With the Holcomb devices supposedly using electron spin I decided to start this new thread here. In 2013 I looked at the Surface Magneto-Electric Effect (SME) and thought this might be a route to OU. I made a patent application that didn't get followed up to a full patent so it is now in the public domain should any one be interested (application number 1319429.5 to the UK Intellectual Property Office). I intended to approach a manufacturer of wound foil capacitors to make a special type of capacitor using Fe and Al foil strip as the electrodes, and prepared a PowerPoint presentation for that. But it never happened due to family commitments. Only recently did I realize that the Unruh/Coler Stromerzeuger could possibly be explained by the SME so I edited the presentation to include that. As I couldn't get onto my bench (I kept getting error messages) I posted it on the "Where does the energy come from" thread https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4295.0;attach=44793 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4295.0;attach=44793). I have opened this thread to receive any comments and for any discussions that might arise.
Smudge
One of the Unruh/Coler devices was the Magnetstrom Apparat. This used coils wound onto magnets. Insulation on early forms of Cu wire was silk thread closely wound onto the wire, only later did enamel coatings get applied. It has been pointed out that the anomalous behaviour of the Magnetstrom Apparat was probably due to this silk coating absorbing atmospheric water to become an electrolyte so that the Cu-ferromagnetic metal acted like a battery. If the Stromerzeuger also used silk coated wire for the coils wound onto the large Fe rods it is possible that the water not only increased the capacity between Fe and coil but also influenced the Surface Magneto-electric Effect to advantage. As there is evidence that the original Stromerzeuger was independently examined and measured by two separate organizations and eminent professors and was found to be OU, I think the SME should be seriously considered and studied to see whether OU can be obtained.
Smudge
I love that the paper manages to bridge the two worlds, between atomic-level theory and practical engineering+construction using standard'ish theory+formulas, just applied in a unique way. That way each step can be modeled as one goes from conventional to 'sci-fi'. :D :D
There's a lot of material though, gonna have to simmer on it a while. Thanks for posting it, I don't think I've seen that paper before (or maybe I just never read it in the right context. C.C)
Smudge
Here is the complete report.
I believe that the Steven Mark device is of this principle.
When SM sort of disappeared off the scene, the only way of contact was via his lawyers, in Germany!!!!!! according to Lindsay.
The way it works is still open to debate.
Regards
Mike
https://rimstar.org/sdenergy/coler/index.htm
Mike,
I have a photo copy of that report obtained from the UK national archives. I have also visited the archives and retrieved all their data on Coler and the work he did in the UK after the war. He was contracted to build a stromerzeuger. There was some controversy at the UK MOD hierarchy because the guys at the top were not keen on this work going ahead as they were brainwashed by the top scientists into believing that was a waste of time and money. The scientists lower down the food chain got their way but unfortunately Coler died of a heart attack before getting anywhere in this work. I have a copy of Coler's death certificate, he died while staying at a small hotel or guest house at Farnborough. It is clear to me that Coler had the wrong ideas as to why it worked and was really stumbling about in the dark. The independent measurements mentioned in that report are of significance. Although at that early time their test equipment was rudimentary by today's standards, they did do their best to eliminate errors. They realized that the load lamp was receiving RF and their meters could not accurately measure voltage and current. One test was to compare the light output from the load lamp with an identical one driven by an adjustable DC source where their instruments could measure power accurately. They definitely recorded OU.
Smudge
@Smudge
You did a great job of putting together all the pieces of the "Coler" folder, which I had downloaded a few years ago, and looked at closely.
While I don't think we'll be able to get anything out of most of the alleged "FE" machines of the past, if we were to keep just one, it would be "Coler". I think that the "Coler" case is the one where there is the least risk of fraud, and the most credible testimony.
Linking it to electron spin as you did in your paper "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" seems to me a relevant idea to explore.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.02, 15:05:36
Mike,
I have a photo copy of that report obtained from the UK national archives. I have also visited the archives and retrieved all their data on Coler and the work he did in the UK after the war. He was contracted to build a stromerzeuger. There was some controversy at the UK MOD hierarchy because the guys at the top were not keen on this work going ahead as they were brainwashed by the top scientists into believing that was a waste of time and money. The scientists lower down the food chain got their way but unfortunately Coler died of a heart attack before getting anywhere in this work. I have a copy of Coler's death certificate, he died while staying at a small hotel or guest house at Farnborough. It is clear to me that Coler had the wrong ideas as to why it worked and was really stumbling about in the dark. The independent measurements mentioned in that report are of significance. Although at that early time their test equipment was rudimentary by today's standards, they did do their best to eliminate errors. They realized that the load lamp was receiving RF and their meters could not accurately measure voltage and current. One test was to compare the light output from the load lamp with an identical one driven by an adjustable DC source where their instruments could measure power accurately. They definitely recorded OU.
Smudge
Hi Smudge
Thanks for the reply.
STEAP, which is my work on the SM unit, is very extensive. The one thing that is needed is what he called a catalyst, I found that the catalyst is a paramagnetic metal, and you know what happens inside a paramagnetic metal when it is inside a magnetic field. I have used aluminum and in the last year, Tin coated copper, Tin and aluminum have a free electron.
I purposely have been what you might call elusive on the exact details of how this is done. SM used magnets in the first two of his units, thereafter only solenoid coils producing an alternating magnetic field. SM specifically stated not to use iron anywhere in or near the unit, I found out why about 18 months ago.
My problem was how to extract the energy until I realised it was all in electrons creating positive and negative ions and then switching OFF to collect the excess energy for a specific time before switching back ON again and recycling.
Regards
Mike
@F6. I agree. The fact that Coler had to shock the thing into self oscillation by intermittent contact to the battery is exactly to be expected if the SME effect is the answer. Of course at that time the SME effect was not known. Coler used high purity Fe and certainly Fe is now one of the materials of choice for obtaining spin polarized electrons in spintronic applications. It should be a fairly simple experiment using a single Fe rod to establish that the SME effect is detectable and of what magnitude.
Smudge
@smudge
There is one point in your text "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" on which I do not agree: it is the question of "anomalous energy".
You write that the energy density B²/(2.µ0) becomes in the case of the superposition of the field of a permanent magnet and the field of a coil, (Bm+Bc)²/(2.µ0)=(Bm²+2.Bm.Bc+Bc²), this is correct. But when you write that 2.Bm.Bc is "anomalous energy", it is wrong.
Your formula is the energy density at a given point. If you want to know the total energy, you must integrate the density over the whole volume surrounding the magnet and the coil. And there you will see that if there are places where the fields add up, and therefore where the energy would quadruple when the fields are of equal amplitude, there are also places where they oppose each other.
This case is exactly, for the static, what we see with the waves in the interferences. Where the interference is additive, we have the double of the field amplitude, so the energy is quadrupled. But where the interference is destructive, the field is zero. Statistically over the whole space, the total energy remains the sum of the energies of the two fields which are superimposed.
The fact that in one place, more energy than the sum of the two taken independently can be recovered when the fields overlap, is therefore not proof of an abnormal energy but proof of a redistribution of the energy in space.
However, this does not invalidate the idea that spin and SME may be at work in the Coler device.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.02, 16:21:32
@smudge
There is one point in your text "Electron Spin, a Source of Energy?" on which I do not agree: it is the question of "anomalous energy".
You write that the energy density B²/(2.µ0) becomes in the case of the superposition of the field of a permanent magnet and the field of a coil, (Bm+Bc)²/(2.µ0)=(Bm²+2.Bm.Bc+Bc²), this is correct. But when you write that 2.Bm.Bc is "anomalous energy", it is wrong.
Your formula is the energy density at a given point. If you want to know the total energy, you must integrate the density over the whole volume surrounding the magnet and the coil. And there you will see that if there are places where the fields add up, and therefore where the energy would quadruple when the fields are of equal amplitude, there are also places where they oppose each other.
I take the case of a solenoidal coil closely wound where the total energy resides in the
B field outside of the conductor material. Being closely wound the field between the turns adds little to that total, it can be considered as a current sheet. That coil is wound onto a magnet where its
B field total energy is also within that same space. And the two field from the two current sheets have the same field pattern, hence they do not oppose each other. Because the two current sheets cannot occupy the same space, the regions where the field patterns are not coincident is very close to the sheets, and particularly in the space between the two concentric sheets. I chose to ignore their contributions to the total energy. I think my approach is validated when you consider the case of two coils closely coupled e.g. by bifilar winding. One coil represents the magnet, the other represents the coil wound onto the magnet. Ignoring resistive losses the magnet coil supplies two pulses of energy. The first pulse is when it is energized so as to represent the magnet. The second pulse is when the other coil is energized. If our simulated magnet supplies that second pulse of energy, then surely the magnet must also do so. And that pulse of energy exactly accounts for what I called the anomalous term.
QuoteThis case is exactly, for the static, what we see with the waves in the interferences. Where the interference is additive, we have the double of the field amplitude, so the energy is quadrupled. But where the interference is destructive, the field is zero. Statistically over the whole space, the total energy remains the sum of the energies of the two fields which are superimposed.
The fact that in one place, more energy than the sum of the two taken independently can be recovered when the fields overlap, is therefore not proof of an abnormal energy but proof of a redistribution of the energy in space.
But where does that second pulse of energy go?
QuoteHowever, this does not invalidate the idea that spin and SME may be at work in the Coler device.
Good!
@Smudge
We cannot assume that the field from a coil would be strictly equivalent to the field of the magnet, which is the result of the superposition of the fields of each electron spin, whose equivalent in ampere-turn is not even known. We only know the macroscopic value in ampere-turns, which may be a very small residual value compared to the sum of the ampere-turns of each electron spin.
This is a problem we have in modeling radio antennas: we cannot say "I would like such a field, calculate the current densities and their configuration necessary to generate it". One of the reasons is theoretical: the same field can be generated with different current density configurations, there is no unique solution. So a configuration of fields that look the same, like the coil and the magnet, says nothing about the currents.
