I've uploaded two videos on recent experiments involving magnetic coupling and Ed Leedskalnin's PMH. Not sure I understand everything here; two questions at the end of this post.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ze2tMt8G0Y&feature=youtu.be
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ
(I get a hefty electrical shock, but decide to show the vid anyway. That's how we learn sometimes!)
I've added another video with TWO QUESTIONS awaiting answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp4M7bapmc&feature=youtu.be
From the caption:
QuotePlease provide your explanations for:
1. Two steel balls attracted by ferrite-magnets, I pull on the outer ball. Why does the inner ball go with the outer ball rather than staying with the magnet? (Isn't the magnetic field strongest at the face of the permanent magnet?)
2. What lights the LED? Researcher Russ Gries tests an Ed Leedskalnin device, two years AFTER an electric current flowed in his two coils. Notable experiment by Russ, pulling the "magnetically clampled" bar off the U and seeing an LED light brightly. Afterwards, there is no magnetic "sticking" of the bar to the U (not magnetized).
So -- what lights the LED?
PS -- good work, Russ! I'm not totally sure about your "magnetic current in both directions" explanation, but I really like the experiment and I'm trying to understand it.
And I've taught physics for many years, first with the Univ of Idaho, then at BYU for over 21 years, and I'm still learning!
I hope you enjoy the videos. I got up real early and did the last one... To me, this is fun stuff!
Great to hear from Russ Gries in comments to that third (latest) video of mine. Russ writes:
Quoterwg42985
4 hours ago
;)
Yep! I sound so funny in that video ;) haha
You guys talking about this over at OUR? I'll need to join..
~Russ
I hope do join us, Russ!
I have a few other questions for you also. I appreciate your research through the years.
Well that's very interesting indeed.
What is needed is some energy measurements, if you charge a cap to a known voltage and power capacity and dump that into the C-I core to lock it, and then charge the cap again to a known level and discharge that in reverse polarity into the coil, then at least you will be able to gauge the power/Joules required to lock/ unlock.
Then a method of determining the power from flyback when the keeper is pulled would need to be found.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.11, 18:14:47
Well that's very interesting indeed.
What is needed is some energy measurements, if you charge a cap to a known voltage and power capacity and dump that into the C-I core to lock it, and then charge the cap again to a known level and discharge that in reverse polarity into the coil, then at least you will be able to gauge the power/Joules required to lock/ unlock.
Then a method of determining the power from flyback when the keeper is pulled would need to be found.
Good points, Peter. We're thinking along the same lines. That last = determining the power or energy from the flyback, is going to be tricky. But perhaps dumping into a cap will do the trick... thinking...
With regard to question #1
Quote1. Two steel balls attracted by ferrite-magnets, I pull on the outer ball. Why does the inner ball go with the outer ball rather than staying with the magnet? (Isn't the magnetic field strongest at the face of the permanent magnet?)
Would someone try this with a spherical magnet (in place of the ferrite magnets)?
And attach two steel spheres (unmagnetized to begin with), and pull the outer one?
I've done this with a neo, cylindrical magnet. Here, the inner steel ball (separated from the magnet by card stock to prevent damaging the neo) stays with the magnet! (I think because the inner ball is B-saturated, probably not the case when I used the ferrite magnets.)
Hi PhysicsProf
Trouble with transferring energy to charge a cap is I2R losses allowing only 50% of the energy to be transferred or maybe that does not apply from these coils, i am not sure.
If you have a hall sensor, it would be interesting to sniff those steel balls before and after to find field strengths.
Peter
hi guys,
so ill do my best here to watch this,
i currently don't have a lot of time to put forth alot of effort on this,
but one thing you should do is read all ED's Magnetic Current Book.
now the trick to reading ed's book is that you must read it line for line and don't move to the next line / page if you don't understand the line/page your on...
the book is not a code ( i don't believe) its just wrote by someone that did not do English that well.... :)
so. Sweet16... hummm
any how,
here is the book: see attachment
so what can i say, i can say that the videos i maid along time ago and have sense learned a lot more.
so ill try to help where i can.
first, the ball comes away with the other ball as the Steal has more " magnets" in it. they accumulate best in steal. so even tho a permanent magnet has is the " source" of the field the steel can "hold" more "magnets" than the magnet can.
The thing is is that steal wont hold those permanently like a ferrite will. ( or not as strong) but in the presence of a magnetic field on the steal its stronger than the magnet its self ( or at least there acting like it)
so that tells me that ed is right, Steel dose hold more " magnets" than most other metals.
i know this was not that good of an explanation but its what you get :)
hope this helps,
next week i will make a video of some of my PMH's and ideas. or ill do photos. one of the 2
i also charged my full size PMH and did some testing with the scope and i believe that we can get the same energy out as in, in this system. as in if the pulse is short enough to charge, and the bar comes off fast enough the energy is the same. ( no losses) its a perfect transformation between "electrons" and " magnets" ( to ed even the magnets are coming out of the battery to charge the PMH, there is not such thing as an electron)
maybe this is a clue to nature...
~Russ
PS, from now on when i post just ignore any spelling / gamer errors. read through it :) spelling.. who needs it... :)
Hey Russ, great to see you here O0
@PhysicsProf
Good gracious, those were superb learning video's and that shock answered many a question.
