While searching for a paper I wrote years ago I cam across several ones of interest so I thought I would post them here.
Here is the first one which suggests that we could have a PM generator consisting of a PM rotating within a coil. With the coil carrying load current it creates a magnetic field that the PM sees, and that applies drag torque to the rotating magnet. My idea was to surround the magnet with a superconducting shorted turn that will divert the flux so that the magnet will now not see the flux and therefore will not endure drag torque. I have since realized that the superconductor must not inhibit the magnetic field emanating from the magnet poles, so it can't be as shown in the paper, but it can be like two shorted turns one each side of the magnet.
I have just done some FEMM simulations where you can set up a diamagnetic material with a mu much less than unity (I used mu = 0.001) and that simulates the superconductor. The first image below shows the Lenz field from the coil as directly applied to the magnet (the magnet's field is not shown in this view as that distorts the picture). The torque as calculated by FEMM is positive, an arbitrary figure here. The next image shows the effect of having superconducting material either side of the magnet, the Lenz field is diverted around the magnet. I expected the torque in this situation to be much reduced, but to my surprise it actually reversed. So it appears that we can make a generator where the Lenz flux from the load current creates a boost torque, not a drag torque. Now that is something to think about.
Edit. I should point out that I checked that the presence of the superconductors did not reduce the magnet's flux coupling to the coil, so it would still generate voltage.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.11.11, 16:08:06
Here is the first one which suggests that we could have a PM generator consisting of a PM rotating within a coil.
Rotating around which axis ? Could you add some arrows to your diagrams ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.11.11, 16:08:06
...and that applies drag torque to the rotating magnet.
Is the magnet itself electrically conductive ?
Quote from: verpies on 2019.11.11, 18:46:59
Rotating around which axis ? Could you add some arrows to your diagrams ?
OK, here are the same images with the rotation denoted, with the field arrows and the magnet poles marked. Also I have added a 3D view of the model showing the dimensions I used to get those torque figures.
QuoteIs the magnet itself electrically conductive ?
I used the NdFeB 52 MGOe model available in FEMM, but I was only looking for some guidance as to the effect of shielding the magnet with superconducting material, so the conductivity of the magnet didn't come into it. FEMM gives a snapshot and I chose the point where the magnet's coupling to the coil is going through zero, the output voltage and load current is maximum hence drag torque is maximum. This was not a dynamic run, I just used 100 amp-turns in the coil as a load current. Quite probably the conditions needed to get this would be an impossible rotor speed, but I was looking for the principle. I was surprised to see the drag torque become a boost torque, but that may be a simulation artifact. FEMM uses the Maxwell stress tensor for its torque and my reading on that subject tells me the stress tensor ought to be taken close to the surface of the rotating magnetic object. FEMM doesn't do that, it creates a stress tensor mask some distance from the surface.
My next step is to do some full dynamic runs using FEMM. In keeping with the title of this thread I attach my paper describing how FEMM can be used for dynamic modelling.
Smudge
Well I checked out the stress tensor mask used in FEMM for obtaining torque, and it is very susceptible to the mesh size. When I increased the mesh (reduced from 2mm down to 1mm spacing) the reversed drag torque disappeared. It became drag, not boost torque, of significant amplitude so my idea that the superconductor would shield the magnet didn't work. To explore why, I put a thinner magnet inside the shield so that I could have an air space around the magnet (the stress tensor mask has to be through air). I could then examine the torque on the magnet itself and low and behold the magnet was screened by the superconductors, there was little torque on the magnet. The drag torque had all transferred to the superconducting screens. That gives me a problem because when I consider the currents induced into the superconductor (or in the case of a highly diamagnetic material the alignment of the atomic dipoles therein that make it exclude the field) I can't see how they can carry that torque. The stress tensor approach calculates torque as though the magnetic field itself carries that mechanical torque, but there is no matter there in that field. In my mind the only place where the mechanical torque can materialize is on matter itself, or rather on the atomic dipoles within that matter. I think I need to do more to see how the complex field pattern that exhibits torque via the stress tensor really does tell us the torque on those atomic dipoles.
Smudge
Not sure if I have posted this before, but here is my explanation for the ball-bearing motor. It relies on the bearing being of steel and therefore ferromagnetic where conduction electrons can be spin polarized. Current passing through the ball transports angular momentum.
While on the subject of spin polarization here is another paper offering an interesting experiment that may offer OU potential.
Smudge
Here's another paper that I partly wrote some time ago and have just completed. It's for the TPU buffs as it describes how a TPU could get energy from the Earth's field, and in particular the Earth's scalar magnetic potential which has a huge value away from the equator. It can explain a lot of the known facts about the Steven Marks TPU, like its gyroscopic feel, its inner coil (maybe not a coil) wound onto a cork former and it won't work upside down. Doesn't fit with Marks 5KHz frequency though. Enjoy!
Smudge
And now for something different. This paper shows three images. The first image shows a how two magnets where their axes are always parallel can have attraction and repulsion zones. At the dividing line between these zones, the so called neutral line, the linear force is zero but there is a strong torque. The second image shows how one magnet can follow a circular path where the linear forces provide a driving force around that path. Of course it requires something to keep the axes parallel. The final image shows the Ferris wheel motor where gravity is the force that keeps the axes parallel. Worth building?
Smudge
This suggests that the Bearden MEG relies on magnetostriction of the metglas core coupled with the saturation of the inner laminations so as to make use of the Villari effect. The core will have an ultrasonic resonance.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.11.29, 20:10:06
And now for something different. This paper shows three images. The first image shows a how two magnets where their axes are always parallel can have attraction and repulsion zones. At the dividing line between these zones, the so called neutral line, the linear force is zero but there is a strong torque. The second image shows how one magnet can follow a circular path where the linear forces provide a driving force around that path. Of course it requires something to keep the axes parallel. The final image shows the Ferris wheel motor where gravity is the force that keeps the axes parallel. Worth building?
