I think a lot of people still don't believe the 90deg coupling voodoo associated with ferromagnetic wire, so I thought I would post a brief kickstarter for those interested in replication of GK and other TPU-related works.
Few details listed here because almost every component is non-critical. Only main aspect is: interrupted currents in ferromagnetic wire create impulses that can be picked-up at a 90deg angle to the current, creating a transformer action based on changing permeability that is non-reciprocal to the source.
I'm looking forward to seeing others tinker around with this on the bench.
PS: Use some kind of metal shielding between yourself and the device unless you want to personally confirm the migraine headaches that can be associated with pulsing such setups. :P
Hi Reiyuki,
Could you please post a simple schematic?
I know it is simple, but I don't think anyone wants to assume, and I certainly don't. Didn't we tackle this way back on OU.com, or gn0sis.com one time? Or maybe here?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.04.26, 21:57:57
Could you please post a simple schematic?
I know it is simple, but I don't think anyone wants to assume, and I certainly don't. Didn't we tackle this way back on OU.com, or gn0sis.com one time? Or maybe here?
Attached is simple coil driver akin to what has been posted in many variants by many people over the years.
I just didn't want to use too much detail as I didn't want someone holding off replication because they didn't have the exact MOSFET or capacitors laying around (guilty of this myself! :P)
The operating margins are quite wide, and as long as you start at a low voltage there's minimal risk of letting out the magic smoke.
Sanjev21 would probably be the best source for high-current feedback-protected MOSFET drivers, but in this case the effect shows up at very low power levels (6v 0.02a with ~4us pulses at about 20% duty for the above example that I whipped together today).
The resulting impulses we see are very likely caused by the change of inductance in the ferromagnetic wire, which explains why loading the copper output coils do not result in increased load to the supply (there is BEMF+CEMF for induced currents, but not for a changing inductance IIRC ???).
I think an ideal circuit would be as-per GK's suggestion, where ferromagnetic wire is not pulsed directly but in series with a charge-pump, so that the stored inductive energy is redirected instead of dissipated. A buck/boost DC-DC converter would work well here, with the ferromagnetic wire in series with the inductor. :)
If I understand the setup correctly, you are pulsing a straight long/narrow piece of ferromagnetic material that has a light gauge copper wire "coil" wrapped around it from end to end, correct? And it can be advantageous to load the coil with a cap to lower/dampen the frequency, correct?
Does a piece of ferromagnetic material stretched out reasonably straight have more inductance than a same length copper strip?
Does the inductance increase or decrease? I would guess decrease.
What is the current working theory as to why the inductance/permeability changes with the pulsing current?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.04.27, 00:01:48
If I understand the setup correctly, you are pulsing a straight long/narrow piece of ferromagnetic material that has a light gauge copper wire "coil" wrapped around it from end to end, correct? And it can be advantageous to load the coil with a cap to lower/dampen the frequency, correct?
Yes, exactly this :)
QuoteDoes a piece of ferromagnetic material stretched out reasonably straight have more inductance than a same length copper strip?
update:
0.2uH for the ~14in length of straight nickel strip
The few-foot copper coil wrapped around it reads 4uH and about ~2uH when a few small magnets are used to saturate the nickel 'core'
QuoteDoes the inductance increase or decrease? I would guess decrease.
The inductance decreases as current flow increases. It is very much akin to a magnetic amplifier, and a setup like this could indeed be used as a mag-amp / saturable reactor. As magnetic flux increases in a permeable metal, it saturates causing permeability to decrease (inductance along with it).
QuoteWhat is the current working theory as to why the inductance/permeability changes with the pulsing current?
I suspect saturable reactor/magnetic amplifier formulas can directly apply here, with current through the nickel 'core' treated as a single-turn control winding.
https://www.sunpower-uk.com/glossary/what-is-magnetic-amplifier/
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.04.27, 00:01:48
Does a piece of ferromagnetic material stretched out reasonably straight have more inductance than a same length copper strip?
A straight length of wire has both an internal inductance (from the field within the wire) and an external inductance (from the field outside the wire), the actual inductance value is their sum. The internal inductance is
uru0/8pi Henries per meter independent of the thickness of the wire. That has to be added to the external inductance . For high
u wire like Fe or Ni that internal inductance can dominate the total value at low frequencies. At higher frequencies the internal inductance is lower on account of the skin effect.