If we see each spin as a loop of constant current, and since apparently we cannot induce in these loops a current that would add or subtract from the natural one, it is because these loops behave as superconducting loops that evacuate the external magnetic field. The only action on the spins that will result from an external field is therefore a torque.
If you have 2 identical coils ideally coupled, then the EMF will be the same in both, by the virtue that E=-dΦ/dt. It depends only on the flux variation, and the flux is shared and strictly the same for both coils. If you send a pulse in one coil, then you have the same in the other. If this is not the case, then you are not in the assumed case: the coils are insufficiently coupled and it is the coupling defect that explains the observation. Different EMFs in two coupled coils imply that they are not perfectly coupled, and if they are not, it is because the topology of their fields is not exactly the same.
The conclusion of all this is that there is no objective reason to suppose that the effect of the current in a coil around a magnet would have any other effect than to exert a torque on the electron spins.
I'm really digging the synchronicity this 'electron spin' concept has with other inventors+devices.. ^-^
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.04, 07:53:52
@Smudge
We cannot assume that the field from a coil would be strictly equivalent to the field of the magnet, which is the result of the superposition of the fields of each electron spin, whose equivalent in ampere-turn is not even known. We only know the macroscopic value in ampere-turns, which may be a very small residual value compared to the sum of the ampere-turns of each electron spin.
I disagree. It is known that a cylindrical magnet can be replaced hi a thin walled cylindrical current sheet. You can perform simulations to show this to be true and the fields are identical.
Quote
If we see each spin as a loop of constant current, and since apparently we cannot induce in these loops a current that would add or subtract from the natural one, it is because these loops behave as superconducting loops that evacuate the external magnetic field. The only action on the spins that will result from an external field is therefore a torque.
I think your torque here is the one trying to alter the spin axis when the applied field is across that axis. What happens when the applied field is along that axis? In your superconducting loop model we do get induced current into the loop so your model is incorrect for electron spin. My model is a superconducting loop connected to a constant current generator so the current remains constant. The applied field passing through the loop creates induced voltage.
QuoteIf you have 2 identical coils ideally coupled, then the EMF will be the same in both, by the virtue that E=-dΦ/dt. It depends only on the flux variation, and the flux is shared and strictly the same for both coils. If you send a pulse in one coil, then you have the same in the other. If this is not the case, then you are not in the assumed case: the coils are insufficiently coupled and it is the coupling defect that explains the observation. Different EMFs in two coupled coils imply that they are not perfectly coupled, and if they are not, it is because the topology of their fields is not exactly the same.
You have completely missed my point about the pulse timings. Coil 1 is energised first and this corresponds to the magnet being originally magnetized, At this time coil 2 doesn't exist. Coil 2 is energised later then both coils see the same flux change. So the power source of each coil supply energy. That is not what you describe above
Smudge
The equivalent surface current of a permanent magnet has been known in science for some time, yet is totally ignored in modern analyses of permanent magnet systems. The B field both internal and external to a cylindrical permanent magnet is identical to that of an infinitely thin current sheet at the cylindrical surface of the magnet. If anyone doubts this they can perform finite element analyses using ever finer meshes and ever thinner current sheets (at the expense of ever increasing computer running times) and compare the fields with that from a permanent magnet modelled as a material with a known coercivity. In effect the magnet can be modelled as a thin walled cylinder of super-conductive material carrying a known current around its curved surface.
Some people conceive this super-conductor model as a closed loop of super-conductive material carrying a constant current, but that is incorrect. For such a closed loop there cannot be any induced voltage, it is always zero, so when another magnetic field is applied to the loop the loop current must change to keep the flux through the loop at a constant value. A close super-conductive loop has constant flux, not constant current. A permanent magnet can have a changed value of flux, this is known and accepted theory. If we apply an external field to the magnet it responds like air, it has a relative permeability of unity. The proper model for a permanent magnet is a super-conductive loop connected to a perfect constant current generator. A perfect current generator has infinite internal impedance hence the current remains constant independent of the load. What is not constant is the voltage delivered by the generator, and for the generator to deliver zero power the voltage must be zero. Thus the off condition for a current generator considered as a power source is a short circuit. In our world where all the known power sources are voltage generators many people have difficulty in perceiving this aspect of an off condition; if our houses were supplied from current generators our off switch would be a short circuit connected across each appliance!
Turning to the super-conductive loop connected to a perfect constant current generator, the loop is a short circuit so under static conditions the current generator delivers zero power. Only when the magnetic field through the loop changes value due to the application of an external field does the generator see an induced voltage and either deliver or receive power depending on the polarity of the induced voltage. I make no apology for modelling a permanent magnet in this way where the current generator clearly represents all the atomic dipole current loops responsible for the magnetism. Each atomic current loop has a fixed known dipole moment, and that means the loop current is a fixed value, so the model for each loop is a constant current generator connected to a super-conductive loop. And those atomic current loops can both deliver and receive power as I have described above. Electron spin is a form of current loop so I make no apology for suggesting a model where each spinning electron can be considered as a spinning spherical charge driven by some sort of motor.
Moving to the coil around the magnet model the magnetic field energy everywhere both external and internal to the coil+magnet has the three energy density components I stated. And there is no doubt that what I called the anomalous term comes from the magnet, not the coil. You only have to consider the case where the current through the coil exactly cancels the internal and external fields. There is now no magnetic energy there, yet we have supplied considerable energy into the coil. Where has that energy gone? I claim it has gone into the quantum domain via the atomic current loops. I do not accept that it has gone into the space between the surface of the magnet and the coil conductors as that can be modelled by finite element analysis to show it not to be true.
Smudge
@Smudge
You're reasoning at the macroscopic level, when I was talking at the atomic level. The global field of the magnet can be simulated by a cylindrical current, I agree, but this says nothing about the fields at the atomic level, at the level of the spins.
It is well known that in different magnetic domains, spins are oriented differently from each other. To believe that in a magnet all the spins would be perfectly aligned in the field axis is not realistic. If there were only two spins participating in the field, at 90° from each other, you could perfectly assimilate the two spins to one magnet, whose field would be at 45° from the other two. It is clear that in these conditions, the equivalent current in amperes/turn is not equivalent to the sum of those of the two spins, and that an external field in the axis of the resulting field will not be in the axis of the spins.
As I said, the knowledge of the current allows to know the field, but the knowledge of the field does not allow to know the current, only a global equivalent, arbitrarily chosen here as a cylindrical current when one could take others, for example 2 Helmholtz coils, which would lead to the same result but simulated by a current density of different configuration, here a double ring current.
It is not coherent on the one hand to talk about spin which is a quantum concept, and on the other hand to limit oneself to a macroscopic view of classical physics, that of the oversimplified magnet.
We have no certainty about the exact axis of the spins, we only know that statistically, the resultant is in the axis of the macroscopic field.
Then it is true, as you said, that a superconducting loop will modify its current to maintain the constancy of the flux which crosses it (I admit my mistake on this point, I interchanged current and flux). On the other hand, the effect of a magnetic field, whether it is variable or not, also has a torque effect on a magnetic dipole. So there is no reason to favour the idea of an induced current in the spin over the idea that the external field will make the spins rotate because the electrons are not rigidly bound to the atoms.
What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?
Simple question : electron spin in ferromagnetic material atom is tilted by external magnetic field ?
What if this is the method of extracting energy from external field ? Thus spin is not the source but a medium to tap ambient energy.
NMR is the obvious answer that an electron spin is tilted by an external field.
Without being the source, a spin could be a vector allowing us to act on an unknown source of energy, which we can suppose in the case of the Coler machine, if the facts prove to be true, which must be our goal to verify it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.05, 16:42:24
@Smudge
You're reasoning at the macroscopic level, when I was talking at the atomic level. The global field of the magnet can be simulated by a cylindrical current, I agree, but this says nothing about the fields at the atomic level, at the level of the spins.
It is well known that in different magnetic domains, spins are oriented differently from each other. To believe that in a magnet all the spins would be perfectly aligned in the field axis is not realistic.
I am not taking about all the spins, and certainly not all the spins within atoms. I have repeatedly said the spins that are responsible for the permanent magnetism. And when fully magnetized all those spins are aligned.
QuoteIf there were only two spins participating in the field, at 90° from each other, you could perfectly assimilate the two spins to one magnet, whose field would be at 45° from the other two. It is clear that in these conditions, the equivalent current in amperes/turn is not equivalent to the sum of those of the two spins, and that an external field in the axis of the resulting field will not be in the axis of the spins.
But the magnet does not consist of just two spins, it consists of many. And we already know that spins do not actually align with the local magnetic field but obey quantum rules whereby they are at an angle (not 45 degrees) and they precess about the field vector at the Larmor frequency. But the many different phases of their off axis direction means that we do not see any off axis magnetization except when their Larmor phases are made to coincide. Thus it is reasonable to imagine an array of many effective spins (actually a small number compared to all the atomic spins) that are aligned.
QuoteAs I said, the knowledge of the current allows to know the field, but the knowledge of the field does not allow to know the current, only a global equivalent, arbitrarily chosen here as a cylindrical current when one could take others, for example 2 Helmholtz coils, which would lead to the same result but simulated by a current density of different configuration, here a double ring current.
That is just nonsense, there is no way that the field around a Helmholtz double ring current is the same as that around a cylindrical current. The only possible other current density models are concentric current cylinders, i.e. cylindrical currents within the magnet volume having current density that is a function of radius. That in no way affects my arguments.
QuoteIt is not coherent on the one hand to talk about spin which is a quantum concept, and on the other hand to limit oneself to a macroscopic view of classical physics, that of the oversimplified magnet.
We have no certainty about the exact axis of the spins, we only know that statistically, the resultant is in the axis of the macroscopic field
Then it is true, as you said, that a superconducting loop will modify its current to maintain the constancy of the flux which crosses it (I admit my mistake on this point, I interchanged current and flux). On the other hand, the effect of a magnetic field, whether it is variable or not, also has a torque effect on a magnetic dipole. So there is no reason to favour the idea of an induced current in the spin over the idea that the external field will make the spins rotate because the electrons are not rigidly bound to the atoms.