Smudge
Thanks for the interesting paper. My testing confirms what you have posted. I like your idea for the Ferris wheel version. I am currently working on my own magnet motor idea. If it doesn't work out I will probably attempt to build your Ferris wheel version.
Carroll
You've been doing my head in all afternoon with Ferris wheel structures smudge O0 ;D ;D ;Di
Being at the ripe old age of 86 and having to stay in the house until our government deems otherwise, I have been looking back at my past work. Found this paper and I can't remember publishing it anywhere. Wouldn't it be nice if someone could purchase room temperature superconductor material to give this a try?
Smudge
Just to fill in time while being socially isolated I looked back at Howard Johnson's work. Here is my critique of his vortex claims, they are not what they seem. My message is to ignore his ideas about PM fields.
That is not to say that the classical model for a PM is necessarily correct under all circumstances. In a metal magnet conduction electrons become spin polarized and add to the magnetization. Being mobile within the magnet they endure magnetic forces that can cause them to dynamically congregate in certain areas, thus the overall magnetization is no longer spatially uniform within the magnet. I can't find any evidence that this effect has ever been considered, and this could be the key to making magnet motors work.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.11.29, 20:10:06
And now for something different. This paper shows three images. The first image shows a how two magnets where their axes are always parallel can have attraction and repulsion zones. At the dividing line between these zones, the so called neutral line, the linear force is zero but there is a strong torque. The second image shows how one magnet can follow a circular path where the linear forces provide a driving force around that path. Of course it requires something to keep the axes parallel. The final image shows the Ferris wheel motor where gravity is the force that keeps the axes parallel. Worth building?
Smudge
Well it seemed to good to be true! So a bit red neck but here is my attempted build.
The magnets are 11mm X 38mm. The counterweight is a lead slug about 3/4 X 1 inch and weighs 82 grams.
It has problems at these dimensions as attract in is much stronger than repulse out. That and here we see that the counter weight is not strong enough to keep the rotor magnet level. A further complication is at speed the counter weight has a tendency to fly out.
Anyway all good fun, sorry my build didn't work. :-[
Ron
https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o (https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o)
hey Ronee
Vid says private
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2020.04.04, 01:02:44
hey Ronee
Vid says private
Mags
Sorry about that, youtube have a new program out that has too many bells and whistles for me... so I set it to use unlisted on the old "classic program" Well turns out they have one more setting called "Publish" which on the old program was "Done" and I had not clicked on Publish...
Makes me wonder if they have a whole room full of people sitting around with the mandate of, "if it works, how can we f*ck it up?"
Ron
Switch to Vimeo. Much simpler to use and my videos seem to load faster there also. I have a slow DSL service and the same video that loaded in 1 and 1/2 hours to Vimeo, I spent 4 trying to load to Youtube and then Youtube didn't "process" it, whatever that means. You just load your video to Vimeo and then set private or public or only allow people with the link to see it. So much simpler than Youtube.
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2020.04.04, 11:41:58
Switch to Vimeo. Much simpler to use and my videos seem to load faster there also. I have a slow DSL service and the same video that loaded in 1 and 1/2 hours to Vimeo, I spent 4 trying to load to Youtube and then Youtube didn't "process" it, whatever that means. You just load your video to Vimeo and then set private or public or only allow people with the link to see it. So much simpler than Youtube.
Carroll
Thanks Carroll,
Youtube is becoming (has become) a POS. I have used it since day one and at that time the thing to do was be anonymous. My handle was thus a take off on "John Doe" as I used Ron with an H in "rohndoe"
Now when I click on my URL I get a "do you mean rondoe" ... I always think, where is the "FO" button
That and now there are fully 6 videos on rohndoe that are not mine... with no way to delete them!!!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rohndoe (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rohndoe)
So Vimeo is starting to look good... Thanks
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2020.04.03, 23:52:54
Well it seemed to good to be true! So a bit red neck but here is my attempted build.
The magnets are 11mm X 38mm. The counterweight is a lead slug about 3/4 X 1 inch and weighs 82 grams.
It has problems at these dimensions as attract in is much stronger than repulse out. That and here we see that the counter weight is not strong enough to keep the rotor magnet level. A further complication is at speed the counter weight has a tendency to fly out.
Anyway all good fun, sorry my build didn't work. :-[
Ron
Back to the subject
https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o (https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o)
let me know if this URL doesn't work?
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2020.04.04, 15:32:44
Back to the subject
https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o (https://youtu.be/eMGiCx4Yw0o)
let me know if this URL doesn't work?
Ron
Just my thoughts on this but there are three states not two as in the PDF.
1) attract in
2) lock
3) repulse out
You can feel this with a couple of hand held magnets. There is a strong attract in force and in attempting to move one of the magnets to the repulse position one is met with what I call a lock. One must move the magnet way out on the 45 degree line to allow movement to the repulse position. Then the magnet is so far away there is next to no repulsion.
If one positions the magnet further out with minimum attraction in then there is minimum attract in and minimum repulse out.
I have tried this with short magnets and longer length vs dia magnets and there seems to be no sweet spot.
23 views and no comments?
Ron
Ron,
My ferris wheel idea was to keep the axes of the rotor magnets horizontal by using gravity, and I really meant the masses to be so heavy that magnetic forces couldn't alter that. I see your rotor magnets are not kept horizontal, they flip about a lot. Perhaps some other arrangement to keep those magnets always horizontal would be better.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2020.04.05, 16:19:16
Ron,
My ferris wheel idea was to keep the axes of the rotor magnets horizontal by using gravity, and I really meant the masses to be so heavy that magnetic forces couldn't alter that. I see your rotor magnets are not kept horizontal, they flip about a lot. Perhaps some other arrangement to keep those magnets always horizontal would be better.