Smudge
Thanks smudge.
For non-fwerromagnetic materials, is u1 * u0 = 1?
Quote from: Reiyuki on 2021.04.27, 00:35:35
update:
0.2uH for the ~14in length of straight nickel strip
The few-foot copper coil wrapped around it reads 4uH and about ~2uH when a few small magnets are used to saturate the nickel 'core'
Rei, what would the inductance be of a straight 14in strip of copper (not wound on the nickel strip)? We want an equal comparison don't we?
What are you using to make the inductance measurements?
Quote from: poynt99Rei, what would the inductance be of a straight 14in strip of copper (not wound on the nickel strip)? We want an equal comparison don't we?
Indeed :P,
I *think* I can find a strip of copper long enough, and/or use aluminum foil/strip to do a quantitative comparison. But I also have several types of wire onhand from when these tests were first done a few years ago. Copper, aluminum, soft iron, steel, nickel, nitinol, and craft wire which I believe was a tin alloy were all tested, with all non-magnetic materials behaving similar to copper. Of the ferromagnetic materials, nickel had the strongest results, followed by soft iron, followed by high-carbon steel wire in the audio freq range.
Also bear in mind that flat strip wire will perform a bit differently vs round.
QuoteWhat are you using to make the inductance measurements?
I'm using a B&K Precision 878/879 LCR Meter.
When replicators begin experimenting with ferromagnetic wire, you will likely find it difficult to model+predict the behavior of any given setup, since the core material and transformer windings are the same element. ;)
0.02uH must be close to the capability of your meter I would think (smallest FSV of 40uH). When you measure only the meter leads, is it 0uH?
Yes, I think it is important to measure one of your non-ferrous strips or wires to compare.
QuoteI think it is important to measure one of your non-ferrous strips or wires to compare.
Agreed.
I'll update this post with the relevant results when the opportunity arises. And yes, such short lengths of wire are indeed close to bottom-scale for the meter I'm using.
I hope others are picking up some nickel strip so they can tinker around themselves as well :P
Update 4/28:
(Meter short-circuit calibrated before each measurement)
Test using 100in nickel strip:
2.7uH (@1k)
.257 ohm measured resistance
.254 ohm measured impedance @1k
Test using 100in paired copper speaker wire (~14awg)
2.6uH (@1k)
0.033 ohm measured resistance
0.023 ohm measured impedance @1k
Note: measuring permeability, specifically change in permeability requires a different setup entirely.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.04.27, 22:52:26
Thanks smudge.
For non-fwerromagnetic materials, is u1 * u0 = 1?
No. u
1 = 1 and u
0 = 4*pi*10
-7 so u
1 * u
0 = 4*pi*10
-7(In my post I used the subscript r for relative u and not the subscript 1)
Smudge
Adding GK's post from a little while back:
Reiyuki
I find it really strange that there are still people who believe 90 degree coupling or longitudinal forces cannot occur.
For example, if we build a tesla coil of any size it will light a neon/fluorescent or vacuum tube/LED at any angle from the source within it's sphere of influence. If we connect a coil to said devices it will produce the same effect and become more effective with a ground connection. So we should be clear that offset coupling and longitudinal forces are the norm in nature, any voltage over 500v, high frequency and almost anything in a hard vacuum. It is only in man-made low voltage, low current and low frequency systems that limited coupling occurs.
Here's another strange concept, the space between particles at the atomic level is a hard vacuum like outer space because there is no air or other atoms/molecules present on that level. So we are surrounded by a universe filled with the vacuum of space and all matter we know of also contains a hard vacuum. It is only on our peculiar, often superficial level of existence that things appear to be something there not or more than they actually are in reality. In fact everything we call "material" is only 1% particles immersed in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves.
That's a real mind bender isn't it?, only within the very limited scope of our reality within a pressurized environment here on Earth does this supposed limited and directional energy coupling occur yet many consider it ... normal.
I beg to differ...
Regards
AC
Thanks Rei.
