Decided to start this thread in relation to Luc's claim.
First up,please know that i am not trying to prove anyone wrong here,but more so wanting to know if i am wrong.
So as i do not mix up Luc's word's,i will copy and paste his exact statements here.
Claim-->:Here is a video demo I made in December to demonstrate that the cost of power to create a magnetic field using an electromagnet is exactly the cost of wire resistance.
This is not coincidence but an exact science.Please present your argument if you feel this is incorrect.
So,dose it take energy/power to create a magnetic field ?,or is Luc correct when he says the magnetic field is created for free,and is backed by exact science?.
Now,i know that it takes no energy to maintain a magnetic field,and the I/R losses add up to be equal to the power being delivered to the coil once peak current flow through the coil has been reached,but i am interested only in the creation of the magnetic field-as Luc has stated.
I would be interested in hearing what others have to say.
Brad
Last edit to revise the title from the word ' power ' to the word ' energy ' as requested by Verpies.
Yes, it takes no energy to maintain magnetic field (or current) in an ideal coil, but...
- It takes energy to create a magnetic field in an ideal coil and in such coil all of that magnetic energy can be recovered back (incidentally such recovery completely destroys this magnetic field).
- It takes energy to create a magnetic field in a resistive coil, but in such coil not all of that energy can be recovered back (because part of it is forever dissipated/lost as heat in the resistance).
Generally, power is lower if the field creation rate is slower, even if the final energy is the same.
The graph below represnts the current, energies and powers in any switched RL circuit:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2684.0;attach=15806)
For the detailed analysis of this graph, visit this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692).In a switched RL circuit, which is not subjected to external variable flux sources, the speed of the changes (effectively the circuit's time) is determined by the time constant Tau=L/R.
1) For charging coils in an RL circuit, the time on the horizontal axis runs forward,
2) For discharging coils in an RL circuit - the time on the horizontal axis runs backwards (except for E
R and E
TOT).
3) For zero resistance L circuits - the circuit's time stands still, the flux does not change ...and thus becomes frozen/constant. If there are no external sources of variable flux, then the current stays constant, too.
P.S.
The magnitude of the magnetic flux (Φ) is not shown on that graph above, but it can be calculated at any time by using the simple relationship Φ=IL*L
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.15, 11:44:36
It takes energy to create a magnetic field in a resistive coil, but in such coil not all of that energy can be recovered back.
Power is lower if the creation rate is slower, even if the final energy is the same.
Thanks for your answer verpies.
I removed the part about an ideal coil,as we will never be working with ideal coils.
Anymore takers?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.15, 11:49:18
...
I removed the part about an ideal coil,as we will never be working with ideal coils.
...
Not sure... we are not far from superconductors at room temperature (https://phys.org/news/2019-01-evidence-superconductivity-room-temperature.html).
I think Luc's statement requires elaboration to make it more clear. Also, I would question that Luc is saying the field is created for free.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.15, 11:44:36
It takes energy to create a magnetic field in an ideal coil, but in such coil all of that energy can be recovered back.
Verpies reply is very close to what I'm saying, just in a different way.
If the coil has no resistance then what ever power you put into it you can fully recover = no cost of power = Free magnetic field because in the end you got a magnetic field
PLUS you recovered all the power. Does that not qualify for a free Magnetic field?
Now that you created a free magnetic field, what will you do with it?... what ever work you get out of it, would that part not qualify as OU? (this will stir the pot) ;D
No more debates are needed, it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality, plus the limitations (maybe purposeful?) of our technology at this time that prevents us from using this great phenomenon.
Who knows what else we'll discover once average experimenter like us have True super conductive wire to play with.
Regards
Luc
Luc: "it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality,"
Sorry, Luc, I have a hard time believing this. The B field stores energy, therefore one would say that energy should be required to produce it, beyond the wire resistance (loss).
So how is it
"it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality,"
How confirmed?
Verpies confirmed it.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.15, 11:44:36
It takes energy to create a magnetic field in an ideal coil, but in such coil all of that energy can be recovered back.
So you put energy in, then you get it all back and end up with a magnetic field. Sounds like a free magnetic field to me?
However, I don't think it would be free if the magnetic field instantly ended as you're taking the energy back. Of course that doesn't happen.
If we take the energy back the same way we put the energy in then the magnetic field time is double.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.02.15, 22:51:32
Luc: "it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality,"
Sorry, Luc, I have a hard time believing this. The B field stores energy, therefore one would say that energy should be required to produce it, beyond the wire resistance (loss).
So how is it
"it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality,"
How confirmed?
Ah,that is the comment i was waiting for-->the B field stores energy.
So,if it takes no energy to create the field,but the field will deliver energy when it collapses around the coil that created it,then we now have the !!creation!! of energy :o
it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free
Where is this confirmation ?.
Brad.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 21:31:59
, plus the limitations (maybe purposeful?) of our technology at this time that prevents us from using this great phenomenon.
Who knows what else we'll discover once average experimenter like us have True super conductive wire to play with.
Regards
Luc
QuoteIf the coil has no resistance then what ever power you put into it you can fully recover
If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
QuoteNow that you created a free magnetic field, what will you do with it?... what ever work you get out of it, would that part not qualify as OU? (this will stir the pot) ;D
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
QuoteNo more debates are needed, it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality
I would like to see this confirmation Luc,as my tests i carried out last night clearly show that it takes energy to create the magnetic field.
In saying that,there may be a way of doing what you are trying to achieve--i will give it some more thought O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.15, 23:37:46
If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
Brad
I guess you did not watch this video I posted on the first page of my topic.
In this video they demonstrate what happens when you have current circulating in a Real super conductor.
They demonstrate the Voltage falls to 0.000
So if the voltage is 0.000 how can there be any power dissipated across the coil? ... please explain where the power comes from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifnlZigp6c
Cheers mate
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.15, 23:37:46
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
I would like to see this confirmation Luc,as my tests i carried out last night clearly show that it takes energy to create the magnetic field.
Brad
I think he may mean 'how much NET energy does it take to create a magnetic field?'
There is indeed a defined amount of energy required to establish the field, but the field collapse returns nearly all of this back into the system.
A perfect inductor and perfect capacitor would exchange energy forever without losses.
A nearly perfect inductor and capacitor will exchange energy with an extremely high Q factor.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 23:53:00
I guess you did not watch this video I posted on the first page of my topic.
In this video they demonstrate what happens when you have current circulating in a Real super conductor.
They demonstrate the Voltage falls to 0.000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifnlZigp6c
Cheers mate
Luc
Yes,i watched the video Luc,but i dont think you paid attention to what they did in that video.
What they showed was a complete waste of time and effort.
They clearly state at 5:40 in the video-->to charge the device,we use a 20 amp 5v power supply. Once connected to the circuit,we then submerge the device in liquid nitrogen.
So,it is exactly as i said it is.
First the coil has to be energised,and then you submerge it in liquid nitrogen.
QuoteSo if the voltage is 0.000 how can there be any power dissipated across the coil? ... please explain where the power comes from.
But the voltage was not 0 when they charged the coil,as the coil was charged before being submerged in liquid nitrogen,and becoming super conductive. So,the power to charge the coil would have been the maximum power that there power supply could have delivered to the coil before it was made super conductive.
The video shows exactly what i said--you cannot charge the inductor once it becomes super conductive,as it will reject any magnetic field that tries to penetrate it.
Even if the voltage was 0 across the coil,it will never be 0 within the transformer of the power supply.
So even if the super conductor dose not dissipate any power,the power supply being used to power up the super conductor will,and it will dissipate the maximum amount of power it is capable of,because you just dropped a dead short across it.
The other video you posted,where the guy has a coil under some flat bar,which is sitting on the scales,clearly shows a massive increase in current draw when he cools the coil with liquid nitrogen to bring the resistance down. Before he cools the coil,there is no arcing of the wire when he touches the coil on the battery. When he cools the coil with liquid nitrogen to reduce the coils resistance,and then connects it to the battery,you can see massive arcing of the wire,which clearly means a massive increase of power input to the coil,as we could assume that the batteries voltage would remain fairly stable between the two tests.
Brad
Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.15, 23:53:22
I think he may mean 'how much NET energy does it take to create a magnetic field?'
There is indeed a defined amount of energy required to establish the field, but the field collapse returns nearly all of this back into the system.
A perfect inductor and perfect capacitor would exchange energy forever without losses.
A nearly perfect inductor and capacitor will exchange energy with an extremely high Q factor.
And once you want to draw energy out of this perfect system,what happens ?
I fail to see any OU in this as Luc is claiming.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.15, 23:37:46
If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
Please explain.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 00:45:29
Yes,i watched the video Luc,but i dont think you paid attention to what they did in that video.
What they showed was a complete waste of time and effort.
They clearly state at 5:40 in the video-->to charge the device,we use a 20 amp 5v power supply. Once connected to the circuit,we then submerge the device in liquid nitrogen.
That does not mean they applied 5v @ 20 amps. They are just confirming the size of power supply used. Also, they would of had to connect the circuit to the coil before placing it in the Liquid Nitrogen. So that statement is not saying the energized the coil before placing it in the Nitrogen. That would be pointless to do such a thing,
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 00:45:29
So,it is exactly as i said it is.
First the coil has to be energised,and then you submerge it in liquid nitrogen.
That is your saying. Nowhere did they say they energized the coil before placing it in the Nitrogen.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 00:45:29
The other video you posted,where the guy has a coil under some flat bar,which is sitting on the scales,clearly shows a massive increase in current draw when he cools the coil with liquid nitrogen to bring the resistance down. Before he cools the coil,there is no arcing of the wire when he touches the coil on the battery. When he cools the coil with liquid nitrogen to reduce the coils resistance,and then connects it to the battery,you can see massive arcing of the wire,which clearly means a massive increase of power input to the coil,as we could assume that the batteries voltage would remain fairly stable between the two tests.
Brad
I did write that his video is not suited for any power evaluation. However, did you not consider that the large spark can be the now large inductive discharge?
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 00:59:06
Please explain.
If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
I thought it was self explanatory.
1-If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
Inductance in a coil creates the BEMF-dose it not ?
BEMF is part of the effective resistance value,where the wire resistance is the other part of the effective resistance of an inductor. So,if there is 0 resistance,there is neither any wire resistance,nor is there any BEMF resistance.If there is no BEMF resistance,then there is no inductance.
2-How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
This is a straight forward question,so i fail to see the problem here.
3-You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state
Is that statement not correct?,as a true superconductor will reject any magnetic field that tries to penetrate it.
Brad
author=gotoluc link=topic=3723.msg72573#msg72573 date=1550279495]
QuoteI did write that his video is not suited for any power evaluation. However, did you not consider that the large spark can be the now large inductive discharge?
Of course the discharge will be greater,as the input power increase a lot as well.
QuoteThat does not mean they applied 5v @ 20 amps. They are just confirming the size of power supply used. Also, they would of had to connect the circuit to the coil before placing it in the Liquid Nitrogen. So that statement is not saying the energized the coil before placing it in the Nitrogen. That would be pointless to do such a thing,
That is your saying. Nowhere did they say they energized the coil before placing it in the Nitrogen.
Lets say your right.
We can already get an LED to flash using a normal coil when we disconnect the current.