Also the 2 steel balls staying 'PMH'd'.
All was explained to my wife just now, who kindly nodded occasionally lol
Could it be theorised, that Ed was using mini EMP's to break the gravity bond of the coral ?
He would have built up the electrostatic charge with his horizontal hand turned magneto device...then moved outside to the coral rock, suspended under the tripod. It would be insulated, non grounded and have a coil of wire wrapped around it. The box at the top was 'singing' the resonant frequency of the coral. On touching 2 wires together or applying a little reverse voltage, the EMP fast pulse removed gravity. He then moved his rock by using 2 cone shaped wave guides which emitted the resonant frequency, until, on landing at the correct placement the rock would again be Earth grounded. It would immediately regain it's usual magnetic lines of gravitational force and therefore it's usual characteristics of weight.
If so, then we also have an extension to the similar theory for moving the stones on the Giza plateau.
Stone resonant frequencies would be the next logical port of call. Hopefully they're low...around a few hundred Hz or low kHz.
I've got a couple of magnetized neo balls, but I don't know about standard steel ball bearings. Will have a look, am certainly very interested in this :)
also,
one thing to think about is that if a neo magnet did allow for the ball to stay to it... why?
if you get the 2 steel balls close to the magnet ( in the presents of a magnet field) they will stick to each other. whats really going on there?
oh and also, anywhere there is a point or edge the magnetic strength is stronger there. ( the magnets bunch up at the edges as the magnets trivial faster through steal than air) just like a corona discharge will find those points... ( maybe there all magnets)
:)
~Russ
Hi Russ
Thanks for the info and paper.
There's some great experiments in ED's paper, would make interesting demo videos if someone has time to try them.
Peter
first off,
do the experiment's your self first!!!
don't watch theses unless you have read the book in grate detail. i know who is going it do that right?
well at least read each part in the book before watching theses:
kinda corny / odd but you know... its YouTube and they do a good job really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8IIjASBKas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTrY2FgLjtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpIrcmNiay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbU5-RmRls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY4_z5fsM88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr3lnuckNbM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qjhH4omXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnEliRVExQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9dN6ML0IwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xIvdee3460
~Russ
A warm welcome to you, Russ.
I'm working my way through the vids and the pdf/book you have provided.
Thanks!
Quote from: Russ on 2014.07.11, 22:04:24
first off,
do the experiment's your self first!!!
don't watch theses unless you have read the book in grate detail. i know who is going it do that right?
well at least read each part in the book before watching theses:
kinda corny / odd but you know... its YouTube and they do a good job really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8IIjASBKas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTrY2FgLjtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpIrcmNiay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbU5-RmRls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY4_z5fsM88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr3lnuckNbM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qjhH4omXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnEliRVExQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9dN6ML0IwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xIvdee3460
~Russ
Russ, I wish to ask your opinion on something.
You have worked on various approaches with a talent for experimentation and hard work - and alacrity!
My question: after all you have observed, what approach do you see (right now) as the MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED? (in providing a new energy source for mankind)
I hope you don't mind my asking.
I ask the same question of others also -- we have lots of BUILDERS and quality observers on this forum IMO.
Having known Russ for quite a few years now, I too am curious, though I think I already know the answer.
What I am sure of is that Russ has never given-up on the Stanley Meyer technology. If it is real and can be readily replicated, Russ will accomplish this one goal in his lifetime. I would bet my own life on that statement.
Russ thinks in a completely visual manner--call it a gift. The logic is embedded in the object. I know for a fact if he sees something that makes sense geometrically, he can manipulate it his mind and build a device to prove it. A classic example of this ability is his use of 3D Printing. If ever there becomes a machine available that you can slip on to your head, that takes mental images and directly manufactures parts, Russ would be without a doubt the best person to use such a machine.
As a group of researchers and experimenters, the best thing we can do is take our ideas and put them into coherent visual form. If we can do that, Russ can take it the rest of the way. I have seen it too many times to think otherwise. We do that and Russ can have it built and in operation before we even know what parts to order. Myself, I wish I was able understand the Steven Mark TPU well enough to describe its operation. I know if I could, Russ could build one in a weekend. And yes, it would be fully OpenSource for all.
An interesting topic,in which i have done a fair bit of experimenting with as well. Thing is,you dont need coil's or even a U shaped core for this to work. A straight length of wire passing through the middle of two large blocks of steel or iron will give the same result-a continuous magnetic coupling between the two pieces of steel-until that coupling is disconected. Once the coupling is broken,then the two plates will not stick together again,until a current is passed through the wire.
I will see if i can find the two steel plates,and do a video on this for you guy's.
Ok-no need to find the block's,as i found a video of another guy who has shown this effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSDYYaF3LA
OK i can now answer why the 2 balls stick together.
Ed says a sphere does not naturally have poles unless magnetized that way.
So when your 2 steel balls are placed together and a magnet is attached, the steel balls domains align to allow a north/south flux permeate through each ball, when the magnet is pulled away, they are left slightly magnetized and therefore maintain a north/south configuration, note it takes 2 steel balls to maintain the field domains alignment, when 1 of the balls is pulled away from the other then the steel balls return to their magnetic rest state which is with no north/south orientation and they no longer stick together.