What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?
In arguing against my oversimplified view of spins, you have dodged the issue that the magnet can be made to give up energy to its external world or receive energy from its external world (my anomalous energy density component), and that this is happening all the time in electrical machines. Classical physics has also dodged this issue. I have tried to give an explanation as to how this occurs treating the spins as sources of energy. I see from your latest post that you have taken a half-way house view, that the spins can be a means to access an unknown source of energy. I'll go with that since the unknown source must be the aether, or the virtual particles that make up the aether.
Incidentally you mention NMR and if you go back to the 1948 early work on NMR you will find reference to radiated RF energy exceeding input energy.
Smudge
The attached document is interesting because it gives you the thickness dimension of the surface spins in units of Angstrom, see figure 2. Note that this is for unmagnetized Fe where the polarized spins appear naturally at the surface and this is being offered as a possible way to magnetize the Fe by the application of an electric field. With magnetized Fe where the surface charges will take on their spin-polarization from the bulk magnetization the densities of those surface spins are much greater than the values shown. For partially magnetized Fe (i.e. not fully saturated) with an applied alternating electric field the induced alternating surface polarization could be magnified by the Fe permeability to create much greater surface magnetization than that determined simply by the surface charge density multiplied by uB/e where e is electron charge and uB is the Bohr magneton. Pure Fe can have relative permeability in the order of 105. Calculations show that this surface magnetization effect is not pie in the sky, there is a real possibility that it can lead somewhere.
Smudge
Why don't you both do an experiment:
(You'll need some sort of container that can safely protect you if the magnet explodes...seriously.)
1. Wrap several turns of magnet wire around a bar magnet.
2. Wrap several turns of a second wire (larger diameter?) around the first coil. Same direction. This is the output coil.
3. Apply HV DC pulses (1.5kv or more) to the first coil and see what you get out on the second coil.
4. Expect the magnet to move (i.e jerk around uncontrollably)
Somehow, the HV pulses cause the magnetic field to "change", i.e. become stronger.
I always thought it might have something to do with electron spin...
Energia Celeste developed this into a patented (I know that is not definitive...) excess energy device.
So, at some parameters, you may get more power in the output coil than you are applying with pulses.
At some unknown pulse rate, the magnet will come apart in tiny pieces. I do not know what pulse rate this happens, hence the protective box.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.07, 08:56:00
...I have repeatedly said the spins that are responsible for the permanent magnetism. And when fully magnetized all those spins are aligned.
This is repeating and denying objections, rather than answering them. "Fully magnetized all those spins are aligned" is a tautology. And "all those spins are aligned" is false. Spins can have different orientations from the macroscopic field, this is the case in magnetic domains.
I don't see the point of denying this fact since it is the statistical average orientation that counts, so an external field could induce a current in the loop that is the spin even if it is not perfectly aligned, it doesn't even contradict your main point.
QuoteBut the many different phases of their off axis direction means that we do not see any off axis magnetization except when their Larmor phases are made to coincide. Thus it is reasonable to imagine an array of many effective spins (actually a small number compared to all the atomic spins) that are aligned.
Obviously, because we only see the macroscopic component, the resultant of the magnetic dipoles of all the electron spins. But the vector resultant of superimposed dipolar magnetic fields, in this case those of the spins, do not imply their alignment in this axis, this is elementary vector math. The resultant of vectors might not even be in the axis of any of them. But again, this is secondary, it doesn't contradict your main point.
QuoteThat is just nonsense, there is no way that the field around a Helmholtz double ring current is the same as that around a cylindrical current.
Look at the field lines of Helmholtz coils: they rather closely follow those of a solenoid. This is perhaps not as good an approximation as the cylindrical current, but certainly not nonsense.
To believe that there is only one way to model a field is a mistake. The proof is obvious: with the billions of billions of magnetic loops that constitute the spins in a magnet, one can inversely model a macroscopic field! With only one thousandth of this number, it can be modeled in the same way. The same field can be obtained in an infinite number of ways. Again, this does not contradict your main point.
But to the question that may contradict your point:
"What allows you to affirm that these magnetic dipoles that constitute the electron spins, are and remain well in the axis of the external field rather than to compose with it and between them their orientation while maintaining constant their individual current?"
Where would be your factual answer?
Why wouldn't the spins keep their current constant, and respond to the external field by re-orienting themselves, while of course keeping their dominant in the axis of the macroscopic field? For this too is compatible with observations. So do we have experiments that would prove that the current in the spin could change? No answer. Too bad, because your main point is based on this crucial point.
Until proven otherwise,
the magnetic moment of the electron is considered constant, which implies the constancy of the current when we see the spin as a current loop.
I understand that you assume that the current in the spin can vary, but it is necessary to say that this is only a hypothesis, not a fact, and to stop denying the objections arising from different hypotheses that are more in line with the currently accepted theories.
@F6,
I do not assume the current in the spin can vary. I take it to be constant as supplied from a current generator, that current generator being a model for how the aether keeps the spin going. What I do assume is a changing voltage across the current generator induced by the applied field from the coil.
Smudge
@Smudge
Then I don't understand the hypothesis anymore. If the current in the spin is supposed to be constant, how could this current generator be "informed" of a change in external magnetic flux, and how could it react, when it is through the spin that it expresses itself ("energy from electron spin") and this spin does not change?
In other words, if the spin is immutable, what is the nature of the coupling of an external source to this current generator from aether?
@F6,
With the spin as a current loop connected to a current generator any change of flux through that loop will induce a voltage into the loop thus causing the generator to deliver power. The energy delivered appears as the anomalous component in the external field that is applied to the loop. To me this is so obvious that I do not understand your difficulty in following my argument. An electron has a size dimension and even though small it presents an area to the applied field thus having a quantity of flux passing through it. How else can that external field gain that anomalous energy component? The fact that the anomalous component is exactly accounted for by the equivalent surface current model of the magnet tells me it must come from those spins. As to how the active aether is the source that drives the spins I am sure there could be a number of models there. My aether consists of an enormous density of massless particles like neutrinos whizzing through space at light velocity. They carry two vector quantities, one being their momentum and the other their spin. Any single particle can have its spin vector at any angle relative to its momentum, it's actual angle comes from its history of its emission from a mass particle such as an electron. Mass particles continually absorb and emit aether particles according to rules of engagement that cause the emitted particle to account for EM waves and gravitational waves that have wave-particle duality. It is the momentum of the aether particle that is the secret to how cam aether waves apply a force. If the emission direction is different to the arrival direction then their is a force on the electron. The aether particles could well have rules of engagement with electrons that act to keep that spin going at a constant rate.
Smudge
After doing more calculations on the Stromerzeuger I am now of the opinion that for sufficient spin polarized electrons to be brought to the surface of the Fe rods the capacitance between the coil and the rod needs to be very high, more in the realms of electrolytic capacitors. This takes me back to the original coils being silk coated absorbing moisture and the Fe surface being oxidized so that electrolytic action could account for high capacitance. If that is true then Coler was going nowhere in 1946 when he was using enameled coated wire. Maybe his failure to replicate gave him the heart attack. I am reaching the conclusion that this work requires a special electrolytic capacitor having Fe as one electrode, so more difficult to do than I realized. But still a promising route to go.
Smudge
My PowerPoint presentation mentioned at the start of this thread contained errors. In the formula I did not include the relative permeability of the Fe. Also the sample calculation was incorrect, I had a senior moment when I did the spreadsheet :-[ The file below is the revised presentation where I have used the relative permeability of pure iron as 180,000, FEMM tells me that figure. So the Surface Magneto-electric Effect should be detectable with a set up that is within the grasp of experimenters here.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.08, 10:46:40
@F6,
With the spin as a current loop connected to a current generator any change of flux through that loop will induce a voltage into the loop thus causing the generator to deliver power. ...
If neither the magnetic moment of the electron nor the current changes, where would be the evidence of an "induced voltage"?
Let Φ=Φi+Φe where Φi is the intrinsic internal flux of the spin, the one that gives rise to the magnetic moment, Φe the external flux through the spin, and Φ the resulting flux through the spin. If no external flux, Φ = Φi.
From this, two assumptions of the effect of an external flux:
1) It is the intrinsic internal spin flux that remains constant, so dΦi/dt=0 and dΦ/dt = dΦe/dt: the flux variation through the spin is simply that of the external flux.
2) The flux Φ through the spin is constant, then it is that the intrinsic internal flux adjusts according to the external flux: Φi = Φ-Φe and dΦi/dt = -dΦe/dt
In hypothesis 1, the presence of the spin has no effect on the external flux variation. This is what we observe: that the coil with variable current surrounds a magnet, or the same material not previously magnetised, has no effect on the current. This is equivalent to saying that the spin is not equivalent to a conductive loop, you cannot induce a current in it, there is no reaction, it is transparent, only the permeability plays a role.
In hypothesis 2, the intrinsic flux of the spin changes to eliminate the external flux that tries to pass through it, and maintain a constant flux through the spin. Opposition to the flux through the spin has no effect on the external macroscopic flux, which then passes between the spins rather than through them. Again the lack of reaction on the external flux is what is observed.
In neither case is there any possibility of energy recovery. So in this context, what exactly are you talking about?
Before talking about exotic theory and the aether, we should define the fluxes, macroscopic and at the spin level, flux variations and currents involved, relative to the spins, and formally specify the relationships between them.
The only indication of extra-energy according to you would come from "2.Bm.Bc" when we superimpose the macroscopic fields of the magnet and the coil. As already mentioned these fields do not have the same topology, especially at the atomic level. There is no reason to think that there would be more volume where the superposition of the fields would be constructive than destructive, and thus as in the interference phenomena, that there would be an energy gain when integrating over the whole volume. And this is all the more doubtful as the surface presented by the spins to the external flux is insignificant compared to the cross-sectional area of the material, due to the minute size of the electrons.