I do agree that a super conductor will not dissipate any power,but you continually fail to take into account the power that the supply will be dissipating as heat. So how can any OU be had from this system if power is being dissipated by circuit components ?.
Brad
The link below starts 3:44
Hit pause then click on wheel (settings) and select speed at 0.5 to slow it down.
Hit play and you can see he charges the coil when in Nitrogen. You will see a blue light when he powers the coil, then immediately when the blue light goes out you will see the LED flash, discharging the coil. He repeats the twice and each time it does the same thing.
https://youtu.be/PifnlZigp6c?t=224
Regards
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:25:33
Lets say your right.
We can already get an LED to flash using a normal coil when we disconnect the current.
Correct but at a loss because you now agree that a super conductor will not dissipate any power... and that's all I'm bringing to your attention.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:25:33
I do agree that a super conductor will not dissipate any power,but you continually fail to take into account the power that the supply will be dissipating as heat. So how can any OU be had from this system if power is being dissipated by circuit components ?.
Brad
True, power supplies loaded down to the millivolt range may not be efficient and why I mentioned 2500 Farad capacitors could be used. You can charge those in the millivolt range and they will deliver gobs of current efficiently.
I don't think there is anyone here that has any working experience with super conducting coils, so we still have no real knowledge what is truly needed to charge them.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 01:37:36
The link below starts 3:44
Hit pause then click on wheel (settings) and select speed at 0.5 to slow it down.
Hit play and you can see he charges the coil when in Nitrogen. You will see a blue light when he powers the coil, then immediately when the blue light goes out you will see the LED flash, discharging the coil. He repeats the twice and each time it does the same thing.
https://youtu.be/PifnlZigp6c?t=224
Regards
Luc
Ok,so he charges up the coil,and then disconnects the coil,and the LED flashes.
I have to ask-->what is so great about that?
We can do exactly the same with a standard coil.
Now,lets say the coils resistance was 0 ohm's-->how would you calculate the power used to energise that coil?,so as you can get the little LED to flash
That question is one i am asking you Luc--how would you calculate the energy used to power up that coil,when the resistance value is 0
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 01:53:56
Correct but at a loss because you now agree that a super conductor will not dissipate any power... and that's all I'm bringing to your attention.
True, power supplies loaded down to the millivolt range may not be efficient and why I mentioned 2500 Farad capacitors could be used. You can charge those in the millivolt range and they will deliver gobs of current efficiently.
I don't think there is anyone here that has any working experience with super conducting coils, so we still have no real knowledge what is truly needed to charge them.
Regards
Luc
Yes,i have always agreed that a superconductor will dissipate no power.
But the thread is about you claim that the magnetic field comes for free,where i state that it dose not.
Think about what your claim means--
If it takes no energy to create the field,but you can get energy back from that collapsing field,then you have just done what physics has told us we cannot do--create energy.
With an ideal power supply,and an ideal coil,the best we could do is 100%.
If we go over this 100%,then we now start to create energy--the thing we are told we cannot do.
Brad
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.02.15, 22:51:32
Sorry, Luc, I have a hard time believing this. The B field stores energy, therefore one would say that energy should be required to produce it, beyond the wire resistance (loss).
So how is it
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 21:31:59
it's now confirmed a magnetic field is free and it's only wire resistance that keep us away from this reality
How confirmed?
Let's look at it in another way.
We have a one Dollar bill which represents energy and we have a bottle of Coke which represents a magnetic field.
You go to a vending machine and insert your one Dollar bill and it dispenses you a Coke plus returns 4 x .25 cent quarters.
So you walk away with a Coke and one Dollar in quarters.
Was the Coke free?
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 02:14:20
How confirmed?
Let's look at it in another way.
We have a one Dollar bill which represents energy and we have a bottle of Coke which represents a magnetic field.
You go to a vending machine and insert your one Dollar bill and it dispenses you a Coke plus returns 4 x .25 cent quarters.
So you walk away with a Coke and one Dollar in quarters.
Was the Coke free?
Regards
Luc
No,as you dissipated energy walking to the vending machine,and inserting and collecting money. :D
But here is something i want you all to think about.
If a superconductor has !!no!! resistance,it also has no inductance.
If it had inductance,then it would produce a BEMF.
If it produced a BEMF,then it would have resistance,as BEMF is an effective resistance to current flow.
If there is no inductance,then there is no collapsing magnetic field from which to capture the inductive kickback energy from.
The conservation of energy stands O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:55:49
Ok,so he charges up the coil,and then disconnects the coil,and the LED flashes.
I have to ask-->what is so great about that?
We can do exactly the same with a standard coil.
Now,lets say the coils resistance was 0 ohm's-->how would you calculate the power used to energise that coil?,so as you can get the little LED to flash
That question is one i am asking you Luc--how would you calculate the energy used to power up that coil,when the resistance value is 0
Brad
Well, hopefully a 0ohm super coil has inductance/impedance so that an input could be applied in pulses without killing off the input to a dead short, etc. ;D Like if the super coil were used as a gen coil, would there be a voltage across that coil when we turn the gen??? Could there be a voltage across the coil?
Had some discussion some years back on 0ohm coils and their inductance. Would a perfect coil even allow current to flow ever? Like the magnet floating above a super conductor, could there be that sort of effect in a super coil and no current could flow? Dont know because Ive never played with one, but my theory was that it cant pass current because the reverse emf of the self inductance, which impedes the input may be always equal to the input. ??? And I theorized that there may have to be some resistance in order for the reverse emf to always be lower than the input to allow for current and the mag field to rise. :o I visualize the possibility of a chilled coil such as Luc is going to give a go, may have less voltage than at room temp. Maybe not. Hopefully not. But it should provide more current, for sure.
Lol, just a thought from what I just wrote. The floating magnet on the super conductor... If its floating and we push down on the magnet and it springs back upward against the push downwards, what if a super coil could somehow produce more reverse emf than the input. :o That would be something. Just connect the coil to the battery and the battery charges. Would be sweet if it were that simple. ;)
Mags
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:55:49
Ok, so he charges up the coil ,and then disconnects the coil,and the LED flashes.
You forgot to add he charges up the coil "
in the Liquid Nitrogen" because only minutes ago you said it's not what they did or even possible to charge a zero resistance coil. But that's okay mate, I'm patient, we're here to learn right.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:55:49
I have to ask-->what is so great about that?
We can do exactly the same with a standard coil.
Did you get the part the coil will hold it's magnetic field indefinitely or until used. Do standard coils do that?
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:55:49
Now,lets say the coils resistance was 0 ohm's-->how would you calculate the power used to energise that coil?,so as you can get the little LED to flash
That question is one i am asking you Luc--how would you calculate the energy used to power up that coil,when the resistance value is 0
Brad
That my friend is the golden buzzer question, how do you measure 0.000 volts x 20 Amps max???
As far as I know, you can't and I don't know how others who have not done the experiment themselves are able to confirm the coil actually uses power.
One thing we both know is you definitely wouldn't want to use the power supply they used to charge a zero resistance coil since the PS itself will dissipate way more power then they can get in their feeble Inductance value.
I'm taking the time to share my thoughts (instead of just keeping it to myself) to make us think as a group on other possibilities never yet explored.
I can see it's doing just that ;)
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 01:13:54
If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state.
I thought it was self explanatory.
1-If the coil has no resistance,then it has no inductance.
Inductance in a coil creates the BEMF-dose it not ?
BEMF is part of the effective resistance value,where the wire resistance is the other part of the effective resistance of an inductor. So,if there is 0 resistance,there is neither any wire resistance,nor is there any BEMF resistance.If there is no BEMF resistance,then there is no inductance.
2-How is P/in calculated when R=0 ?.
This is a straight forward question,so i fail to see the problem here.
3-You cannot create a magnetic field while the inductor is in a super conductive state
Is that statement not correct?,as a true superconductor will reject any magnetic field that tries to penetrate it.
Brad
My goodness.
Don't confuse resistance and reactance. Yes, you are confusing them!
The statement that if a coil has no resistance, it has no inductance is incorrect. All coils have inductance.
The "effective resistance" reference you make is in terms of the inductor's reactance, and as long as current is changing in the coil, it then by default exhibits inductance, and inductive reactance.
The Pin (or more properly in this case, Energy) of a DC supply energizing a coil, whether it be ideal or non-ideal is measured via the same method we always use; with a scope (for Energy, integrating power over time).
Superconducting electromagnets do indeed create magnetic fields.
author=poynt99 link=topic=3723.msg72587#msg72587 date=1550288230]
QuoteDon't confuse resistance and reactance. Yes, you are confusing them!
Not at all. I never mentioned reactance.My statement was clear--inductance causes BEMF,and BEMF is an effective circuit resistance.Reactance has no resistive properties--it is the non resistive component of impedance,and impedance only comes with inductance,and inductance creates that impedance-->BEFM,and BEMF is an effective resistance(impedance) to current flow.
QuoteThe statement that if a coil has no resistance, it has no inductance is incorrect. All coils have inductance.
Once again,very wrong.
I have just finished testing a coil that has no inductance,against an identical coil,but which has inductance
The current trace through this coil is vertical,unlike the coil with inductance which is on a linear incline.
One coil produces a BEMF,and the other dose not.
One coil produces a magnetic field,the other dose not.
One coil has inductance,the other dose not.
One coil dissipates more power than the other--can you guess which one dissipates more power?.
QuoteThe "effective resistance" reference you make is in terms of the inductor's reactance, and as long as current is changing in the coil, it then by default exhibits inductance, and inductive reactance.
And if the current dose not change over time,but go's straight to it's maximum value at T=0,then there is no reactance,no inductance,no magnetic field,and no BEMF.
It is inductance that creates BEMF-the coil self induces. The impedance is a result of the self induced BEMF.
This impeades(resists) current flow.
If the superconductive inductor has inductance,then it will also have BEMF.
If it has BEMF,then it's effective resistance value is not 0,as the BEMF will resist the flow of current.
QuoteThe Pin (or more properly in this case, Energy) of a DC supply energizing a coil, whether it be ideal or non-ideal is measured via the same method we always use; with a scope (for Energy, integrating power over time).
So,when a superconducting coil,that has 0 resistance is dropped across a battery,and because of the 0 resistance no voltage exists across the inductor,we then calculate power by multiplying the current by 0 volt's? ???
QuoteSuperconducting electromagnets do indeed create magnetic fields.
But not without cost,which is what this thread is about.
QuoteMy goodness.
Indeed.
To impede-->HINDER, IMPEDE, OBSTRUCT, BLOCK mean to interfere with the activity or progress of. HINDER stresses causing harmful or annoying delay or interference with progress. IMPEDE implies making forward progress difficult by clogging, hampering, or fettering
To resist--> counteract or repel ,mean to set against something,to hinder progress,to fight against,to limit,
Brad
Id say that if the super coil has inductance, then we should be able to see a voltage across the coil from the point of connecting the input and as long as the current and field rises, as long as the input can handle the ever increasing currents.
Verpies said "Yes, it takes no energy to maintain magnetic field (or current) in an ideal coil."
How is that? Would the coil need to be shorted after input is taken away?
Mags
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 21:31:59
If the coil has no resistance then what ever power you put into it you can fully recover = no cost of power = Free magnetic field because in the end you got a magnetic field PLUS you recovered all the power. Does that not qualify for a free Magnetic field?
