As I am getting on in years now (I'm 85) it is time to put out some of the stuff I have accumulated on my computer hard drive. While working for Chava I did some research into the Unruh/Coler story that led me to the UK National Archives. Up to that time the internet buzzed with the declassified British Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee (BIOS) Final Report No.1043 which was the only source for the Unruh/Coler devices. The National Archives provided more data that has since then leaked out to the internet. Just to put the story straight below is my original paper written in 2009 with the results of my research. That work showed the Stromerzeuger to be based on the Norrby invention whereas before then there was much speculation as to the exact architecture of the device. I still have images of all the pages in the National Archives, there are about 188 jpeg images each about 4Mb. I recall someone (possibly Bob Flower) creating a pdf file of this string but I don't have a copy of that.
Having a much clearer idea of the Stromerzeuger has led me to various speculations of how the device worked and these will be posted on this thread. One such is already seen in the "Corbino Effects and Coler" thread here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3377.0 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3377.0). That work seems to have died. Perhaps my ramblings will encourage other people to experiment. I realize that the Magnetstromapparat anomalous output is now considered by some to be due to the early use of silk covered copper wire which wound around an electrically conductive PM would in a damp atmosphere create a battery effect. I don't think this applies to the Stromerzeuger as the work on that spanned several decades and we later find Coler using enameled copper wire. The Stromerzeuger uses soft iron cores where conduction electrons (at a density of about one per atom) can become spin-polarized, and that opens the door to many possible schemes for extracting energy from the inner quantum world that holds atoms together and keeps atomic electrons spinning and orbiting.
The first paper here was written in 2005 before the National Archive data was available and shows my (incorrect) attempt at describing the Stromerzeuger layout. I also suggest the possibility that energy can be gained from the microwave Larmor precessions of atomic electrons working as charge pumps, pumping traveling conduction electrons that follow helical paths due to Cyclotron effects. Because the Larmor frequency and the Cyclotron frequency have a common cause and are phase locked, this creates a rectification effect pumping the conduction electrons in one preferential direction. To my knowledge this idea has never been explored.
The second paper (written in 2009 but only recently converted to pdf) is the result of my National Archives research where I discovered that Coler was given a contract to work in the UK to replicate the Stromerzeuger, but unfortunately he had a heart attack and died before he could claim success.
Smudge
Thank you for posting your investigations O0
Very interesting ;)
;) :)
Regards
Mike 8)
Here is a follow up to the possibility that FMR precessions are the source of the anomalous power in the Stromerzeuger. This idea uses an Fe ring core (laminated perhaps in the form of a stack of thin annuli) with a toroidal coil supplied with DC to magnetically bias the core. The ring core is used as a shorted turn on a 3 legged transformer core where the other two legs have primary and secondary windings. The shorted Fe turn ensures that all the flux from the primary is directed through the secondary, but if the current in that short gets some anomalous induced voltage that will influence the transfer of energy from primary to secondary. This could be a good experiment to play with, noting that the Stromerzeuger is thought to have operated at 180KHz.
Enjoy!
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.09.17, 18:20:57
Here is a follow up to the possibility that FMR precessions are the source of the anomalous power in the Stromerzeuger. This idea uses an Fe ring core (laminated perhaps in the form of a stack of thin annuli) with a toroidal coil supplied with DC to magnetically bias the core. The ring core is used as a shorted turn on a 3 legged transformer core where the other two legs have primary and secondary windings. The shorted Fe turn ensures that all the flux from the primary is directed through the secondary, but if the current in that short gets some anomalous induced voltage that will influence the transfer of energy from primary to secondary. This could be a good experiment to play with, noting that the Stromerzeuger is thought to have operated at 180KHz.
Enjoy!
Smudge
Smudge,
Thanks for the paper. I have a question regarding your comment "The next step is to magnetize the iron in phase with the induced current.". I assume you are referring to the induced current in the iron toroid correct?
Shouldn't be that difficult to try!
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2019.09.17, 18:40:56
Smudge,
Thanks for the paper. I have a question regarding your comment "The next step is to magnetize the iron in phase with the induced current.". I assume you are referring to the induced current in the iron toroid correct?
Yes that's right. Edit need to think a bit more as I said DC in the post. It's a few years since I wrote that paper. :-[
QuoteShouldn't be that difficult to try!
I look forward to any results you may get.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.09.17, 18:56:16
Yes that's right. Edit need to think a bit more as I said DC in the post. It's a few years since I wrote that paper. :-[
I look forward to any results you may get.
Smudge
Well, the initial results were not conclusive by any means due to several factors. First, the iron toroid with the few turns I applied had a measured inductance of 6uH which required a large magnetizing current even at 180kHz. Also, the primary had too many turns resulting in too little input current at 100-180kHz.
So, I'll rewind the coils and try again. I've attached a pix of the transformer below and the toroid was cut from an iron pipe and shaped. The ferrite "E" core has the same area for all legs.
Pm
Hey that was quick work PM. On reflection I think the Fe ring should be DC magnetized since that's what Coler had in his rods. So could use a large number of turns on that ring to keep the current down. That DC current could be adjusted by hand from zero while looking for some FMR resonance effect on the normal transformer action from pri to sec. Coler found some sort of rectification effect so he needed a double layer of capacitor plates each layer having his Fe cored coils. If you get an observable distortion effects due to the magnetized ring then you may need to have two rings on that arm but biased in opposite magnetization directions so that you get push-pull effects. An additional feature could apply a transverse RF field to the Fe ring by having a driven coil around its circumference. That transverse field will make the magnetization vector on the Fe precess, see more files from my computer below where I show Fe rods. The advantage of the Fe ring is that the DC field is more uniform than it would be in a rod because there is no so-called demagnetization effect. Observable FMR requires uniform field.
Smudge
Here's another idea on anomalous voltages in Fe, see section 4 in the file below. This uses magnetic field gradient to drag spin-polarized conduction electrons to create the tens-of-microvolts voltage, then resonance to increase that voltage up to detectable levels. Should be an interesting experiment.
Smudge
OK, I did some tests using DC on the Fe toroid with both polarities varying from 0 to 3 amps and saw no change in the output voltage and current waveforms magnitude or shape! This is not conclusive IMO because I don't think I have all the parameters idealized for the effect so will continue to test with other variables.
However, I have attached AC test results below per your original suggestion and we do see some variation. I've also included a schematic of the test circuit.
The first scope pix shows measurements taken with the V2 phase at 140 degrees which produces the maximum output voltage across R1. The Pin is 13.44mw and Pout = 3.546^2/1e3 = 12.57mw for a COP = .935 .
The second pix is with V2 at 0 degrees. Now we have Pin = 9.878mw and Pout = 2.974^2/1e3 = 8.84mw for a COP = .895 so there appears to be improvement with the phase tuning of the iron toroid drive voltage/current.
The Pin to the Fe toroid is constant at 58mw and is high due to the low inductance. The frequency used was 100kHz.
Pm
I hope this is related. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0847008.pdf
I was unable to build such device but if somehow the output section is not loading the input then it' s merely a matter of creating two tank circuits. But first somebody should confirm how to make it working....
Quote from: forest on 2019.09.19, 06:09:15
I hope this is related. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0847008.pdf
I was unable to build such device but if somehow the output section is not loading the input then it' s merely a matter of creating two tank circuits. But first somebody should confirm how to make it working....
That is interesting, maybe someone could build his figure 2 and take measurements. I would be most interested in knowing what voltage is induced into the Fe coil and its phase relationship to the primary drive. It could be a useful experiment that helps us get to the root cause of Coler's device, or even develop a better device.
Smudge
Smudge,
1.7mm diameter iron isolated (plastic) garden wire rolled up as coil 30 turns (guess) on 5cm former (56.5uH @ 0.6 Ohm).