Smudge
Smudge,
True, but even holding the magnet horizontal does not change the outcome. Try it with two hand held magnets and you will see what I mean. Failing that, show a dimensioned model that works.
Edit: gee I hope that doesn't come through as being rude? But at the start of the video it shows almost no repulsion. At the end of the video it shows the lock point. And no matter how heavy you make the weights centrifigal force will still be present to oscillate the weights.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2020.04.05, 20:04:04
Smudge,
True, but even holding the magnet horizontal does not change the outcome. Try it with two hand held magnets and you will see what I mean. Failing that, show a dimensioned model that works.
Edit: gee I hope that doesn't come through as being rude? But at the start of the video it shows almost no repulsion. At the end of the video it shows the lock point. And no matter how heavy you make the weights centrifigal force will still be present to oscillate the weights.
Ron
It doesn't come through as rude, and I am grateful that you are doing what you do. Alas having moved house three times in the last two years I gave away all my magnets and bits and pieces to Grumage. I am not convinced the idea will work but an FEMM simulation does show a small average torque in one direction, but that is much smaller than the peak torques that occur in both directions. The pantograph method for keeping things parallel as seen on the link rod on steam locomotives could be one answer, see image below.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2020.04.06, 09:43:29
It doesn't come through as rude, and I am grateful that you are doing what you do. Alas having moved house three times in the last two years I gave away all my magnets and bits and pieces to Grumage. I am not convinced the idea will work but an FEMM simulation does show a small average torque in one direction, but that is much smaller than the peak torques that occur in both directions. The pantograph method for keeping things parallel as seen on the link rod on steam locomotives could be one answer, see image below.
Smudge
An analysis of the Ferris Wheel magnet motor:
In the first model with the rotor rotating at speed when the pivot is going CW up through the 9:00 position the weight nearly doubles. Then as it goes from left to right across the 12:00 position the weight lags behind but as the pivot goes down through 3:00 the weight is weightless and still traveling from left to right. At this point, 6:00, it is possible for the weight to do a full loop around the pivot.
However this is not the reason it doesn't work, mearly an indication that this design is limited to very low speeds.
As the north pole of the rotor magnet moves towards the south pole of the stator magnet there is attraction... an energy gain.
However when the two magnets are edge to edge they so attract to each other so as to lock. To continue the same rotation direction, energy must be provided to break the lock. Thus all the energy gained on attract in must be spent to overcome the lock.
But wait, there is more, as you slide the north pole down the length of the stator maget we have a situation where we have two like poles are approaching, a repulse situation so twice as much energy is required to continue rotation. This doesn't happen. as the rotation ceases at the lock position.
The two rotor concept, while clever, will suffer from the same restriction. Both versions have the same problem with alignment. When the rotor magnet is positioned in repell (if you could get it there) it is fully half a diameter above the stator magnet and the repell is nonexistant. You can see this in the video where at one point as I demonstate the weak repulsion I let the rotor go CCW and the the rotor magnet is attracted in and fired out in reverse. However it is then attacted back in to lock as at the end of the video.
Oh, do you like my tomato grow op in the background? I have 7 out in the green house, as they were getting too big.... frost this AM, ugh
Take care
Ron
Quote from: Smudge on 2020.04.03, 15:01:01
Just to fill in time while being socially isolated I looked back at Howard Johnson's work. Here is my critique of his vortex claims, they are not what they seem. My message is to ignore his ideas about PM fields.
That is not to say that the classical model for a PM is necessarily correct under all circumstances. In a metal magnet conduction electrons become spin polarized and add to the magnetization. Being mobile within the magnet they endure magnetic forces that can cause them to dynamically congregate in certain areas, thus the overall magnetization is no longer spatially uniform within the magnet. I can't find any evidence that this effect has ever been considered, and this could be the key to making magnet motors work.
Smudge
Dear Smudge
Thank you for your paper on the Howard Johnson approach. I became interested in his approach back in the early 80's when it appeared on the cover of Popular Science magazine.
(some pictures archived here: http://rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm )
I was deeply interested in the possibility of a all magnet motor and explored the many (non working) patents available for such devices. I should have suspected the Pop Science article was sensationalism to sell copies back then, but since Howard had a few patents, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and built a few variations of the cover device (motor) but they never worked to any degree.
I came to the conclusion his measurements were flawed. He was only able to demonstrate linear motors that would propel for part of the cycle but never could reguage. He never was able to demonstrate a working rotary machine.
Such a device (magnet motor) could possibly be created, but I think it would work on a different principle than just manipulating repulsion and attraction as these always seem to null out, at least, in my experience. I believe it would have to use a deeper principle such as we find in many of your writings on the subject.
FWIW
Kind Regards
Here's another paper for consideration by you all. Essentially it is what is known as armature reaction in permanent magnet electric generators using commutators, where efficiency is improved by altering the angular position of the brushes to take account of a phase delay brought about by the L/R time constant of the inductance of the armature coil against the load resistance. Heavier loading (reduced load resistance) creates greater armature reaction. What is not recognized is the distinct possibility that if the brushes are not moved to compensate, and the efficiency gets very low, the lost energy that goes as heat can actually be overunity. Taken to its limit, where no electrical output is taken because the load is virtually a short circuit, the device can produce more heat output than the mechanical drive input. This has been demonstrated where the induced load currents are simply eddy currents in a rotating disc of electrically conductive material. This paper explains how the armature reaction displaces the eddy current vortices that then has the effect of both reducing the driving torque and also creating closed electric field vortices above the surface of the disc that are seen by the stator magnets as unidirectional impulses that apply torque to load the spins responsible for the magnetism, hence explaining the source of excess energy.