Here is a spreadsheet for the construction of a special tape wound ring-core that consists of Fe tape and Cu tape separated by a thin plastic tape so that is is both a core and a capacitor. Sheet 1 is where you input data and get output data. It assumes the coil is connected in series with the capacitor and calculates the negative resistance expected from the Surface Magneto-electric Effect and also the AC resistance of the coil at the LC resonant frequency. If the negative value exceeds the AC resistance the COP states "self oscillation", else it gives the ratio RAC/(RAC-RNEG). As you play around with the numbers the COP goes towards infinity until you reach self oscillation. Enjoy!
Smudge
P.S. The ring- core also needs another coil around it carrying DC to magnetize the Fe.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.11, 07:36:51
If neither the magnetic moment of the electron nor the current changes, where would be the evidence of an "induced voltage"?
I modeled the electron as a current loop connected in series with a constant current generator. The induced voltage in that model is across the current generator. We don't need evidence for that voltage, we know that is the case for such a current loop.
QuoteLet Φ=Φi+Φe where Φi is the intrinsic internal flux of the spin, the one that gives rise to the magnetic moment, Φe the external flux through the spin, and Φ the resulting flux through the spin. If no external flux, Φ = Φi.
From this, two assumptions of the effect of an external flux:
1) It is the intrinsic internal spin flux that remains constant, so dΦi/dt=0 and dΦ/dt = dΦe/dt: the flux variation through the spin is simply that of the external flux.
Yes.
Quote2) The flux Φ through the spin is constant, then it is that the intrinsic internal flux adjusts according to the external flux: Φi = Φ-Φe and dΦi/dt = -dΦe/dt
That is paramagnetic behaviour, we are dealing with magnets not paramagnets.
QuoteIn hypothesis 1, the presence of the spin has no effect on the external flux variation. This is what we observe: that the coil with variable current surrounds a magnet, or the same material not previously magnetised, has no effect on the current.
What current are you considering here that is not effected? I am confused.
QuoteThis is equivalent to saying that the spin is not equivalent to a conductive loop, you cannot induce a current in it, there is no reaction, it is transparent, only the permeability plays a role.
More confusion, nowhere have I said we can induce current.
QuoteIn hypothesis 2, the intrinsic flux of the spin changes to eliminate the external flux that tries to pass through it, and maintain a constant flux through the spin. Opposition to the flux through the spin has no effect on the external macroscopic flux, which then passes between the spins rather than through them. Again the lack of reaction on the external flux is what is observed.
Even in the correct hypothesis 1 some of the flux through the spins passes between the spins, they are a long way apart.
QuoteIn neither case is there any possibility of energy recovery.
Agreed for the spins in a PM, but this does not mean that spins cannot supply energy. You clearly believe they can't.
QuoteSo in this context, what exactly are you talking about?
Before talking about exotic theory and the aether, we should define the fluxes, macroscopic and at the spin level, flux variations and currents involved, relative to the spins, and formally specify the relationships between them.
The only indication of extra-energy according to you would come from "2.Bm.Bc" when we superimpose the macroscopic fields of the magnet and the coil. As already mentioned these fields do not have the same topology, especially at the atomic level. There is no reason to think that there would be more volume where the superposition of the fields would be constructive than destructive, and thus as in the interference phenomena, that there would be an energy gain when integrating over the whole volume. And this is all the more doubtful as the surface presented by the spins to the external flux is insignificant compared to the cross-sectional area of the material, due to the minute size of the electrons.
You must believe that the additional energy in the field external to the magnet, my "2.Bm.Bc", that does not come from the current source of the coil around the magnet, must therefore come from internal regions of the magnet where the fields reduce in magnitude due to your spatial interference phenomena. Then the spins do not give up any energy. But I can simulate an ordered array of tiny current loops in FEMM which shows exactly that spatial interference. I can simulate a PM. And when I add a coil around my simulated magnet I get the situation exactly as I have described, the tiny current loops supply extra energy both to the the space external to the magnet and to the space within the magnet. Methinks your vision of interference phenomena where there is no energy gain when integrating over the whole volume is for the case where the spins are fully spatially random and that is not the case for PM's.
Smudge
@F6,
You said
QuoteAnd this is all the more doubtful as the surface presented by the spins to the external flux is insignificant compared to the cross-sectional area of the material, due to the minute size of the electrons.
The number density of the spins is huge, there are a lot of them, so I don't accept that argument. And it is not just electron spin, but orbital motion as a spin. Clearly the external flux intercepted by the spins can have a value determined by the orbit size or the electron size, i.e. some capture area. You might argue that the granularity of what we consider to be a magnetic field could destroy my argument, but then we are talking about virtual particles that represent the field and we know they react with electrons in various ways.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.11, 09:01:09
I modeled the electron as a current loop connected in series with a constant current generator. The induced voltage in that model is across the current generator. We don't need evidence for that voltage, we know that is the case for such a current loop.
QuoteQuote
Let Φ=Φi+Φe where Φi is the intrinsic internal flux of the spin, the one that gives rise to the magnetic moment, Φe the external flux through the spin, and Φ the resulting flux through the spin. If no external flux, Φ = Φi.
From this, two assumptions of the effect of an external flux:
1) It is the intrinsic internal spin flux that remains constant, so dΦi/dt=0 and dΦ/dt = dΦe/dt: the flux variation through the spin is simply that of the external flux.
Yes.
So let's keep this assumption since we are in agreement on this point.
Quote
More confusion, nowhere have I said we can induce current.
"With the spin as a current loop connected to a current generator any change of flux through that loop will induce a voltage into the loop thus causing the generator to deliver power." (your reply #23).
Not a current but a "voltage". The problem is that a "voltage", I assume you mean an emf in the spin, is a force on a charge, which will be expressed as a current. But if I understand correctly you assume that the emf is compensated by the generator ("thus causing the generator to deliver power"), which cancels the induced current. Is this correct?
So di/dt=0, the spin current does not change. And we know that dΦ/dt = dΦe/dt, the flux variation through the spin is due to the external field alone. This variation is therefore the same as if the magnet material was not magnetised, since the spin current does not change.
The charge in the spin is rotating at the same constant speed whether the external field is there or not, and there is no need of energy for that (1st Newton law, you need an emf to rotate a current only to fight the losses due to the resistance), so this generator, which is supposed to deliver power, does not.
So where would the energy be expressed? Energy is the work of a force. What force, on what, and with what work?
QuoteBut I can simulate an ordered array of tiny current loops in FEMM which shows exactly that spatial interference. I can simulate a PM. And when I add a coil around my simulated magnet I get the situation exactly as I have described, the tiny current loops supply extra energy both to the the space external to the magnet and to the space within the magnet...
There is no current variation in the spin. It is a constant current loop, so the static external field is always the same. And dΦ/dt is due to the external field alone, that is our assumption. So I don't see how FEMM could see anything other than the energy density of the static field of the magnet + the energy density of the varying field.
In summary, from what I understand, you make the hypothesis that we would need energy to maintain the spin current constant and thus cancel out the variation in current that we would have due to the emf induced in the spin by the dΦ/dt that passes through it. This extra energy would come from the aether.
But one needs energy to maintain a constant current only in the case where there are losses. A spin has no losses. Spins should be modelled by lossless current loops,
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.11, 10:02:05
@F6,
You said The number density of the spins is huge, there are a lot of them, so I don't accept that argument. And it is not just electron spin, but orbital motion as a spin. Clearly the external flux intercepted by the spins can have a value determined by the orbit size or the electron size, i.e. some capture area. You might argue that the granularity of what we consider to be a magnetic field could destroy my argument, but then we are talking about virtual particles that represent the field and we know they react with electrons in various ways.
Smudge
Depending on the electron model, its size ranges from less than 10
-22 to 2.817 9 × 10
-15 m, the largest value being the classical radius.
Even with the classical radius, it is one millionth of the interatomic distances. If we reason in cross-section, the spin is at best one millionth of a millionth of the area crossed by the flux.
The interception of an external field by the spin is therefore anecdotal, unless a mechanism can be established that would concentrate the lines of the external field there.
Of course there are also orbital motions, but not only are they small compared to the interatomic distances, but I think I remember that in a magnet they contribute less than 10% to the field. And we are talking about spin, not orbital motion.
@F6,
You said
Quote"With the spin as a current loop connected to a current generator any change of flux through that loop will induce a voltage into the loop thus causing the generator to deliver power." (your reply #23).
Not a current but a "voltage". The problem is that a "voltage", I assume you mean an emf in the spin, is a force on a charge, which will be expressed as a current.
I use the word voltage in respect of that applied to the current generator. Of course that is really an electric field applied to the charges in the loop, and that will apply force. In the case of a spinning spherical charge the electrical field (which is a circular vortex) will apply a torque that
attempts to change the spin speed. In the loop it
attempts to change the current. So it can't be expressed as a current, that is just nonsense. With the current or spin constant there has to be some other force that keeps the value constant. And I look upon that as coming from the aether.
QuoteBut if I understand correctly you assume that the emf is compensated by the generator ("thus causing the generator to deliver power"), which cancels the induced current. Is this correct?
I would not use the word
compensated, in a current generator the load emf determines the power. (In a voltage generator the load current determines the power, we don't say the current is
compensated by the generator). I don't see the induced induced current being cancelled, the emf can't induce current period.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.10, 08:14:20
My PowerPoint presentation mentioned at the start of this thread contained errors. In the formula I did not include the relative permeability of the Fe. Also the sample calculation was incorrect, I had a senior moment when I did the spreadsheet :-[ The file below is the revised presentation where I have used the relative permeability of pure iron as 180,000, FEMM tells me that figure. So the Surface Magneto-electric Effect should be detectable with a set up that is within the grasp of experimenters here.
Smudge
By the way:
Throughout your paper you show the electric field of an electron as a circular electric field.
An electron's electric field is negative and directed inward (radial).
You can create a rotating radial electric field, interacting with a static magnetic field (or a gravity field) perpendicular to the rotation direction, and find your elusive "energy from electron spin".
By that way, did Chava ever develop anything useful?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.07.11, 16:22:03
By the way:
Throughout your paper you show the electric field of an electron as a circular electric field.