1mm diameter magnet wire, 85 turns as primary (146uH @ 0.3 Ohm)
Input sine wave 10Vpp from FG sweeping from 50Hz to 13Mhz.
1st screenshot shows 1Khz frequency, purple input from FG, blue output on iron coil.
2th screenshot shows 100Khz frequency, purple input from FG, blue output on iron coil.
3th screenshot shows 3.7Mhz (1st resonance?), purple input from FG, blue output on iron coil.
So it seems that not much happens in the lower frequency range, only at resonance (primary or iron coil?)
some transformation action starts to happen.
Itsu
Itsu,
Thanks for doing that. Could you please measure the capacity between primary and secondary as that could be the coupling mechanism. Have you been tempted to put a load on the secondary to see what the coupling efficiency is? Another experiment could put a DC bais current through the primary while AC coupling the RF drive to it.
Smudge
my Agilent U1733C LCR meter measures between primary and secondary:
120pF @ 1Khz
116pF @ 10Khz
111pF @ 100Khz
Screenshot 1 below show the signals at resonance (3.7Mhz) with a 10K load (carbon).
Purple FG input 10vpp, blue output across load on secondary.
Screenshot 2 below shows the signals at resonance (shifted to 13.9Mhz) with a 1K load (carbon).
Screenshot 3 below shows the signals at resonance (shifted to 9Mhz) with a 100 Ohm induction free load.
Will do the "DC bias current through the primary" tests later tonight.
Itsu
I put in a "DC bias current" through the primary when secondary was loaded with 1K at resonance (13.9Mhz).
FG (10Vpp) was fed in via a 100nF cap.
Starting current was 50mA, see screenshot 1
Ending current was 1.5A, see screenshot 2
Purple FG signal on primary
blue output secondary with 1K load
green DC bias current through primary
No change was noticed by me in this setup.
Same thing (no change) with 10K and 100 ohm loads.
Itsu
It may be necessary to add an RF choke on the output of the power supply that provides the bias current or else the power supply's output capacitor and very low output impedance will soak up the AC component.
Thanks ion, there is a low value (25 Ohm) high power resistor there now, but i can change that to a RF choke tonight.
By the way, i went up to a 4A DC bias current but still no change was noted.
Itsu
I think the evidence so far indicates that spin-polarized electrons have nothing to do with the coupling and that it is simply down to capacitive coupling where OU is unlikely to occur. Perhaps a quick check on input power and output power could verify.
Smudge
Input / output measurements show for 100 ohm and 10K measurements no surprises, but for the 1K measurement there is some deviation.
No DC bias was used.
Setup Input power output power resonance frequency cop
100 Ohm load 32mW 14mW 9Mhz 0.43
1K load 9mW 14mW 14Mhz 1.55 <<<<<<<<
10K load 36mW 23mW 3.7Mhz 0.63
For the 1K load situation, the below shows:
Screenshot 1 input measurement (purple: input voltage, green: input current, red: math purple x green)
Screenshot 2 output measurement (blue: output voltage, green output current, red: math blue x green)
Not sure what to think of it, but due to the high frequency used (14Mhz) i guess its close to unity.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.09.21, 19:28:23
Input / output measurements show for 100 ohm and 10K measurements no surprises, but for the 1K measurement there is some deviation.
No DC bias was used.
Setup Input power output power resonance frequency cop
100 Ohm load 32mW 14mW 9Mhz 0.43
1K load 9mW 14mW 14Mhz 1.55 <<<<<<<<
10K load 36mW 23mW 3.7Mhz 0.63
For the 1K load situation, the below shows:
Screenshot 1 input measurement (purple: input voltage, green: input current, red: math purple x green)
Screenshot 2 output measurement (blue: output voltage, green output current, red: math blue x green)
Not sure what to think of it, but due to the high frequency used (14Mhz) i guess its close to unity.
Itsu
Itsu,
There is obvious dc offset in your input current measurement with the 1k load. This would/could result in your low input power calculation but, why do your other load measurements not have this offset? If you are using your probe rather than a CSR, it could be the probe wasn't zeroed or, there is a true dc current offset with the 1k load at that frequency.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.09.21, 19:28:23
Not sure what to think of it, but due to the high frequency used (14Mhz) i guess its close to unity.
I have to agree. Using V
2/R for output power gives an answer closer to the input power. What is the upper frequency limit of your current probe?
Smudge
The current probe is a A6302 from Tektronix driven by an AM 503B controller, it goes from DC to 50Mhz.
I zero out the probe before doing a measurement, but it does show some offset in the measurements, but
this offset seems to not influence the power calculations.
Anyway, i did redo these tests and got similar results, but i also noticed that measurements this way are not good.
My FG is grounded and also my scope is, so these grounds have a hugh impact on the measurements, especially on the 1K load ones somehow.
My battery operated FG's do not go beyond 5Mhz, so no good for these tests.
Guess i leave it at that.
Itsu
Itsu,
Thanks for doing those tests. I have data from another set-up that also shows anomalous results at around 14MHz that may not have been a measurement artifact. That had a large ferrite ring core with small (a few turns) primary and secondary coils on opposite sides of the ring. It was a program of work looking into phase delay effects through transformer cores. Surprisingly our classical transmission line formula show anomalous behaviour if the transmission line has imaginary characteristic impedance. That is the ratio of voltage to current at any point along the line yields a reactance, not a resistance, voltage and current are in phase quadrature. Such reactive-impedance lines are unknown in practice so there have been no studies of their performance. But it can be shown that a magnetic rod carrying EM energy along it is a reactive-impedance line. Perhaps this discussion should be a separate thread where it can be further investigated but to whet your appetites here is a progress report on the work that was carried out. The work was never taken to a conclusion as the company that funded the work withdrew. The point I am making is that your core is just a long magnetic rod wound up into a coil and it is just possible that your measurement "artifact" may have some other explanation. To that end it would be interesting if you wound another coil of Fe wire having different wire length, and see whether the 14MHz anomaly has shifted in frequency.
Smudge
Smudge,
when eliminating the FG / scope groundloop by doing a differential probe measurement across the load
resistor, i cannot find a 14mhz resonance peak anymore.
So this anomaly probably was caused by my FG / scope probe leads acting up around 14Mhz.
As my scope can only do 1 math calculation at a time, i cannot compute the output power using this
differential value, but eyeballing the input / output result shows way below cop = 1 values now.
Itsu
Itsu,
OK, but thanks for doing this. The 14MHz anomaly that showed up in the Magnetic Delay Transformer measurements could also be such an artifact, but the fact that it seemed to occur where the propagation delay through the core is 180 degrees could be more than coincidence.
Smudge
Smudge,
with the below video i want to show what happens when using the grounded FG and scope leads (forming
a groundloop) when using a 1K load on the output while sweeping (1Khz to 20Mhz) the input.
The signal amplitude and resonance point shifts when unhooking the scope groundleads and even when
swapping the output probe tip / groundlead.
In the end i switchover to a differential probe measurment for the output, so without a groundloop
showing a fairly flat frequency resonse (up till 50Mhz) across this iron coil setup.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZyWHKXXYU
I do notice that LTspice demands each node to be grounded, so not sure why that is as we then cannot
simulate a floating node like we have here.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2019.09.25, 18:40:33
Smudge,
with the below video i want to show what happens when using the grounded FG and scope leads (forming
a groundloop) when using a 1K load on the output while sweeping (1Khz to 20Mhz) the input.
The signal amplitude and resonance point shifts when unhooking the scope groundleads and even when
swapping the output probe tip / groundlead.
In the end i switchover to a differential probe measurment for the output, so without a groundloop
showing a fairly flat frequency resonse (up till 50Mhz) across this iron coil setup.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZyWHKXXYU
I do notice that LTspice demands each node to be grounded, so not sure why that is as we then cannot
simulate a floating node like we have here.