It would if recovering the energy back would not decrease the magnetic field back to zero.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 21:31:59
Now that you created a free magnetic field, what will you do with it?... what ever work you get out of it, would that part not qualify as OU? (this will stir the pot) ;D
Note, that you can get mechanical work out of the magnetic field ONLY when the coil is charged. After the coil is discharged (e.g. by recovering the input energy back) the magnetic field decreases back to zero and can no longer perform any work (such as attracting stuff from afar).
So whatever work you want to do, you have to do
after the coil is charged and
before it is discharged back to zero...
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 04:53:16
Verpies said: "Yes, it takes no energy to maintain magnetic field (or current) in an ideal coil."
How is that? Would the coil need to be shorted after input is taken away?
Yes, and shorting the coil is good for it. Shorting prevents the coil from losing energy.
It is the opposite behavior of a capacitor. Capacitors lose energy when shorted.
Don't confuse the response of coils and capacitors to shorting !!!You can input some energy and charge an isolated coil with it, then short the coil to maintain the magnetic field and current in it ...and when you are done you can recover the input energy back.
If it is a resistive coil, then only a part of the input energy can be recovered back. The less the resistance and the shorter the time periods (with respect to Tau=L/R), the more energy can be recovered back.
BTW: Electrostatics can mechanically attract objects, too, but (unlike coils) it does not suffer the penalty of holding a capacitor charged for a long time - the resistance does not waste the energy continuously in electrostatics.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 04:53:16
Id say that if the super coil has inductance, then we should be able to see a voltage across the coil from the point of connecting the input and as long as the current and field rises, as long as the input can handle the ever increasing currents.
Verpies said "Yes, it takes no energy to maintain magnetic field (or current) in an ideal coil."
How is that? Would the coil need to be shorted after input is taken away?
Mags
That is correct Mags.
And if we can see a voltage across the coil,then that means that there is a resistance through the winding's.
If there is a resistance through the windings,then it is not superconductive.
The only way there can be no resistance,is if there is no inductance-->no BEMF (or CEMF) if you wish,to provide that resistance.
I suspect !hair splitting! will arrive soon C.C
But common sense seems to be thrown out here when it suits the needs of a few C.C
After some conversations with a few who were there-right in the mix of the TPU,any claims from others will now require !on the bench! proof before i believe what they have to say.
Getting there information via book's,or from what they were taught to be correct,will no longer cut the cake.
If it's good enough for me to do at the request of other(as i have always done),then it is good enough for others to do the same in return-->do for others as you ask them to do for you.
From now on,for me to pay any attention anyway, you will be required to present your argument by way of a presented video of your !on the bench! test results.
I have put this one to bed in my next video--to create a magnetic field dose take energy--there is no free magnetic field created with an inductor.
The same applies to superconductors--energy is required to create the magnetic field.-,and only that amount of energy can be collected back from the collapse of that magnetic field.
There is no OU to be had.
Brad
Dose it take power/energy to create a magnetic field?
Inductive V non-inductive coil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcUfMQv7aAI
Enjoy
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 07:03:38
-there is no free magnetic field created with an inductor.
There is if the inductor has a permeable core, but it exists within the inter-atomic space of the core material. Classical theory says that within the material B and H are in opposite directions, but that is nonsense when you look at that inter-atomic space. Unfortunately after over 20 years looking for OU I have not yet found a practical way of getting access to that free energy. It could be possible if the material goes through a phase change (not an electrical phase angle change but a material phase change) such as going above the Curie temperature. If the relative permeability drops to unity then that free magnetic energy stored inside the material becomes available, but cycling material around its Cure temperature is not very practical.
Smudge.
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.16, 12:04:06
There is if the inductor has a permeable core, but it exists within the inter-atomic space of the core material. Classical theory says that within the material B and H are in opposite directions, but that is nonsense when you look at that inter-atomic space. Unfortunately after over 20 years looking for OU I have not yet found a practical way of getting access to that free energy. It could be possible if the material goes through a phase change (not an electrical phase angle change but a material phase change) such as going above the Curie temperature. If the relative permeability drops to unity then that free magnetic energy stored inside the material becomes available, but cycling material around its Cure temperature is not very practical.
Smudge.
And in order to cycle the core material around it's Cure temperature,you would end up using more energy than that which is contain'd within that core materials magnetic field.
So once again,the conservation of energy stands.
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.15, 23:15:04
So you put energy in, then you get it all back and end up with a magnetic field. Sounds like a free magnetic field to me?
However, I don't think it would be free if the magnetic field instantly ended as you're taking the energy back. Of course that doesn't happen.
Yes, the magnetic field generated by the coil cannot end instantly any more than it can be built-up instantly.
It takes time to discharge even an ideal coil. The discharge of such coil into an ideal capacitor is 100% efficient and takes the time t
D=½π*SQRT(L*C) or ¼ of the typical underdamped LC oscillation period.
The smaller the discharge capacitor - the faster the coil discharges but the higher the capacitor's final voltage because ½L*i
2 = ½C*V
2, and this transforms to V = i*SQRT(L / C). - the latter does not account for diode and resistive losses.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 03:37:10
The statement that if a coil has no resistance, it has no inductance is incorrect. All coils have inductance.
I agree.
Changing the resistance does not change the inductance ...but it does change the time constant Tau=L/R.
If the resistance is decreased to zero then this time constant becomes infinitely large, LR circuit's time stops ...and everything becomes constant.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 03:37:10
The "effective resistance" reference you make is in terms of the inductor's reactance, and as long as current is changing in the coil, it then by default exhibits inductance, and inductive reactance.
I agree. The BEMF that opposes the change of current flow is also known as "inductive reactance". In an ideal coil the BEMF opposes
any change to current flow forever, because of the infinite time constant.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 03:37:10
The Pin (or more properly in this case, Energy) of a DC supply energizing a coil, whether it be ideal or non-ideal is measured via the same method we always use; with a scope (for Energy, integrating power over time).
Yes, the famous equation E=½Li
2 comes from this integration. It is worth noting, that voltage does
not appear in this equation ...only current and inductance.
However, the electric energy converted by the coil into magnetic flux can also be measured with a ruler and magnetometer (Hall, GMR, AMR, TMR, etc...) and calculated as E=½Φ
2/L, without inserting any Current Sensing Resistors into the coil's circuit.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 03:37:10
Superconducting electromagnets do indeed create magnetic fields.
Yes, but it is kind of hard to push any electric current into them when the Tau=∞, because the current would have to rise infinitely slow ...and "infinitely slow" is an euphemism for "never".
That is why hot pumping or flux trapping is used to charge them.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
My statement was clear--inductance causes BEMF, and BEMF is an effective circuit resistance.
It would be more accurate to say that BEMF causes an "effective resistance"
to changes of electric current.
However, this "effective resistance" IS the "inductive reactance".
Q:So what is the difference between resistance and reactance?
A: The distinction is very simple: resistance opposes the
instantaneous current (i) and reactance opposes the
change of current (di/dt).
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
...impedance only comes with inductance,
Not only - impedance also comes with capacitance.
Formally, impedance = resistance + reactance. (Z=R+X). The first component is commonly called the real component, the second component is called the imaginary component, and their sum is called the complex quantity (...or complex impedance).
Also, the quality factor of a coil is equal to Q=X/R.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
...and inductance creates that impedance-->BEMF
Actually, pure inductance creates only the imaginary component of the impedance. Pure inductance does not create the real component of impedance.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
...and BEMF is an effective resistance(impedance) to current flow.
Not precisely - BEMF causes an opposition
to changes of electric current flow. That is very different than "an opposition to the current flow".
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 03:37:10
The statement that if a coil has no resistance, it has no inductance is incorrect. All coils have inductance.
Once again,very wrong.
I have just finished testing a coil that has no inductance,against an identical coil,but which has inductance
The current trace through this coil is vertical,unlike the coil with inductance which is on a linear incline.
But that only proves, that it takes electric energy to create magnetic energy.
It doesn't prove that zero resistance causes zero inductance, which is the implication that Poynt objects to.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
One coil produces a BEMF,and the other dose not.
That only proves that one coil has inductance and reactance, while the other does not.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
One coil produces a magnetic field,the other dose not.
That only proves that one coil has inductance while the other does not. Inductance is best conceptualized as the ratio of magnetic flux to electric current, L=Φ/i
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
One coil dissipates more power than the other--can you guess which one dissipates more power?.
Of course, the one that has less inductance, because inductance is responsible for conversion of electric current into the magnetic flux...and the more electric current gets converted to magnetic flux, the less electric current is converted to heat by the resistance.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
And if the current dose not change over time,but go's straight to it's maximum value at T=0,then there is no reactance,no inductance,no magnetic field,and no BEMF.
Yes
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
It is the inductance that creates BEMF-the coil self induces. The impedance is a result of the self induced BEMF.
This is correct but not precise enough. Since impedance consists of two components: resistance and reactance (Z=R+X) and pure inductance is capable of presenting reactance only, then it would be better to write that:
"The reactance is a result of the self-induced BEMF"
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
If the superconductive inductor has inductance,then it will also have BEMF.
Yes, but the BEMF in a superconducting coil is also a victim to the infinite time constant Tau=L/R and as a consequence it
perpetually opposes any change of current. Because of this infinity, the normal proportionality of BEMF to the rate of change of current (di/dt) degenerates to the proportionality to the absolute value of current (i).
Such is the fate of the very concept of "change" when the RL circuit's time stops due to Tau=∞.
No circuit's time flow = No change = No BEMF decay.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
If it has BEMF,then its effective resistance value is not 0, as the BEMF will resist the change to the flow of current.
Yes, but the proper name for the "effective resistance" IS "inductive reactance".
Also, when Tau<∞, BEMF does not oppose the absolute value of the current, it opposes
the change of this current. I allowed myself to make this addition to your sentence in green color in your quote above.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
So,when a superconducting coil,that has 0 resistance is dropped across a battery,and because of the 0 resistance no voltage exists across the inductor, we then calculate power energy by multiplying the current by 0 volt's? ???
We can calculate the energy stored in the coil by measuring its magnetic field with a magnetometer (Hall, GMR, AMR, TMR, etc...)* and calculating the energy as E=½Φ
2/L, without disturbing the coil's circuit.
Alternately, we can calculate the energy stored in the coil only by considering only its inductance and current E=½Li
2, but since a superconductive coil has an infinitely long time constant Tau, the current from the battery will take infinite time to rise if such coil is charged by such electric means.
You could, however, charge the coil with energy by opening its circuit, putting a magnet in it, shorting it, and pulling the magnet out ...or shorting it, heating it up until it loses superconductivity, putting a magnet in it, freezing it until it gains superconductivity and pulling the magnet out.
In both scenarios, the superconducting coil is left with a perpetually circulating electric current that will maintain the same flux, which the magnet was providing before it was pulled out. This is an example of a "pull out technique", that does work.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 04:21:28
To impede-->HINDER, IMPEDE, OBSTRUCT, BLOCK mean to interfere with the activity or progress of. HINDER stresses causing harmful or annoying delay or interference with progress. IMPEDE implies making forward progress difficult by clogging, hampering, or fettering
To resist--> counteract or repel ,mean to set against something,to hinder progress,to fight against,to limit,
As you can see both of these words have similar meaning in non-technical jargon.
