PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-17, 15:07:50
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy  (Read 1984 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
It is a rare privilege to be on the verge of something quite new in the Scientific world.  In the field of magnetism there is a specialised area that up to now has only been of interest to palaeologists who study rocks, where certain features of magnetism allow them to determine their age and the Earth’s magnetism at that early time.  The significant feature of interest is the science behind how remanent magnetism decays with time, since this is fundamental to extrapolating from measurements taken now to the magnetism that existed thousands of years ago.  Not surprisingly this remote corner of science is not of interest to experts in the use of magnetism for delivering electrical or mechanical energy, i.e. electrical generators, motors, and transformers.  Those experts are familiar with remanent magnetism since it influences the efficiency of their devices, but it is labelled as “permanent magnetism”.  That so-called “permanent magnetism” decays over a time span of many years is of interest where permanent magnets are used in generators and motors since the requirement there is to have magnets that last.  Emphasis over the years has been on materials that maximise both the magnitude and life span of remanent magnetism.  For so-called magnetically-soft ferromagnetic materials the “permanent” nature of some remanent magnetism is accepted, but generally with alternating currents it gets swept away so its only effect is to create hysteresis leading to core loss; although it cannot be eliminated ferromagnetic materials have been developed where remanence is minimised.  There has been no interest in developing ferromagnetic materials where, after the magnetizing influence is removed, the remanence decays swiftly, then using that decay for some useful purpose.  There are no accounts of experiments where this has been accomplished.  There is no history, no theoretical analyses, no mathematics for this type of experiment to fall back on.

But recently the South Korean SEMP Research Institute claim to have obtained a decay time constant measured in milliseconds in specially heat-treated pure iron, and they have demonstrated equipment that use this effect.  I have opened this thread for the purposes of exploring this new territory, and I start with a paper that deals with the theory to show that it offers a new method for converting thermal energy directly into electrical energy.  We are used to heat pumps having COPs greater than unity, and this technique offers something similar but the output being electrical is far more useful than that of a heat pump.

My paper here makes no attempt to describe a practical embodiment, this is purely theoretical in order to show its COP potential and to garner interest in pursuing this work.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 243
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?

That was something I was wondering too. I asked a question about ferrite vs iron in the SEMP thread a few weeks ago. In my mind, a flyback operating in discontinuous conduction mode on a ferrite core should yield better results than this specially treated iron.

That is the basis for the device I'm working on currently. It's essentially a flyback operating in discontinuous mode, where the secondary coils are open circuit until after the magnetic field is established by the primary. The secondary coils are connected just before the magnetic field in the primary collapses.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?

A soft ferrrite has little remanence so you can't talk of remanence decay.  What little remanence it has is "permanent" and doesn't decay.  What you claim as fast decay is just the "soft" magnetic field decaying at a fast rate of your choosing and generating a high voltage spike.  There is no overunity here.  Try making a flyback converter using hard ferrite and you will be in trouble.  You would need to drive the square BH loop into the second quadrant to get the B to go from positive to negative down that back edge, and ensure that it changes value quickly to get the flyback effect.  And it would not be very efficient as you loose energy going round that square loop.  Now you do have significant remanence but if you stop at the remanent point it is "permanent" and doesn't decay, it is hard ferrite.

Actually it is not really permanent, it does decay over many years.  But imagine we can do something to the ferrite that makes the remanent magnetism decay quite fast.  Now we can use that fast decay to drive voltage and current in a coil, we get some energy out.  Note this is not what is happening in the flyback converter, it is starting at H=0 whereas in the flyback converter the "decay" is starting at some positive H and any output we achieve is just the soft magnetism going down from that positive H to zero.  Then we only get out magnetic energy we put in.  But in the hard ferrite there is another input to the core that is driving the remanent decay.  That is thermal energy.  So we have thermal energy trying to cause B to decay and at the same time our output current (delivering positive H) is trying to stop that decay.  That is a totally different ball game.     

Smudge   
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
That was something I was wondering too. I asked a question about ferrite vs iron in the SEMP thread a few weeks ago. In my mind, a flyback operating in discontinuous conduction mode on a ferrite core should yield better results than this specially treated iron.

That is the basis for the device I'm working on currently. It's essentially a flyback operating in discontinuous mode, where the secondary coils are open circuit until after the magnetic field is established by the primary. The secondary coils are connected just before the magnetic field in the primary collapses.