Also
The reason the 2 steel balls stick together when pulled away from the magnet can be explained by field concentration, the surface area of your magnet end which connects to the steel ball is larger than than the area of the steel ball that touches the magnet, therefore the magnetic field lines are spread out and enter the sphere across a larger area which gives a weak attraction due to the spherical interface.
or to put it another way, a flat surface to spherical interface has a weaker coupling than spherical to spherical interface.
The 2 steel balls have identical field patturns at their interface and most of the flux lines are concentrated at the point of contact, therefore the physical force to separate the spheres is greater than that required to separate the sphere/ magnet interface.
There is a conventional answer to both questions. It has to do with remanence.
Yes indeed, magnetic flux is concentrated at smaller surface areas during attraction. This produces a strong magnetization of the bearings. This magnetic force will be stronger than the rectangular magnet until the attraction between the bearings is broken.
This, coupled with remanence, is the explanation for the first question.
Remanence is the reason for the light pulse when breaking the keeper away from the U-shaped magnet (PMH).
The PMH works best using well grained iron/steel - low frequency power transformer core materials, etc. It does not work well with iron powder ceramic (ferrite) cores because they are specifically designed and formulated to minimize remanence.
Thanks, Peter.
I'd like to test your theory replacing the flat magnet with a spherical magnet...
Next;
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.07.12, 12:51:36
There is a conventional answer to both questions. It has to do with remanence.
...
The PMH works best using well grained iron/steel - low frequency power transformer core materials, etc. It does not work well with iron powder ceramic (ferrite) cores because they are specifically designed and formulated to minimize remanence.
Actually, in my experiments here I use FERRITE cores -- C and I and a coil -- and the magnetic clamping effect works very well indeed, as I show in the vid of my experiment
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ
This is an example of why I'm not sure we fully understand this "magnetic remanence".
Also, why does this "remanence" COMPLETELY collapse when I run a small current in the opposite direction from that used to establish the clamping?
9V (9000 mV) to establish the clamping and 70 millivolts suffices to destroy it!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.12, 14:46:02
Thanks, Peter.
I'd like to test your theory replacing the flat magnet with a spherical magnet...
Next;
Actually, in my experiments here I use FERRITE cores -- C and I and a coil -- and the magnetic clamping effect works very well indeed, as I show in the vid of my experiment
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ
This is an example of why I'm not sure we fully understand this "magnetic remanence".
Magnetic remanence is also called residual magnetism
It depends almost totally upon the 'ampere-turns' applied and the formulation of the ferrite. Some ferrite formulations will have a fair amount of remanence but the ease of transition is the main factor for their normal use. Ex: Applying a reverse current to demagnetize will take much less energy in most ferrites, especially the ones made for high frequency, compared to a piece of highly grained steel.
Quote
Also, why does this "Remanence" COMPLETELY collapse when I run a small current in the opposite direction from that used to establish the clamping?
9V (9000 mV) to establish the clamping and 70 millivolts suffices to destroy it!
For magnetization and demagnetization it is the ampere-turns that matter, not the voltage. Measurement of the applied reverse current to remove magnetization is 'coercivity'. Performing the act is called 'degaussing'. Degaussing always takes much less energy than magnetizing, AFAIK.
If you measure the energy required to magnetize and demagnetize you should find that demagnetizing energy will be less than half of magnetizing power. This may be due to the unmagnetized state being the result of randomly polarized magnetic domains equating to net-zero magnetization.
This is seen in solenoids and relays having separate taps or coils for energizing, holding, latching and unlatching. The holding or unlatch coil is normally a much higher resistance because it require much less current and energy to perform that task.
Thanks WaveW yes remanence for the steel balls.
but is the C-I core also remanence,why did PP get the electric shock during demagnetization, this was more than remanence surely.
Are there relays that latch butthen have the power removed, if not they could be made using the C-I effect O0
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.12, 16:53:42
Are there relays that latch butthen have the power removed, if not they could be made using the C-I effect O0
Yes, it would seem the PMH concept would make latching relays a no brainer. So I ask, why do we not see these devices coming from manufacturers, or have I just not been looking close enough?
Magnetically latching relays have been in use since the telephone companies enabled dialing instead of asking the operator to make the connection.
Now, you may not find them in use except for high power switching systems.
Q. The shock?
A. Faraday induction and a momentarily open circuited coil. The voltage could have been hundreds of volts or more.
At the moment the keeper was removed the stored energy in the magnetic field is released by the magnetic field collapse (or - change in flux density - your preference).
There are relays that latch using residual and/or permanent magnetism.... huge circuit breakers, too.
OK thanks WW
It certainly makes sense, so have we solved the PMH.
So the ferrite PP is using is hard, IE barium Ferrite as this has a high remanence, PP could try the same thing with soft ferrite and the hold on the keeper should be less.
or maybe it's just the VA energy as he is using a pretty hefty coil.