Itsu
Itsu,
In LtSpice you do not need to necessarily use a zero ground but you can use a very high value resistor to ground instead say like a 10Megohm. This allows the initial dc tests of the simulator to be done without error and lets you simulate a "floating" ground.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM, good to know, i will try that.
Itsu
Itsu,
Here's my take on this. The image below shows the capacitive coupling across the two coils and how the ground loop plays its part. You get multiple capacitors from turns to turns whereas I only show one. So it matters which end of the secondary is grounded giving different results. For the differential measurement the 10M scope probe kills any ground loop effect.
Smudge
I agree Smudge, and by putting a scope groundlead at the FG ground directly (during input measurements),
one shorts out or shortens this ground path, impacting the resonance frequency (12.5Mhz to 10Mhz).
Thanks Itsu
As this topic has generated some more interest, I'll put the following document back. I deleted it, as I didn't want to leave stuff in Smudge's bench area if it wasn't wanted. I guess Smudge will have seen versions of this before, but other people might not have.
This story was syndicated all around the world, and was printed word-for-word in lots of small circulation local newspapers. It clearly struck a chord with local editors - who probably liked the "humorous" angle, and thought it was something that would appeal to local readers, despite it being about something in a far away country.
Well, I'm getting to it, a little late...
I needed a theoretical idea, otherwise we'd never know in which direction to experiment. I'm not yet at the point where I can experiment, but I'm making progress.
I'm going to start from the hypothesis that it's an NMR (or ESR?) resonance phenomenon. Several points converge in this direction:
- criticality of magnetization,
- oscillations,
- instabilities,
- classical physics can offer no plausible explanation for a gain in energy; we can only be dealing with quantum physics.
How can NMR be produced?
In the Magnetstromapparat, the coil generates a classical magnetic field in the core. Note that one of the coil end wires follows the core and is connected to it. The wire along the core generates a circular magnetic field around its current, which passes partly through the air and partly transversely through the core. As the current returns via another connection point on the core, between the two connection points an equal current also flows in the core, but in the opposite direction. When viewed from a distance, the magnetic fields of these two reverse currents cancel out macroscopically, but not locally, as the forward and return currents are neither sufficiently close nor symmetrical.
The odd thing is that in the core, near the surface where the wire is lodged, the field from the wire and that from the core will reinforce each other in the same way as between the wires of a bifilar line, while beyond they cancel each other out. The zone where they add up is close to the surface, and this resulting field is transverse to the coil's overall field, so these crossed fields can lead to rotation if there are phase shifts between them. I think it's because the effect is close to the surface that plates rather than cylinders were later used as cores in the supposedly more powerful Stromerzeuger.
In NMR, we similarly have a constant field on one axis, and a variable or pulsating field on a transverse axis. But these experiments are never performed in the presence of a current in the material whose atoms are to be excited. Could it be that Coler's device uses these currents to enable a kind of auto-tuning to the NMR frequency? Could it also be that, unlike conventional NMR, we no longer need a constant field in the material, because this tuning would take place locally, on a microscopic scale ?
Finally, where would the energy come from? I have no idea, except perhaps from a nuclear ß- decay involving a tiny number of atoms (Cu or Fe or Co) on which the NMR may have been locally sufficient to overcome coulombic resistance. I have little confidence in this theory, but no more in T Ludwig's ZPE theory, which attempted to reproduce the device, and I don't believe at all in the result of a magnetoacoustic phenomenon.
I like your thinking F6, so we know that the resonant current needs to pass through the resonant material, normal thinking says we need a pure magnetic field to spin the atoms, looking into the Coleman Gilespie device, I don't think they use this method, they use a magnetic pole that's horseshoe shaped pointing to the target, and I can only conclude that this causes a varying strength magnetic field across the target 90 degrees to the current flow, therefore giving a broader range of frequency to hit the magic NMR frequency.
I've said before we know the energy is there, TPU may have used iron & NMR with heat above the curie point to allow magnetic susceptance.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.01.31, 18:30:34
Well, I'm getting to it, a little late...
I needed a theoretical idea, otherwise we'd never know in which direction to experiment. I'm not yet at the point where I can experiment, but I'm making progress.
I'm going to start from the hypothesis that it's an NMR (or ESR?) resonance phenomenon. Several points converge in this direction:
- criticality of magnetization,
- oscillations,
- instabilities,
- classical physics can offer no plausible explanation for a gain in energy; we can only be dealing with quantum physics.
How can NMR be produced?
In the Magnetstromapparat, the coil generates a classical magnetic field in the core. Note that one of the coil end wires follows the core and is connected to it. The wire along the core generates a circular magnetic field around its current, which passes partly through the air and partly transversely through the core. As the current returns via another connection point on the core, between the two connection points an equal current also flows in the core, but in the opposite direction. When viewed from a distance, the magnetic fields of these two reverse currents cancel out macroscopically, but not locally, as the forward and return currents are neither sufficiently close nor symmetrical.
The odd thing is that in the core, near the surface where the wire is lodged, the field from the wire and that from the core will reinforce each other in the same way as between the wires of a bifilar line, while beyond they cancel each other out. The zone where they add up is close to the surface, and this resulting field is transverse to the coil's overall field, so these crossed fields can lead to rotation if there are phase shifts between them. I think it's because the effect is close to the surface that plates rather than cylinders were later used as cores in the supposedly more powerful Stromerzeuger.
In NMR, we similarly have a constant field on one axis, and a variable or pulsating field on a transverse axis. But these experiments are never performed in the presence of a current in the material whose atoms are to be excited. Could it be that Coler's device uses these currents to enable a kind of auto-tuning to the NMR frequency? Could it also be that, unlike conventional NMR, we no longer need a constant field in the material, because this tuning would take place locally, on a microscopic scale ?
Finally, where would the energy come from? I have no idea, except perhaps from a nuclear ß- decay involving a tiny number of atoms (Cu or Fe or Co) on which the NMR may have been locally sufficient to overcome coulombic resistance. I have little confidence in this theory, but no more in T Ludwig's ZPE theory, which attempted to reproduce the device, and I don't believe at all in the result of a magnetoacoustic phenomenon.
I've done a bit of NMR. As you already know, the NMR frequency for each element, e.g. Cu, is different. There are at least 2-3 devices that work in this area. e.g. Meyer. But also Colman and quite close StevenMark and even Kapanadze because that also fits.
There is also US4835433-drawings-page-2
In fact, what is in Meyer = Kapanadze = Ruslan = Akula = ...many other similar ones.
The key is the relationship between magnetic fields. Frequency and magnetic field intensity. There are special tables for elements.
I've done a dozen or so different tests but I haven't noticed anything special for FE. Yes, you can see NMR resonance at some point but it looks like interference. Besides, it's hard to do it with HV because there's no way to measure it. You have to hit randomly and know what to expect. Yes; according to Meyer's description, the current should increase at the output. Maybe someone will manage to do it. The dependency tolerance is very small and it is possible that even if you have the entire schematic, you still will not start the device. This is how it would look in this situation!
That would be a good explanation why we cannot repeat this.
However, current science writes about NMR that there are currently no suitable materials to extract more than nW. :(
Quote from: maxmalone on 2025.01.31, 19:21:05
There is also US4835433-drawings-page-2
That drawing has non-english annotations.
I am attaching that patent in English.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.01.31, 18:30:34
..........Finally, where would the energy come from? I have no idea, except perhaps from a nuclear ß- decay involving a tiny number of atoms (Cu or Fe or Co) on which the NMR may have been locally sufficient to overcome coulombic resistance. I have little confidence in this theory, but no more in T Ludwig's ZPE theory, which attempted to reproduce the device, and I don't believe at all in the result of a magnetoacoustic phenomenon.