No I didn't. I show the electric field from the applied magnetic field as circular.
QuoteAn electron's electric field is negative and directed inward (radial).
I know that
QuoteBy that way, did Chava ever develop anything useful?
Not that I am aware of.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.11, 16:12:04
@F6,
You said I use the word voltage in respect of that applied to the current generator. Of course that is really an electric field applied to the charges in the loop, and that will apply force. In the case of a spinning spherical charge the electrical field (which is a circular vortex) will apply a torque that attempts to change the spin speed. In the loop it attempts to change the current. So it can't be expressed as a current, that is just nonsense. With the current or spin constant there has to be some other force that keeps the value constant. And I look upon that as coming from the aether.I would not use the word compensated, in a current generator the load emf determines the power. (In a voltage generator the load current determines the power, we don't say the current is compensated by the generator). I don't see the induced induced current being cancelled, the emf can't induce current period.
Smudge
A zero current is a current where the electrons have zero speed. In physics, this is not nonsense, it is a current: I=0.
These are quite secondary vocabulary issues. Sometimes you have to use non-formal periphrases to make yourself understood, and not everyone has the same.
Wasn't your original point that the "spin generator" cancels out the dΦ/dt related emf effect?
I would have liked to know if this is the main point to understand and the one you are defending, because this is the point I just showed we have no evidence on.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.11, 17:38:48
No I didn't. I show the electric field from the applied magnetic field as circular.
I know that
Not that I am aware of.
Ah, I see you did say that the circular electric field is from the changing applied magnetic field. Sorry, I skimmed past that and missed it.
So, is the radial electric field still there?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.07.11, 18:25:16
Ah, I see you did say that the circular electric field is from the changing applied magnetic field. Sorry, I skimmed past that and missed it.
So, is the radial electric field still there?
Yes but for electrons inside the core material there is an equal number of protons so we don't see any electric field outside the material. For the Surface Magneto-electric Effect the electric field from the electrons is of course the field across the capacitor dielectric.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.11, 17:53:19
A zero current is a current where the electrons have zero speed. In physics, this is not nonsense, it is a current: I=0.
We are not dealing with zero current. We are dealing with a constant current. Moreover we are dealing with a current that is constant when the electrons have a force on them from an induced electric field and that force is trying to increase the current. The only way the current can remain constant is when there is another electric field that cancels out the induced field. In the case of a constant current generator driving current around the loop this cancellation comes from the charges built up at the connections to the generator thus presenting the generator with a voltage (you call it an emf) and also creating the reverse electric field along the conductor. This happens if the loop is open circuited, the only current that flows is that required to build up the charges at the open gap, and a current generator has infinite resistance so is an open circuit. You could argue that the current pulse establishing that charge separation might explain my anomalous energy component but you haven't and I would shoot that down anyway. Of course this concept of a single current source connected to the loop at one point is not ideal, it is better to consider a large number of tiny current sources all distributed around the loop. That better models whatever keeps the electron spinning at a constant spin speed.
QuoteThese are quite secondary vocabulary issues. Sometimes you have to use non-formal periphrases to make yourself understood, and not everyone has the same.
Yes, I am quite sure that any misunderstanding between us is due to vocabulary and phrasing. I tend to assume that what is obvious to me is obvious to anyone else with physics and electronics training.
QuoteWasn't your original point that the "spin generator" cancels out the dΦ/dt related emf effect?
That
cancels out the dΦ/dt related emf effect phrase is yours, and I don't see the emf being cancelled. But I accept there is a cancellation of the induced E field that could cause the current to change as stated above. Perhaps this is what you meant to imply? The current generator (or the many current generators around the loop) is a model for some source that keeps the electron spinning at a constant rate even though there is an induced circular field opposing the charge spin.
The emf across each generator does not get cancelled. The spin is
not modeled by a superconducting closed loop carrying a current (which does cancel the induced emf, that cancellation would be by the loop current changing value and that doesn't happen, it is constant)
QuoteI would have liked to know if this is the main point to understand and the one you are defending, because this is the point I just showed we have no evidence on.
I respectfully suggest that you have shown no evidence to counter my arguments.
Smudge, if the same principle were applied in reverse, would that not result in destruction of energy into electron spin?
I've witnessed significant anomalous loss of energy into a pair of opposed Tesla Extra coils and was wondering if your model was compatible with this.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.07.13, 14:03:41
Smudge, if the same principle were applied in reverse, would that not result in destruction of energy into electron spin?
No, the energy would go into the aether somehow.
QuoteI've witnessed significant anomalous loss of energy into a pair of opposed Tesla Extra coils and was wondering if your model was compatible with this.
Yes it possibly could. If you wind a coil around a cylindrical magnet and pass current such that the field from the coil reduces or negates the field from the magnet you have (a) supplied some energy to the coil but (b) the energy in the field has gone to zero or near zero. Where has your coil energy and the magnet's field energy gone? That is an anomalous loss of energy, and in my mind it must go to whatever drives the electron spins to keep them spinning. Hence my models for spin as (a) some form of quantum motor spinning a spherical charge or (b) a current generator driving current round a loop.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.12, 11:00:52
...
But I accept there is a cancellation of the induced E field that could cause the current to change as stated above. Perhaps this is what you meant to imply?
That's right
Quote
The current generator (or the many current generators around the loop) is a model for some source that keeps the electron spinning at a constant rate even though there is an induced circular field opposing the charge spin.
Why would a current generator be necessary when dΦ/dt=0 since a motion at constant speed of rotation requires no energy to maintain itself, Newton's first law, an objection already made to which I have not seen an answer?
Does this generator come into action only to overcome the dΦ/dt?
And if there is one for the spin, why wouldn't there be another one for each orbital rotation ?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.13, 17:47:31
That's right
Why would a current generator be necessary when dΦ/dt=0 since a motion at constant speed of rotation requires no energy to maintain itself, Newton's first law, an objection already made to which I have not seen an answer?
When the flux is constant the current generator is not supplying energy. The generator is there to explain where the anomalous field energy comes from or disappears to.
QuoteDoes this generator come into action only to overcome the dΦ/dt?
I don't like the expression "to overcome". I have explained why it is there.
QuoteAnd if there is one for the spin, why wouldn't there be another one for each orbital rotation ?
There is but those orbits are mostly randomly orientated wrt the magnet axis so they have no effect. Those few that do contribute to the PM magnetism do take part in this energy exchange.
Delete this if off topic Smudge. It's above my pay grade to comment on this thread. This makes more sense to me that current theory (pun intended) of simply electrons spinning.
I just read this from this paper http://www.rexresearch.com/pdf/frolovnewsourcesofenergy.pdf
Tesla wrote on the nature of electricity: «Well, electricity cannot be called Aether in the
broadest sense, but nothing can prevent electricity from being called Aether, which is
related to matter. The rotation of molecules and their Aether causes the tension of the
Aether or electrostatic deformation, the equalization of the tension of the Aether causes
the movements of the Aether or electric currents, and the orbital movements of the
molecules produce the effect of electric and constant magnetism".
@F6
You said
QuoteDepending on the electron model, its size ranges from less than 10-22 to 2.817 9 × 10-15 m, the largest value being the classical radius.
Even with the classical radius, it is one millionth of the interatomic distances. If we reason in cross-section, the spin is at best one millionth of a millionth of the area crossed by the flux.
The interception of an external field by the spin is therefore anecdotal, unless a mechanism can be established that would concentrate the lines of the external field there.
Of course there are also orbital motions, but not only are they small compared to the interatomic distances, but I think I remember that in a magnet they contribute less than 10% to the field. And we are talking about spin, not orbital motion.
The electron has a magnetic dipole moment with a magnitude in the order of the Bohr magneton u
B. Treating that as a current loop with current I and area s, the energy dW delivered to its external field due to an applied dPhi flux change is dW = I.dPhi. The flux change from a spatially uniform B field is dPhi = s.dB. Hence dW = Is.dB, but Is is the Bohr magneton so dW = u
B.dB. This is independent of the size of the electron, and it doesn't need anything to concentrate the flux lines. A 10
-22 electron has 10
7 greater loop current than a 10
-15 electron so its energy contribution is the same. Note that u
B.dB is some form of potential.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.13, 19:21:31
...
those orbits are mostly randomly orientated wrt the magnet axis so they have no effect. Those few that do contribute to the PM magnetism do take part in this energy exchange.
The magnetism due to orbital motion is certainly much weaker than that due to spin, but it is far from negligible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_magnetization
Hence my question that if there is a generator behind the spin to maintain the same rotation speed of the charge whatever the external flux, then there should be a similar one for the orbital rotation (if we assume that the orbital rotation is also done with constant speed).
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.14, 14:01:57
...
The electron has a magnetic dipole moment with a magnitude in the order of the Bohr magneton uB. Treating that as a current loop with current I and area s, the energy dW delivered to its external field due to an applied dPhi flux change is dW = I.dPhi. The flux change from a spatially uniform B field is dPhi = s.dB. Hence dW = Is.dB, but Is is the Bohr magneton so dW = uB.dB. This is independent of the size of the electron, and it doesn't need anything to concentrate the flux lines. A 10-22 electron has 107 greater loop current than a 10-15 electron so its energy contribution is the same. Note that uB.dB is some form of potential.
In the context of a macroscopic flux produced by the sum of the individual fluxes of the electron spins, this is correct. But conversely, we have no assurance that an external macroscopic field will subdivide into an equal number of equal individual fluxes through the spins. I don't see what could guarantee this reciprocity.
@JimBoot
One can imagine that an aether is the mediator of electromagnetism. But one has to accept the fact that electromagnetism can be modeled rigorously and simply with the basic principle of influence at a distance by the Coulomb force, without assuming anything else.
Only electromagnetic waves have an explicit mediator, the photon. Static fields may also involve a mediator, the virtual photon, but real or virtual, the photon does not depend on an aether theory either.
This does not mean that there is no such thing as "aether" which would be necessary for the functioning of electromagnetism, it just means that as long as there is no experiment to distinguish a situation with or without aether, the aether appears to be a superfluous hypothesis for electromagnetism.