See image for the difference between a flyback converter and a thermal converter.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 200
What size should be core,to we could allowed to heat and cool it twenty five thousand time per second ?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
See image for the difference between a flyback converter and a thermal converter.


Thanks for that diagram but isn't the area under the red curve smaller than the area of the black triangle ?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
Thanks for that diagram but isn't the area under the red curve smaller than the area of the black triangle ?
Yes that is what I drew.  But the red curve extends more to the right as the load resistor is lowered and the system demands more from the thermal input.  Then you get into the OU regime as I showed in my pdf.  The point I was trying to make is that the area under the red curve is not magnetic energy stored in the core, it is energy extracted from the thermal domain..  If I am right as you lower the load resistor to get more thermal energy transfer the temperature drop in the core will increase and that has to be made good by thermal conduction from the ambient environment.  Overall, taking the environment into consideration, energy is conserved.  It is a form of heat pump, but unlike conventional heat pumps this one converts thermal energy into electrical energy.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
What size should be core,to we could allowed to heat and cool it twenty five thousand time per second ?
I stated the ring-core dimensions as having a cross section area of 1 square cm and a magnetic length of 15cm.  And it is not heated and cooled multiple times per second, it is cooled each cycle resuting in a continuous cooling that needs to be offset by thermal conduction from a heat source (hopefully a ground source or air source at ambient temperature).   

Smudge
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 200
And it is not heated and cooled multiple times per second, it is cooled each cycle resuting in a continuous cooling
Smudge
So I don't fully understand how it works. I admit it. C.C
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
Yes that is what I drew.  But the red curve extends more to the right as the load resistor is lowered and the system demands more from the thermal input. 
So you did not draw the B vs H graph proportionally.

The point I was trying to make is that the area under the red curve is not magnetic energy stored in the core, it is energy extracted from the thermal domain.  If I am right as you lower the load resistor to get more thermal energy transfer the temperature drop in the core will increase and that has to be made good by thermal conduction from the ambient environment.
I hear you but I am still not convinced (open minded though).
Why doesn't the magnetizing pulse increase the temperature of the core ?

Now, if you want to have it tested empirically I'd like to suggest that you hand-draw a time-domain oscillogram because the practically-minded members here, think in terms of waveforms they can see on their oscilloscopes.
This means putting time on the horizontal axis and the currents flowing through the windings on the vertical axis.

I think that the most likely embodiment chosen by the empiricists here will resemble the dual winding flyback converter (maybe with a synchronous rectifier instead of the diode), so please tailor your time-domain diagram to such design (i.e.: two current traces, one per winding).

Of course, do contrast the waveform you expect to see from the delayed remanence decay with the waveform seen in the plain flyback-converter with a soft ferromagnetic core.


« Last Edit: 2024-05-02, 13:46:55 by verpies »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
So I don't fully understand how it works. I admit it. C.C
What he is writing is that the core does not need to heat and cool rapidly, because the core gets cooled more upon its discharge than heated upon its charge cycle ...so the average is cooling.

I do not know why he thinks that the core loses more heat during its discharge than the heat it gains during its charge cycle.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 200
What he is writing is that the core does not need to heat and cool rapidly, because the core gets cooled more upon its discharge than heated upon its charge cycle ...so the average is cooling.
Now I understood. :)
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
So you did not draw the B vs H graph proportionally.
No it was illustrative only because I had already produced some calculated B v. H data in Figure 4 of my paper at the start of this thread.
Quote
I hear you but I am still not convinced (open minded though).
Why doesn't the magnetizing pulse increase the temperature of the core ?
Perhaps it does and it would be all to the good as the increase in thermal energy there is accounted for by the electrical input shown in the B v. H charts.  With the electrcal output energy exceeding that input the cooling effect will yield a greater drop in temperature hence a continual overall cooling over repeated cycles.

Quote
Now, if you want to have it tested empirically I'd like to suggest that you hand-draw a time-domain oscillogram because the practically-minded members here, think in terms of waveforms they can see on their oscilloscopes.
This means putting time on the horizontal axis and the currents flowing through the windings on the vertical axis.