When I was working on designing equipment using NQR for detecting explosives in suitcases, I had to go back to the early work on NMR in the 1940s. I remember reading 1948 papers By R. V. Pound and also a guy named Rebecca but I can't quote the actual papers (this was over 40 years ago). One of them noted that under certain circumstances the RF power emanating from the material exceeded the RF input needed to obtain the resonance.
Smudge
This bench also deals with this subject
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3377.msg58438#msg58438 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3377.msg58438#msg58438)
Smudge
Not knowing the complete system design, schematic etc, it is like shooting in the dark.
Here is my suggestion of how it may work.
I think it possible is using a disruptive discharge of capacitance which produces Alfa particles (radiation) which is moved by using some form of magnetic field, and in doing so induces current into overwound coils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
If designed correctly will produce a large amount of power. ;)
Regards
Mike
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.01.31, 18:30:34
Finally, where would the energy come from? I have no idea, except perhaps from a nuclear ß- decay
That type of decay can be directionalized with magnetic fields.
The direcion of emitted decay products is aligned to the nuclear spin axes in the following manner:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49463)
If the aim is to generate a chain reaction where one decay event facilitates another, then the participating atoms should be lined up in a straight line or in a circle like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49461)
Quote from: maxmalone on 2025.01.31, 19:21:05
...
I've done a dozen or so different tests but I haven't noticed anything special for FE.
...
No wonder. To my knowledge, NMR is never performed on metallic masses, but on insulating, homogeneous compounds or solvents, including the atoms to be tested. Raw iron would be the worst case: not only would irregularities in the crystalline arrangement lead to spatial variations of the internal magnetic field, but the magnetic domains would never be perfectly aligned, either.
For classical NMR to take place and be macroscopically visible, the magnetic field must be perfectly homogeneous, and this is certainly not the case in iron.
So, to answer also Peterae's remarks, if there is NMR in Coler's device, it's because every inevitable and surely very important irregularity in the magnetic field inside the material is somehow compensated for. My hypothesis is that current and/or free electrons could play a part in this. This is the novelty, as these free electrons are never present in conventional NMR.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.01, 23:10:04
That type of decay can be directionalized with magnetic fields.
The direcion of emitted decay products is aligned to the nuclear spin axes in the following manner:
...
This will certainly be studied if we can confirm beforehand that we would indeed have ß- decay. It's still too light an hypothesis on my part.
@Smudge
Very interesting, the Corbino and reverse Corbino effect. And all of this revolves around a subject that's been bothering me, for which I'm going to open a new thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4754.msg114541), the question of rectifying a current without non-linear elements. Even if it's related (or not) to Coler, it may be of independent interest.
I once tried to rectify alternating current using nonlinear inductors. Without using diodes. Nothing worked.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.02.03, 08:28:22
I once tried to rectify alternating current using nonlinear inductors. Without using diodes. Nothing worked.
The Hall effect will provide a unidirectional electric force and voltage (V
H) from an alternating current (I) when subjected to an alternating magnetic field (B) in synch with that current (created by e.g. a pair of solenoids).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53148)
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.03, 16:48:15
from an alternating current (I)
Of course, and who will pays for this current ? :)
Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.03, 16:48:15
The Hall effect will provide a unidirectional electric force and voltage (VH) from an alternating current (I) when subjected to an alternating magnetic field (B) in synch with that current (created by e.g. a pair of solenoids).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53148)
Let's try to apply this principle in the case of two coils. One rotates in the field of the other. The wire of the moving coil could be replaced by a copper strip. Since the fixed coil and the strip are supplied with the same current, and the Hall voltage across the copper strip depends on B and I, since B also depends on I, this voltage will be proportional to I². So, we've achieved rectification, and we're still in the electrical domain, not mechanical.
But how can we use this rectified Hall voltage to make a current flow (and preferably in the reference frame of the observer at rest) ? If we loop the "Hall circuit", we cancel out the effect, as the loop conductor also rotates in B, generating a Hall voltage at its terminals which cancels out the other.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.02.04, 05:51:41
Of course, and who will pays for this current ? :)
The power supply.
The "payer" was not the subject of your original question. Rectification was.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.04, 14:16:24
Let's try to apply this principle in the case of two coils.
I will not think about it now. Not because your message had no merit but because I am busy with something else.
I'm continuing to investigate (thought expriments) the influences on an electron circulating in a ferromagnetic core, under the effect of the electric field across it, the longitudinal magnetic field along the core, and the transverse magnetic field linked to the copper conductor on the surface of the magnetic core, all generated by an alternating current. This is likely the key to the enigma of Coler's device.
It's very complex, because all these interactions are mutually dependent.
It's possible that the electrons have a tendency to spiral, as in a magnetron.
It's also possible that the conservativity of the magnetic field could be circumvented, not because it's no longer conservative, but because the electrons are both its origin and its effect: this could give rise to the same effect on a closed circuit with multiple paths in 3D (the volume of the core) as if an electron were circulating along an ordinary circuit in a non-conservative magnetic field.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.07, 15:16:18
I'm continuing to investigate (thought expriments) the influences on an electron circulating in a ferromagnetic core, under the effect of the electric field across it, the longitudinal magnetic field along the core, and the transverse magnetic field linked to the copper conductor on the surface of the magnetic core, all generated by an alternating current. This is likely the key to the enigma of Coler's device.
A ferromagnetic core would be a bad thing to do.
You create the electric field so as it functions like a straight wire, right hand rule.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.07, 15:16:18
It's very complex, because all these interactions are mutually dependent.
It's possible that the electrons have a tendency to spiral, as in a magnetron.
They should spiral, like a cork screw inside the field of a solenoid coil with DC passing through it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.07, 15:16:18
It's also possible that the conservativity of the magnetic field could be circumvented, not because it's no longer conservative, but because the electrons are both its origin and its effect: this could give rise to the same effect on a closed circuit with multiple paths in 3D (the volume of the core) as if an electron were circulating along an ordinary circuit in a non-conservative magnetic field.
You have the idea, now how do you do it? To use a quote :"It's not rocket science".
Mike
I am not talking of producing a standing wave as shown in the attached, it is different.
Just think of a cork screw wave action passing through the center of a solenoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave#/media/File:Waventerference.gif
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2025.02.07, 17:31:13
A ferromagnetic core would be a bad thing to do.
...
I base my work on Coler's device, which uses ferromagnetic cores.
As for the rest, the hypotheses need to mature before anything can be tested.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.08, 11:15:18
I base my work on Coler's device, which uses ferromagnetic cores.
As for the rest, the hypotheses need to mature before anything can be tested.
Yes, but I think they were ferrite, and not an iron magnet, but I may be wrong and it used a particular magnetic configuration.
Anyway, you do not need a perminent magnetic field, there is an easier way to do it using a charging capacitor for the electric field to create the magnetic field, and abruptly discharge it, and charge again. The direction of the electric field will be equal to a strand of wire, and use the right hand rule to show the magnetic field.
Mike
I started studying literature. In general, an anomalous effect is weak and marginal in relation to the main effect. But here, the opposite is true. The Hall effect is weak, but the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) is significant in ferromagnetic materials ("in nickel, the anomalous Hall coefficient is about 100 times larger than the ordinary Hall coefficient near the Curie temperature").
AHE is mainly due to electron spin/orbit interaction, with the very interesting consequence that :
"Due to a nonlinear coupling between the conduction electron and local spin, the out-of-plane component of the dynamic magnetization can directly rectify rf currents into a time-independent Hall signal in ferromagnetic materials." (Spin-rectification (https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-abstract/113/17/17C732/387510/Spin-rectification-enabled-by-anomalous-Hall)).
So this would explain what I was looking for elsewhere: that DC current in Coler's device, obtained from oscillatory currents. The best lead yet.