A theory of electromagnetism via the aether will therefore have to be based on new facts, explainable only by it and not by Maxwell's electromagnetism. I am not aware that such facts exist.
Most of the facts claimed as such are either not reproducible or normal and explainable by classical electromagnetism except by those who claim them but without having the competence. Even Tesla. Tesla was a brilliant inventor but not a valid theoretical physicist.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.15, 12:39:44
@JimBoot
One can imagine that an aether is the mediator of electromagnetism. But one has to accept the fact that electromagnetism can be modeled rigorously and simply with the basic principle of influence at a distance by the Coulomb force, without assuming anything else.
But that action at a distance is not instantaneous. If you played with fast voltage rise times applied to the self capacitance of an electrode (as I have done) and examined the Coulomb field you would find that any change of field travels at velocity c. This is not EM radiation as it is not a tranverse wave, it is a longitudinal wave along the Coulomb field direction. So I ask myself the question, when I charge a sphere I establish a radial electric field emanating from the sphere, and apart from a small loss due to radiation (that can be minimized by doing it slowly) the energy I supplied is contained in that field that goes out to infinity. I recover most of that energy when I discharge the capacitance. How does the energy in areas away from the sphere travel backwards? The standard response to that question is the falling voltage transmits a negative longitudinal wave that then cancels out the field leaving behind zero field and zero energy. But that doesn't really answer the question of how field energy really gets sucked back. A similar question relates to antenna, the capture area of a typical half wave dipole is much smaller than the presented area of the cylindrical conductors of the antenna. How does the antenna capture EM energy from EM fields that don't arrive at that presented area? The standard response is current induced into the receiving antenna cause it to emanate a near field that cancels some of the arriving field and the loss of energy there accounts for the received energy. So this is another form of action at a distance, the recovery of energy. But that does not really answer the question of how the near field energy transfer over a distance really takes place, we are told it just happens. I think the mediator in all this is the active aether.
QuoteOnly electromagnetic waves have an explicit mediator, the photon. Static fields may also involve a mediator, the virtual photon, but real or virtual, the photon does not depend on an aether theory either.
But the photon is a mystery object having both particle and wave-like characteristic. That mystery is easily explained by an aether theory.
QuoteThis does not mean that there is no such thing as "aether" which would be necessary for the functioning of electromagnetism, it just means that as long as there is no experiment to distinguish a situation with or without aether, the aether appears to be a superfluous hypothesis for electromagnetism.
In my opinion an aether theory that can unite particle and wave-like characteristics is not superfluous.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.15, 10:39:59
The magnetism due to orbital motion is certainly much weaker than that due to spin, but it is far from negligible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_magnetization
Hence my question that if there is a generator behind the spin to maintain the same rotation speed of the charge whatever the external flux, then there should be a similar one for the orbital rotation (if we assume that the orbital rotation is also done with constant speed).
Yes and I believe that the non-negligible orbits that contribute to the magnetism also contribute to the energy exchange.
QuoteIn the context of a macroscopic flux produced by the sum of the individual fluxes of the electron spins, this is correct. But conversely, we have no assurance that an external macroscopic field will subdivide into an equal number of equal individual fluxes through the spins. I don't see what could guarantee this reciprocity.
Now you are suggesting that fields down at atomic particle dimensions no longer have field-like characteristics, but we know from Electron Spin Resonance that the electrons precess about the field direction so it is still a field, and not some other coagulation.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.15, 16:05:17
But that action at a distance is not instantaneous. If you played with fast voltage rise times applied to the self capacitance of an electrode (as I have done) and examined the Coulomb field you would find that any change of field travels at velocity c. This is not EM radiation as it is not a tranverse wave, it is a longitudinal wave along the Coulomb field direction. So I ask myself the question, when I charge a sphere I establish a radial electric field emanating from the sphere, and apart from a small loss due to radiation (that can be minimized by doing it slowly) the energy I supplied is contained in that field that goes out to infinity. I recover most of that energy when I discharge the capacitance. How does the energy in areas away from the sphere travel backwards?
...
There is another way of looking at it. The field around each charge is always present, extends to infinity, it is an intrinsic part of the charge. And a charge is conserved. So you can never change the field of a charge, you can't take any energy from it or give it any energy.
Since positive and negative charges are equal in number in the universe, in the general case their fields cancel each other out.
To obtain a field, we must separate the positive charges from the negative charges, and therefore perform work, work that is reflected in the energy that can be withdrawn from the field. The fields of positive and negative charges are effectively superimposed, even when their resultant is zero, since the fields do not interact.
So when you say that by charging a sphere you generate a radial field, this is a partial way of looking at things. By charging a sphere, you shift the field of negative charges from that of positive charges in all the surrounding space, making a non-zero resultant appear. This shift is propagated from near to near at the speed c as you said.
When you get it back, you ask yourself: "How does the energy in areas away from the sphere travel backwards?"
The answer is simple, the energy doesn't travel, unlike the field. The energy of the field is only potential. Such and such a field in such and such a place allows you to recover energy, but the only physical reality is the field, not the energy.
The best proof of this is the interference of two radio transmitters of the same frequency, spaced far enough apart not to influence each other. If we draw a straight line from the antenna of one of them, it will cross areas where the field is double, and others where it is zero, depending on the interference. It is therefore clear that the energy did not follow this straight line, otherwise we would not have a null zone, and that if it had zigzagged from one zone of constructive interference to another in order to pass, it would have had to go at a speed >c because the path would no longer be a straight line.
Once we understand that energy is only the potentiality of a physical condition, we also understand that it does not have to propagate. Energy is a condition created locally by the configuration of the elements of reality in it, such as the field, and this condition, the recoverable energy, depends on the frame of reference and therefore on the observer. Energy is not an intrinsic property of the field.
You ask the question in the context of electromagnetism, but why not ask it for other forms of energy as well? Why don't you ask yourself where kinetic energy is or how it travels? Because again, this is not an element of reality. The car will have kinetic energy if you are on the side of the road, but if you are in the car, its kinetic energy will be zero compared to you. As you can see, the question of the "travel" of energy is nonsense, energy is only a potentiality of local conditions as seen by the observer.
In the near field, you change the superposition configuration of the positive and negative charge fields, so you create distant conditions where energy can be recovered locally, but no more than your charge displacement operation, such as charging a capacitor, will have required.
PS - I may be a little less present in the next few days, I'm off on holiday to visit Cornwall and Wales :). But I'm not giving up on this interesting discussion.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.15, 16:05:17
...
But the photon is a mystery object having both particle and wave-like characteristic. That mystery is easily explained by an aether theory.
...
The travelling photon is a pure electromagnetic wave. The corpuscular aspect only appears because of quantification, at emission or absorption in the photoelectric effect, for example.
I no longer see any sense in the notion of corpuscle. Everything is wave.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.15, 20:37:51
There is another way of looking at it. The field around each charge is always present, extends to infinity, it is an intrinsic part of the charge. And a charge is conserved. So you can never change the field of a charge, you can't take any energy from it or give it any energy.
Since positive and negative charges are equal in number in the universe, in the general case their fields cancel each other out.
You mention the universe, what do you consider to be the general case? My general case is the universe as it is where there are plenty of regions where the fields do not cancel.
QuoteTo obtain a field, we must separate the positive charges from the negative charges, and therefore perform work, work that is reflected in the energy that can be withdrawn from the field. The fields of positive and negative charges are effectively superimposed, even when their resultant is zero, since the fields do not interact.
Agreed, but I note you say that energy can be withdrawn from the field. You later say that is incorrect and energy does not flow in that manner.
QuoteSo when you say that by charging a sphere you generate a radial field, this is a partial way of looking at things. By charging a sphere, you shift the field of negative charges from that of positive charges in all the surrounding space, making a non-zero resultant appear. This shift is propagated from near to near at the speed c as you said.
When you get it back, you ask yourself: "How does the energy in areas away from the sphere travel backwards?"
The answer is simple, the energy doesn't travel, unlike the field. The energy of the field is only potential. Such and such a field in such and such a place allows you to recover energy, but the only physical reality is the field, not the energy.
OK, but that is for electric fields. I assume you hold the same argument for magnetic fields where change of field energy between two static situations in a surrounding space (in our case surrounding a coil and a magnet) is totally accounted for by movement of charges in our local area. I argue that my anomalous energy component does not come from energy considerations for the movement of charges in the coil. Therefore it must come from energy considerations for the movement of charges within the magnet. In movement of charges I consider electron spin as circular movement of charge which is the charge movement that creates the external magnetic field. You have mentioned interference zones where field add or subtract which for our case are easily identified. When we look at those zones we do not find that change of field energy there accounts for the anomalous term. We do find that the change of potential energy at all the electron spins responsible for the magnetism does account for the anomalous term. In any current loop that change of potential energy relates to whatever source is driving that current around the loop. In the case of a current generator it sees a voltage during the period of change. In the case of a motor spinning a charged sphere motor endures drag or acceleration torque. I can see no reason why an electron should be considered differently.
QuotePS - I may be a little less present in the next few days, I'm off on holiday to visit Cornwall and Wales :). But I'm not giving up on this interesting discussion.
Enjoy your holiday but beware the coming heat wave. :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.15, 20:49:18
The travelling photon is a pure electromagnetic wave. The corpuscular aspect only appears because of quantification, at emission or absorption in the photoelectric effect, for example.
I no longer see any sense in the notion of corpuscle. Everything is wave.
Yet you recently said
QuoteBut conversely, we have no assurance that an external macroscopic field will subdivide into an equal number of equal individual fluxes through the spins.
Challenging that subdivision is challenging your "everything is a wave".
F6 has challenged my presumption that an electron has size (diameter) that can intercept a quantity of flux based on its cross section area, and that this can account for energy changes in its external field. This paper tells us otherwise.
Smudge
You mention conductive magnets in your last paper.
Coincidentally, you can attach a magnet to a copper disc to build a homopolar generator.