Reference is also made to the Sweet and Manelas devices that could be solid state versions of this phenomenon. More on that later.
Smudge
Smudge,
Very interesting analysis. (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3862.0;attach=34982) Some of what you've explained seems to mesh
with what Turion tries to explain when he offers hints at how his OverUnity
Permanent Magnet Generator is able to output more electrical energy than
that which is input to drive it.
He and Bistander have had a comprehensive discussion that has been
ongoing for quite some time in several of the threads at EF. This is one
of the threads. (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13703-regenx-coils-and-regenxtra-switching#post498204)
Have you followed any of the discussion?
I also came to the same conclusion that Smudge's paper might be the answer to Dave's (Turion's) machine. In fact one of the major problems he has had to overcome was the cores of his machine were getting so hot they were melting the coil forms and melting the insulation off the wires. He had to add some cooling heat sinks with water running through them to solve that problem.
Thanks for the paper Smudge. Very interesting reading.
On this thread https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3718.msg82080#msg82080 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3718.msg82080#msg82080) the ZPower device was discussed. As this seems to have been demonstrated to produce its own power I have given it more consideration. Here is my thoughts on the device where it seems worth doing some experiments with Al and Bi bimetallic contacts in magnetic fields. Anyone up for this?
Smudge
Smudge
as mentioned a new moderated board has been assigned for your work here
https://overunity.com/18493/cyril-smith-aka-smudge-builders-group/msg545857/#new
I did send a note to Chris [EMjunkie] yesterday that it would be a few more days to sort
out.[he mentioned he has persons interested in your experiments and musings
Just a heads up ,the ability to have a builders section in an open source forum which also has open membership and can be moderated in real time ...and you will also have help [Still sorting that a bit]
a very good step forward IMO [ However at the end of the day it is your option...
with much gratitude and respect
Chet K
Quote from: Smudge on 2020.05.22, 15:41:08
On this thread https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3718.msg82080#msg82080 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3718.msg82080#msg82080) the ZPower device was discussed. As this seems to have been demonstrated to produce its own power I have given it more consideration. Here is my thoughts on the device where it seems worth doing some experiments with Al and Bi bimetallic contacts in magnetic fields. Anyone up for this?
Smudge
Smudge,
looking at your electromotive force table in the PDF, i wonder if not some other more available
elements can be used, like magnesium (+2.4V) and copper (-0.47V) yielding almost a 3V potential.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.23, 17:26:05
Smudge,
looking at your electromotive force table in the PDF, i wonder if not some other more available
elements can be used, like magnesium (+2.4V) and copper (-0.47V) yielding almost a 3V potential.
Itsu
Yes, I only considered Al and Bi because that is what the ZPower device uses. Al and Cu should also be interesting and easy to find. Got to watch the surface finish as the contact voltage changes drastically with oxidization or reaction with dampness. Also impurities have a big effect. There is something known as the magnetic Seebeck effect which suggests that even a static magnetic field could produce a voltage. It would be interesting to see what happens if a neo magnet is held near one thermocouple of a pair, does that produce a small DC voltage? Maybe the alternating field in the ZPower device is simply to get an AC voltage that can be stepped up to something useful.
Smudge
Ok Smudge, i have thrown together something quickly, not sure this is what you mean.
using 2 copper pipes and 2 alu pipes tightly fitted into each other forming 2 thermocouples in series.
Waving 2 strong neo's above one of the thermocouples only shows a 1mV DC pulse or signal on my fluke DMM.
Would you expect some more voltage or is this not what you was pointing at?
video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUimosuFhxo&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Thanks Itsu for doing that. Actually you had three Al-Cu couples in series, plus two more dissimilar metal couples where the probes connected. That 1mV is probably the induction due to movement of the magnet, you would get the same if you just had a length of wire. I was looking for a change of DC voltage when the magnet is placed close and not moving, but your instrument is not sensitive enough for that..
Graham Gunderson built a DC amplifier that he kindly sent to me that increased the DC sensitivity of my oscilloscope so I could discern microvolts. Surprisingly all metal to metal junctions exhibited voltage that changed with temperature, even the scope probe connections or croc clip connections. But I never thought to see if a (constant) magnetic field at a junction also acted like a temperature change. Sadly I no longer have any equipment. Grumage has that DC amplifier, although he doesn't know it. It was in a box of odds and ends that I took to him.
Grumage, if you can find a die-cast box with a BNC connector and two terminals on it, have a look inside to find a 9V pp3 battery (that may have leaked and ruined everything). If you have it and it is OK would you be willing to send it to Itsu? The two terminals were for twin wire cable with croc clips for connecting to the DUT. The BNC connector was for connection to the scope. There is also a knob for adjusting DC back off because the thing is highly sensitive and drifts with time and ambient changes. I am sure Itsu will have hours of fun playing with this and will find that just the act of connecting with a croc clip heat transfer from the fingers causes measurable change. That will definitely find the Al-Cu effect which will undoubtedly change with temperature and maybe even with the presence of a magnetic field.
Smudge
Hi Cyril.
The amplifier has been kept in a cool and dry environment since you dropped it off. Although the batteries are flat they haven't leaked.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Smudge
Surprisingly all metal to metal junctions exhibited voltage that changed with
temperature, even the scope probe connections or croc clip connections.
Peltier Effect even at low temperatures?
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.05.24, 20:36:09
Ok Smudge, i have thrown together something quickly, not sure this is what you mean.
using 2 copper pipes and 2 alu pipes tightly fitted into each other forming 2 thermocouples in series.
Waving 2 strong neo's above one of the thermocouples only shows a 1mV DC pulse or signal on my fluke DMM.