However, in electrical engineering impedance is the sum of resistance and reactance (Z=R+X). Period.
And the most significant difference between resistance and reactance is that the former is proportional to current (i) and the latter is proportional to the rate of change of current (di/dt).
*
Since magnetometers measure the Magnetic Flux Density (B) and not the total Flux (Φ), their measurements need to be integrated over an area (in sq.meters) in order to yield Flux.
author=verpies link=topic=3723.msg72618#msg72618 date=1550328037]
Well i knew the !splitting of hairs! was coming-it always dose.
QuoteIt would be more accurate to say that BEMF causes an "effective resistance" to changes of electric current.
However, this "effective resistance" IS the "inductive reactance".
That is what i said.
If there is no inductance,there is no reactance,and there is no BEMF.
Quote: reactance-the non-resistive component of impedance in an AC circuit, arising from the effect of inductance or capacitance or both and causing the current to be out of phase with the electromotive force causing it.
So BEMF is induced by the inductance,and reactance is also a result of inductance.
So i was correct in what i said.
QuoteNot precisely - BEMF causes an opposition to changes of electric current flow. That is very different than "an opposition to the current flow".
As i said,splitting hairs.
QuoteBut that only proves, that it takes electric energy to create magnetic energy.
Please read thread title.
QuoteIt doesn't prove that zero resistance causes zero inductance,
Once again-if a coil has inductance,it will produce a BEMF.
BEMF is an effective resistance--or quote: The resistance of an ideal inductor is zero. The reactance of an ideal inductor, and therefore its impedance, is positive for all frequency and inductance values. The effective impedance (absolute value) of an inductor is dependent of the frequency and for ideal inductors always increases with frequency.
So if you wish to call it effective impedance,then so be it.
If a coil has an effective resistance,it dose not have 0 resistance.
QuoteThat only proves that one coil has inductance and reactance, while the other does not.
That only proves that one coil has inductance while the other does not. Inductance is best conceptualized as the ratio of magnetic flux to electric current, L=Φ/i
I totally agree,but to quote poynt :All coils have inductance.
As my video showed,not all coils have inductance.
It also shows that the coil that has no inductance,has no BEMF,which is why the current trace is vertical--there was no opposition to the flow of current,as there was no BEMF.
BEMF/CEMF Quote:-->Counter-electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF or simply CEMF), also known as back electromotive force (or back EMF), is the electromotive force or "voltage" that opposes the change in current which induced it.
QuoteBEMF does not resist the absolute value of the current,
That is correct.
BEMF creates a voltage across the coil that is of the same polarity across the coil to that of the source,where the value of that voltage is slightly less than that of the source at T=0.
This reduces the potential difference between the source and the coil(BEMF),which means less current will flow.
As time passes,the BEMF value decreases,and the potential difference increases,and so then dose the current.
QuoteYes
This is correct but not precise enough.
Good enough for me and most others here.
As i said,splitting hairs was bound to come.
"The reactance is a result of the self-induced BEMF"
QuoteYes,
Thank you O0
Quotebut the BEMF in a superconducting coil is also a victim to the infinite time constant Tau=L/R. Because of this infinity the normal proportionality of BEMF to the rate of change of current (di/dt) degenerates to the proportionality to current (i).
Such is the fate of the very concept of "change" when the RL circuit's time stops due to Tau=∞.
So are you saying that the current will remain at 0 at T=0 ,due to the time constant now being infinite?.
Brad
author=verpies link=topic=3723.msg72616#msg72616 date=1550324558]
Quote.
That is why hot pumping or flux trapping is used to charge them.
Indeed O0
QuoteYes, but it is kind of hard to push any electric current into them when the Tau=∞, because the current would have to rise infinitely slow ...and "infinitely slow" is an euphemism for "never"
So from T=0,nothing happens?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
Once again-if a coil has inductance,it will produce a BEMF.
Yup
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
BEMF is an effective resistance--or
quote: The resistance of an ideal inductor is zero. The reactance of an ideal inductor, and therefore its impedance, is positive for all frequency and inductance values. The effective impedance (absolute value) of an inductor is dependent of the frequency and for ideal inductors always increases with frequency.
I never wrote that.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
So if you wish to call it effective impedance,then so be it.
I do not wish it.
I wish everybody called the "effective resistance" of a pure inductor an "inductive reactance" ...and the "effective resistance" of a resistive inductor a "complex impedance".
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
If a coil has an effective resistance,it dose not have 0 resistance.
If my wish was fulfilled then the "effective resistance" in this sentence would be changed to "inductive reactance" and "resistance" to "complex impedance", effectively making it:
"
If a coil has an inductive reactance, then it does not have 0 impedance" ...because Impedance = Resistance + Reactance (Z=R+X).
I would even go further and improve it like this:
"
If a coil has an inductive reactance (or resistance), then it does not have 0 impedance" ...because Impedance = Resistance + Reactance (Z=R+X).
The devil is in the details...
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
BEMF creates a voltage across the coil that is of the same polarity across the coil to that of the source,where the value of that voltage is slightly less than that of the source at T=0.
This reduces the potential difference between the source and the coil(BEMF),which means less current will flow.
As time passes,the BEMF value decreases,and the potential difference increases,and so then dose the current.
Yes and in a superconducting coil charged by a voltage source, the BEMF decreases infinitely slowly, so the potential difference increases infinitely slowly, too (=never), so it stays constant forever...and if it starts from zero then current never flows.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 15:48:05
So are you saying that the current will remain at 0 at T=0 ,due to the time constant now being infinite?.
Not only at t=0 but at t>0, too.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 07:03:38
to create a magnetic field dose take energy--there is no free magnetic field created with an inductor.
I agree. The Law of Conservation of Energy applies to standard Inductors. Best I ever got was 98% efficient.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 07:03:38
The same applies to superconductors--energy is required to create the magnetic field.-,and only that amount of energy can be collected back from the collapse of that magnetic field.
There is no OU to be had.
Brad
That's a confusing statement when you insist it cost to produce a magnetic field
"energy is required to create the magnetic field and only that amount of energy can be collected back"Sounds like you just wrote: energy in, minus, energy out = 0 energy... so where is the cost of energy exactly?
Also, why are you not considering that once the magnetic field is created you can do anything you wish with it for any length of time, plus it oppose any change while magnetized.
Could we not have a piece of Iron attract to it = work... and at TDC discharge to collect back all our input energy?
Why could that not be a possibility of OU?... I'm sure there are many other possibilities.
I don't understand, you insist it cost to produce a magnetic field wet have never worked with a super conducting or even Cryogenic coils to see the reality.
Who are you and what have you done to the experimenter we know a TinMan Power?
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 18:00:13
Sounds like you just wrote: energy in, minus, energy out = 0 energy
In a way, yes. The "collection" of the stored energy (via the magnetic field), can either be returned to the source, or transferred to a load.
Quote
... so where is the cost of energy exactly?
If the energy is returned to the source, then the net energy used (or "cost") is zero. If the stored energy is transferred to a load to perform work, then the "cost" of the energy is that which came from the source (assuming no losses).
Quote
Also, why are you not considering that once the magnetic field is created you can do anything you wish with it for any length of time, plus it oppose any change while magnetized.
Could we not have a piece of Iron attract to it = work... and at TDC discharge to collect back all our input energy?
Why could that not be a possibility of OU?... I'm sure there are many other possibilities.
It sounds like an assumption is being made that there is no loss of energy if the magnetic field performs some work, and that one would still be able to recover all the original applied energy after such work is performed.
Is that a safe assumption?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 18:23:54
It sounds like an assumption is being made that there is no loss of energy if the magnetic field performs some work, and that one would still be able to recover all the original applied energy after such work is performed.
Is that a safe assumption?
I do not know.
I am leaning towards Smudge on this. Especially regarding work on soft permeable materials, their internal magnetization, etc...
If a superconducting coil, with current already circulating in it (because it is precharged and shorted) attracts a slug of a soft ferromagnetic from afar, then what happens ?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.16, 18:40:45
I do not know.
I am leaning towards Smudge on this. Especially regarding work on soft permeable materials, their internal magnetization, etc...
Is some work not required to polarize (or partially polarize) a magnetic domain?
Quote
If a superconducting coil with current already circulating in it (because it is shorted) attracts a slug of a soft ferrite from afar, then what happens ?
First, I think it is important to note that "superconductor" does not imply 0Ω. There will always be some finite resistance, no matter how small. Just like absolute zero can never be achieved.
The energy expended in attracting the slug will be lost and manifest as a commensurate reduction of the circulating current and associated magnetic field.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 18:53:30
Is some work not required to polarize (or partially polarize) a magnetic domain?
I think so, but is this work recoverable when the domain depolarizes (relaxes) ?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 18:53:30
The energy expended in attracting the slug will be lost and manifest as a commensurate reduction of the circulating current and associated magnetic field.
I agree that the circulating current (i
1) will decrease to (i
2) after the slug is attracted but the total flux penetrating the coil (Φ) will remain the same. Yes, some of the flux will come from the coil (@ i
2) and some of it will come from the slug, but their sum will remain the same.
But what will happen upon discharge of the coil?
The current i
2 will be lower, but the
inductance will increase from L
1 → L
2.
Will ½L
1i
12 == ½L
2i
22 ?
Will ½Φ
2/L
1 == ½Φ
2/L
2 ?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.16, 19:13:00
I agree that the circulating current (i1) will decrease to (i2) after the slug is attracted but the total flux penetrating the coil (Φ) will remain the same. Yes, some of the flux will come from the coil (@ i2) and some of it will come from the slug, but the net result will be the same.
But what will happen upon discharge of the coil?
The current will be lower, but the inductance will increase from L1 → L2.
Will ½L1i12 == ½L2i22 ?
Will ½Φ2/L1 == ½Φ2/L2 ?
Even though L may increase, I don't think there will be a commensurate decrease in i or maintenance of flux.
iow:
W
1>W
2
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 19:43:09
Even though L may increase, I don't think there will be a commensurate decrease in i or flux.
I think we can wonder about i but not whether the flux penetrating a shorted superconducting coil will stay constant in response to a disturbance by an external flux source. ...like in
this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14) ?
Will the proportion L=Φ/i be broken ?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 19:43:09
iow: W1>W2
Any other reason than CoE ?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.16, 19:44:33
I think we can wonder about i but not that the flux penetrating a shorted superconducting coil will stay constant. ...like in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14) ?
Any other reason than CoE ?
What would the time domain plot of the current look like from t=0 to t=1 when the slug hits the coil?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 18:23:54
It sounds like an assumption is being made that there is no loss of energy if the magnetic field performs some work, and that one would still be able to recover all the original applied energy after such work is performed.
Is that a safe assumption?
Yes, and the answer is unclear if that can be done without affecting the electromagnetic field.
Verpies has said the BEMF work the other way around in a SC coil and fights against changes to its current?
My suggestion is the simplest approach of using the magnetic field. I'm sure there are other ways we can think of that may be less invasive.
As far as I know we won't know till someone physically tests it and that's more what this discussion should be about.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 19:54:04
What would the time domain plot of the current look like from t=0 to t=1 when the slug hits the coil?
How about something like this ?
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 20:45:24
As far as I know we won't know till someone physically tests it and that's more what this discussion should be about.