I think that the most likely embodiment chosen by the empiricists here will resemble the dual winding flyback converter (maybe with a synchronous rectifier instead of the diode), so please tailor your time-domain diagram to such design (i.e.: two current traces, one per winding).

Of course, do contrast the waveform you expect to see from the delayed remanence decay with the waveform seen in the plain flyback-converter with a soft ferromagnetic core.
At this time I see no point in producing a circuit that looks identical to the flyback converter with waveforms that also look identical as that will only add to the wrong perception that you and others have gained as evidenced by your replies.  Further to that any attempt to build such a device is currently impossible as there is no core material available.  I would much rather spend time pursuading everyone that this approach is different to anything that has been done in the past (including flyback converters) to get people to create the new core materials.  And that means creating methods (circuits) that allow them to measure what they have created.  In that vein I am preparing another paper that takes a power transformer that everyone is familiar with and showing that it is possible to create B v. H loops (or better still Flux-linkage v. Current loops) that do not represent energy magnetically stored in the core but correcty represent electrical output and input energies.  This representation may be new to many and may help in getting people to understand the different meaning of my output B v. H loop that, unlike the flyback converter, is not the reducing magnetic energy stored in the core but is the result of something non-electrical that is trying to reduce that stored energy inducing output current that opposes that reduction.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
At this time I see no point in producing a circuit that looks identical to the flyback converter with waveforms that also look identical as that will only add to the wrong perception that you and others have gained as evidenced by your replies.
Don't treat it like that. It would be better for you to considered me as the devil's advocate. Your idea stands to become more refined by a challenger than a yes-man.

Further to that, any attempt to build such a device is currently impossible as there is no core material available.
I know, but you know how to make it.  I do not find the high-temperature carbon diffusion challenging  ...only the starting material before treatment. 
Would uncoated powdered-iron toroidal core be optimal as the starting material ?

I would much rather spend time persuading everyone that this approach is different to anything that has been done in the past (including flyback converters)
So show us measurable differences.

...to get people to create the new core materials.  And that means creating methods (circuits) that allow them to measure what they have created.
Very well. What measurement methods do you propose ?

   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
Don't treat it like that. It would be better for you to considered me as the devil's advocate. Your idea stands to become more refined by a challenger than a yes-man.
Yes and I am pleased to receive comments from challengers.  However I am 90 years old, I have an ailing wife aged 89 who's care takes up much of my limited time so I must ration what time I can devote to this endeavour.
Quote
I know, but you know how to make it.  I do not find the high-temperature carbon diffusion challenging  ...only the starting material before treatment. 
Would uncoated powdered-iron toroidal core be optimal as the starting material ?
I have no idea, I don't know how the carbon creates the superparamagnetc grains necessary for the wanted effect.  It would be helpful if we had some expert in magnetic material science on board.  My only observation here is that the SEMP technique probably gives the surface of the Fe the characteristic, not the whole volume, so it would be better to treat thin Fe sheets or tape then make the cores up from that.  Alternatively treat Fe powder, then make powder cores from that.
Quote
So show us measurable differences.
What measurement methods do you propose ?
I would use a ring core (tape wound if using treated Fe tape) with two windings (bifilar) in a single layer covering the whole core.  One winding would be pulsed with a series of current unidirectional pulses with a dead space (zero current) between them.  The other winding would be used to provide induced voltage to a digital scope with math function that integrates the voltage wrt time.  An identical toroid with untreated Fe would undergo the same.  Comparison of the two waveforms should show whether the remanent decay between the magnetizing pulses is present for the treated core.  Since the integration turns the waveform into a plot of B v. time the difference should indicate what is going on within the cores.  I know this technique will require finesssing to get it right, but that could be done using soft material of known characteristic to iron out the measurement bugs.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
I have no idea, I don't know how the carbon creates the superparamagnetc grains necessary for the wanted effect.  It would be helpful if we had some expert in magnetic material science on board.
I think Grumage is the closest one to that on this forum, but I would not call him a magnetic material expert - just a metal processing expert.

My only observation here is that the SEMP technique probably gives the surface of the Fe the characteristic, not the whole volume, so it would be better to treat thin Fe sheets or tape then make the cores up from that.
Carburizing solid iron can be done in depth when the carbon is derived from methane. It displaces air/oxygen and pyrolizes above 700ºC and penetrates iron deeply even when it is not powdered. With porous iron, the methane penetration is complete.  Heating iron in methane atmosphere is easy and not dangerous if air ingress is eliminated.  The side effect is hydrogen generation.  Would hydrogen be a detriment?