I don't know if anyone has bothered taking the next step of using a conductive magnet as the rotor in a homopolar generator. Seems logical.
@Grumpy,
There are youtube videos of NdFeB disc magnets sitting atop a battery terminal and being made to spin simply by connecting the other end of the battery to a brush touching the outer rim of the magnet. A homopolar motor. If the magnet spin were driven it becomes a homopolar generator.
Smudge
QuoteI don't know if anyone has bothered taking the next step of using a conductive magnet as the rotor in a homopolar generator. Seems logical.
I have used N52 neo magnets in homopolar motor/generators, as quenched spark gap conductors and many conduction applications.
I never found any anomalies with these setups and the action was predictable. This may relate to the fact the magnetic field is a property of space and not the source material itself. For example, a magnetic field does not rotate with the source. Logically, any field bound to the source should rotate with it but none do thus they must be a property of space. Keep in mind what we call tangible matter is 1% particles in motion and 99% vacuum filled with EM waves.
This goes towards the notion of a medium being present such as the Aether or Dark Energy/matter.
The common arguments against a medium are problematic because by definition we cannot have a wave without a wave carrier. It's like saying we can have an ocean wave without water which is absurd. So either we acknowledge a medium or we stop calling all field propagation and radiation "waves". Otherwise were left with the notion that something has acted on itself or nothing which is an obvious contradiction.
An obvious solution is to recognize the primary fields as a disturbance in the surrounding space/medium. This would explain a lack of field rotation with the source and a constant field velocity irrespective of the source. All the facts suggest this is the case and I find it impossible to rationalize how a supposed "wave" could propagate through nothing. It is completely counterintuitive and we find no real world examples of a wave without a wave carrier in nature.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.16, 09:32:05
...
Enjoy your holiday but beware the coming heat wave. :)
I am back. The heat wave was limited to 23°C in Wales, I survived :). Nice people, beautiful landscapes all along the coast and in the small mountains around the Snowdon, cultural interests like the wool museum in Llandysul or the old locomotives of the 19th century exposed in Penrhyn Castle. I enjoyed it. The only problem was the food in the restaurants and lounge bars. A terrible ordeal. Not sure I would have survived another week :).
Quote
You mention the universe, what do you consider to be the general case?
By "general case" I mean the macroscopic view of the world that we have in everyday life: the objects we handle and use are generally electrically neutral. But the charges are always separated and therefore there are exploitable electric fields between them.
The energy that can be removed from the field is not the energy of the field of the charge, i.e. if we had only one charge in the universe, we could not remove any energy from its field. This field is an intrinsic part of the charge.
On the other hand, if we have several charges, then we can draw energy from their relative position, when they approach or move away from each other, by virtue of F = K.q.q'/r², which we write F=q.E by introducing for convenience the electric field E, a local property in space, induced by the charges.
The electric field is E=F/q
by definition. It is defined from the force to which a charge is subjected in space. It is therefore necessary to have at least 2 charges, the test charge and the charge of the source of the field, in order to speak concretely of field, force and work, thus of energy. The energy can only be recovered from the energy potential represented by two separate charges. The "energy density of the field" has no meaning outside this context.
Quote
Quote
Such and such a field in such and such a place allows you to recover energy, but the only physical reality is the field, not the energy.
OK, but that is for electric fields. I assume you hold the same argument for magnetic fields where change of field energy between two static situations in a surrounding space (in our case surrounding a coil and a magnet) is totally accounted for by movement of charges in our local area. I argue that my anomalous energy component does not come from energy considerations for the movement of charges in the coil.
The magnetic field is the electric field seen by an observer in motion relative to the source of the field. The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge. The relativistic transforms allow to pass from one to the other, there is no difference in nature. The considerations of energy, electric or magnetic, can only come from the relative movements of the charges.
Quote
F6 has challenged my presumption that an electron has size (diameter) that can intercept a quantity of flux based on its cross section area
This is not a challenge but an objection. I think that in science it is by eliminating one by one the objections that we end up finding in what remains, the reality. In this case, this objection is removed. Indeed, macroscopic flux and the sum of the fluxes of a multitude of current loops are equivalent, each one being able to create the other, simply the reciprocity of electromagnetic effects imposes it, I should have thought of it earlier.
Quote
In the case of a motor spinning a charged sphere motor endures drag or acceleration torque. I can see no reason why an electron should be considered differently.
One of the reasons may be that the electron is a quantum object and that quantum objects do not behave like classical objects, e.g. their location in space and time is fuzzy. A spin is not the real rotation of a charge, and this pseudo-rotation is quantized. Quantization introduces thresholds in the effects, unlike a current loop where charges can be sensitive to arbitrarily small effects.
To the question: "when we see the spin as a current loop, why does the current in this loop remain constant despite the effect of a variable external flux?", the answer you propose, as I understand it, is that an unknown generator provides compensation energy.
But a superconducting LC circuit wound around a ferromagnetic core consumes no energy to maintain an oscillation, except for losses in the material. So a spin seen as a current generator does not need to supply energy either.
Have you considered more conventional alternatives?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.30, 13:37:58
........The energy that can be removed from the field is not the energy of the field of the charge, i.e. if we had only one charge in the universe, we could not remove any energy from its field. This field is an intrinsic part of the charge.
I agree with respect to its electric field. But we are talking about the magnetic field from the spin of the electron. If we had only one electron we can remove its magnetic field by placing it inside an electron sized coil and passing current through the coil so as to negate the electron's magnetic field. We have to supply energy to do this, so where has the original field energy gone? OK we can't do it with a single electron because of its fuzzy nature, but we can do it with a large number of electrons, those that create the field from a PM.
QuoteThe magnetic field is the electric field seen by an observer in motion relative to the source of the field. The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge. The relativistic transforms allow to pass from one to the other, there is no difference in nature. The considerations of energy, electric or magnetic, can only come from the relative movements of the charges.
So what is the relative motion that determined the field from a PM? If that field comes from electron orbits you would have to argue that it is the electron motion around that orbit. But some of the PM's field comes from electron spin, where is the relative motion there?
QuoteOne of the reasons may be that the electron is a quantum object and that quantum objects do not behave like classical objects, e.g. their location in space and time is fuzzy.
And some of that fuzziness is removed in a PM. Fuzzy has different meanings to different people. To me fuzzy just means a probability distribution. Take spatial position. A probability distribution does not mean that the electron has lost its point-like property and actually is a fuzzy sort of vapor occupying all space within that distribution. It just means that it is jumping about at such speed that we can't know exactly where it is. The field from a PM is not fuzzy.
QuoteTo the question: "when we see the spin as a current loop, why does the current in this loop remain constant despite the effect of a variable external flux?", the answer you propose, as I understand it, is that an unknown generator provides compensation energy.
Not an unknown generator but the active aether as the source.
QuoteBut a superconducting LC circuit wound around a ferromagnetic core consumes no energy to maintain an oscillation, except for losses in the material. So a spin seen as a current generator does not need to supply energy either.
But if you extract energy into a load you need a source for that energy, in the case of your superconducting coil it could be a series voltage generator or a parallel current generator.
QuoteHave you considered more conventional alternatives?
Convention says it can't be done so I am not interested in convention.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.07.30, 15:58:21
I agree with respect to its electric field. But we are talking about the magnetic field from the spin of the electron. If we had only one electron we can remove its magnetic field by placing it inside an electron sized coil and passing current through the coil so as to negate the electron's magnetic field.
You couldn't do it perfectly. Electric and magnetic fields are exactly the same physical reality, the difference only appears in the observer's point of view. This is proven, for example, by the Lorentz force: the observer with a velocity V in relation to the source of the magnetic field B, sees an electric field E=VxB.
Since charges always have a non-zero electric field around them, they always have a non-zero magnetic field when the observer sees them moving. To cancel the magnetic field, the charges would have to follow exactly the same path in the opposite direction, which is impossible in a conductor, and even more so for spins.
Granted, you can cancel the field in a certain area, and certainly, this cancellation might be sufficient for your purpose.
But have you tried to cancel the field of small coils carrying a constant current and spaced from each other by 1 million times their diameter (the order of magnitude of separation of electrons in relation to their size, in a material), by placing them in a single large coil fed by an opposite current? I wish you courage... By assimilating the spins to current loops, this simulation would however answer what you propose. This does not seem realistic to me.
QuoteWe have to supply energy to do this, so where has the original field energy gone? OK we can't do it with a single electron because of its fuzzy nature, but we can do it with a large number of electrons, those that create the field from a PM.
The energy you provide is the mechanical work to move charges that attract or repel each other. By reducing the field, you reduce its potential to provide energy. Again, there is no energy in a field, the field only has the potential to provide energy, which is measured by its energy density, a formula not to be taken literally since energy is relative to the observer, not to the field. It is the same as if one spoke of kinetic "energy density" in the velocity field of an object in motion relative to you. The object carries no energy. You only have the possibility to get some if you can see this "velocity field". If you move at the speed of the object, the "velocity field" becomes zero and you cannot draw any energy, which proves that the energy was not in the field because it remains the same relative to an observer who would have remained at rest.
Quote
So what is the relative motion that determined the field from a PM? If that field comes from electron orbits you would have to argue that it is the electron motion around that orbit. But some of the PM's field comes from electron spin, where is the relative motion there?
Spin has a magnetic moment, so we don't need a notion of speed to talk about a magnetic field. But if we see spin as a loop of current, then in a PM the relative velocity is that of the charges of this current with respect to the observer.
But does the macroscopic view of a PM allow us to assert that spin is equivalent to a simple current loop? Certainly not. One of the proofs is that if we can start from the movement of a charge to know the magnetic field, we cannot start from a magnetic field to know the movement of charges because the solutions are not unique.
Another is the experiment of Stern and Gerlach which demonstrates that the electron is not a simple loop of current, reason for which one introduced the concept of spin!
QuoteAnd some of that fuzziness is removed in a PM. Fuzzy has different meanings to different people. To me fuzzy just means a probability distribution.