Very Interesting that 126.85 degrees Celsius for the Curie temperature of Co₃O₄. Which can be made by decomposition of Cobalt Nitrate and near its Curie temperature, the AHE in Co₃O₄ can become quite pronounced.
General Observation: Co₃O₄, being a ferrimagnetic material, shows a significant anomalous Hall effect (AHE), particularly near its Curie temperature. This is because the AHE is strongly dependent on the magnetization of the material, which is influenced by the magnetic ordering.
Specific Value: Exact values for the Anomalous Hall Coefficient of Co₃O₄ are not universally standardized and can differ based on experimental conditions. However, studies indicate:
A work on Co-based materials like Co₂MnGa, which has some relevance due to similar magnetic properties, reported giant anomalous Hall conductivities (AHC) in the range of several hundred to over a thousand S/cm near room temperature, but this isn't directly Co₃O₄.
For Co₃O₄ specifically:
One study might mention an AHC in the range of several hundred S/cm, particularly when considering the intrinsic contributions from Berry curvature.
Another study on transition metal oxides, including cobalt oxide, might show AHC values in the order of 100 to 1000 S/cm near the Curie temperature, but these are often broad estimates.
Temperature Dependence: The AHC of Co₃O₄ would peak near its Curie temperature (around 126.85°C or 400K) where magnetic fluctuations are significant. At room temperature, the AHC would be lower but still noticeable due to the material's ferrimagnetic nature.
PS Half wave rectified DC 110V from Colemans device, probably half wave because he uses a tuned circuit to vary the magnetic field strength through the Cobalt sample.
Do we have any idea of the composition of Coler's ferromagnetic cores?
I'm talking about impurities because I suppose it's mainly Fe.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.09, 08:56:47
Do we have any idea of the composition of Coler's ferromagnetic cores?
I'm talking about impurities because I suppose it's mainly Fe.
Scientific papers from that time (1920 -1930) refer to Swedish iron. It appears that iron ore mined in Sweden or Norway produced iron of higher purity than that mined elsewhere.
International Critical Tables gives data for both types. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj8dv3uJPXAhWGOxoKHe7OChsQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fcatalog%2F20230%2Finternational-critical-tables-of-numerical-data-physics-chemistry-and-technology&usg=AOvVaw1xdVJlIejHulOiBPzfgEWj (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj8dv3uJPXAhWGOxoKHe7OChsQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fcatalog%2F20230%2Finternational-critical-tables-of-numerical-data-physics-chemistry-and-technology&usg=AOvVaw1xdVJlIejHulOiBPzfgEWj)
In 1946 Coler was using Armco iron.
API brochure for Armco Iron www.pctmg.nl/uploads/API-Brochure.pdf
(http://www.pctmg.nl/uploads/API-Brochure.pdf)
Smudge
Thank you Smudge. This information is valuable. As the "Coler effect" is significant, we can think that it is related to iron more than to rare impurities, even if the second hypothesis cannot be ruled out. So I'll turn first to the papers on the AHE of iron.
Armco iron advertises itself as an ultra-pure iron, today with less than 0.15% impurities. I haven't found out what it was in Coler's day, but probably better than 0.5%.
Since AHE requires impurities and few impurities can have a significant effect, then if this is one of the effects required by Coler's machine, it would be interesting to know what these impurities are. A search on Armco's history tells us about "the elimination of the metallic, metalloidal and gaseous impurities in iron" and says: 'it has been found good practice to reduce all impurities, not only manganese, but sulfur, silicon, carbon, and also gases'.
Mg therefore seemed to be the most important. None of these products are magnetic, no Co, Cr nor Ni (or are they part of the impurities that can be kept because they have no effect on rust?). So we're not very far advanced in its application to the Coler device.
Academic research on AHE is mainly focused on more or less exotic materials, generally in thin films. And it deals with the phenomenon only rarely and marginally in the context of variable currents, rectification is little mentioned or in a context that is not our own, so we're not very advanced either.
What emerges is that there are still many questions surrounding this effect, that there is no theory for all the variants of the effect, that it is far from having been sufficiently tested, and so for us everything remains open.
It seems to me that the basic brick is only a "forward" circuit in a non-magnetic wire, and its "return" in an iron bar or plate just above which the wire passes, provoking a transverse magnetic field in the bar, a bar partially magnetized longitudinally too. The fact of having several passages of wire along a plate with current in the same direction, as well as the multiplicity of plates, or electromagnets, seems to me to serve to increase power and constitute a servo system to maintain the conditions of a reaction maintaining the effect.
I'm not at home at the moment, but I plan to start experimenting on the basic brick next week.
I don't know if this helps. Below is a pdf taken from a 1929 document "International Critical Tables of Numeric Data". It mentions Swedish iron and Norwegian iron. Note that at that time Unruh/Coler were funded by a Norwegian Group so likely they used iron sourced from that region, as did other scientists.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.02.16, 09:24:23
I don't know if this helps. Below is a pdf taken from a 1929 document "International Critical Tables of Numeric Data". It mentions Swedish iron and Norwegian iron. Note that at that time Unruh/Coler were funded by a Norwegian Group so likely they used iron sourced from that region, as did other scientists.
Smudge
Ok, no disrespect in any way, electrolytic what does it mean, the word!
It is the way "electricity" moves in an "item", metal or what ever.
To cirumvent things, how does a current move "in" a capacitor! Well it moves when it charges and not when it discharges. You may think, what is he talking about! As I said this is to circumvent what you are looking at, and to move forward to the effect, like a diode that has a forward current and not in reverse, this is a magnetic field which has no reverse, as in an AC current which has a reverse, and so a reverse magnetic field.
I leave it at that, if you want to know more, ask me, or I leave you in peace.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2025.02.16, 16:39:56
...
To cirumvent things, how does a current move "in" a capacitor! Well it moves when it charges and not when it discharges.
...
A current doesn't "move". It's the charges that move. And charges move in the direction of the electric field, the only thing they're sensitive to.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.02.16, 09:24:23
I don't know if this helps. Below is a pdf taken from a 1929 document "International Critical Tables of Numeric Data". It mentions Swedish iron and Norwegian iron. Note that at that time Unruh/Coler were funded by a Norwegian Group so likely they used iron sourced from that region, as did other scientists.
Smudge
I'm quite amazed at the purity of the products of the time. The composition of impurities can be very important for AHE or NMR. It can be used for analysis if an abnormal effect is detectable. Conversely, predicting an effect from the nature and level of impurities seems to me to be out of reach.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.17, 09:05:01
I'm quite amazed at the purity of the products of the time. The composition of impurities can be very important for AHE or NMR.
That's very true. The purity affects the domain motions and the -33.02T internal hyperfine field inside bulk metallic iron.
The graph below illustrates the difference that annealing can make:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53188)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.02.17, 08:54:54
A current doesn't "move". It's the charges that move. And charges move in the direction of the electric field, the only thing they're sensitive to.
Yes badly put, but it does not change the magnetic field created when charging.
Mike
I will explain a little more.
Wind a BIFILAR coil but use it only as a capacitor, that is short each coil so it is only a capacitor. Wind a solenoid over the top of the bifilar coil and pass a pulsed DC current through it. At the same time charge slowly the now capacitor in the middle of the solenoid and then discharge it very very quickly, short it, and then slowly charge it again.
Of course this can be all done in a DC to DC boost type converter.
So where are the magnetic fields and what are they doing?
When you complicate things and look for exotic solutions, you can not see the wood for the trees.
Just trying to help.
Mike
The complication comes only from making analogies, or talking about capacitors or inductances when dealing with lines, except when considering them distributed.