If a really high remanence material can be found then it maybe viable to use this as an energy storage means, although i suppose cost per volume would be too high.
very interesting anyway.
and here is info on a remanence latching relay see wiki about latching relayLatching relay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay#Latching_relay
QuoteLatching relay with permanent magnet
A latching relay has two relaxed states (bistable). These are also called "impulse", "keep", or "stay" relays. When the current is switched off, the relay remains in its last state. This is achieved with a solenoid operating a ratchet and cam mechanism, or by having two opposing coils with an over-center spring or permanent magnet to hold the armature and contacts in position while the coil is relaxed, or with a remanent core. In the ratchet and cam example, the first pulse to the coil turns the relay on and the second pulse turns it off. In the two coil example, a pulse to one coil turns the relay on and a pulse to the opposite coil turns the relay off. This type of relay has the advantage that one coil consumes power only for an instant, while it is being switched, and the relay contacts retain this setting across a power outage. A remanent core latching relay requires a current pulse of opposite polarity to make it change state.
A stepping relay is a specialized kind of multi-way latching relay designed for early automatic telephone exchanges.
An earth leakage circuit breaker includes a specialized latching relay.
Very early computers often stored bits in a magnetically latching relay, such as ferreed or the later memreed in the 1ESS switch.
Some early computers used ordinary relays as a kind of latch—they store bits in ordinary wire spring relays or reed relays by feeding an output wire back as an input, resulting in a feedback loop or sequential circuit. Such an electrically-latching relay requires continuous power to maintain state, unlike magnetically latching relays or mechanically racheting relays.
In computer memories, latching relays and other relays were replaced by delay line memory, which in turn was replaced by a series of ever-faster and ever-smaller memory technologies.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.12, 19:53:48
and here is info on a remanence latching relay see wiki about latching relayLatching relay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay#Latching_relay
I never knew. I have seen and used the mechanical cam-type latching relays often, never the remanent core type before. Seems like these would be ideal for a Tesla Switch circuit or similar.
I still find it interesting that as long as the core is "latched", the holding flux stays in there permanently, but once you break the flux, the only way to get it back is to re-energize it. That in itself is pretty much 100% efficiency.
Peterae,
I'm afraid the PMH was solved a long time ago and probably many times since then.
It shows up as one of the world's wonders about twice a year, from what I've seen.
Matt,
Those using non PM remanence or PM remanence (yes, a permanent magnet is another example of remanence) are only as permanent as that material containing the magnetic loop. All have leakage.
I can think of a particular system which still retains its non-pm memory due to magnetic remanence - even after >30 years. (I don't work for them anymore but the current folks let me peek in once in a while ;) ).
What I find interesting (even though I understand it) is that you can 'recharge' a weak PM by applying a 'keeper'. The darned things become stronger over time (only up to saturation).
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.12, 23:41:17
I never knew. I have seen and used the mechanical cam-type latching relays often, never the remanent core type before. Seems like these would be ideal for a Tesla Switch circuit or similar.
I still find it interesting that as long as the core is "latched", the holding flux stays in there permanently, but once you break the flux, the only way to get it back is to re-energize it. That in itself is pretty much 100% efficiency.
No i had never heard of a Remanence latching relay either.
We did a thread on this back in 2011
my bistable latch: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1044.msg16098#msg16098
I think that maybe the energy required to maintain "keeper lock" is probably so small that any loss of energy over a short time would be difficult to notice.
I also hazard a guess that if the PMH had some reluctance (I think it's called) in the joins between the keeper and the main body of the PMH then the keeper would fall of a lot sooner all by itself. just a guess. It would make sense to me that the better the facing match between the keeper and the main PMH body is the longer it would hold and also the better the material the PMH is made from the longer it would hold.
Maybe it should be called an APMH Almost PMH. :)
..
Related is another device curiously mysticized by some OU groups...
The Radus magnetic space boots.
They also took advantage of magnetic lines of force tending to take the path of least resistance, tending to stay closed loop unto themselves and being easily redirected to another path with a simple low power pulse.
I'm quite sure they are just another flavor of a bi-stable magnetic latch.
Don't try to convince some folks of this. They will cry 'foul' or 'government agent' :D
thanks for the stimulating discussion.
My effort lately is to fire up the latching using a cap, so I can readily measure the input energy, then later try to capture the energy produced by the collapsing remanance (sp?) field in the coil (stimulating the collapse with a small "back" current.) the trick so far is that last part...
Quote from: ION on 2014.07.13, 15:28:28
We did a thread on this back in 2011
my bistable latch: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1044.msg16098#msg16098
ION - good stuff, thanks.
I remembered a video that Robert Murray Smith done some time ago(before the days of his conductive ink),that shows how easy it is to flip the magnetic poles of an alnico magnet.Thought it may be of some interest here on this thread. The sound on the video isnt that great,but still understandable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4
Quote from: TinMan on 2014.07.14, 10:11:00
I remembered a video that Robert Murray Smith done some time ago(before the days of his conductive ink),that shows how easy it is to flip the magnetic poles of an alnico magnet.Thought it may be of some interest here on this thread. The sound on the video isnt that great,but still understandable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzosuvfvE4
Tinman,
Nice example of a little more inventive use of the same phenomenon. The demonstrated method is used in robotic grippers (part picking/placement) and magnetic chucks for metal turning/grinding/sanding machines.
I find the interesting part to be the fact that such gripping using magnets consumes magnitudes less energy than the electromagnet versions.