BTW: One of the papers that you've posted here mentions hydrogen's effect on the iron.

However, I have some trepidations about exposing iron to AC magnetic fields during the carburizing process (e.g. with inductive heating), because I do not know whether the domains/crystals can be moving when the carburizing process is happening.

Alternatively treat Fe powder, then make powder cores from that.
Sintering iron powder is beyond my capability and others here would find it so, too,  due to the combination of heat, pressure and hot powder oxidation in air. Maybe Grum has a hot press but I doubt he can avoid oxidation unless he builds an argon tent around it...

I can cast a mixture of iron powder & resin, though and I think many members here can do it too, but the iron's density, thermal conductivity and magnetic permeability of such mixture is poor ...and iron crystals in such mixture are not in close proximity to each other, which might matter for the effect you are describing.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
In this paper I use the classical transformer to show how some hysteresis loops constructed using magnetic properties like B and H or Flux and mmf yield energy that is not the energy stored magnetically in the core or the energy lost in the core.  They represent energy transferred from input to output.  This is to get people's mind away from the fixation that natural remanent magnetism decay used to obtain energy can't deliver more energy than that used to magnetize the core.  I maintain that the output loop can far exceed the input loop as shown in the paper posted at the start of this thread.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
@Smudge

I read your latest paper.
It is an easy read and I appreciate that in your analysis you stick to the flux and mmf and geometric drivatives of those and mention the emf only minimally.

What, I do not understand is the difference that the fall of the flux makes in a quickly decaying remanence of a special core vs. the fall of the flux in an ordinary soft ferro/ferimagnetic core.  Why can the former fall be utilized and the latter cannot?  Is the difference only in the engineering difficulty?

Also, how does the thermal mechanism that is responsible for the decay of the core's remanent flux, affect the magnetization stage ? ...when the core's flux is increasing.

Also, I talked with others and they do not understand the red fragment in the following sentence:
"If we use this natural decay to induce current into a coil connected to a load resistor we expect to see a sudden rise in output coil mmf followed by an exponential decay as shown in Figure 13."

Everyone (incl. me) understands the subsequent induction caused by the exponential decay.

I understand that sudden rise in the context of a flyback converter's typical behavior: As the primary mmf is switched off, the current in the secondary winding takes over the maintenance of the flux that penetrates it ...but that assumes the flyback circuit's topology, which you do not state explicitly.

You might want to consider elaborating on that in your paper.

P.S.
You did not answer the question in my previous message (marked with a question mark).
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 200
Is it possible to obtain a similar effect using electrostatic phenomena (ferroelectric  capacitors)?
A ferroelectric capacitor also changes its temperature when charged, and also changes its capacitance when the temperature changes.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
@Smudge

I read your latest paper.
It is an easy read and I appreciate that in your analysis you stick to the flux and mmf and geometric drivatives of those and mention the emf only minimally.

What, I do not understand is the difference that the fall of the flux makes in a quickly decaying remanence of a special core vs. the fall of the flux in an ordinary soft ferro/ferimagnetic core.  Why can the former fall be utilized and the latter cannot?  Is the difference only in the engineering difficulty?
No it is not an engineering difficulty.  The flux in an ordinary soft ferro core needs coil current to maintain it so is always related to any current flowing, including the case for a charged inductor being discharged by having a resistor across it carrying the discharge current.  The energy retrieved cannot exceed the energy put into the inductor and this can be shown in many ways using known formula such as those I use here.  Remanent flux is different as it is not related to current flowing in a coil, it is there with zero current flowing.  That makes a big difference to the math, it is not the same as the soft core case.     

Quote
Also, how does the thermal mechanism that is responsible for the decay of the core's remanent flux, affect the magnetization stage ? ...when the core's flux is increasing.

I also worried about that but what little evidence I can find for magnetizing a core near its Curie temperature is that it lowers Hc and reduces the magnetizing energy.  I take it that increasing the random motion of the spins makes them easier to get aligned.  Of course this could be completely wrong but until there is experimental data we won't know.