Would you expect some more voltage or is this not what you was pointing at?
video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUimosuFhxo&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
Would it be useful to machine the Al such that when the Cu is put into boiling water and the Al into iced water, you get a very firm grip between them. The snag is that youo'll never get them apart again.
Quote from: Grumage on 2020.05.25, 18:31:48
Hi Cyril.
The amplifier has been kept in a cool and dry environment since you dropped it off. Although the batteries are flat they haven't leaked.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
Glad you found it. Now what is the best way forward? I think this could be used to investigate whether the presence of a static magnetic field at a bi-metallic junction will alter the junction potential, however small that change may be.
The device has a built in low pass filter to get rid of noise and that has a time constant measured in seconds. So for any measurement you have to wait a few seconds for the DC level to settle down, then adjust to zero. Then if you touch the junction with your finger the heat transfer causes the voltage to change from zero, the amount of change depends upon the size (really the thermal capacity) of the junction. I didn't envisage the use of large lumps of material as in Itsu's pipes, but since we are not looking for a temperature effect maybe size doesn't matter. Bringing a magnet close to the junction will induce a voltage from that movement, so the meter/scope will go off scale. You then wait to see whether the voltage returns to zero to see whether the presence of the static field has had an effect. Because you are not sure that the small induced current during the magnet movement hasn't created an unwanted electro-chemical effect, like altering the contacting surfaces, you then remove the magnet and wait to hopefully see the voltage return to zero. May need several runs to get the feel of things.
Would you be interested in getting involved or would you rather send the amplifier to Itsu? I can assure you that this will find a temperature effect at any bi-metallic junction, as Graham said these voltages are everywhere but we don't normally see them. The ZPower devices uses Al and Bi and I guess that your workshop could have both tucked away in an odd corner.
Regards
Cyril
Good morning Cyril.
I will gladly send on the " Gizmo " to Itsu.
Due to the present situation we seem to have found new purpose, my two youngest son's very active in the workshop building model IC engines. This was my own ( part time ) business for nigh on 30+ years.
Kind regards, Graham.
Wonderful story Grum! Having the ability to make things with precision
that actually work is very satisfying. Never a dull or boring moment!
Smudge
Thanks for the suggestions and opening the NMR topic
Respectfully
Chet
Jumping in, climbing the learning curve - thanks for all this, Cyril and everyone! O0
FWIW the NMR topic was opened here on OUR
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3322.msg56207#msg56207 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3322.msg56207#msg56207)
but came to an abrupt end for no good reason.
Smudge
Smudge,
i saw the thermocouple tests on OU.com, so i tried something similar.
Nowadays most DMM's come with a temperature sensing capability, also some i have.
There is some setup box in which the thermocouple is plugged in and connected to the DMM.
I guess this setup box converts/filters some very small voltages to something to be read by the DMM, something like the amplifier box from Graham Gunderson i think.
So i used a strong neo magnet to see if the original single thermocouple saw any change (which it did) and then used my home made AL-CU double thermocouple connected to this setup box.
This last setup did not show any change when the magnet was stationary, only strong fluctuations when approaching or leaving this AL-CU thermocouple combo.
But there was some increase (2°) when the neo was placed on the original thermocouple coming with the DMM and a return to "normal" temperature when removed.
2 out of 3 DMM equipped with such a temp capability showed the increase (Voltcraft (2°) and Fluke 179 (1.5°), the el cheapo MG890G not).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyau5YyfCzo&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
Thanks for that. It seems you could be on to something there, the thermocouple responded to the presence of a magnetic field in a manner equivalent to a 2 degree temperature rise. Now I would really like to know whether the field direction relative to the dissimilar metals contact surfaces is important, and for that we need to know the geometry of that contact. If the two dissimilar metal wires are twisted together the contact surface is a spiral, whereas if they are simply side by side it is not spiral. The image below shows the difference. Can you find out what the internals of the themocouple look like?
Another experiment to perform uses a changing magnetic field, and with your temperature measuring set up this would have to be a slowly varying change obtained from a solenoid (coil wound on ferrite rod) with applied current varied by hand. The set up would have to be arranged such that the normal induction from the varying field does not induce voltage, as we are only interested in the effect on the junction, and that will require the lead wires to be arranged so as to cancel induced voltage.
As a matter of interest did reversing the magnet change the sign of the apparent temperature change?
Smudge
Smudge,
looks like all 3 i have are the "simply side by side" types, see pixture, so the lower drawing in your above picture is valid.
Using a stack of cylinder magnets, it shows that all those 3 positions give the same increase, no matter North or South is used.
Itsu
Hi Itsu.
The " Gizmo " is on its way.... O0
Cheers Grum.
Hi Graham,
great, thanks for your help O0
Regards Itsu
Gizmo received in good order O0
Love the wallpaper Graham ;)
Itsu
Hi Itsu.
Good to read it reached you in good order. O0
My apologies for not replying sooner but I have an engine that's just about to " burst " into life but is being
" difficult " at the moment.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
no problem, i know how it is when an experiment is about to open up, very exciting! O0
Itsu
I did some initial tests with the amplifier box (gizmo), but the zeroing potmeter made some clunky sounds, had a lot of end play and did not seem to react properly.
After opening up the box/pcb it turned out the potmeters back side was seperated from the front and some little broken off pieces were visible inside.
I will order a new "Bourns 1 Gang 10 Turn Rotary Wirewound Potentiometer" and replace it.