A MEG using the same principles might be interesting.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.07.14, 10:30:05
Tinman,
A MEG using the same principles might be interesting.
WW-i was thinking the very same thing. Insted of pulsing a coil to deflect the field of the PM in the MEG,why not flip the poles of the magnet insted. A very short pulse of power will allow the fields to remain as long as we want. Then another short pulse to flip them again. Could even work in some sort of magnet motor setup-attraction,then repulsion. We could find out exactly how much power is needed to flip the poles ,simply by using caps. Just put enough in the caps to do the job of flipping the field's,and from that we can see how many joules of energy is required.
I had compleetly forgotten about that video,until this thread came up.
Dear All.
This drawing sprang to mind with the comments of Wave Watcher.
The rotor is clearly shown to be permanent magnet !! Sorry, perhaps not !! But could be made that way !! :)
Quote. " The armature may be of any of the forms used by me in my alternating-current system, and is shown as wound with two closed coils G H at right angles to each other. "
T-1000 has said many times that this is a device that was hidden in plain sight !! ;)
Cheers Grum.
It may be difficult to find a working match between A Neo and an AlNiCo.
Edit>>
Make sure the AlNiCo magnets are isotropic (can change polarization) !
Dear Wave Watcher.
I have just realised I mistook the acronym MEG for QEG !! My sincerest apologies.
Cheers from a rather embarrassed Grum. :)
Grum,
I recall that discussion with T-1000 also. Though the direction I remember us going in was in regards to variable inductance. Which is a problem I have personally when we get too many abstraction layers away from what is physically happening in the device. But for the QEG, it would seem that a specific remanence in the core would be desirable. Goes back to the impulse or snap-on, snap-off action mentioned in the Flywheel thread. For a device like the QEG where you have rotation, timing would seem to be critical. You have to create the proper conditions in the core and allow the rotor to move away at a specific velocity where the change in flux can't quite keep up. When that happens, the opportunity for the AEther to pitch-in and assist increases. If that happens or how...? I have no idea.
Interesting comments. I'm still wondering about QEG, HOPE-ing it will pan out...
Meanwhile my experiments with magnetic clamping continue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9WsZmJ7w8&feature=youtu.be
Video taped today, just a few more interesting experiments.
From my caption:
QuotePublished on Jul 14, 2014
Continuation of my magnetic-clamping experiments. As before, I use the ferrite C + I core, with a coil of 18 AWG speaker wire (50 feet long) on the C portion.
Power input from a 1000uF capacitor (this is new). We calculate the input energy using Ein = 1/2 C V^2. The input voltage is about 5 volts, so available in the cap is Eavail = 1/2 (1000 uF) (5V)^2 = 12.5 mJ.
This is the power delivered if Vfinal = 0 on the cap; but this is generally not the case as I quickly tap the yellow lead from the coil to the (+) leg of the cap.
Test 1: Cap goes from 5V to 2.7V, and clamping does occur.
Energy input from the cap: 1/2 1000uF (5^2 - 2.7^2) = 8.9mJ
(Not 2 mJ, but as I noted I had seen clamping with 2mJ input before with earlier testing.)
Test 2: Cap goes from 5V to NEG 0.7V. Negative voltages on cap are often seen with testing as shown, quick tap to the coil from the cap leg. The negative voltage on the cap presumably stems from flyback from the coil.
In Test 2, the input energy from the cap is 1/2 1000uF (5^2 - (-0.6)^2) = 0.5mF (24.6) = 12.3 mJ.
By applying a negative voltage on the coil (that is, current in the opposite direction), de-clamping may occur.
PS -- if I hold the yellow lead on the (+) leg of the cap at 5V, instead of quick-tapping, the cap quickly drains to 0V, but clamping does not occur. The quick-tapping is important for some reason - and often results in a negative voltage on the cap (due to flyback from the coil no doubt).
With a negative voltage of about -1V or so, I get de-clamping (when the coil is energized with a quick tap from the cap, as shown).
Nice PP
Amazing how little energy it takes to hold that keeper, strange thing is wether the cross section area affects the strength of pull
In a motor apparently not
F=BIL no mention of pole area?
So if your core cross section was infinitely small then the keeper should stick with the same force, maybe i am missing core saturation which would limit the minimun size.
Yes, core saturation should certainly be considered, Peter; good thoughts.
OK, I've been playing with the latching using my bench device.
Turning down the voltage on the 1000uF cap, I still get latching down to about 1.2 volts.
The best "run" so far is
Vi = 1.19V on the cap
After a quick tap with the yellow lead from the device, I find latching, and the voltage on the cap drops to:
Vf = -0.4V. I think this negative V reflects flyback from the coil - please correct me if that is not right.
Using 1/2 C V^2 to calculate input energy to accomplish the latching, I get
Ein = 0.68 mJ.
Which is (I think) remarkably small input to achieve this latching effect. Note that the bottom bar or "keeper" weighs (Mass actually) 359g.
Next when I get time I will try lifting the keeper and will use Eout = mgh to evaluate Eout. Perhaps the bar can rise just a mm or two; we shall see.
LOL -- maybe Ed Leedskalnin used a "trick" like this to lift heavy weights in Florida!
Dr. Jones,
Instead of asking you this, I should probably be doing the work myself and publishing the results, but since you are all setup for this particular experiment...