So from your test results in post #10, the copper and nickel measured the same inductance. Was that the expectation?
Not questioning the effect, but have you performed a similar "sanity check" test using copper in place of the nickel to see if there is signal on the outer coil?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.04.28, 22:29:36
Thanks Rei.
So from your test results in post #10, the copper and nickel measured the same inductance. Was that the expectation?
Not questioning the effect, but have you performed a similar "sanity check" test using copper in place of the nickel to see if there is signal on the outer coil?
Thanks for the response,
It was not expected, but then again it had been a couple years since I last experimented with ferromagnetic wire. I think I had mentally conflated 'permeability' with 'inductance' leading to the mistaken prediction.C.C
The 'sanity checks' were also performed back then, and IIRC it resulted in an extremely weak 'transformer' that acted by primarily dielectric coupling. I predict a purely copper wire equivalent circuit would also be symmetric and not 'ring down' when current flow is interrupted.
AC said
Quotethe space between particles at the atomic level is a hard vacuum like outer space because there is no air or other atoms/molecules present on that level
I have been making that point for years in respect of ferromagnetic material, which makes the concept of magnetization M (as dipole moment per unit volume) nonsense, there are no dipoles in that vacuum space except for itinerant conduction electrons. That is why the incremental relative permeability of hard magnets or saturated soft magnets is that of free space. So for conductive materials like Fe or Ni we should consider that inner space as a sort of plasma. And electrons within a magnetized plasma will follow cyclotron curvature. So I do wonder whether a current carrying Cu coil wound around a Fe wire giving the Fe longitudinal magnetization can make electron current along the Fe tend to follow a spiral path. If so that will make the inductance of the Fe wire greater. Is that worth an experiment?
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.04.29, 08:19:17
AC said I have been making that point for years in respect of ferromagnetic material, which makes the concept of magnetization M (as dipole moment per unit volume) nonsense, there are no dipoles in that vacuum space except for itinerant conduction electrons. That is why the incremental relative permeability of hard magnets or saturated soft magnets is that of free space. So for conductive materials like Fe or Ni we should consider that inner space as a sort of plasma. And electrons within a magnetized plasma will follow cyclotron curvature. So I do wonder whether a current carrying Cu coil wound around a Fe wire giving the Fe longitudinal magnetization can make electron current along the Fe tend to follow a spiral path. If so that will make the inductance of the Fe wire greater. Is that worth an experiment?
Smudge
Thanks Smudge, I really like the cyclotron analogy. ;D
BTW the coupling does not HAVE to be 90deg to get an effect. You can have a straight strip of insulated copper and insulated nickel back-to-back, and they will interact similarly to the first post.
Attached is a simple addendum to the previous test, demonstrating the difference in inductance winding simple coils of the two different materials.
As you can see, the nickel coil has a higher inductance, likely because the conductor is also the core material. :P
QuoteSo for conductive materials like Fe or Ni we should consider that inner space as a sort of plasma. And electrons within a magnetized plasma will follow cyclotron curvature.
reminded me of this C.C
Hi Reiyuki,
Where did that iron wire cyclotron image come from, I am intrigued.
Smudge
It is interesting that the Cyclotron and the Magnetron are very similar in their manner of operation.
Accelerated charged particles whether they be electrons or ions follow a predictable path of motion under the influence of a magnetic field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.04.30, 08:00:13
Where did that iron wire cyclotron image come from, I am intrigued.
Our friendly neighborhood Iron Man ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KCwYSxcpjU
I believe this is the soft iron wire being used:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Vigoro-50-ft-Heavy-Duty-Coated-Wire-T025BVG/203894420
Adding some basic inductance measurements of some various iron+copper wire configurations. Going for simple diagrams over text as I think it conveys the setups a bit more elegantly.
It's not directly related to 90deg coupling, but might be useful if anyone is 'anomaly hunting'. C.C
Thanks Rei.
Any surprises, interesting observations, or conclusions?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.05.03, 21:59:18
Any surprises, interesting observations, or conclusions?
Based on above data, the most unique observation would be that iron wire appears to have about the same inductance-per-turn as copper on a core, even though it is only about 15% as conductive.