Itsu
I have posted the attached paper elsewhere, but I am re-posting it here for the benefit of all those researchers who have dabbled with BEMF spikes and found anomalous results. Although written with the static field from a permanent magnet in mind, it could also apply to systems that do not have a permanent magnet (e.g. we all live within a static field from the Earth). It requires a fast magnetic field transient to drive electron precessions into a "non-permitted" quantum state where anomalous results would be exhibited while the electrons return to their "permitted" state. With our usual power sources (that are low impedance voltage sources) it is impossible to get fast rise of magnetic field since it is current that creates the field and for inductors a nanosecond rise time in voltage does not create a nanosecond rise time in current. Where you do get a fast field transient is at the back end of a voltage pulse where voltage is switched off, and that area is ripe for investigation of the OU effect described.
Smudge
I thought some people may be interested in my LH Rule for visualizing how the Curl operator applied to the magnetic vector potential A creates the resultant magnetic B field.
Smudge
Brian Ahern has just sent me an email about the Manelas device, summarising the pertinent features.
QuoteWe have Arthur's original components, test data and conversational records: They are:
1. bifilar spiral windings at 22 gauge
2. SrFeOx billet (strong B-field, high resistance)
3. billet wound with bifilar wire
4. Test data;
5. voltage versus time for 7 days- 30 watts with dips and 162 volts
6. dips correlate with solar mass ejections
7. six day light bulb test at 60 watts at 180 volts
8. higher voltage gave much greater power
9. Billet may be magnetostrictive - may support scalar B-fields
10. thermistor mounted on the billet cooled by 3 - 5 degrees C
11. Manelas device #2 was not tested before his passing
12. July 2012 device over charged the batteries correlating with a Nova explosion in our galaxy reported in Japan.
13. Conversations:
14. Unipolar pulses must have as fast a rise time as possible
15. resonant frequency was ~ 130 kHz
16. Spril 22 2012 - massive overcharging of Arthur's large battery system ( > 500 pounds of batteries - supernova considered as the source
17. 170 feet in length for each bifilar winding
18. He referred to his device as CFA Cosmic Flux Amplifier
Our current model -_ energy comes from some entity like harvested neutrinos or scalar longitudinal waves or etheric capture a la Donald Hotson
We know the energy output was real and bifilar windings induce scalar waves.
Very fast pulses is our immediate goal.
Billet cooling is the most straightforward data source
Cooling is expected from spins randomizing and realigning at resonance
REALIGNING IS A NEGATIVE ENTROPY CONDITION.
TEMP. = dS/dU According to Nobel Lauriate Norman Ramsey
so negative entropy results in cooling.
Higher voltage showed higher power out put.
The correlation with solar mass ejections and Nova explosions, and the possibility that the energy comes from some entity like harvested neutrinos, has triggered the following thoughts..
I have long held the view that EM waves and gravity have a common origin where fundamental mass-less particles (like neutrinos) play their part in the creation of electric, magnetic, inertial and gravity forces on matter. This thread is not the place to detail how this can be, but briefly all these forces can be explained by momentum exchange when such particles are absorbed then emitted from a matter particle such as an electron. It is accepted that although neutrinos have zero rest-mass (and therefore travel through space at light velocity) they do have energy and momentum. For a stable particle like an electron, for each neutrino absorbed by collision one must be emitted. It only requires some internal time delay between absorption and emission for the electron to exhibit inertia, thus we have an explanation for inertial mass in terms of the number density of neutrinos in our part of space, the collision cross section (area) of the electron, that internal time delay and the known momentum of the neutrino.
It is also known that the neutrino has spin, which is a vector quantity separate from its velocity vector. If we postulate that the electron emits its absorbed neutrinos, not in a direction determined by that from which it arrived, but in a direction determined by the arriving neutrino's spin, we have an explanation for what constitutes an electric field (e.g. from another electron) where the neutrino spin vector determines the field direction, either parallel to or anti-parallel to the velocity. It will be noted that this simple possibility accounts for the electric field effect travelling at light velocity, the electron's property of charge and the force it endures (by momentum exchange) within an electric field. When the source of an electric field (say an electron) is moving relative to another electron (or vice versa) then the arriving neutrinos do not have their spins aligned with their perceived (relative) velocity vector, there will be a small transverse component. This then modifies the force direction when the neutrino is emitted, and that accounts for the magnetic force on the electron.
Of course for the electric or magnetic force to be recognisable it requires a stream of arriving neutrinos to all exhibit the appropriate spin alignment, and that is against the huge background density of neutrinos arriving from distant space having a multitude of alignments that appear random. That random neutrino background, having no observable pattern, is the so-called flat-space of relativity. As that background of arriving neutrinos has an average small transversivity of spin v. velocity vector, we then find that there is another force between matter particles related to that small transversivity. This comes about because neutrinos emitted have zero transverse spin, so those emitted from nearby matter to reach our test particle will create a force on it that would otherwise not be there. That force is towards the nearby matter, it is gravity. The pattern of outward travelling neutrinos with zero transverse spin is the curved-space of relativity.
It may seem incredible that the neutrino could be the carrier for so many different forces, and it is likely that the true theory of everything will be far more complex than that described above, but this simple concept has much to recommend it. And it could account for why the Manelas device exhibited a surge of performance associated with a surge of neutrinos.
Smudge
Not sure of I posted this paper here on a Manelas topic, but here is is anyway.
Smudge
More info on the Manelas device:
https://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ahern-manelas-device.pdf
Smudge's other paper:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi82Jan0pvtAhUNMawKHcS9C5g4ChAWMAF6BAgDEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunityresearch.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D3323.0%3Battach%3D22166&usg=AOvVaw15OvWq91hT1d3wbfU-M_Dh
Thanks smudge I have no idea of the makeup of my billet but I will be experimenting with this. Are the t bearded vids of sweets experiments avail anywhere does anyone know edit: found it
Brian Ahern's presentation. He starts to discuss Manellas work ar 11:26 mark. https://youtu.be/0PS2v1kN1U8
I am off on vacation for the next week so won't be around. You may have noticed my new avatar. We took our great grandchildren to Madam Tussauds (waxworks) in London some time ago and I took the opportunity to stand alongside my friend Albert. ;)
Smudge
Here is my latest paper, written in the hope that it may renew interest in the Marinov generator or similar work. If you follow the arguments you may realize that the sudden acceleration of electrons as they are emitted from an electrode into a plasma or vacuum could also be a means for extracting energy from magnets.