Quote
Also, I talked with others and they do not understand the red fragment in the following sentence:
"If we use this natural decay to induce current into a coil connected to a load resistor we expect to see a sudden rise in output coil mmf followed by an exponential decay as shown in Figure 13."
This is a case where it may have been clearer if I showed a circuit diagram.  This scheme could be made with a single coil that gets switched from magnetizing mode to demagnetizing mode but it would be better to use two coils, one for magnetizing and the other for demagnetizing.  The latter coil would be open circuited during the magnetizing phase then when the magnetizing current is switched off the remanent field starts to decay.  At this point the output coil has its load resistor switched in so the current in that coil jumps up to a peak value.  That is the "sudden rise in mmf".

Quote
Everyone (incl. me) understands the subsequent induction caused by the exponential decay.

I understand that sudden rise in the context of a flyback converter's typical behavior: As the primary mmf is switched off, the current in the secondary winding takes over the maintenance of the flux that penetrates it ...but that assumes the flyback circuit's topology, which you do not state explicitly.
It may not be the flyback circuit topology, for the sake of simplicity I assume a simple switch connecting the load resistor.  I accept that a circuit diagram would have helped.  The output coil current does not take over maintenance of the flux but it does attempt to reduce the decay, there is some driving force causing that decay that the current battles against.
Quote
P.S.
You did not answer the question in my previous message (marked with a question mark).
You asked whether hydrogen production during a particular iron carbonizing process would be a detriment.  I don't really know but there is a market for hydrogen so it could be a bonus.

Thank you for your feedack, it is appreciated.

Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 113
In this core, it seems there is remanent flux with no coil current.

https://youtu.be/DAtsWeNX9ew?si=mXO_MIyntPvh0flo

PMH  Perpetual Motion Holder Ed Leedskalnin

Another demonstration with softer(?) core.

https://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?si=94OxOZDCbN29E0zL

PMH w soft core.
bi
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3377
In this core, it seems there is remanent flux with no coil current.
https://youtu.be/DAtsWeNX9ew?si=mXO_MIyntPvh0flo
This is a nice classical demonstration of the ferromagnetic remanence.

Another demonstration with softer(?) core.
https://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?si=94OxOZDCbN29E0zL
The first part of this experiment exhibits classical behavior, too.
However, the second part of the experiment (when the red winding is shorted) bothers me because I estimate the L/R time constant of the red winding to be much shorter than 1s.  Without inductance and resistance measurements, I cannot be certain, though.

What Smudge is writing, is that the energy needed to magnetize the core can be smaller than the energy induced during the decay of its remanence. 
It is important to notice that none of these experiments above exhibit a visible decay of the remanence.  The decay of the current flowing in the red winding by the i2R dissipation mechanism is not the same as the decay of the remanent magnetism of the core, although they can affect the holding force similarly.
« Last Edit: 2024-05-09, 17:38:17 by verpies »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 113
Thanks verpies,

Quote
The flux in an ordinary soft ferro core needs coil current to maintain it so is always related to any current flowing, including the case for a charged inductor being discharged by having a resistor across it carrying the discharge current.
by Smudge

Doesn't the first video contradict the above?

And the second video confirm?

I've seen accounts of experimenters who charge a homemade PMH and hang on their garage wall for years, then recording the separation of the keeper bar. Little if any remanent decay was noticed, although it wasn't accurately measured.
bi
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1870
This is a nice classical demonstration of the ferromagnetic remanence.
The first part of this experiment exhibits classical behavior, too.
Yes and it demonstrates the fact that the magnet without its keeper has a demagnetizing effect that has a classical name that I have forgotten.
Quote
However, the second part of the experiment (when the red winding is shorted) bothers me because I estimate the LR time constant of the red winding to be much shorter than 1s.  Without inductance and resistance measurements, I cannot be certain, though.
The experiment demonstrates the L/R (not LR) time constant is indeed in the order of 1 second.  He does say the coil former is filled with many turns of fine guage wire for the red coil.

Quote
What Smudge is writing, is that the energy needed to magnetize the core can be smaller than the energy induced during the decay of its remanence. 
It is important to notice that none of these experiments above exhibit a visible decay of the remanence.  The decay of the current flowing in the red winding by the i2R dissipation mechanism is not the same as the decay of the remanent magnetism of the core, although they can affect the holding force similarly.
Agreed.

Smudge
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-17, 15:07:50