Which helps explain its common use in early electronics as 'magnet' wire (ie: 'magnetic' wire). Many pre-1900's inventors constructing coils that do not explicitly mention copper may in fact be referring to iron-wound coils.
Why think that the output signal would be a consequence of a significant but doubtful variation of the magnetic wire or strip permeability with the current, when the simplest explanation is the capacitive coupling between the coil and the strip?
Was the experiment done with a shielded strip?
If any coupling is 90º, perpendicular, between any two conducting materials then the coupling is, IMO, capacitive as F6FLT has stated.
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.05, 07:59:28
Why think that the output signal would be a consequence of a significant but doubtful variation of the magnetic wire or strip permeability with the current, when the simplest explanation is the capacitive coupling between the coil and the strip?
Was the experiment done with a shielded strip?
Quote from: Centraflow on 2021.05.05, 11:28:30
If any coupling is 90º, perpendicular, between any two conducting materials then the coupling is, IMO, capacitive as F6FLT has stated.
Capacitive coupling is a good question, and thankfully it is just as easy to test as the original experiment.
The first-post experiment was re-created, except with an additional layer of aluminum foil between the nickel strip 'core' and the copper magnet wire helix (galvanically isolated of course).
There was no detectable change in response when the shield was left floating or grounded to any other component in the circuit. Physical earth ground was also used to confirm this.
^-^ O0
Hi Reiyuki,
This was the right thing to do, but there is always a possible loophole when shielding, because the shielding is also capacitively coupled to the circuit.
So you have to connect each end of the shield to the ground with the shortest possible connections, as on the attached diagram which is the one you provided and which I modified. Is this what you did? Only after this test, if the measured levels are always of the same order of magnitude, we can be sure of a magnetic effect.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.05.06, 07:45:50
This was the right thing to do, but there is always a possible loophole when shielding, because the shielding is also capacitively coupled to the circuit.
So you have to connect each end of the shield to the ground with the shortest possible connections, as on the attached diagram which is the one you provided and which I modified. Is this what you did? Only after this test, if the measured levels are always of the same order of magnitude, we can be sure of a magnetic effect.
There is a slightly diminished output when both shielded ends are shorted, but that is more likely caused by magnetic induction of the foil rather than electrostatic. A ground-loop.
To an extent you can often 'feel' electrostatic vs magnetic effects on a bench circuit, as small things like lead positioning or moving your hands usually has a noticeable impact on output.
Another way to confirm predominantly magnetic action is with a partial ferrite core placed near the ferromagnetic wire, which results in a significant output as well (see attached). :)
The decreased output is probably due to the fact that the shield is a shorted loop, magnetically coupled to the line, so it acts as a secondary winding of a shorted transformer, weakening the signal in the primary, i.e. the line.
To know if there is a real effect linked to the fact that the line is ferromagnetic, it is to replace it by a non-magnetic Cu or Al line, as suggested by Poynt99, and see if the difference is significant.
Classical electromagnetism tells us that there will be very little difference, because the ferromagnetic material here is not a core in the center of the winding but along the conductor, which it is.
If the difference is significant, then there is indeed more to investigate.
One possibility for the induction being considered here is the conduction electrons being spin-polarized and being dragged along the Fe wire by a magnetic field gradient. I have crudely modified the image posted in reply #12 to illustrate this. Here the coil is not uniformly wound on the wire but the turns are bunched up towards one end to create non-uniform field. The FE wire terminates just inside the coil where it is connected to Cu wire where the electrons lose their spin alignment and don't get a reverse force where the gradient reverses direction as the wire leaves the coil. For a gradient field that changes magnitude by 1 Tesla along its length the expected voltage is only 5uV, so a pretty small affect, but maybe worth exploring. Unlike inductive or capacitive effects the voltage is not a function of frequency and can exist even at DC.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.06.15, 14:33:30
One possibility for the induction being considered here is the conduction electrons being spin-polarized and being dragged along the Fe wire by a magnetic field gradient.
...
If this works in AC, it should also work in DC.
The wire could then be placed above a cylindrical permanent magnet, collinear with the axis of the magnet, so that we would have the field gradient due to a greater distance to the magnet for one end of the wire than for the other.