Proper and accurate testing of such may not be trivial.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion as to what the discussion here
should be about, but I suggest that it not be limited as long as the discussion is on topic. Agreed?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.16, 06:58:11
Yes, and shorting the coil is good for it. Shorting prevents the coil from losing energy.
It is the opposite behavior of a capacitor. Capacitors lose energy when shorted. Don't confuse the response of coils and capacitors to shorting !!!
You can input some energy and charge an isolated coil with it, then short the coil to maintain the magnetic field and current in it ...and when you are done you can recover the input energy back.
If it is a resistive coil, then only a part of the input energy can be recovered back. The less the resistance and the shorter the time periods (with respect to Tau=L/R), the more energy can be recovered back.
BTW: Electrostatics can mechanically attract objects, too, but (unlike coils) it does not suffer the penalty of holding a capacitor charged for a long time - the resistance does not waste the energy continuously in electrostatics.
"Yes, and shorting the coil is good for it. Shorting prevents the coil from losing energy."
Ah. If this is true, then that is the answer to my question....
If we build a field on the super coil with input and then simultaneously disconnect input and short the coil when the coils field gets to where we want it to be and it holds its currents and mag field steady, forever I suspect, then that holds the key to my question, 'Would a super coil even conduct or even produce a mag field?'
If after we disconnect the input and short the coil, and the current is maintained, how is it maintained without a changing field to do so? That would imply that a normal coil with a magnet should produce continuous current, just not as much current, but seems like there should be something. If the super coil all charged up and shorted and the currents in the coil are producing some perfect reflection(exact opposition) to the field that would normally collapse, then Id have to say that the coil will not take on input for the very same reason!!! ??? Perfect impedance!! ;) If so, then how did we charge the coil in the first place?
To me, 'if' the coil can build a field 'over time according to its inductive value', then it should collapse to drive the currents till the field is diminished just the same. ;)
Does that make sense?
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 22:58:57
Proper and accurate testing of such may not be trivial.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion as to what the discussion here should be about, but I suggest that it not be limited as long as the discussion is on topic. Agreed?
Indeed O0
Poynt or verpies.
Can either or both of you explain as to why the value of the BEMF is slightly less than the applied EMF at T=0 ,(time of connection) ?.
I am also interested in what verpies says about there never being a current flow from T=0 in a super conductor,due to the infinite time constant.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 23:20:04
If after we disconnect the input and short the coil, and the current is maintained, how is it maintained without a changing field to do so?
Think of it like this: The current and associated flux are changing, but infinitely slowly ...and infinitely slow change is equivalent to no change at all. There can be no change if the RL circuit's time is frozen.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 23:20:04
That would imply that a normal coil with a magnet should produce continuous current, just not as much current, but seems like there should be something.
Normal coils have the L/R time constant on the order of milliseconds, so current that flows in response to the externally changing flux of the permanent magnet (Lenz law) decays pretty quickly. In superconducting coils it decays for years... or never. That is the difference.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 23:20:04
If the super coil all charged up and shorted and the currents in the coil are producing some perfect reflection(exact opposition) to the field that would normally collapse, then Id have to say that the coil will not take on input for the very same reason!!! ???
Yes
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 23:20:04
If so, then how did we charge the coil in the first place?
I already answered this:
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.16, 15:10:17
You could, however, charge the coil with energy by opening its circuit, putting a magnet in it, shorting it, and pulling the magnet out ...or shorting it, heating it up until it loses superconductivity, putting a magnet in it, freezing it until it gains superconductivity and pulling the magnet out.
In both scenarios, the superconducting is left with a perpetually circulating electric current that will maintain the same flux, that the magnet was providing before it was pulled out. This is an example of a "pull out technique", that does work.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.02.16, 23:20:04
To me, 'if' the coil can build a field 'over time according to its inductive value', then it should collapse to drive the currents till the field is diminished just the same. ;)
Yes, but the charging time does not have to be the same as the discharging time. I wrote about this
here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3723.msg72615#msg72615) already, too.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 23:25:20
Can either or both of you explain as to why the value of the BEMF is slightly less than the applied EMF at T=0 ,(time of connection) ?.
I don't know that it is less. I see it as simultaneous reaction. My personal take on electromagnetism is quite unusual as I view it through the prism of motion cancellation*.
However, the conventional dogma is that the reaction proceeds at c according to
retarded potentials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential).
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.16, 23:25:20
I am also interested in what verpies says about there never being a current flow from T=0 in a super conductor,due to the infinite time constant.
I think I already did in so many words.
The electrically driven current tries to increase but with a perfect superconductor that process happens infinitely slowly. With an imperfect superconductor, the increase might happen over e.g. 10 years. How would you distinguish that from constantness in the first minute of the experiment?
You might also conceptualize this as you did before, namely as an equal but opposing BEMF that decays for 10 years ...or never.
*
The way I see it, matter is a 3D motion which is responsible for gravity and the flow of time, electric current is a 1D motion and when it cancels part of this 3D motion, it leaves a 2D imbalance, which is the changing magnetic flux and related phenomena. Conversely, a changing magnetic flux is a 2D motion and when it cancels part of the 3D motion, it leaves a 1D imbalance, which is the electric current. I don't know if this helps you to understand the universe my way...but you asked. We don't have to talk about my point of view anymore.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.16, 22:58:57
You are certainly welcome to your opinion as to what the discussion here should be about, but I suggest that it not be limited as long as the discussion is on topic. Agreed?
No problem and agreed
So I put together a similar test to what Brad did, trying to compare a 10 Ohm Resistive load to a 10 Ohm Inductive load and my result measures quite differently.
Please have a look and let me know what you think or if I'm missing something
https://youtu.be/AwPxagq5SQI
Regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.17, 00:38:10
No problem and agreed
So I put together a similar test to what Brad did, trying to compare a 10 Ohm Resistive load to a 10 Ohm Inductive load and my result measures quite differently.
Please have a look and let me know what you think or if I'm missing something
https://youtu.be/AwPxagq5SQI
Regards
Luc
That is because your test is completely different to mine.
My test show exactly how much power was used to !create! the magnetic field,while yours just shows power being burned off across resistors and the inductor. Where is your non inductive coil ?
What you are doing is subtracting the inductive discharge from your input power in the inductor test,while you only calculate input power in your resistive test ???
How dose this tell you how much power is used to !create! the magnetic field?
So in your inductor test,you have calculated P/in with your scope,and then calculated the P/out from the inductive kickback with the scope (magnetic field now gone),and the scope has subtracted your inductive kickback P/out from the P/in and you still end up with 600mW P/in.
So as the inductive kickback energy(energy stored in the magnetic field) has already been subtracted from the P/in,where exactly is the extra 600mW going ?
You have 255mA RMS flowing through your .1 ohm CVR,so that is dissipating 6.5mW,so your still missing 593.5mW. Could it be that this missing 593.5mW is used to !create! the magnetic field?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 00:51:23
That is because your test is completely different to mine.
Yes I agree
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 00:51:23
My test show exactly how much power was used to !create! the magnetic field,while yours just shows power being burned off across resistors and the inductor. Where is your non inductive coil ?
I'm not convinced your test validated what you think or wrote. From what I read (after your test) Poynt and Verpies did not seem to agree it proved what you claimed and why I attempted a different way of testing.
I'm quite sure a wire wound resistor qualifies as a non Inductive resistive coil. After all, it's only the resistance value that needs to compare and be the same.
Poynt and or Verpies can correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 00:51:23
What you are doing is subtracting the inductive discharge from your input power in the inductor test,while you only calculate input power in your resistive test ???
How dose this tell you how much power is used to !create! the magnetic field?
Yes, exactly what I want. By substantiating the Inductive recovery which actually had to go through the 10 Ohms of resistance for a second time, give me a rough estimate of a balance of power less the Inductive part. This balance could represents the bulk of the power dissipated in the coils resistance. Which would need to be calculated by someone with the qualification and inclination to do so.
If that's an incorrect approach, then Poynt or Verpies can recommend the correct test.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 00:51:23
So in your inductor test,you have calculated P/in with your scope,and then calculated the P/out from the inductive kickback with the scope (magnetic field now gone),and the scope has subtracted your inductive kickback P/out from the P/in and you still end up with 600mW P/in.
Exactly
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 00:51:23
So as the inductive kickback energy(energy stored in the magnetic field) has already been subtracted from the P/in,where exactly is the extra 600mW going ?
You have 255mA RMS flowing through your .1 ohm CVR,so that is dissipating 6.5mW,so your still missing 593.5mW.
Could it be that this missing 593.5mW is used to create the magnetic field?.
Brad
How can the extra 600mW be all for for creating the magnetic field since
Nothing has yet been deducted for the coils resistive losses?
Poynt or Verpies can possibly figure out how much of the left over power goes to resistance losses since Frequency, duty cycle, Voltage, average and rms Current data is all there below with scope shots.
Cheers
Luc
ADDEDTest Frequency 400Hz
Inductive duty on time 50%
Resistive duty on time 10%
Both 10 Ohms DC Resitance
Coil Inductance 130mH
Wire wound Resistor Inductance 8uH
Woa
How come your post has gone like 50 foot wide Luc ?
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.16, 20:45:24
Yes, and the answer is unclear if that can be done without affecting the electromagnetic field.
I am certain that the magnetic flux, which penetrates an ideal shorted coil, will NOT change due to any external disturbances, such as motions of ferromagnetic objects in the vicinity of the coil. See this principle in action in
this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
It is also clear to me that these external disturbances to such coil
will disturb its current.
What I am not certain about, is how the disturbed current of a pre-charged col, will affect the coil's subsequent discharge of energy.
Electric current alone, is NOT energy.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.02.17, 04:31:57
Woa
How come your post has gone like 50 foot wide Luc ?
Don't know mate?... I don't see it like that in my browser!
Is it still like that for you or anyone else?
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 12:32:59
I am certain that the magnetic flux, which penetrates an ideal shorted coil, will NOT change due to any external disturbances, such as motions of ferromagnetic objects in the vicinity of the coil. See this principle in action in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
It is also clear to me that these external disturbances to such coil will disturb its current.
What I am not certain about, is how the disturbed current of a pre-charged col, will affect the coil's subsequent discharge of energy.
Electric current alone, is NOT energy.
Well, I'm glad we are on the same page and now can focus on the task of real physical test to get to the truth of the matter.
Thanks for sharing all your knowledge in this matter. Without your help I would of given up on this discussion.
Kind regards
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.02.17, 13:43:10
Don't know mate?... I don't see it like that in my browser!
Is it still like that for you or anyone else?
Cheers
Luc
No,it's good now.
It was the only post on the page like it,all the rest were normal.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 12:32:59
I am certain that the magnetic flux, which penetrates an ideal shorted coil, will NOT change due to any external disturbances, such as motions of ferromagnetic objects in the vicinity of the coil. See this principle in action in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
Perhaps the quantity of flux or flux density does not change (perhaps), but there is most certainly a disturbance in the coil's magnetic field via flux path and/or density change in a non-symmetrical fashion. This will (or should) generate a superimposed emf across the coil's finite resistance and burn off energy until the disturbance (changing flux path or density) ceases. After the event the coil's energy should therefore be reduced due to the heat loss in the resistance.
Quote
It is also clear to me that these external disturbances to such coil will disturb its current.