Could you insert a digitally controlled switch between your capacitor and coil that will one-shot trigger over some time range and maybe rough graph your results?
I would be very curious to know if this turns out to be linear or if the electrically energy is bouncing back-n-forth between the coil and cap and that your latching results all hinge on where in this cycle the circuit is made or broke. Brushing an alligator clip across the metallic connector of an electrolytic capacitor "may" not be scientific or controlled enough to fully explain what is happening. I hope I said that nicely. I certainly am not one to criticize efforts being made to further our knowledge and understanding in any way. This experiment of yours has the potential of being extremely enlightening.
You understand (don't you?) that I'm no longer at the university with its fancy equipment - I live about 1,100 miles away in a rural community with wonderful family.
But if you will describe this digital switch that you suggest, I can see what I can afford/do.
QuoteMatt: you insert a digitally controlled switch between your capacitor and coil that will one-shot trigger over some time range and maybe rough graph your results?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.16, 03:17:25
You understand (don't you?) that I'm no longer at the university with its fancy equipment - I live about 1,100 miles away in a rural community with wonderful family.
But if you will describe this digital switch that you suggest, I can see what I can afford/do.
Yes, I had overlooked that. Please accept my apologies if my post seemed anything below board, it certainly wasn't meant to sound that way. I hold you in high respect and I am honored to participate in this environment with you.
Honestly, I really do not know how rigorous the testing needs to be here. From the work done on the Akula device, I predict there is a lot more going on than we think.
I have the exact same C/I core as you, from Surplus Supplies of Kansas too by the way and I'm sure I can find a roll of speaker wire that will fit on there. Parts should ship from Digi-Key tomorrow for my Universal Electronic Switch, which is basically a glorified high-speed bidirectional SSR. Give me a few days to assemble the switch and connect it to my pulse generator and I will gladly run some tests parallel to yours so we can examine the data in greater detail. This will also give me a chance to really test this switch I designed, which if it works well, I will happily send you one to test with too.
Hopefully you do still have an o-scope in your possession as I think if we can get a good snapshot of the waveform, we can see the energy exchange between the two components. I am very curious as to what we might find and be able to predict. I truly wish I had everything I needed right at this moment to begin with these tests. I don't, which is why I posted my previous reply, but I will be ready shortly and follow through with my commitment to this research.
Sounds great, Matt -- "formidable" as they say in French.
Great that you have the same ferrite core (mine came from Nebraska Surplus). The 50 feet of speaker wire, I , I found at Lowe's hardware; I didn't need to remove it from the plastic wrapper, just the ends of the wires for connections.
Yes, I have a decent DSO in my little home lab... which I use often (as seen in several of my videos).
I look forward to what you find out - and thanks for this work on your part!
Fun stuff.
Progress, I added small ferrite magnets so as to achieve magnetic clamping at 46 uJ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkHyb01MfX8&feature=youtu.be
From the video caption:
QuoteContinuation of magnetic clamping experiments. I've added three small ferrite magnets on either side of the I-core and two on the C-core above (about 1.5 cm separation), with fields enhanced in the direction supplied by a current in the 50-foot long speaker wire coil (bifilar wound as previously described).
The energy required to achieve magnetic clamping is greatly reduced. In this demonstration, I find first charge the 1000uF capacitor to approx. 0.33V, so the energy in the cap by 1/2 CV^2 = 54.5 uJ.
I discharge this energy through the coil by brushing the alligator clip on the + leg of the cap. Flyback current drives the cap to -0.13V, so some of the energy in the coil comes back into the cap, 1/2 CV^2 = 8.5 uJ. (Note, the voltage is squared so the energy stored is positive.)
Subtracting gives net energy supplied to cause the clamping, 54.5 -8.5 uJ = 46uJ, 46 micro-Joules!
Next, I apply the (approx) -0.13V back into the coil, but now the current flows in the opposite direction from the first time since the voltage is negative. This tiny negative voltage is sufficient to cause de-clamping of the keeper from the C-core.
I have repeated this experiment several times, with variations in the flyback-generated voltage of course.
PhysicsProf,
You may be interested in the attached.
I built a similar acting device to see if I could create a linear AC generator. It worked quite well except the design and materials couldn't stand up to much use.
For your consideration I include this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2G28531sI&list=UUhgi4ns1UCxX1DI3m390g0A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2G28531sI&list=UUhgi4ns1UCxX1DI3m390g0A)for me it begs the intriguing consideration of the permanent magnet being used by whyme2B being replaced by an electromagnet and the possibility of the PM holder becoming a dynamic oscillating generator of sorts. I also draw your attenton Prof to the similar construct of this 'proof of concept' regarding Joe flynn's parallel paths system, very little is heard of this system now Joe has been sucked into the military machine http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/How_Parallel_Path_Gets_Over_Unity/ (http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/How_Parallel_Path_Gets_Over_Unity/) however the simple validation experiment shown here http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Joe_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_Magnetic_Technology_--_by_Tim_Harwood#A_Simple_Validation_Experiment (http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Joe_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_Magnetic_Technology_--_by_Tim_Harwood#A_Simple_Validation_Experiment)has common ground for me . particularly regarding winding method
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.07.19, 15:24:12
For your consideration I include this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2G28531sI&list=UUhgi4ns1UCxX1DI3m390g0A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2G28531sI&list=UUhgi4ns1UCxX1DI3m390g0A)for me it begs the intriguing consideration of the permanent magnet being used by whyme2B being replaced by an electromagnet and the possibility of the PM holder becoming a dynamic oscillating generator of sorts.
