

You could observe this effect also if you put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.

I tried the paper action but didn't have much luck reproducing that effect.   I'm guessing all my counters have a slight back lean so no matter which way I pulled the paper the ball seemed to wander toward the wall and I didn't seem to notice a spin around the axis.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
You sure are a quick one e2matrix. And yeah the sound were kind of freaky. I want to join in on the fun. Especially to see how much work it takes to spin these tubes and comparing it to the gravitational potential gain.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
...
EDIT: Shortly after making this post I found a paper that was literally published a few days ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17766-z
...
This is so mind blowing, how can such an effect been hidden for so long :o

I ask myself the same question! How did we miss it? Have we fallen into a parallel universe where the laws of physics have changed?  :)
This is a fantastic new playground. Thanks for the news.


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1859
I have some serious reservations about this new paper.  Firstly they don't define the experiments clearly.  They show one rolling plane video (3)and talk about it as though it is an inclined plane; the viewing angle makes it look like that but clearly it is a horizontal plane.  Also they talk about the magnetic field within which that single sphere is immersed and refer to the earth's field, but my reading of that experiment tells me there is a field coming from something below the table top.  When I look at their two sphere experiments in the plastic tubes, their math assumes that the static attraction between the two spheres hold their fields and their magnetization parallel, like two parallel bar magnets in attraction.  That is not the how the magnetized spheres would start.  The natural attraction would be with the magnetizations along the same axis, ie one sphere with its N pole against the plastic and the other sphere with its S pole there.  This is particularly true for video #4 which effectively has a bar magnet below the glass, yet video 4 is not analyzed at all, it is merely given a mention in the conclusions.  I am not clever enough to decide whether their claims would hold if they altered their math to account for this different vector orientation, but to my mind what they observe is easily seen when you use the equivalent surface current model for the magnets.  Another observation is associated with the friction forces.  If a sphere is in contact with a surface due to a force on the sphere normal to that surface, and you tried to slide the sphere along the surface without letting it roll, you would have a certain coefficient of friction.  If you did the same experiment but now the sphere is spinning about its axis normal to the surface, would the coefficient be the same?  I suspect it won't be.  I see no evidence that this was taken into account

Having said that the effects are most unusual and could be worth more investigation.

Smudge 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote
They show one rolling plane video (3)and talk about it as though it is an inclined plane; the viewing angle makes it look like that but clearly it is a horizontal plane.

I agree. I think there is a mistake and that their comment is about video #2.

Quote
their math assumes that the static attraction between the two spheres hold their fields and their magnetization parallel, like two parallel bar magnets in attraction.

I don't think we can criticize them with certainty on this point, everything will depend on the intensity of the attraction which in my opinion can be stronger when the axes are parallel than when they are coaxial.
In the first case the field lines loop in the air over the distance of about 2 radii R + the thickness e of the tubes, above and below the poles, that is to say in all 4*(R+e). In the second case, it would be two diameters + the thickness of the tubes, so the same thing, but in the first case the whole would fit in a smaller volume, which is a priori the best arrangement for the minimal magnetic potential energy.

Quote
Having said that the effects are most unusual and could be worth more investigation.

I agree, we really need to explore this avenue, there is really something new that we hadn't noticed at all. I think I will order some spherical magnets to check the facts first.
Then it would be tempting to switch from the mechanical effect to an electrical effect by replacing the spherical magnets by electrons with spins all oriented in the same direction. Their forced rotation (by what means, I don't know, an induction from an alternating current?) should result in a linear displacement and therefore a continuous current, always in the same direction, something I had already tried in vain in different ways.

I have collected the texts on the subject here, including the Luxembourg patent, as well as an international patent application (in fact, the same text). The patent is from Elena Vedmedenko, the only declared inventor, the applicant being the University of Berlin. So I think that Wiesendanger who co-signed the Nature paper helped her with the mathematical analysis, but that the invention is only by Elena Vedmedenko


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3947
tExB=qr
I agree, we really need to explore this avenue, there is really something new that we hadn't noticed at all. I think I will order some spherical magnets to check the facts first.
Then it would be tempting to switch from the mechanical effect to an electrical effect by replacing the spherical magnets by electrons with spins all oriented in the same direction. Their forced rotation (by what means, I don't know, an induction from an alternating current?) should result in a linear displacement and therefore a continuous current, always in the same direction, something I had already tried in vain in different ways.