Smudge
In the Van de Graaff machine (you mentioned "Wimshurst" in your paper but I think it was about the Van de Graaf generator), the belt is not conducting. The electrons move with the belt because they are captive.
With a conductive belt (fig.5) or with the slip ring (fig.6), the free electrons are not bound, they will not be driven by the belt but will continue at the same speed when they pass from the sliding contact to the belt. There will be no acceleration, the current will remain constant everywhere and so will the drift velocity. The speed of the electrons will only be changed relative to the moving belt, not relative to the fixed observer who sees the current I.
This idea of a "static E field with non zero closed integral" (fig.2) is certainly interesting but imho it will not be possible to demonstrate it with the proposed experimental setup. I'm thinking if alternatives are possible.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.10, 08:39:48
In the Van de Graaff machine (you mentioned "Wimshurst" in your paper but I think it was about the Van de Graaf generator), the belt is not conducting. The electrons move with the belt because they are captive.
Ooops! Yes, that was a senior moment.
QuoteWith a conductive belt (fig.5) or with the slip ring (fig.6), the free electrons are not bound, they will not be driven by the belt but will continue at the same speed when they pass from the sliding contact to the belt. There will be no acceleration, the current will remain constant everywhere and so will the drift velocity. The speed of the electrons will only be changed relative to the moving belt, not relative to the fixed observer who sees the current I.
Yes the fixed observer will see the current I, and he will also see that current split, half going round say the top half of the slip ring and the other going round the bottom half. Within the slip ring the electrons travel at trivial drift velocity relative to the ions,
but those ions are traveling at the slip ring circumferential velocity which is not trivial. The differential between ion velocity and electron velocity determines the current. One half of the slip ring has electrons travelling at slip ring velocity plus trivial drift velocity, the other half has electrons traveling at slip ring velocity minus trivial drift velocity. Electrons jumping from brush to slip ring have to accelerate up to slip ring speed else they would represent a current that is not I.
QuoteThis idea of a "static E field with non zero closed integral" (fig.2) is certainly interesting but imho it will not be possible to demonstrate it with the proposed experimental setup.
Imho that is because your perception is wrong.
QuoteI'm thinking if alternatives are possible.
Good, once you start from the premise that such a non zero closed integral is possible it should lead to other possibilities. I am already looking at free running magnet motors from this perspective that then tells us where their energy comes from.
Smudge
@Smudge
Free electrons are extremely mobile in metals. The force provided by a current generator will be much higher than the one linked to the "friction" of the free electrons with the crystal lattice which would drag them into the rotating ring.
For me the rotation of the ring will have a negligible effect, the current generator alone will almost completely drive the free electrons.
I guess that you think the opposite and that this is what separates our points of view.
I'm going to see if the literature tells us the order of magnitude of the force that a free electron would experience when a conductor starts to move.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.15, 18:03:42
@Smudge
Free electrons are extremely mobile in metals.
Yes they dance about at Fermi velocities, but they don't move very far unless some E field drags them along, and then for practical currents they only move on aggregate at very low velocities, say 1 mm/S within a stationary conductor. If the conductor is moving along its length axis at say 10 m/S while still carrying that 1 mm/S current then the electrons are moving at 10.001 m/S while the lattice moves at 10 m/S. In jumping from stationary brush to moving conductor the 1 mm/S electrons cannot maintain that velocity within the lattice else it would represent a reverse current of 10,000 times magnitude. It will take movement over a number of lattice dimensions before the arriving electrons reduce their velocity to 10.001 m/S to settle within the lattice, but that still represents an acceleration. I claim that acceleration will create local E fields that induce into both the moving lattice (where it appears as a deceleration) and outside in the non moving frame.
QuoteI'm going to see if the literature tells us the order of magnitude of the force that a free electron would experience when a conductor starts to move.
Isn't that associated with electron inertia that already explains the Barnett Effect and the Einstein-de-Haas Effect? And I have a feeling that someone discovered that a solenoid under angular acceleration about its axis develops an induced voltage but I can't recall who it was.
Smudge
@Smudge
Being in discussion on another forum about the radiation of the electron during its acceleration, a contributor made this interesting point which joins our subject by confirming the idea of the same effect that a vector potential or electrostatic can have, whether its gradient is spatial or temporal:
(translation)
"Let be a static force field F(x,t) = F(x) in a reference frame R.
In a reference frame R' animated by a velocity v with respect to R, we have the following transformations :
x = x' + v t'
t = t'
if ∂F/∂t = 0 in R, in R' we have :
∂F/∂t' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂t' + ∂F/∂t * ∂t/∂t' = v.∇F + 0
So if a field is spatially variable and static in time it automatically becomes time variable in another reference frame. But beware, in the framework of Galilean relativity the reciprocal is not true, namely that a field variable in time and static in space will remain static in any other reference frame:
If F(x,t) = F(t)
∂F/∂x' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂x' + ∂F/∂t . ∂t/∂x' = 0 + 0 = 0 !!!!
It is on this precise point that special relativity totally changes the deal, because contrary to Galilean kinematics a field variable in time and static in space becomes automatically variable in space from another reference frame:
F(x,t) = F(t)
x = γ (x' + v t')
t = γ (t' + v x')
Here we put c = 1 to simplify the equations.