Very interesting. So I checked with a strong neo near my ferrite core - de-clamping did occur when I place the south pole where I expected a north pole (from the electromagnet). (But not when I place the north pole at the same location.)
Now pls recall that I have been showing that I get declamping by apply a tiny voltage across my coil in the OPPOSITE direction from that which I obtained claiming. This is ALREADY applying an electromagnet to get de-clamping.
I show this in more than 1 vid, including the latest one (the reverse voltage was approx. -0.12V IIRC).
The other materials -- also yours, WW -- I'm very interested in also. Will take a while to digest all that.
Thanks!
PP
Just to have a wild guess at what is happening now you have stated the action is not bi polar the coils being wound bi filer ... or each coil in opposition as in the case of the full size PMH which I built from the book . It could be expected that the magnetic fluxes would cancel ,we see that's not the case , It then begs the question Is there a difference in the power of attraction and repulsion in regard of identical magnets on identical cores ? This video which I think I posted on another thread seems to indicate there is indeed a distinct advantage in favour of attraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5q47JJJAww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5q47JJJAww). This too was the conclusion of Leon Hatem, It might be a step to far .. but after what we consider normal electromagnetism has cancelled out might not the remainder (be it spiral or not) be causing the effect? Now you have discovered Prof a reduced applied reverse voltage and so of course proportional current can reverse the effect I'm now intrigued by the difference of proportions. Or to put it another way how many more windings would have to be on one leg to produce a totally neutral PMH ? I might hazard a guess Its pi/2 so involving the fabled linear wave as described by EPD & many others ? The spiral effect has cropped up before regarding magnets in demonstrations like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlDGU05-nvk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlDGU05-nvk)and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeKL28lR28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeKL28lR28) along with this classic Chris Carson Dollard clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqMiZPO9TM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqMiZPO9TM) which would seem to concur with EL . Another member of the forum advised that the Lorentz force law could explain the effect, I remain far from convinced of that, The phasor at 90 deg seems omitted in the electrostatic example of that law as pointed out by Prof Eric Dollard and Prof P.T Pappas. Like most considering EL I think we are probing a mystery.although this next clip is not done with any kind of scientific rigour I like the approach, surly to manoeuvre from static to a dynamic state is the ambition and whilst this perhaps isn't quite there , the idea and the determination is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJl0TO_aR6M&list=PLqCZEzxewY5L4V_AoJ2T0ykOV1LbO8Dvv (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJl0TO_aR6M&list=PLqCZEzxewY5L4V_AoJ2T0ykOV1LbO8Dvv)there was as I recall quite a lot of work done on the so called 'Angus effect' by various people using PM holders. perhaps Prof sticking 'Angus effect' in the youtubes search bar might return some interesting results for you.like all of us Prof... so many interesting things to concider ... so little time and money. kind regards Duncan PS I think this is the Angus in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnN1gsXYZUE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnN1gsXYZUE) PPS sorry wrong here' s Angus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0rkKjlvvD8&index=33&list=PLwSLgr1kzhEBi0ww3dnyNAUldrmjKIMST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0rkKjlvvD8&index=33&list=PLwSLgr1kzhEBi0ww3dnyNAUldrmjKIMST)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.12, 03:13:58
Russ, I wish to ask your opinion on something.
You have worked on various approaches with a talent for experimentation and hard work - and alacrity!
My question: after all you have observed, what approach do you see (right now) as the MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED? (in providing a new energy source for mankind)
I hope you don't mind my asking.
I ask the same question of others also -- we have lots of BUILDERS and quality observers on this forum IMO.
well i told you guys i would respond here after my Tesla tech adventure... hehe been a while but i remembered this post...
ok so my answer right now is what im working on,
i feel that Stan Meyer did have a working system and i feel its with in reach. been working hard on it and i feel it will come soon .so that's my answer... i think there are more but for me that's it.
understanding all ways energy flows is needed. sacred geometry is a key part. it tells us a story of our past.
Job 11:9
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and
there is no new thing under the sun."
this is just one example to understand we are all understanding things that we already know.
This is why EGO has such a big problem as it dose. The Quote above makes all EGO go away. If there is noting new under the sun then there is nothing to be greedy about. Nothing to call "Yours" nothing to make you
any how just my 2 cents...
would solve a lot of problems if we all thought this way...
also i have a wonderful video to post here on this thread soon. your going to love it!
~Russ
PS
you don't have to be religious to here me out... just take it as it is...
"EGO = Edging God Out"
you can think of God as your inner being if you so want to. i Don't care... just here me out :)
Great to hear from you, Russ - and your work does sound exciting... looking forward to that video! O0
QuoteThis is why EGO has such a big problem as it dose. The Quote above makes all EGO go away. If there is noting new under the sun then there is nothing to be greedy about. Nothing to call "Yours" nothing to make you
any how just my 2 cents...
would solve a lot of problems if we all thought this way...
also i have a wonderful video to post here on this thread soon. your going to love it!