Agreed, and I envision it slightly different than you have drawn. In order to burn off some extra energy in the resistance, the current would have to increase during the event. After the event, the slowly declining current (appearing flat) will have stepped down a level.
Quote
What I am not certain about, is how the disturbed current of a pre-charged col, will affect the coil's subsequent discharge of energy.
Can you clarify this question?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 12:32:59
What I am not certain about, is how the disturbed current of a pre-charged col, will affect the coil's subsequent discharge of energy.
Electric current alone, is NOT energy.
My take on it.
Edit. You are talking about a perfect shorted coil, therefore zero resistance.
If the disturbance came about because of movement of a nearby PM, then (assuming no further movement) the energy recovered when the coil is fully discharged from its new current value down to zero is one half the flux-linkage change from its previous holding value down to whatever value the PM is supplying multiplied by that new current value.
If the disturbance came from movement of a nearby magnetically soft material that sees only the field from the coil then it is a bit more complex, but can be found if the new value of inductance due to that nearby material is known. Then it is simply 1/2Li
2 where L is that new value and i is the current at the start of the discharge
Smudge
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 15:47:44
Perhaps the quantity of flux or flux density does not change (perhaps), but there is most certainly a disturbance in the coil's magnetic field via flux path and/or density change in a non-symmetrical fashion.
I have some experience with Type2 superconducting coils and I can tell you that the magnetic flux density (B) definitely changes in response to the approach of a permanent magnet and can be picked up by a magnetometer probe in the bore or near it.
However, none of the surface integration exercises that I've done on it indicated that the magnetic flux (Φ), which penetrates the bore, changes in response to that external field disturbance.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 15:47:44
This will (or should) generate a superimposed emf across the coil's finite resistance and burn off energy until the disturbance (changing flux path or density) ceases.
After the event the coil's energy should therefore be reduced due to the heat loss in the resistance.
It doesn't have the time to burn off the energy of the disturbance before the discharge stage, because the resistance is so small and the time constant is so long.
To date, the time constant of a SC magnet has been proven empirically to be at least 23 years by the Belgium's Membach Geophysical Station and the theoretical estimates are at 100000 years.
...and superconductors chilled below the "vortex glass temperature" are claimed to truly have zero resistance.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 15:47:44
In order to burn off some extra energy in the resistance, the current would have to increase during the event.
But the current, after the attraction of the soft ferromagnetic slug, decreases.
This can be even demonstrated with resistive coils, that attract slugs (or their core halves) during time periods, which are much shorter than their initial time constant (Tau).
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 15:47:44
Agreed, and I envision it slightly different than you have drawn.
After the event, the slowly declining current (appearing flat) will have stepped down a level.
Could you draw that in MSPaint ?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 15:47:44
Quote from: verpies
What I am not certain about, is how the disturbed current of a pre-charged coil, will affect the coil's subsequent discharge of energy.
Can you clarify this question?
It was not a question, I was merely writing what I was uncertain about.
The scenario, to which my statement referred to, progresses like this:
- SC solenoidal coil getts pre-charged with current,
- the coil becomes shorted,
- the coil attracts a soft ferromagnetic slug into its bore from afar (which disturbs the coil's current but not the flux which penetrates its bore),
- that disturbed current gets quickly discharged into a capacitor.
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.17, 15:55:02
If the disturbance came from the movement of a nearby magnetically soft material that sees only the field from the coil then it is a bit more complex, but can be found if the new value of inductance due to that nearby material is known. Then it is simply 1/2Li2 where L is that new value and i is the current at the start of the discharge
Will this relationship be preserved, too ?:
½Φ
2/L
1 == ½Φ
2/L
2where L
1 is the inductance before the disturbance and L
2 is the inductance after the disturbance and Φ is the flux penetrating the shorted superconducting coil before and after the disturbance (before discharge, though) ?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 17:55:18
Will this relationship be preserved, too ?:
½Φ2/L1 == ½Φ2/L2
where L1 is the inductance before the disturbance and L2 is the inductance after the disturbance and Φ is the flux penetrating the shorted superconducting coil before and after the disturbance (before discharge, though) ?
I can't see that could hold as L
1 is not equal to L
2.
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.02.17, 18:24:19
I can't see that could hold as L1 is not equal to L2.
Yes, L
1 is smaller than L
2
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 17:27:57
I have some experience with Type2 superconducting coils and I can tell you that the magnetic flux density (B) definitely changes in response to the approach of a permanent magnet and can be picked up by a magnetometer probe in the bore or near it.
However, none of the surface integration exercises that I've done on it indicated that the magnetic flux (Φ), which penetrates the bore, changes in response to that external field disturbance.
Doesn't a dynamic change in flux density change the coil's inductance? Wouldn't a dynamic change in inductance change or create an emf?
Here is a thought experiment that could be performed on the bench. Using the attached setup, pipe a DC current through the coil, taking care to keep the core well below saturation (it most likely won't anyway with an air gap). Insert a CVR in the coil circuit for monitoring. Ideally, rig something up that can mechanically vibrate the bottom "keeper" piece of the core in a vertical fashion to vary the air gap.
1) Will a varying emf be detectable across the CVR?
2) If there IS an induced emf, does it extend both above and below the steady state CVR voltage?
Quote
It was not a question, I was merely writing what I was uncertain about.
The scenario, to which my statement referred to, begins with a SC solenoidal coil getting pre-charged with current, next: getting shorted, next: attracting a soft ferromagnetic slug into its bore from afar (which disturbs the coil's current but not flux), and finally discharging that disturbed current into a capacitor.
I'm still not clear on the scenario. "finally discharging that disturbed current into a capacitor" does not make sense to me. What is the disturbed current? After the attracted slug event is over, there is a new "steady state" condition of lower energy, and if de-energized at some point after, would do so according to the known electrical laws.
Hi Poynt,
I actually have such a test device ready to go.
It's a double ferrite E core with top E fixed and the bottom falls with gravity once the cores are demagnetizes.
Does the test frequency matter?... how much of a swing in Inductance do you want, 10%, 20% 30%?
With a 1mm air gap (adjustable) the inductance swing from low to high about 3 times the value.
So the coil is powered at low inductance then the bottom E core gets magnetically pulled up so Inductance rises to maximum then Inductive discharge is collected and E core falls back down to start the cycle over.
Let me know if it sounds suitable for the test you have in mind.
Regards
Luc
I think what you're referring to is a little different than what I described Luc.
The coil is fed with a fixed, steady DC voltage. The keeper is then mechanically shifted closer to the core, then back, ideally by something that can do it at about 100Hz or so. The idea is to vary the gap mechanically (not allowing the magnetic field to draw it in per se). So in this case the keeper would need to be held firmly by the mechanical device.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 21:24:07
I think what you're referring to is a little different than what I described Luc.
The coil is fed with a fixed, steady DC voltage. The keeper is then mechanically shifted closer to the core, then back, ideally by something that can do it at about 100Hz or so. The idea is to vary the gap mechanically (not allowing the magnetic field to draw it in per se). So in this case the keeper would need to be held firmly by the mechanical device.
Yep, that's not what I've got.
I did build one of those a few years ago but took it apart after the I cores on the rotor came apart. Actually have a video of it when it blew up.
Regards
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 20:01:58
Doesn't a dynamic change in flux density change the coil's inductance?
Not with an air coil. It might change the inductance of a cored coil if the flux density moves part of the core above the BH knee.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 20:01:58
Wouldn't a dynamic change in inductance change or create an emf?
I would think so
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.17, 20:01:58
Here is a thought experiment that could be performed on the bench.
Using the attached setup, pipe a DC current through the coil, taking care to keep the core well below saturation (it most likely won't anyway with an air gap). Insert a CVR in the coil circuit for monitoring. Ideally, rig something up that can mechanically vibrate the bottom "keeper" piece of the core in a vertical fashion to vary the air gap.
It's a good experiment. The keeper can be glued to a woofer (a LF speaker).
I would expect an opposing emf as the keeper approaches and aiding emf when it departs.
P.S.
"Disturbed current" is the current flowing after the external flux disturbance.
Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.17, 21:54:27
Not with an air coil. It might change the inductance of a cored coil if the flux density moves part of the core above the BH knee.
During the slug attraction event, isn't the coil transitioning from an air core to a ferrite-cored coil?
Quote
I would expect an opposing emf as the keeper approaches and aiding emf when it departs.
Is this experiment not sufficiently representative of the "slug-sc coil" thought experiment? If there is an emf generated by the slug attraction event, why would it not cause a dissipation of power in the coil's finite resistance?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.18, 00:27:16
During the slug attraction event, isn't the coil transitioning from an air core to a ferrite-cored coil?
Indeed it is
Quote from: poynt99 on 2019.02.18, 00:27:16
Is this experiment not sufficiently representative of the "slug-sc coil" thought experiment? If there is an emf generated by the slug attraction event, why would it not cause a dissipation of power in the coil's finite resistance?
Because there is no time to dissipate the energy of the external flux disturbance in a coil in which the time constant is between 28 and 100000 years and resistance is so minuscule ...and in the case of "vortex glass" truly zero.
In a resistive coil, there is ample time.
BTW: I agree that the emf generated by the slug attraction event will diminish the current flowing through the coil.
hi op
We can create a magnetic field with mostly reactive power, and since PF will be in range 0.03 or so then VxIxPF will be very small.
Modern science is familiar with making magnetic fields with current, but hasn't figure out the same can be done with Voltage only.
One of Nikola Tesla best kept secrets, which is now coming to the light of day.
One concept holding science back is energy conservation theory, which assumes the Universe is a 'closed system.'
Truthfully, the universe is an open system so no closed system actually exists in reality. O0
Also, magnetic fields have 0 mass.
So E=mc^2 cannot be true because E=0 when mass=0.
but Faraday's law states a moving magnetic field (with 0 mass) produces voltage and current.
Faraday's law and energy-mass equivalence cannot both be true, they directly contradict one another.
So there is no energy-mass equivalence !!! plz forget this idea, there is absolutely no energy in Matter.
So moving mass-less fields creates energy. But we can accelerate mass-less fields without resistance unlike things with mass.
This is where energy conservation laws no longer apply.
Cheers,
wlw
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 13:09:39
We can create a magnetic field with mostly reactive power, and since PF will be in range 0.03 or so then VxIxPF will be very small.
That is true for cyclically oscillating systems.
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 13:09:39
Modern science is familiar with making magnetic fields with current, but hasn't figure out the same can be done with Voltage only.
I have not figured that out, either.
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 13:09:39
One of Nikola Tesla best kept secrets, which is now coming to the light of day.
Can you elucidate? Are you referring to windings coupled by the inter-winding capacitance (IWC) ?
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 13:09:39
Also, magnetic fields have 0 mass.
So E=mc^2 cannot be true because E=0 when mass=0.
but Faraday's law states a moving magnetic field (with 0 mass) produces voltage and current.
Faraday's law and energy-mass equivalence cannot both be true, they directly contradict one another.
You are comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
Mass has the dimensions of t
3s
-3 and magnetic flux has the dimensions of t
2s
-2.
See Page 8 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49658).
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.18, 13:09:39
So there is no energy-mass equivalence !!! plz forget this idea, there is absolutely no energy in Matter.
Tell this to Tsutomu Yamaguchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi)
Mass is created by this (imaginary) Aether. No Aether = 0 mass. Yet, all material things contain some energy. Not enough to light your house or charge your car. As some think, using Al for such fuel, etc...