When a current is not the same everywhere in a closed circuit, due to propagation phenomena, which is generally the case in pulse mode in bifilar lines or elsewhere, we have to go back to physics or, in practice, to modeling software. The magnetic field is only the result of the distribution of currents in the volume under consideration, it's as simple as that. But knowing this distribution in practice isn't always easy, except in the quasi-static case where you can equate a coil with a simple inductance, or two plates or two close conductors with a simple capacitor, and the current everywhere the same in the circuit at a given instant, which is false in the general case.
As far as Coler is concerned, we don't know what frequencies are involved. Even GHz frequencies could be at work, and DC currents or frequencies of a few hundred Khz, non-linear effects linked to the former (but of course this is not the hypothesis we'll start with).
hmm, it kinda like peltier effect of thermoelectric. but absorbing electromagnetic wave or some kind of energy field and then directing it into the electric circuit.
also remind me of surge current & tension.
Here are my latest thoughts on the Stromerzeuger. Essentially I am saying that the Hall effect within a high mu ferromagnetic conductor like Fe creates an acceleration of the conduction electrons as they pass by the atoms. They leave the atom at a higher Fermi velocity than the arrival velocity. That increase in kinetic energy has to come from the atom. The acceleration region of the conduction electron's trajectory is close to the atom so it is reasonable to look at the induced E field vortex applying to the atom's orbital electrons. From the atom's viewpoint this vortex is ephemeral, it suddenly appears and then disappears. The orbiting electron sees a unidirectional pulse. With a stream of conduction electrons there appears a stream of unidirectional pulses leading to a continuous supply of energy.
Smudge
So what is the frequency of the RF ?
Between 100Khz and 200Khz
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.15, 18:34:44
Between 100Khz and 200Khz
Is this frequency related to the current density (A/m
2) and electron drift velocity and the atom density of the conductor ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.16, 04:13:12
Is this frequency related to the current density (A/m2) and electron drift velocity and the atom density of the conductor ?
No, it's the frequency that the Stromezeuger is believed to work at. Coler mentions 100 KHz and elsewhere it is reported as 180 KHz. I can do calcs on spreadsheets using those frequencies, using the atom density and conduction electron density, the classical Hall formulae, the known conductivity, the Fe rod dimensions and the likely very high relative permeability of pure Fe to show that OU is possible when the circular RF Corbino currents at the surface of the Fe rod induces voltage into a coil wound on the rod. But spreadsheet calculations are not proof, we need real evidence.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.16, 08:47:21
I can do calcs on spreadsheets using those frequencies, using the atom density and conduction electron density, the classical Hall formulae, the known conductivity, the Fe rod dimensions and the likely very high relative permeability of pure Fe to show that OU is possible when the circular RF Corbino currents at the surface of the Fe rod induces voltage into a coil wound on the rod.
Experiments notwithstanding, do the calculations anyway as a sanity check of your theoretical framework.
With a classical explanation and the ordinary Hall effect, nothing would explain overunity.
In ferromagnetic materials, the anomalous Hall effect is far more important than the ordinary Hall effect, and expresses itself in several mutually independent forms.
I don't think the explanation is classical, but rather quantum, and surely very complex because with more than one cause. That's probably why reproducibility is so difficult.
What may have a classical explanation are the frequencies of 100 to 200 KHz, which may simply depend on the values of the inductances and their capacitive coupling with the magnetic cores, and have no determining link with the nature of the effect. The opposite may also be true, that they are determined by NMR effects, for example, which would also explain the difficulties of reproducibility due to the high frequencies that must be in phase throughout the material...
In fact, you can say anything and everything as long as you haven't reproduced anything. My main point is that we have basically two crossed magnetic sources, one of which is generated by a current that also passes through the magnetic core. I've prepared a bit of material to start experimenting around this idea, but haven't had the time to start in earnest yet.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.16, 20:13:45
I've prepared a bit of material to start experimenting around this idea, ...
Pure iron or steel ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.16, 23:07:51
Pure iron or steel ?
That's the big question. I tried with a pure iron bar, but it was too small (4cm). I didn't notice anything special.
If the abnormal hall effect is at work, steel seems interesting because of the "impurities" (Cr, NI), e.g. rolled 304, which is partly ferromagnetic and is even sold in very thin 0.01 mm sheets.
Using the same material as Coler seems a priori preferable. But it all depends on what you want to test: something as similar as possible to Coler's device, or something in line with an assumption you've made about the main principle you think is at work? The first point has already been made, without success. So I'm leaning towards the second, highlighting an anomalous hall effect and seeing what happens with crossed magnetic fields.
First idea I'd like to test.
In AHE by skew scattering, electrons are deflected differently according to their spin, which then leads to a different deflection by the classical hall effect. The magnetic field in the material results from a longitudinal component and a transverse component linked to the conductors running along the magnetic core. As a result, the resulting field makes an angle, e.g. of 45°, with the axis of the current in the material. It is therefore possible that the electrons of one of the two spins, e.g. spin up, will be deflected in the same direction as the electrical flow, thus reinforcing it, while the electrons of spin down will be deflected transversely, with no effect on the current. The excess energy of the current's spin-up electrons could be taken up by an energy deficit in the static configuration trapping the spin-down electrons.
Of course, many questions remain, such as how the system can be self-sustaining (Maxwell's demon?...).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.17, 10:57:31
...or something in line with an assumption you've made about the main principle you think is at work?
I did not make an assumption. I am just following Smudge's lead described here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3844.0;attach=53545).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.17, 10:57:31
That's the big question. I tried with a pure iron bar, but it was too small (4cm).
Do you think that the interplay between a larger bar size and the skin effect will allow a lower frequency to manifest itself?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.17, 11:20:27
I did not make an assumption.
I am just following Smudge's lead described here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3844.0;attach=53545).
I didn't assume you made an assumption.
For my part, I can't follow Smudge's lead, disagreeing with this: "
The increase in kinetic energy is supplied from the source of the magnetic field."
- A magnetic field supplies no energy except when it collapses
- There is no increase in kinetic energy due to the field.
The well-known reason is that the force deflecting the charge is at 90° to the speed vector, and therefore does no work (in the reference frame of the magnetic field source).
The magnetic force's change in velocity direction does not imply a change of its modulus. As kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity modulus, it doesn't change either.
A gain in kinetic energy can only be indirectly linked to the magnetic force (my hypothesis above assumes this).
Quote
Do you think that the interplay between a larger bar size and the skin effect will allow a lower frequency to manifest itself?
I don't really know. It's possible.
I just wanted to increase the dimensions of my setup, thinking it would make it easier to detect weak anomalies.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.17, 11:20:27
...
Do you think that [...] the skin effect will allow a lower frequency to manifest itself?
This comment caught my attention because I had completely forgotten about the skin effect in the context of Coler.
I've just read up on the values (https://www.academyofemc.com/skin-effect) that can be expected for iron, at frequencies of the order of 100 KHz. This is about 12 times greater than in copper (~0.016 mm).
But to my amazement, I discovered that in steel 316, the skin effect is considerably weaker: around 85 times weaker than in iron, and even almost 7 times weaker than in copper (~1.4 mm)!
Steel's pb seems complex, depending on its nature, and e.g. mild steel, with a higher or lower skin effect than copper, depending on frequency.
This is further food for thought.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ec8386_ada6602c1b824abe9d072f19d33630a1~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_1440,h_840,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/SkinDepthGraphic_PNG.png)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.17, 15:29:30
The well-known reason is that the force deflecting the charge is at 90° to the speed vector, and therefore does no work.
Yes, such a force has been called "fictional" because it does no work. And their are examples in a purely mechanical world where that applies, like centrifugal force and Coreolis force.