Are you describing a homopolar generator?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Are you describing a homopolar generator?

It would have been a kind of homopolar generator, but without mechanical motion, only by electrical forces on the charges.

The idea behind it was the rectification of a variable current, but without diode, so without threshold effect, which could open the way to a Maxwell demon with the rectification of the thermal agitation of electrons.


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

Posts: 4013
Sirs
About 10 years ago there was a pretty feisty builder at Stefan’s who played with
magnetic spheres in a few different orientations and experimental topologies .

Point is he said he found issues with how the spheres were actually magnetized
Inconsistent north south orientations or even how the fields overlayed onto the spheres
(Different vendors had varied N-S placement on the sphere?
It stands out as he was having some issues with repeating previous experiments or ?
Long story short
Is this relevant here ?

I will try to find the builder … his name/handle was “X” something ?
I think he was spinning a magnetic sphere in a glass also ?( other builders played with this spinning sphere  too

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 253
Sirs
About 10 years ago there was a pretty feisty builder at Stefan’s who played with
magnetic spheres in a few different orientations and experimental topologies .

Point is he said he found issues with how the spheres were actually magnetized
Inconsistent north south orientations or even how the fields overlayed onto the spheres
(Different vendors had varied N-S placement on the sphere?
It stands out as he was having some issues with repeating previous experiments or ?
Long story short
Is this relevant here ?

I will try to find the builder … his name/handle was “X” something ?
I think he was spinning a magnetic sphere in a glass also ?( other builders played with this spinning sphere  too

That is definitely a good point too. My spherical magnets are also underway and I already have magnetic paper to check if there's inconsistent poles on their surface.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
I tried the paper action but didn't have much luck reproducing that effect.   I'm guessing all my counters have a slight back lean so no matter which way I pulled the paper the ball seemed to wander toward the wall and I didn't seem to notice a spin around the axis.

It seemed like a no brainer to try this since I already had magnet spheres.   The rest was quick and easy as I've got a lot of empty vitamin bottles around I keep for small parts.  The sound was from my phone which notifications use a custom sound from the movie "The Matrix"   :)   and a low hum from the nearby air conditioning condensor.

I definitely find this phenomenon interesting that the magnets seem to know which way is up against gravity.  I turned the bottles upside down and tried it with the same result that they went up against gravity and to the bottom of the bottles when inverted.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
Adding to the strangeness - a couple posts at overunity in response to this phenomenon there:

I just took the 2 bottles outside to try this.  Now this is strange.   It took much longer for them to move up and they kept going up and down in little increments but eventually came higher.   So I wondered how this could be by just going outside.   Ceiling?  But that is not it as I went back inside and tried inside with the same result that it took much longer for them to go up and they acted exactly the same as outside - going up and down in little increments but eventually reaching the top.   Gravity stronger today?  LOL  I have no explanation for the difference I see in the test today versus the test I did a couple days ago when I made the video.   Inside test today was done in the same spot and it now takes much longer to get them to the top.  Same temperature inside.

I left them sitting on the counter separated by about 18" and they had not been touched since the first test so I don't think it is dirt or oils causing this change.   I will continue to try at different times today and the next couple days to see if there is any differences.  I'll try washing eventually but at this point I'm fairly certain that is not the cause of this change.   I'm considering the rather wild idea that the full moon on August 11th which is now waning might have had something to do with this.  We know it affects the tidal ocean waves causing them to be higher when the moon is full so maybe it is possible this effect will lessen as the moon wanes.   I'll be doing daily tests...
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 338
Tried this test again later in the day and now I don't seem to be able to get them to go to the top at all.  They'll move up a small amount - about 1/4" or so but then go right back down    I should add that I believe these are magnetized hematite which is weaker than neodymium although one has been stuck on a metal door for years and hasn't moved and the other stuck on a metal panel without any change in location.   So I don't believe they have lost much magnetism if any in this test.   

broli, are the ones you ordered neodymium?   Looking forward to your experiences.   
   
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, 06:42:29