We could easily measure a current of 5 µV because it is now a direct current.
But why would electrons of opposite spin go in the same direction?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.06.17, 14:25:07
If this works in AC, it should also work in DC.
The wire could then be placed above a cylindrical permanent magnet, collinear with the axis of the magnet, so that we would have the field gradient due to a greater distance to the magnet for one end of the wire than for the other.
Agreed, and I did say DC.
QuoteWe could easily measure a current of 5 µV because it is now a direct current.
I would agree for a current of 5µA, but this is a voltage not a current. As such it is pretty useless as a power source unless we have circuits using superconductors. And with DC, detecting 5µV is difficult on oscilloscopes unless you have additional amplification. Itsu has a 1,000 times DC amplifier built by Graham Gunderson for me, then passed to him via Grumage, and that would enable anyone to see that 5µV DC.
QuoteBut why would electrons of opposite spin go in the same direction?
I did say spin polarized electrons and in the world of spintronics that means spins aligned with a magnetic field, so it depends on the degree of spin-polarization. At a field that reaches 1 Tesla the spin-polarization would be high, meaning a greater proportion of positive spin than negative spin. My 5µV was base on 100% polarization, and I should have said that.
Smudge
Hi Smudge
I mistakenly used the word "current" instead of "voltage" I was thinking of. I have a HP3468A multi-meter, and the 5µV is at the limit of what it can do, but still visible. On the oscilloscope, it's unlikely that you'll be able to read anything correct.
In fact I think it unlikely that we would have a DC current, which would be a proof of perpetual motion without us knowing where the energy comes from.
I think that at the end of the iron wire where the field is strongest, we have a gradient opposite to the one established along the wire.
This inverse gradient is over a very short distance, at the end of the wire, at the point where it meets the copper wire. At the end of the iron wire, in fact, the field lines spread out again since the wire is no longer there to channel them.
The opposite effect of the two reverse gradients will prevent any current.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.06.22, 07:10:26
Hi Smudge
I mistakenly used the word "current" instead of "voltage" I was thinking of. I have a HP3468A multi-meter, and the 5µV is at the limit of what it can do, but still visible. On the oscilloscope, it's unlikely that you'll be able to read anything correct.
In fact I think it unlikely that we would have a DC current, which would be a proof of perpetual motion without us knowing where the energy comes from.
If you treat the electron dipole as a changing current loop then the changing magnetic field as the electron moves through the field gradient induces a voltage into that current loop. That voltage of of a polarity whereby the source of the loop-current delivers power. If you treat the electron as a spinning spherical charge then the induced induced E field tries to slow down the spin, which of course it cannot do. Whatever keeps the electron permanently spinning could be the energy source.
QuoteI think that at the end of the iron wire where the field is strongest, we have a gradient opposite to the one established along the wire.
This inverse gradient is over a very short distance, at the end of the wire, at the point where it meets the copper wire. At the end of the iron wire, in fact, the field lines spread out again since the wire is no longer there to channel them.
The opposite effect of the two reverse gradients will prevent any current.
I disagree. Within the copper the electrons are no longer spin-polarized (they lose their spin-polarization within a few Angstroms of the Fe-Cu interface) hence are not influenced by the presence of a field gradient. Of course the Fe-Cu interface must occur at the magnetic field maximum, which is within the Fe. That means drilling a hole in the Fe rod and ensuring that the Fe-Cu connection is at the bottom of the hole.
I think a more likely reason for zero induced voltage is the Magnetic Seebeck Effect, which I presume means the Seebeck coefficient changes value if a magnetic field is present. Because of the Seebeck Effect the temperature must be the same at each end of the Fe rod. Maybe the Magnetic Seebeck effect exactly cancels the induced voltage because the magnetic field isn't the same at each end of the rod. Only experiment will tell us this.
Smudge
P.S. The Marinov generator is a more likely candidate for "where does the energy come from?". In my experiments I achieved 3 millivolts at 1000 RPM, and there is the possibility that E field radiation from electrons as they are accelerated from the brush onto the moving slip-ring similarly applies a load to the spinning electrons within the magnet.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.06.23, 08:47:40
...If you treat the electron as a spinning spherical charge then the induced induced E field tries to slow down the spin, which of course it cannot do.