NickZ
Neither M&M, Sagnac nor any other experiment has detected Aether or measured its properties. The demands on its properties are contradictory, anyway.
Aether has been discussed to death in this thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=220.msg7664#msg7664). Go there if you want to continue.
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.18, 13:58:34
That is true for cyclically oscillating systems.
I have not figured that out, either.
Can you elucidate? Are you referring to windings coupled by the inter-winding capacitance (IWC) ?
You are comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
Mass has the dimensions of t3s-3 and magnetic flux has the dimensions of t2s-2.
See Page 8 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49658).
Tell this to Tsutomu Yamaguchi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi)
Yes oscillating magnetic fields.
I have figure it out. O0
Tesla told us he noticed capacitors can be discharged thousands of times a second without exploding or making equivalent heat.
Alternators cannot do that, they explode, and this stood out to me as important.
No idea what ur talking about, but all 'dimensions' are illusions of perspective. Do realize that math only exists in the mind of mankind.
Beyond that it has no implicit existence.
Don't know that fella, but I'll tell anyone who will listen !!
"Absolutely No energy in matter" Walter Russell said it first. I just stand on his shoulders to see further !!!
https://www.philosophy.org/store/p8/A_New_Concept_of_the_Universe.html#/
You can learn too!
Cheers,
wlw
Not discussed to death by us here looking for free energy. Not energy from fuel, which does not exist as you would like, except in your imagination.
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.18, 19:31:48
Not discussed to death by us here looking for free energy. Not energy from fuel, which does not exist as you would like, except in your imagination.
NickZ
Walter Russell gave mankind free energy concept. see here: https://www.philosophy.org/russell-optic-dynamo-generator.html#/
read pdf and schematics pics
ppl just need to open their minds. see what's already in front of them. O0
Cheers,
wlw
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.18, 18:01:04
Mass is created by this (imaginary) Aether. No Aether = 0 mass. Yet, all material things contain some energy. Not enough to light your house or charge your car. As some think, using Al for such fuel, etc...
NickZ
Mass is compressed light which simulates energy by motion. But this motion is not the energy it simulates, just like a painting representing the idea of a painter.
All energy exists in static, un-moving Light. It is simulated in moving vibrating matter for cycles of repetition which we call divided light or 'colors'.
So there is no single Joule of energy in any piece of matter, we only think there is because we believe our senses.
Cheers,
wlw
So, you mean that burning a piece wood won't produce a release of stormed energy? Sounds strange...
You must mean something else. As that is about all that we have ever been doing. Burning things up, I mean.
NickZ
Verpies
QuoteNeither M&M, Sagnac nor any other experiment has detected Aether or measured its properties. The demands on its properties are contradictory, anyway.
Aether has been discussed to death in this thread. Go there if you want to continue.
It's debatable, logically the electric field around an electron should be impossible according to science.
I mean, if a particle is just a benign piece of matter like a rock then how can it have a perpetual "field of force" around it?. This field of force also interacts with countless other supposed fields near it none of them diminished in strength due to the interaction. A mysterious field of force which supposedly acts through a distance. Said distance supposedly devoid of anything which could translate said force which could cause an interaction. It would seem to violate all logic and reason on the surface.
Let's put it into the proper perspective. If a particle is just a benign piece of matter like a rock and a rock was perpetually floating above the ground right in front of us would you not find this the least bit curious?. The experts might call this heresy because there must be a force involved and a means for a translation of force. So why is it considered heresy on the observable level but not the atomic level?.
I tend to agree with what Einstein claimed during his later years. To presume a force could translate through a space in which there is no tangible means for it to translate is fundamentally flawed. In every other instance found in nature some medium for a translation of force must be present. As for an aether, it is equally absurd because simply labeling an unknown doesn't make it any more or less believable or unknown.
It just seems amateur any way I look at it.
AC
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.18, 20:14:05
So, you mean that burning a piece wood won't produce a release of storted energy? Sounds strange...
You must mean something else. As that is about all that we have ever been doing. Burning things up, I mean.
NickZ
Wood is matter, which is frozen light. When we burn it, all we do is liberate its light & heat.
But that heat we feel and light we see is not energy. It is a simulation of energy, simulated by fast motion.
You will understand better by reading "Misconceptions of Energy" in Dr. Walter Russell's 'A New Concept of the Universe'.
Basically, a painter isn't his painting a poet isn't his poem a songwriter isn't his song. Likewise, God created our Universe and its Energy but isn't his creation.
So the source of all energy is the static Light of God's Mind, which is like the Fulcrum of a lever. It doesn't move, but the oscillation or moving lever we think is the energy.
From this basic example you can plainly see all the energy is actually in the still Fulcrum.
Cheers,
wlw
And, the sky is not blue, it's just the way you're looking at it...
I don't need to understand, it better, I need a free energy device. Not theory.
The proof is in the pudding...
NickZ
The phlogiston theory was better. C.C
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.19, 02:50:57
And, the sky is not blue, it's just the way you're looking at it...
I don't need to understand, it better, I need a free energy device. Not theory.
The proof is in the pudding...
NickZ
You want free energy, but aren't willing to understand what energy actually IS... or the true source of it in our Universe.
The cardinal error of science is shutting the Creator out of His Creation.
plz don't make the same mistake... otherwise u will be grasping in the dark like so many others b4 u.
Cheers,
wlw
Can we at least ALL agree that we must understand how NATURE creates POWER ??
then we can, like Tesla told us, "hook our machines to very wheelwork of Nature" !!!
but we must know how Nature's wheelwork operates....
enter Dr. Walter Russell who Nikola Tesla told to lock his knowledge up for 1000 years until mankind was ready for it.
why would Tesla say this???
Cheers,
wlw
Your advice is nice, but it's not as good as showing how well you can build a self runner. We already have thousands of pages of theories and advice. Not a single self runner to show for it. If you get the point...
NickZ
Nick,
You may be a nice guy on the beach were you practise your surfing skills to toerist and so on.
What I don't understand after reading your retorik from the last decade that a forum like OUR is allowing you to demotivate everyone on this platform.
You don't even have the respect to let others continue their ideas without intervening with your utterly nonsense.
You probably don't have any idea about self reflection, but thats ok.. the system here allows you to act as a destructive factor.
I'm sorry but I also get tired of reading your one liners without any positive contribution on what others on a higher level try to achieve.
I can tell this forum site one thing, maybe not to nice to hear.
Its a kind of weakness in my opinion that they let you continue to bark at every thread.
If this continues, there is for me no motivation to post any OU related to Bunk or Ruslan whathever policy.
I have deep respect for guys like Verpies who have to deal with this nonsense for a very long time here.
So please do us and many a favor and stay on your own thread.
Again, not personal but come on.... have you ever looked back in your own post?
Ape: All your post to me have been negative comments. Do you have any good comments of your own, for once.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. If you have something to show or tell, don't let me be in your way.
Let's just agree to disagree.
NickZ
And Ape: If my comment to Verpies is what you are barking about. Too bad. He is jumping on all threads himself to impose his conventional views, concerning closed system devices. And repeating how Tesla has nothing to do with free energy, and so forth. So perhaps you guys should start a thread called Energy from Mass, instead. Where I will never bother you or Verpies again.
That's how I think and feel about it. But by all means continue with that split tube and aluminum ring power device.
All you want. Or what ever else it is you are complaining about.
This is a free energy forum, remember. Not energy from FUEL... Sorry if you don't agree.
NickZ
@Ape: That is why we need a "MOVE" button so much on this forum, so moderators can move such off-topic posts to different and more appropriate threads.
At the moment I can remove posts of other users, but that is rude and crude. I wish I could move posts instead.
Nick is stubborn and devoid of self-reflection but he is not the worst offender on this forum. At least he experiments a little and he hasn't called me a pendejo yet.
There are others who are truly insidious and Chet has them on a blacklist. They can be recognized by not doing any work or not sharing it.
Is devoid of self reflection, same as being a pendejo? Almost?
Stubborn, yes and partial to free energy, as well.
Well , I have the highest respect for all of you, sorry if I don't show it.
Verpies, what can you say about free energy. Anything, proff???
You won't want to be put on the "black list", oh my... Or the "dark side"...
Or late for class, even.
Aluminum as fuel 01... Part two...
Ape: Lighten up! He's getting it ready... To fire it up...
NickZ
Clarity
With the closing of overunity.com, the dynamic here has changed ,
Hopefully assistance can be given to our host,
So this forum can also remain open ..
It should be remembered that we are all guests on another's time and dime..
Our hosts dream is to bring FE open source to the world ,( as was Stefan's )
Verpies refers to some list ... all that was mentioned is with the closure of OU.com
There have been persons who made it their goal to disrupt open source.
Hopefully Keeping that to a minimum here ...................
This is the main reason Peter closed open registration here ..we do not need such persons doing similar !
And yes the goal is to hopefully raise the signal here
And diminish the noise .
Might take awhile, but it is definitely going to happen !
It must happen!
The reason I am so confident?
It was this way ( high signal.. minimal noise) for almost a decade ( upto COVID)
Thanks Chet, and good luck with that.
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.19, 18:38:13
Your advice is nice, but it's not as good as showing how well you can build a self runner. We already have thousands of pages of theories and advice. Not a single self runner to show for it. If you get the point...
NickZ
That is all about to change very shortly...
I do agree with WLW however. Understanding the properties of crude oil for example, and the refinement processes that have led to a mind boggling amount of products. This kind of research applied to aether and frequency... the universe would be our oyster.
That type of research has been denied, by the powers that be. For a reason.
And free energy is not even a theme mentioned in schools, nor are Tesla's ideas allowed.
We are being manipulated, by the dark governments, and educational systems. How long will we allow them to take control of our lives? They even deny UFOs and ETs. And rush to lock them away from our sight. Not to mention the thousands of people working in the many underground secret facilities.
Even guys like Verpies, is here to tell us that free energy from the ambient is non existent, that Tesla was wrong concerning the mentioned Aether, and that Tesla was not even into free energy, that he is aware of. So, excuse me for not trusting them.
Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit...like mushrooms...
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.19, 22:18:00
Is being devoid of self-reflection, same as being a pendejo?
No but it is a prerequisite for immutability and stubbornness, which you consider a virtue.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.19, 22:18:00
Verpies, what can you say about free energy. Anything, proff???
The jury is still out
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.20, 01:10:26
Even guys like Verpies, is here to tell us that free energy from the ambient is non existent,
Not exactly. There is some free energy that can be harvested from the environment, such as the sunlight, wind, tides, sea waves, geothermal energy gradient, lightning and the even minuscule energy of the vertical electric gradient above Earth's surface (see this (https://youtu.be/2HBiX9BT9ME %20%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttps://youtu.be/0VgqRigZAHA) and this (https://youtu.be/0VgqRigZAHA) ) but this is not the source of energy that you are referring to, is it?
So what source exactly are you referring to ?
Better yet, what experiment are you proposing that can verify the existence of that OTHER source, which you are proposing ?
Remember that it is impossible in principle to prove that something does not exist in an unbounded system, because:
The lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence.
So the burden of proof rests on the one who makes the proposition of existence. ...you should remember that, since we've been there before.