But this only applies to fixed-state conditions where nothing changes with respect to time. Take Coreolis force for example, there are many videos of people doing what Laithwaite did in his infamous televised Royal Society lecture where he lifted a heavy weight against gravity (the weight being a spinning wheel on the end of a rod). That is clear evidence of the Coreolis "fictional" force doing work. Even the Hall effect shows this work relationship, the Corbino disc has increased resistance hence demands more power from its current source as the magnetic field slowly increases. Note the word "slowly". What happens if the magnetic field changes by a tiny amount but very rapidly? When you look into this that rapid change introduces an electric field vortex that induces a voltage into the curved conduction path whose curvature hasn't changed. When you do the sums it seems this induced voltage can not only reduce the apparent resistance of the disc but even take it negative for the short duration of the magnetic field pulse. Where then does the energy returned to the current source during the pulse come from? Has that ever been explored? A conduction electron passing close to a Fe atom is not under fixed-state conditions, it is passing through an extremely non-uniform magnetic field, so I challenge the conventional view on fictional forces in an attempt to answer that question.
Smudge
@Smudge
Fictitious forces are pseudo-forces that appear only in non-inertial reference frames and do not exist in an inertial reference frame.
The Coriolis force is of this type.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic force F=q.vxB, which is a real force felt by a charge moving in a magnetic field, even when it is moving at constant speed, i.e. when its frame of reference is inertial. This force is not fictitious, it's real as seen by the charge, since in its frame of reference, what it sees is an electric field, not a magnetic field, so a force F=q.E, but always at 90° to its speed, so it's not working.
When the magnetic field varies, the only possible exchange of energy with it concerns that contained in its volume, of density B²/µ, energy taken from the field when it collapses, or supplied to the field when it builds up. So, over a cycle, the energy balance is zero, whether the field varies over time or not.
The magnetic force is only one way of looking at the electric force when electrons are moving, because then, due to the relativistic effect, the coulombic field is no longer seen of spherical symmetry.
To claim that the magnetic field provides energy would be tantamount to saying that the electrons' coulombic field is depleted, i.e. that their charge has diminished, which remains to be demonstrated since electrons with variable charge have never been seen.
Energy is supplied solely by what sets one charge in motion relative to another, and what tends to maintain this motion, and thus modifies the 4D topology of the Coulomb fields mutually viewed by the charges. Since energy depends on the frame of reference, it is perfectly understandable that it arises from the change of frame of reference linked to the setting in motion of the charges.
As far as Coler is concerned, it's precisely the facts that need to be demonstrated. We can certainly imagine theoretical hypotheses to experiment with setups, but not hypotheses that are opposed to everything we already know and incompatible with what we've always observed.
Imagining cooler laws of nature that don't correspond to what we observe doesn't help us move forward. To move forward, we have to conform to the sad reality of the laws, to use them, and we don't need any phantasmagorical theories until we have new facts to explain.
Initially, I'm simply trying to demonstrate the Hall effect.
I have a thin steel plate along which I pass a current of up to 5A. Two transverse connection points are connected to a voltmeter capable of discriminating a few µV (HP3468A).
Well... nothing! I've replaced the neodymium magnet I was originally using with Ruhmkorff's coil (see photo), also with a 5A current, and still nothing!
It's a bad start... >:(
Any idea what's wrong?
Any difference on switching the axes of the 5A current and the voltage sensing wires ?
Here is the inventor, Edwin Hall description on his experimental setup back then: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2369245 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2369245)
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.19, 17:19:37
Any difference on switching the axes of the 5A current and the voltage sensing wires ?
No difference.
The same with copper plate and zinc plated iron plate.
No error in connecting the coils.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.20, 07:52:45
The same with copper plate
Copper did not work for Edwin Hall either ...but gold leaf worked.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.20, 14:55:50
Copper did not work for Edwin Hall either ...but gold leaf worked.
Maybe I'll try with this 1865 gold coin called "Napoleon" (but I'm afraid I'll damage it).
Will it be Austerlitz or Waterloo?
Note to Englishmen: if I succeed, the victory is "Austerlitz", not Waterloo! ;)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3844.0;attach=53550)
How do you manage to balance your rectangle so that there are zero microvolts on the output faces ?
Whereas there is five ampere current nearby. A fraction of a millimeter of displacement, and there will be a parasitic voltage on the signal terminals of tens of microvolts.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.19, 09:22:34
@Smudge
It has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic force F=q.vxB, which is a real force felt by a charge moving in a magnetic field, even when it is moving at constant speed, i.e. when its frame of reference is inertial. This force is not fictitious, it's real as seen by the charge, since in its frame of reference, what it sees is an electric field, not a magnetic field, so a force F=q.E, but always at 90° to its speed, so it's not working.
So the force on conduction electrons moving along a conductor at right angles to a magnetic field can not do work??!!!
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.21, 08:33:39
So the force on conduction electrons moving along a conductor at right angles to a magnetic field can not do work??!!!
Wrong question. No negative, general and definitive conclusion can be drawn from any experiment.
The only possible conclusion here is:
"
there is no Hall voltage measurable with the means used in this experiment".
But I haven't said my last word...
The conclusion is that, most probably, the Hall voltage is much lower than I thought. If anyone can give me the order of magnitude to expect in my context, I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.20, 18:13:59
...
How do you manage to balance your rectangle so that there are zero microvolts on the output faces ?
Whereas there is five ampere current nearby. A fraction of a millimeter of displacement, and there will be a parasitic voltage on the signal terminals of tens of microvolts.
A wise remark, as this point is indeed important. Note that the voltage is only 0.5V across the steel sample when the current is 5A.
I switch off the power supply to the coils. I establish the 5A current in the sample. I move one of the voltmeter contact points to obtain a minimum voltage. It's of the order of a few tens of µV.
I then establish the current in the coils and see if the measured voltage changes. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
I've just (maybe) found the reason on Google, following Verpies' remark on Hall's gold leaf experiment:
"The Hall voltage is proportional to the magnetic field (B), current (I), and Hall coefficient (RH) and depends inversely on the thickness (t)."
Even thin, my steel strip is considerably thicker than gold leaf.
I haven't had time to look it up yet, but I wonder why increasing thickness reduces Hall voltage. I'll look into it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 09:49:16
Wrong question. No negative, general and definitive conclusion can be drawn from any experiment.
This wasn't a question about your experiment. It was about your response to my paper. Further to my previous post I would point out that when the conductor moves (the Lorentz force doing work) the velocity of the conduction electrons is now the vector sum of drift velocity plus conductor velocity which by Pythagorus is now greater than their intitial drift velocity, which is what I say in my paper. I reason that a conduction electron hurling past a Fe atom at Fermi velocity endures a brief magnetic field pulse that isn't sufficient to allow the electron to reach its cyclotron radius where the "no work" rule applies.
Smudge
From a paper I can't find now: The thinner the sheet, the more pronounced the effect. Apparently allowing the conduction electrons the freedom to wiggle across the thickness of the plate spoils the effect.
From my memory: there were also non-geometric methods of confining the electrons to 2 DOF. Something to do with conductor crystal lattice and defects in it, as well as spin population.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.21, 10:27:25
This wasn't a question about your experiment. It was about your response to my paper. Further to my previous post I would point out that when the conductor moves (the Lorentz force doing work) the velocity of the conduction electrons is now the vector sum of drift velocity plus conductor velocity which by Pythagorus is now greater than their intitial drift velocity, which is what I say in my paper. I reason that a conduction electron hurling past a Fe atom at Fermi velocity endures a brief magnetic field pulse that isn't sufficient to allow the electron to reach its cyclotron radius where the "no work" rule applies.
Smudge
I agree on this point, but it doesn't call into question my answer, which only concerned one specific point, the fact that the magnetic force (F=qVxB) doesn't work. It is simply the energetically neutral vector of mutual effects between charges in different frames of reference, whereas the mechanical or electrical force does work, by setting charges in motion in relation to others.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.21, 10:28:51
From a paper I can't find now: The thinner the sheet, the more pronounced the effect. Apparently allowing the conduction electrons the freedom to wiggle across the thickness of the plate spoils the effect.