I agree. This is a consequence of the quantization of the magnetic flux.
Quote
Whatever keeps the electron permanently spinning could be the energy source.
No energy is needed to maintain motion, either linear or angular, only to overcome losses or to do work. No energy is required for electron spin.
Quote
I disagree. Within the copper the electrons are no longer spin-polarized (they lose their spin-polarization within a few Angstroms of the Fe-Cu interface) hence are not influenced by the presence of a field gradient...
I agree, but that was not my point. I am saying that there is a reverse gradient at the end of the iron wire (probably in copper too a bit, but that's not my point).
The field lines follow the wire. But when they reach the end, they meet the copper which cannot channel them anymore. The field lines will not continue to exit in the continuity of the wire, because the break in permeability is felt throughout the field line loop. Indeed, the field lines use the "shortest magnetic path", i.e. the field at the end of the iron wire rearranges its topology according to the environment (this is what we see in the representations of rectangular permanent magnets: the field lines do not come out at the end but escape before :
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-410abffadd25e28bd5dfa66f0efb9e65)
The field lines then start to emerge with a larger and larger angle as we approach the end of the wire. So we will have a gradient in a small section before the end of the iron wire, and as the flux is conservative, this gradient will be identical to the other one along the wire and will compensate it exactly. I don't believe in the Seebeck effect here.
My assessment was and is SM turned an antenna into a conductor. Now when the antenna is FE it receives everything around it, regardless of the angle.This was one of his secrets.In trying to be a purist and please the purists I was concerned about this ambient noise being received from any angle.I backed away into researching more radio. I dont think I found anything new. But the transit way for the ambient is the antenna operation of one side of the device. There are two sides to the LTPU, top and bottom.
Yes the iron wire is Vigarow garden wire. The recipe changed over the years since I bought the first batch for the GK4. But it is still FE. Glad to see my past efforts being noted.
Sorry I have been away. I had to ponder the future for a while. SM was a master verbal prestidigitator. He was able to rephrase very specific operations to circumvent the NDA.The high speed bullets at the side of the car were square waves.
Thanks GK for bumping this thread snd reminding me that I did not reply to F6's comments.
QuoteI agree. This is a consequence of the quantization of the magnetic flux.
No energy is needed to maintain motion, either linear or angular, only to overcome losses or to do work. No energy is required for electron spin.
But just as a small PM can do work and supply energy I maintain that an even smaller in the form of a spinning electron can do so.
QuoteI agree, but that was not my point. I am saying that there is a reverse gradient at the end of the iron wire (probably in copper too a bit, but that's not my point).
The field lines follow the wire. But when they reach the end, they meet the copper which cannot channel them anymore. The field lines will not continue to exit in the continuity of the wire, because the break in permeability is felt throughout the field line loop. Indeed, the field lines use the "shortest magnetic path", i.e. the field at the end of the iron wire rearranges its topology according to the environment (this is what we see in the representations of rectangular permanent magnets: the field lines do not come out at the end but escape before :
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-410abffadd25e28bd5dfa66f0efb9e65)
The field lines then start to emerge with a larger and larger angle as we approach the end of the wire. So we will have a gradient in a small section before the end of the iron wire, and as the flux is conservative, this gradient will be identical to the other one along the wire and will compensate it exactly. I don't believe in the Seebeck effect here.
Yes what you describe is for an isolated PM where demagnetization takes place. But if there is an external field applied say from another PM then that need not be so. The field lines can continue passing unabated through the ends of the magnet into the copper. There is then no reverse gradient that you describe. The spin polarized conduction electrons enter the Cu but there they quickly lose their polarization because of collisions with the Cu ions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH2TWPJiwEA
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPyc_l-TVQ
O0
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.03.21, 14:51:18
Thanks GK for bumping this thread snd reminding me that I did not reply to F6's comments.But just as a small PM can do work and supply energy I maintain that an even smaller in the form of a spinning electron can do so.