Anyway, this thread is about the question whether it takes energy to create a magnetic field - not what you are discussing.
@Chet & Peter:
If I had my "Copy" or "Move" button I'd move it to another thread (with a link back here). I could delete it but that would be tantamount to censorship and I won't do that.
P.S.
"Copy" is better than "Move" because it allows the moderator to move only a half of an off-topic post somewhere else by editing out the original post and adding a link to the copied/moved part .
I think that the discussion of the magnetic field is over, for now.
None of the free energy things that you mentioned are FREE.
How much do solar panels to light and heat ones house cost??? Let's say 10KW. No need to answer that proff.
I wish that I could move you to another conventional electronics forum thread, as there is no information about free energy coming from you, sir.
Talk about encouraging free energy, instead of belittleing those who are here for that.
NickZ
FWIW, I will share a true story for which I have no proof, so feel free to dismiss or not.
Some 10 years ago or so, I became aware, through a personal friend of my wife, of a company that supposedly built free energy generators. This person told me about this company and the individual Bill Wampler who owned it and of course I asked for contact info but she had none. She did say that she knew how to contact the wife of the owner and would pass on the fact that I was very interested to know more, and if they were interested, he would contact me.
Several days later I did receive a call from Bill Wampler and he graciously told me as much as he could about their company. He clearly stated that they had developed stand alone 12kW generators that they gave away freely to certain peoples of third world countries who needed electrical energy to survive. He also said he made enough money manufacturing desalination equipment to be able to finance the operation. They were extremely private and stealth about their location and other details concerning their operations, etc., and had no interest in commercialization of their product. He stated that governments would not allow them to continue if they went commercial and in fact, their lab had been raided by the ATF who confiscated all equipment, prototypes, inventory, files, etc. Fortunately, they anticipated such a move and had multiple backups of everything. Bill also shared that Jesus Christ was the CEO of the company and no decisions were made without prayer and meditation.
My point is sharing all this is simple. Although he wouldn't give any details of how their device worked, he did say that it was solid state with no moving parts and needed a battery to start. He also said that the energy is all around us and there are two problems one must solve. First, you have to learn how to "collect" the energy and second, you must then learn how to "control" it! I will never forget his emphasis on these points as he shared in the early days of research how one of the devices began to run away with itself and they all fled from the lab for fear of their lives. Obviously they survived and were able to solve the problem.
IMO, the aether contains energy and because of this belief, I continue to pursue OU/FE or whatever you wish to call it even though up to this point, I've not been successful.
Regards,
Pm
One way to free energy could be with recreating lighthing, even Edwin Gray said something like that. I proposed the sequence of operations needed and in fact it is simple electrostatic induction and interfacing with ground just accelerated to Mhz range. Nothing fancy at all.
Verpies
QuoteRemember that it is impossible in principle to prove that something does not exist in an unbounded system, because: The lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence.
So the burden of proof rests on the one who makes the proposition of existence. ...you should remember that, since we've been there before.
The burden of proof of what?, science has already proven the universe is energy and energy is found everywhere on every level.
The only relevant claim the critics of free energy have is that some may not be intelligent enough to convert some more complex forms of energy.
We should be clear the concept of a universe full of energy, "free energy", was never in question only our intelligence and/or ability to access and convert some forms of energy. We could even go further and say the only real problem remaining is the direct conversion of the energy to usable electrical energy. We already understand how to rearrange molecules/atoms to produce energy using combustion, fission, fusion but the conversion to electricity is indirect. The next logical step is the direct conversion of energy and there are literally tens of millions of scientists working on this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029549398002829
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article/6/3/031305/123870/High-power-direct-energy-conversion-by-nuclear
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128199848000084
Which begs the question, what exactly is your objection Verpies?.
-It cannot be that energy is not present everywhere because science has already proven energy is everywhere on every level.
-It cannot be that nobody is working on the direct conversion of heat, EM energy or atomic energy to electricity very similar to a supposed free energy device. Millions are working on the problem and the science journals are littered with proposals and experiments.
It would seem to me the only objection left is that you have not seen a free energy/direct conversion device first hand. No worries, I have seen a few first hand and I suspect you will too in the near future.
AC
At Walmart, $19.98.10 KW, self starting.
Made in China.
That will be the day...
NickZ
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.21, 17:19:41
It would seem to me the only objection left is that you have not seen a free energy/direct conversion device first hand.
I have only seen a working Wesley Gary motor but I did not build the working model and could not get it to work myself.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.21, 17:19:41
Which begs the question, what exactly is your objection Verpies?.
Lack of precise definition of nonmaterial energy sources. The umbrella term "energy from the ambient" which is so vague it can mean anything or nothing.
And in Nick's vernacular, it seems to mean anything as long as it is not material. I object to this exclusion.
I don't object to the conversion of charged particle's kinetic energy into electric energy, but what is the source of these charged particles (sun and Aurora Borealis) ?. Not only such conversion makes sense but most importantly you are precisely defining this mechanism. Nick does not define anything precisely.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.21, 13:31:10
None of the free energy things that you mentioned are FREE.
In that list I have written, the energy is free and it is from the environment. The devices to collect that energy are not free but that is a different story.
I asked you a question. What exact source of energy from the environment are you proposing if you do not like the ones from my list ?
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.21, 13:31:10
How much do solar panels to light and heat ones house cost??? Let's say 10KW.
A lot but these panels are just collectors. The energy itself is free.
Per every 1m of elevation there is a potential difference of 100V to ground, while using radio antenna I think it is not so true. In fact using Tesla coil may just occur like having elevated plate at hgh place above ground.
Quote from: forest on 2023.11.21, 20:35:48
Per every 1m of elevation there is a potential difference of 100V to ground, while using radio antenna I think it is not so true.
I already enumerated this source of energy in my list and gave links to videos of experiments that extract it (see this (https://youtu.be/2HBiX9BT9ME %20%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttps://youtu.be/0VgqRigZAHA) and this (https://youtu.be/0VgqRigZAHA) )
However Nick responded to this list as follows:
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.21, 13:31:10
None of the free energy things that you mentioned are FREE.
Which is incorrect of course because he is conflating the cost of collectors with the cost of energy.
...but must importantly he has not proposed any alternative.
My response may be incorrect, but, what I was getting at is the actual cost of an Akula's/Ruslan device, compared to any thing in Verpies list. Production cost are probably about $50 dollars total to build, maybe less from China.
Actual cost afterwards, are minimal. And, yes the energy is free, not paid for, not dependent on grid systems.
May not be free either, but, cheap, to build. Some guys are still at it Verpies, so, give it time.
NickZ
PS : And are you oblivious to how many times myself and others have mentioned what you called an "imaginary" source??? That you are not aware of, and about the devices that utilize that source. Which you are "not aware of".
Perhaps proff, you need to do do your homework.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.21, 21:06:25
PS : And are you oblivious to how many times myself and others have mentioned what you called an "imaginary" source???
Imaginary source will not do.
It has to be something tangible and measurable. At least define its properties precisely or design an experiment to measure these properties.
Will not do, well good luck with that. Your current science can't measure, nor is it currently tangible, sorry.
Perhaps you'd like to show us what will do. Besides paying electric bills.
NickZ.
It has already been designed, you must of missed it.
NickZ
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 00:17:54
Your current science can't measure, nor is it currently tangible to us, sorry.
If it cannot be measured, then how do you propose to distinguish it from a contrivance of your mind ?
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 00:17:54
Perhaps you'd like to show us what will do.
For example take sun light. Its reflection and refraction angles can be measured with a ruler. Its wavelength can be measured by interference and diffraction.
Its chirality can be measured by polarizers, its power can be measured with calorimeters. ...plethora of experiments and properties that can be measured for this source of energy.
What properties does your energy source have and how can they be measured? What experiments can be performed on it to describe its properties ?
P.S.
"My" science? I do not own any science. I just follow the scientific method of discovery.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/The_Scientific_Method.svg/390px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png)
It can not be measured, that's the problem at this time. With the science that you don't own.
Maybe some day they will be able to measure what you call nothing. This is about non material sources.
Like trying to prove sprits.
NickZ
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.11.21, 17:19:41
Verpies
//Which begs the question, what exactly is your objection Verpies?.//
Verpies is right in every bit of his statement.
Free Energy wording is to be understood as
Energy for FreeThe device is not for free but energy is.
e.g. Niagara Falls, a spectacular waterfall in the Niagara River, is the world's greatest waterfall by volume at 2,832 m 3. It is split in two by Goat Island.
and this energy is for free = FE.
The set of electric generators there converting mechanical energy into electric energy is not for free.
In other words net energy gain pays for all expenses and maintenance and in addition to it makes few guys very wealthy from sale of
that particular FE.
You would do it too so I do not see a problem here.
If you were to build your own without the license it will cost you money but it will be for free till someone finds you guilty.
The same is with solar, wind, thermal energy, mechanical energy of sea water wave, and energy from isotopes.
The more exotic conversion is energy from falling wall or building, the volcanic energy of lava, the tectonic energy, vibrational energy of devices or structures
seen as a waste till it is converted to FE, sewer system energy, flow of rain water in city pipes system, highway noise and vibration system, or walking people vibrational system.
In one sentence I gave you all of these FE sources sparkling your imagination.
Yet another exotic application is my own energy extraction from Schumann waveguide .
FE= Something or someone loss becoming your gain.
e.g. when you are a child.. or when you are supported by parents, lover etc.
It is up to you to use it or lose it.
This fine group of strangers here is a random group of driven by potential of sudden opportunity individuals garbing ideas to their own
as fast as they can before someone else does it.- nothing wrong just human nature.
Direct energy conversion is not important or not that important, as you must pay for a "convertor" anyhow.
Wesley
Quote from: stivep on 2023.11.22, 00:54:52
The same is with solar, wind, thermal energy, mechanical energy of sea water wave, and energy from isotopes.
Yes all these are sources of free energy, but to parametrize them fully you'd have to consider several other factors, such as:
- energy density and specific energy (see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#List_of_material_energy_densities))
- power
- portability
- periodicity/constantness
- safety
- controllability
Energy density being the main usability factor because if you had something portable with an Exajoule per Liter (or Gallon) that does not release all of it within an hour, then you're finished with the search.
Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 00:47:04
It can not be measured, that's the problem at this time. With the science that you don't own.
Maybe some day they will be able to measure what you call nothing. This is about non material sources.
...
What cannot be measured and is not material is not science but superstition. If supertition could provide power, we'd have had free electricity for millennia.
That said, I respect urban legend specialists. Like poets, they make people dream, but only the naive.
What if they discourage any experimentation that does not fit that dream ?
Who are they?
How about, who is encouraging Free Energy tests and sharing successfull results , impartially? Instead...
I have the feeling that some one has been let loose, again.
NickZ
Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.22, 00:09:15
Imaginary source will not do.
It has to be something tangible and measurable. At least define its properties precisely or design an experiment to measure these properties.
Attributes: Does not have a smell, can't be seen with the naked eye, or any other way, does not weigh anything, and your scientist know about it, but, are afraid to say so.
Why don't you educate your self concerning where the energy comes from.
He' right, " it's not science", it's something beyond limited conventional science, and their lies.
And it doesn't have to be something material, to be real. In case you don't know.
NickZ
Lets move to the thread "Where does the energy come from ? (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4295.msg109129#msg109129)"