The traditional course explanations are so clear on the Hall effect with F=q.VxB, that I didn't even imagine that thickness could be critical. >:(
I'll give it a try with aluminum foil.
Quote
From my memory: there were also non-geometric methods of confining the electrons to 2 DOF. Something to do with conductor crystal lattice and defects in it, as well as spin population.
As for Coler, the weakness of the Hall voltage given the thickness of his plates, surely no thinner than mine, seriously calls into question whether this effect would be at work in his set-up. Alternatively, it could be that his set-up favors surface conduction, but for the moment I can't see why.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 10:50:19
I agree on this point, but it doesn't call into question my answer, which only concerned one specific point, the fact that the magnetic force (F=qVxB) doesn't work. It is simply the energetically neutral vector of mutual effects between charges in different frames of reference, whereas the mechanical or electrical force does work, by setting charges in motion in relation to others.
Are you saying that the Lorentz magnetic force F=qVxB when applied to the moving electrons in a conductor carrying current when integrated over the length of the conductor does not does not yield the force derived from Ampere's force law for current? If so I challenge that. Ampere's law creates force that does do work.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 11:00:54
As for Coler, the weakness of the Hall voltage given the thickness of his plates, surely no thinner than mine, seriously calls into question whether this effect would be at work in his set-up. Alternatively, it could be that his set-up favors surface conduction, but for the moment I can't see why.
At the Coler frequencies skin depth is about 0.1mm so surface conduction definitely applies to his RF currents.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.21, 11:10:31
Are you saying that the Lorentz magnetic force F=qVxB when applied to the moving electrons in a conductor carrying current when integrated over the length of the conductor does not does not yield the force derived from Ampere's force law for current? If so I challenge that. Ampere's law creates force that does do work.
Ampère's law is not causal. It links two concomitant effects.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.21, 11:20:17
At the Coler frequencies skin depth is about 0.1mm so surface conduction definitely applies to his RF currents.
My steel plate is about 0.1 mm thick. That seems far too thick for any noticeable effect.
Quick test with low-grade aluminium foil (i.e. very thin): still nothing, no difference when I turn the neodymium magnet over, wrapped in plastic film to avoid electrical contact with the aluminium.
I get it. The drift speed of electrons is V=J/n.e where J is the current density and n is the number of charges per unit volume.
If I is the current in a conductor of cross-section s, then J = I/s, hence V = I/s.n.e
If d is the thickness of the sample and w its width, then (1) V = I/d.w.n.e
The electric field is E=VxB, i.e. E=V.B when V and B are orthogonal.
The Hall voltage is U = E/w = V.B/w, hence (2) V=U.w/B
Since (1) = (2) => I/d.w.n.e = U.w/B => I/d.n.e = U/B => U = B.I/d.n.e
So we can see that U is inversely proportional to thickness d.
And all this was in fact trivial and obvious from the start. In fact, the number of charges involved is smaller when the volume containing them is smaller. So for the same current I, i.e. for the same number of charges passing per unit of time, if the conductor cross-section is smaller, it means they're moving faster!
For example, a current I of N charges passing at speed V is strictly equivalent to a current I of N/2 charges passing at speed 2.V .
Reducing the cross-sectional area of a conductor for the same current increases the drift speed of the electrons, and therefore the effect of the Lorentz force on each electron. This has no effect on the overall Lorentz force when translated into a mechanical force, since this force on a smaller number of electrons flowing faster is equivalent to that on a larger number of electrons flowing slower. But contrary to our intuition, it does have an effect on the Hall voltage.
So let's explore ways to decrease the width of the conduction path in non-geometric manner.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 14:10:03
I get it. The drift speed of electrons is V=J/n.e where J is the current density and n is the number of charges per unit volume.
If I is the current in a conductor of cross-section s, then J = I/s, hence V = I/s.n.e
If d is the thickness of the sample and w its width, then (1) V = I/d.w.n.e
The electric field is E=VxB, i.e. E=V.B when V and B are orthogonal.
The Hall voltage is U = E/w = V.B/w, hence (2) V=U.w/B
No, U=E*w.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.21, 14:55:59
No, U=E*w.
Right O0
I rewrite :
(1) V = I/d.w.n.eThe Hall voltage is U = E.w = V.B.w, hence
(2) V=U/B.wSince (1) = (2) => I/d.w.n.e = U/B.w => I/d.n.e = U/B =>
U = B.I/d.n.e As the final equation remains correct, the previous conclusion remains valid.
Are we ok now?
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.03.19, 08:11:46
When you look into this that rapid change introduces an electric field vortex that induces a voltage into the curved conduction path whose curvature hasn't changed.
Is this vortex caused by the Magnus Effect (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/9857) from the electron's precession in the flux of the nucleus?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 14:10:03
Reducing the cross-sectional area of a conductor for the same current increases the drift speed of the electrons, and therefore the effect of the Lorentz force on each electron.
Sputtering can be thinner than foil, for example on quartz plates. Especially old quartz resonators contained a very large plate. ;)
All that remains is to solder the orthogonal leads. The metal was silver and even gold.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.21, 17:53:10
Right O0
I rewrite :
(1) V = I/d.w.n.e
The Hall voltage is U = E.w = V.B.w, hence (2) V=U/B.w
Since (1) = (2) => I/d.w.n.e = U/B.w => I/d.n.e = U/B => U = B.I/d.n.e
As the final equation remains correct, the previous conclusion remains valid.
Are we ok now?
Yes.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.03.21, 19:13:27
Is this vortex caused by the Magnus Effect (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/9857) from the electron's precession in the flux of the nucleus?
It will take me some time to absorb what that experiment shows. But the answer to your question is no, in my mind the Hall effect at the atom-electron interaction results in the electron's acceleration along its curved path and that creates the vortex (just as in a coil carrying time-changing current the electron drift velocity that is changing creates the E field vortex that we know as induction).
You're going to say that I'm rambling, but the special relativity explanation of induction is considerably simpler, clearer, more elegant and more general than these rather twisted arguments to make induction fit the Magnus effect.
On the one hand, the simple Coulomb force between moving charges, on the other, a complicated and ugly development.
Given the weakness of the Hall effect on thick conductors such as Coler's, this effect can be eliminated, or at least not chosen as the starting hypothesis for his contribution.
Incidentally, yesterday I discovered another possibility, that of chaotic magnetic fields, which can generate effects that are difficult to reproduce.
Contrary to what you'd expect, magnetic chaos can occur even in very regular conductor configurations where currents are flowing. For example, two nested coils or turns, or a long conductor surrounded by a slightly regularly undulating circular conductor, can generate a chaotic magnetic field. See :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/80/60007
or
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793216070161
(downloadable with sci-hub).
These chaotic fields can form "magnetic islands", a common concept in plasma and solar studies, but which also seem to exist in free space. I see these islands as conductor-free zones surrounded by a magnetic flux. They would form in chaotic fields, neither too close to the conductors nor too far away (where the fields are stable and known), but at intermediate distances. The distances between the magnetic elements of the magnetstromapparat seem compatible to me.
Just a thought...
Let me clarify the idea. In the papers mentioned, as the currents are assumed to be constant, it's in space that the magnetic field is chaotic, in certain places.
A chaotic zone in the magnetic field means that a small disturbance can cause significant changes in the field.
If a local change is used as feedback, it could therefore give rise to an oscillating system of greater amplitude than the small disturbance that creates the chaos.
This doesn't explain the excess energy - we'll never know without knowing the energy source - but it would explain the mechanism. This is a speculation made about the Coler device, whose configuration of the various magnetic parts/coils could give rise to this instability.
How to experiment with this, I have no idea yet.