∂F/∂x' = ∂F/∂x * ∂x/∂x' + ∂F/∂t * ∂t/∂x' = 0 + γ.v . ∂F/∂t
In summary, in a relativistic framework, by change of reference frame a static gradient becomes a dynamic field, and a dynamic field in space becomes a gradient.
In other words, the variation of a quantity in space differs physically from its variation in time only from a descriptive point of view under another reference frame. If a gradient produces a force that is proportional to it (such as the electrostatic potential) its variation in time must produce a rigorously equivalent force that must also be proportional to it, this by direct application of the principle of relativity."
So we could well generate a current thanks to a spatial gradient of the vector potential or of the electrostatic potential, as with its temporal gradient, but only relativistic analysis allows us to affirm this (not Galilean). Now that this possibility that you also assert is confirmed by relativity, it remains to find out how (your proposal is a way) and if it would allow to extract a new source of energy.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.08.16, 09:07:13
Yes they dance about at Fermi velocities, but they don't move very far unless some E field drags them along, and then for practical currents they only move on aggregate at very low velocities, say 1 mm/S within a stationary conductor. If the conductor is moving along its length axis at say 10 m/S while still carrying that 1 mm/S current then the electrons are moving at 10.001 m/S while the lattice moves at 10 m/S. In jumping from stationary brush to moving conductor the 1 mm/S electrons cannot maintain that velocity within the lattice else it would represent a reverse current of 10,000 times magnitude. It will take movement over a number of lattice dimensions before the arriving electrons reduce their velocity to 10.001 m/S to settle within the lattice, but that still represents an acceleration. I claim that acceleration will create local E fields that induce into both the moving lattice (where it appears as a deceleration) and outside in the non moving frame.
Isn't that associated with electron inertia that already explains the Barnett Effect and the Einstein-de-Haas Effect? And I have a feeling that someone discovered that a solenoid under angular acceleration about its axis develops an induced voltage but I can't recall who it was.
Smudge
You have convinced me that electrons undergo acceleration. Only the current remains constant, not the speed of the electrons.
I still have an objection. If we take figure 6, with the ring rotating clockwise, the electrons arriving through the left contact will be accelerated in the ring, but only towards the upper half of the ring.
The electrons arriving from the lower half of the ring will be decelerated as they exit towards the same sliding contact.
Won't their effects cancel each other out?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.16, 14:09:48
You have convinced me that electrons undergo acceleration. Only the current remains constant, not the speed of the electrons.
I still have an objection. If we take figure 6, with the ring rotating clockwise, the electrons arriving through the left contact will be accelerated in the ring, but only towards the upper half of the ring.
Yes
QuoteThe electrons arriving from the lower half of the ring will be decelerated as they exit towards the same sliding contact.
I don't follow you, there are no electrons exiting there, we don't have a reversed current. (Well strictly speaking there will be Fermi velocity electrons jumping back and forth across the sliding contact that do cancel out). Current flowing electrons exit at the other side of the ring and there they do endure a deceleration.
Smudge
We don't have a reverse current but we have reverse electrons.
Indeed the current being the passage of a certain number of charges per unit of time, the acceleration and then the higher speed of the electrons in the upper half of the ring, because of its rotation entraining them, makes that we have less charges for the same current.
But in the lower part, it is the opposite. The electrons arrive quickly to the left electrode, they must then slow down, so that the current that comes out is made of more electrons, but going less quickly.
In other words, in the lower part, the rotation of the ring drives the electrons in the opposite direction of what the external current would impose if there was no rotation. The neutrality of the whole circuit and the constancy of the current implies that electrons in the lower part slow down when they arrive at the left electrode (otherwise they could not be accelerated anymore since they would already be at the fast speed).
Did I miss something?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.08.25, 17:22:09
Did I miss something?
No. I don't accept your argument so I think we must agree to disagree.
Smudge
To know if we agree or not, we must understand each other.
Do you agree that the same current can be made of a large flow of slow electrons or a small flow of fast electrons?
If so, and we assume that we have the same current in the upper half of the ring as in the lower half, then if the electrons accelerate to the right when entering the upper half of the circuit because of the linear velocity of the ring to the right, they must also decelerate in the lower half of the circuit since the linear velocity of the ring is to the left.
The drift velocity of the electrons in the upper half is faster than in the lower half because their movement is in the same direction as the ring at the top, and in the opposite direction at the bottom.
If they accelerate at the top to reach the fast speed, then they must decelerate at the bottom to reach the slow speed. The situation is symmetrical, and the effect of deceleration cancels out the effect of acceleration.
What exactly do you disagree with?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.09.01, 08:20:02
To know if we agree or not, we must understand each other.
Do you agree that the same current can be made of a large flow of slow electrons or a small flow of fast electrons?
Yes, but in this experiment we are dealing with electron flow in conductors so there are no fast electrons, it is always a large flow of slow electrons.
QuoteIf so, and we assume that we have the same current in the upper half of the ring as in the lower half, then if the electrons accelerate to the right when entering the upper half of the circuit because of the linear velocity of the ring to the right, they must also decelerate in the lower half of the circuit since the linear velocity of the ring is to the left.
That makes no sense. When you say the upper half of the ring then the brushes must be at the left and the right. Then electrons entering from the left get accelerated upwards for CW rotation. Like blue cars entering a motorway ring. But the continuous stream of red and blue vehicles already on the motorway travelling in compact formation have to adjust to allow the volume density of cars to remain the same. So the blue cars around the top half of the ring have to travel slightly faster than the red cars there to make room for the new blue intruders, and those travelling around the bottom half have to travel slightly slower than the red cars there. The differential between the red and blue car velocities in each half of the ring is the drift velocity of the blue cars. Note that the drift velocity for both the top and bottom halves is to the right. Note also that all the blue cars entering the ring accelerate in the same direction, and those leaving the ring decelerate in the same direction.
Smudge