Yes what you describe is for an isolated PM where demagnetization takes place. But if there is an external field applied say from another PM then that need not be so. The field lines can continue passing unabated through the ends of the magnet into the copper. There is then no reverse gradient that you describe. The spin polarized conduction electrons enter the Cu but there they quickly lose their polarization because of collisions with the Cu ions.
The field lines follow the B vector and are perpendicular to the equipotentials of the magnetic field. With 2 magnets the fields are superimposed in their common zone of influence.
I see no difference in principle between one magnet and two magnets, but only an arrangement of the magnetic field by superposition.
As the field lines are looped, if there is a gradient somewhere, there is a reverse gradient somewhere else, required by the continuity of the flux.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2021.05.05, 11:28:30
If any coupling is 90º, perpendicular, between any two conducting materials then the coupling is, IMO, capacitive as F6FLT has stated.
Regards
Mike 8)
it will still have a resonant component at a frequency, and a blotch wall effect especially if the winding is also added at that angle.
Sil
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022.03.23, 12:22:09
it will still have a resonant component at a frequency, and a blotch wall effect especially if the winding is also added at that angle.
Sil
Even a capacitor has a self resonance
Regards
Mike
PS. Maybe you should read my last post on the STEAP AND THE TPU thread.
Need to bring this old thread back to life::
When we pass current through a copper wire (DC):
We develop a magnetic field perpendicular to the wire
looking down the wire in the direction of current:
We observe a magnetic field on the left going upwards
And a field on the right pointing downwards.
(Tangental)
Lets coil this wire (right hand rule)
Now we have a magnetic field on the outside of the coil pointing up
And a field on the inside of the coil pointing down.
(looking from the perspective of the current through the wire not the coil as a whole)
So if we use a wire that is magnetized when current flows through it:
The current drives a magnetic field perpendicular to itself.
The induced field produces an electric field perpendicular to ITSELF!
These are two distinctly separate electric fields.
One vectored parallel to the wire as it wraps around each turn
And one perpendicular to the larger magnetic field.
This is why an a/c electromagnetic field can induce electric current in a nearby conductor
This is very similar to using a ferrous core, in terms of the outside perspective, under normal experimentation.
However, the iron wire has fundamentally different field properties.
With the core: the electric field is proportional to the magnetic strength at a point at a given distance from the coil
However: with the iron wire, the electric field at a point at a given distance is proportional to the magnetic potential at that point, with respect to the field polarities.
There is a greater electric field near the ends of the coil and weaker near it's center.
Important thing to understand:
In a static magnetic field, the electric field is also static.
A potential
For the electric field to change, there must be a change in the magnetic field (flux)
The flux (delta B) induces a proportional electric flux (delta e)
Therefore: an a/c magnetic field produces an a/c electric field of proportional magnitude
between 2 points at different distances from the magnetic field source.
Note: many people teaching basic magnetic concepts without the proper advanced education:
Often use the term "flux" to mean the field itself, or apply the term to the density of the field lines.
This is an improper use of the term. Flux is explicitly defined as: a change in magnetism.
And the electric field is always perpendicular to the magnetic field vector
i had a square wave oscillator at 126 khz running through a 0.01 cap into coil around iron wire coil at 90 degrees and the oscillations went to 245khz and the iron was at 1.8 to 2 mhz weird or normal ? what you folks think
Quote from: Kooler on 2026.06.06, 19:10:51
i had a square wave oscillator at 126 khz running through a 0.01 cap into coil around iron wire coil at 90 degrees and the oscillations went to 245khz and the iron was at 1.8 to 2 mhz weird or normal ? what you folks think
I don't get it. Was the 126 kHz square wave oscillator unstable ? Why did it change its frequency to 245kHz ?
How was all of that arranged an measured ? Any photos / diagrams ?
For example:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4110.0;attach=40376)
the way I was using it .. probably made it unstable .. I was using a old Chinese amazon 555 going into a cap to the coil. I was just wanting to see what it looks like running a signal in a right angle to iron wire. iron wire has 7 turns and is 16 awg..
forgot to mention that the 555 board only adjust up 220 ish khz something I had laying around the coil around the iron wire comes from the output with cap of 555 and back to ground
its not that it changed it to 245.. what ever i set the 555 to . the coil will almost double the incoming signal