~Russ
Totally agree with you, and look forward to that vid.
~Steve
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.09.18, 21:20:49
Great to hear from you, Russ - and your work is indeed exciting... looking forward to that video! O0
Totally agree with you, and look forward to that vid.
~Steve
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.11, 16:27:34
And I've taught physics for many years, first with the Univ of Idaho, then at BYU for over 21 years, and I'm still learning!
I hope you enjoy the videos. I got up real early and did the last one... To me, this is fun stuff!
Dear PhysicsProf,
Have you ever
looked at some physics experiments for years and could not
see?
The Milkovic 2-stage Pendulum built by Raymond Head in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8
is an example.
I
looked at it many, many times years ago and even commented on it. Now I
see that it is actually bringing-in gravitational energy at the lifting of the weight.
It is a good example of Lead-out Energy device. Overunity can be achieved via a large prototype such as that from Raymond Head. Small prototypes with low Centrifugal/Centripetal force will NOT show overunity.
Details are in pages 146 onwards in:
http://www.overunity.com/1763/12-times-more-output-than-input-dual-mechanical-oscillation-system/2190/
I look forward to seeing your (always high quality) comments in there.
ok... here you go... ENJOY!
"Oh Nuts!" Magnetic Lock... Your Going To Like This. Using The Principles Of Ed Leedskalnin PMH. Must Watch And Try
SAFETY FIRST!!!!! Extremely Dangerous Experiment, I hold no responsibility for your actions!!!!! DEAD SHORTING A BATTERY IS NOT GOOD!!!!!!!! BE CAREFUL!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhiAIsJCS9Y&list=UULuDKTNDFfat7iO7KGE7fQA
This is an extremely easy thing for anyone to play with and open there thoughts and ideas to the possibilities to this principal of the Perpetual motion holder.
I have my own theory's and stuff but I'm open to others thoughts so please post your thoughts here on this Thread.
You can see the other work I have done on this principal here:
http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/edward-leedskalnin-tpu/
;)
~Russ
Wow,
You just learn how to make a permanent magnet, great job.
Maybe put it on a shaft and make a dc motor spin.
Tom...
hi tommy, you know i have respect for you...
But this is not a permanent magnet. If it was it would stick back together after i took it apart.
???
This is deeper than that.
~Russ
Hi Russ,
I was not trying to be funny, I like the idea, just wondering if it can be converted into a dc motor.
If it sounded that I was making fun of your project, I'm sorry.
Would be interesting if it could spin a magnet field, just saying...
Tom
VERY interesting, Russ.
As you may know, I have also been working on magnetic clamping.
Now, you found with your probe that the B field was relatively strong BETWEEN the nuts when the system was clamped. Hence, I think it is indeed magnetic clamping - and alignment of domains in the various pieces like a bunch of N-S magnets joined together, making finally a ring. Except that these domains are not "permanent" magnets (during clamping it seems they are), but when the link is broken, the domains lose their orientation rather easily.
More:
In one of my vids, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkHyb01MfX8
I show the effect of adding permanent magnets to the ferrite U and I cores that I'm using. MUCH smaller voltages are now needed for clamping. These magnets are such that they are in the "same direction" as the B field which loops through the clamped U-I system.
I get clamping with only about 0.33 V on my 1000 uF cap. Using 1/2 CV^2, I calculate the input energy required for clamping at approx 50 micro-joules ! I can de-clamp with a small REVERSE voltage through the bifilar-wound coil (about -0.13 V), so the current goes through the coil in the opposite direction from what caused the clamping.
I think that the reverse current is sufficient to disorient those magnetic domains in the ferrite so that the clamping ends. Also, physically pulling the U and I cores apart evidently suffices to allow the magnetic domains to disorient (actually, there is often a small amount of residual magnetism after they are pulled apart, which a guy can feel when touching the U and I cores.)
We're dealing here with hysteresis IMO, and orientations of magnetic domains by the coil (electromagnet).
Interesting for sure! I'll talk about energy more tomorrow...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.09.23, 04:48:50
We're dealing here with hysteresis IMO, and orientations of magnetic domains by the coil (electromagnet).
I asked Ken Wheeler to comment on Russ' video and this is his reply:
Quote from: Ken Wheeler
Ive seen it before, to answer your video.
No, of course you should NOT detect really any mag field with your gaussmeter. If any at all, it would be next to nothing
The reason theyre being held together is dielectric (electrostatic) inertia.
The very same premise I explain in my book in DETAIL.
I've read his book and watched many of his videos--still having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around his concept. The main piece of his reply "dielectric inertia" seems like his term for magnetic domains and implies the matter at the atomic scale has rotation and this rotation has all aligned itself in such a way as to act like a glue, the spins feed off each other and will stay that way if not disturbed. The best analogy I can come up with is that each atomic particle is acting like a little gear and all the gears are interlocking with bands of CW rotation and CCW rotation. Apparently this is some form of stable state even though it isn't actually a true form of magnetism. This would also imply dielectricity is the fuel for these little atomic engines. And with the attribute of dielectricity being counter-spatial and centripetal in nature, would also explain what keeps an atom from flying apart.