For me too. (Almost) nothing is fuzzy in the macroscopic world. In the quantum world, everything is. When you talk about spin, you're talking about quantum mechanics, because that's where the definition comes from. So when you talk about a current loop for spin, when no angular velocity of charge is known or knowable, you are no longer in the non-fuzzy of a PM.
Quote
Not an unknown generator but the active aether as the source.
You can call it whatever you want, it's still a magic wand effect.
Quote
But if you extract energy into a load you need a source for that energy, in the case of your superconducting coil it could be a series voltage generator or a parallel current generator.
Convention says it can't be done so I am not interested in convention.
Of course you are, you're interested in what's conventional. 99% of what you tell us is conventional, and that's good. You talk about electron, spin, magnetic field, energy, flux etc etc. All these notions, you did not define them but recovered them from conventional science. But this conventional science is internally consistent. If you take only what suits you, reject the rest, and add notions like the ether, not precisely defined and even more vague than the position in QM of an electron from its wave function, you destroy the coherence.
In this case you have to propose an experiment whose result cannot be explained by conventional science.
This is what you have indirectly done by suggesting that Coler's device might have something to do with electron spin. I think this is a good idea, which is why I intervened in this thread. But now we have to find a way to use this idea to duplicate his device. I have just started to study spin currents, maybe that will help.
@F6FLT I highly encourage you to look into Distinti's work:
https://www.patreon.com/EtherealMechanics/posts
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHvRotcJ0RiCI1ypnQ0L_gg
In his work he describes an electron as 2 "preton" particles spinning around each other at the speed of light. Mass or better yet inertia can be deduced from this model rather trivially. This actually corelates well with what Smudge is saying about the electron. If you go beyond the electron there is one caveat, you need an ether. It's ironic how far physicists have went to ignore the possibility of an ether as this would imply that 100 year long physics was all wrong. Nature is right in your face, it doesn't matter how complex we would like to describe it or how big fancy equations we can write, nature is still nature.
Quantum mechanics describes HOW electrons and light behave but not why. It can never explain why Planck's constant and the fine structure constants have the values they do. This is also its ultimate limitation and hence why QM will never lead to new discoveries in physics. The biggest success of Quantum Mechanics was being able to describe the position of the electron around an atom. These orbitals could lead to better understanding of chemical interactions. Beyond this the current quantum mechanics model will keep physicist stuck on a merry go around as you cannot "explain the thing using the thing" because this is circular logic. It's beyond arrogant to put self imposed limitations on your current knowledge like "the electron is a point particle with virtual spin" now you completely shut off any other model to describe the electron which leads to all the results we see.
Even the Stern and Gerlach experiment you mentioned. This can be fully explained by seeing the electron as a tiny current loop which is essentially a magnet. If you throw a magnet between two bigger magnets, depending on the orientation it will either align or anti align with the field thus a binary quantity. This is exactly how the Silver atom behaved, so this experiment can be interpreted either way.
It's clear that modern physics has hit a brick with things like dark energy, dark matter and the standard model. We need new models from the ground up that explain these disconnects or else physics will keep on stagnating and we will suffocate on this planet due to still relying on fire to drive our intellectual evolution.
I would also like to add that I like the concept put forth here a lot and it definitely needs to be followed up by an experiment.
Quote from: broli on 2022.07.31, 21:49:28
I would also like to add that I like the concept put forth here a lot and it definitely needs to be followed up by an experiment.
Agreed. One good experiment is worth a thousand of hours of debate.
There are probably even some papers available today that deal at least tangentially with the Electron spin model in asymmetric energy exchange.
@broli
I looked closely at Distinti's papers a few years ago. I liked what concerns electromagnetism, his sets of equations seemed to me perfectly coherent, it is quite close to the works of pioneers like Ampère.
Then I saw his extensions concerning gravity, and there I am very sceptical. In his work, there is to take and to leave.
Concerning the rest of your comment, I have the impression that you consider the goal of science as much more than what it is. Science only serves to explain what we observe. It explains the HOW (how it works) and never the why (which would imply a finality for the universe).
So it is simple: if what is observed is correctly modeled by the equations, science has done its job. If an observation is unexplained, then only a new theory is needed.
This does not prevent the protesters of this science from proposing other theories, but for what purpose? If they are unable to provide the slightest experiment whose results, predicted by their theories, would be different from what conventional science predicts, these people are useless. Science is knowledge. Research only becomes knowledge, and therefore science, when its predictions have been verified by measurements and a consensus has been reached.
I agree with you that current science seems to struggle to progress.
But these difficulties are perfectly understood by the scientists themselves, who know their weak points, like the question of dark matter or the incompatibility of QM with general relativity. They are constantly questioning their own theories, and this is even what they are looking for and they say so, a new physics. So they are not at all in a circular logic but open and curious. It is simply that the easiest things have been done, because we started from almost zero at the time of Galileo, and now the questions are much more complex. I even think that we will have to wait for the development of artificial intelligence for significant progress.
Science is not complete and it is unlikely that it will ever be. But only conventional science has allowed a working technology. If alternative sciences existed, then where would be the alternative technologies they would enable it and thus prove its veracity? There is only one science.
Scientists consider the electron as a point charge or as a spin depending on the context of use, they are not so stupid as to believe that these two notions would be compatible or that the electron would be reduced to a point. To criticize conventional science and its method without having anything concrete to show is where I see ridiculous arrogance.
Concerning the spin, obviously the experiment of Stern and Gerlach is incompatible with simple current loops, since the projection of the spin on an axis does not take continuous values. This does not mean that electrons cannot in some cases be considered as current loops, as in the case of the PM seen macroscopically, it means that they do not reduce to this and that only experiments will be able to confirm whether the hypothesis of current loops is relevant or not in the case considered.
I appreciate Smudge's work, because he builds on the known to discover and test the unknown. This is the only method that has proven successful so far: standing on the shoulders of giants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants) to move forward, rather than by useless alternative theories, trying constantly and vainly, to reinvent the wheel.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.07.31, 21:56:08
Agreed. One good experiment is worth a thousand of hours of debate.
...
I also agree. All our efforts should be directed towards obtaining anomalous results in experiments, which could be an indication of phenomena beyond the present science, from which, perhaps, we could obtain free energy.
This implies, however, to exploit ideas that have a chance to succeed, therefore theoretical concepts, and not to confuse, by ignorance of physics, banal experimental results with extraordinary new effects, which is what we see constantly in youtubers talking about free energy without even knowing how energy is defined.
Anyone with the necessary equipment up for to run an Experiment of Smudge's idea? We can crowd source or fund the materials needed together if need be. It doesn't seem like a complex thing to set up.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.07.31, 16:21:04
Electric and magnetic fields are exactly the same physical reality, the difference only appears in the observer's point of view. This is proven, for example, by the Lorentz force: the observer with a velocity V in relation to the source of the magnetic field B, sees an electric field E=VxB.
Since charges always have a non-zero electric field around them, they always have a non-zero magnetic field when the observer sees them moving. To cancel the magnetic field, the charges would have to follow exactly the same path in the opposite direction, which is impossible in a conductor, and even more so for spins.
You said earlier "The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge". You used the word "is" but our concept of a magnetic field is different to that of an electric field, so you can't say "is" as they are two different things. I think what you are saying is that the distorted E field can be considered as equivalent to a combination of an undistorted electric field plus a magnetic field. I would not argue with that, but it tells me that there is a deeper layer of math that describes some sort of overall interaction. In the general case we have for a force field F, F = F
1(E) + F
2(M). In practice we never deal with individual charges, and in our magnetic world we usually have the situation where the sum of all the electric F
1 fields is zero leaving only the sum of some of the magnetic F
2 fields. That then brings into question as to what actually emanates from any charge to arrive in a region of space where its effect gets cancelled? Note that it is the effect that gets cancelled, as you have repeatably pointed out there can be other regions pf space where fields appear to sum and not negate so that emanation can travel through the cancellation region and out the other side. But our vision of an effect (a force on a charge) is a field hence we talk about field cancellation. But if whatever travels at velocity c from a charge is something that cannot be changed, then that is the deeper level that I am looking for. And that brings in the aether.
QuoteBut have you tried to cancel the field of small coils carrying a constant current and spaced from each other by 1 million times their diameter (the order of magnitude of separation of electrons in relation to their size, in a material), by placing them in a single large coil fed by an opposite current?
Not here where we are talking about an electron sized coil around an electron. But I can simulate an array of tiny coils in FEMM to see how they produce a field external to the array and how that compares to the field of a PM both internally and externally. The first thing to note is that there is no negative H inside the array as required by our conventional science. Everywhere B and H are contiguous and obey B = μ
0H, and that includes the fields that pass through the current loops. I can place a larger coil around the array to see how the fields change when that coil carries current. And I can look at each tiny current loop to see how its flux changes when the outer coil carries current. I can analyse the whole thing to see what energy each tiny current source supplies or receives. I can move the tiny loops about in some fuzzy way to see whether the total energies from the current sources agree with the field energies. (OK I haven't really done all this to any great extent but you see where I am coming from). The simulations show that the tiny current sources supply energy when the outer coil adds to the external field, and they receive energy when the outer coil negates the external field. But you vehemently deny that an array of electron spins in a PM can be a source or a sink of energy.
QuoteI wish you courage... By assimilating the spins to current loops, this simulation would however answer what you propose. This does not seem realistic to me.
Of course I can't simulate down to electron sizes and separations but as I make each loop smaller I have to increase its current to simulate a known PM. The energy flows remain the same no matter what tiny coil size I choose.
QuoteSpin has a magnetic moment, so we don't need a notion of speed to talk about a magnetic field.
A magnetic moment creates a magnetic field and you have said that a magnetic field requires relative motion. Now you are saying the magnetic field from electron spin doesn't require motion. You can't have it both ways.
QuoteBut if we see spin as a loop of current, then in a PM the relative velocity is that of the charges of this current with respect to the observer.
Agreed and the notion of a spinning spherical charge fits this bill
QuoteBut does the macroscopic view of a PM allow us to assert that spin is equivalent to a simple current loop? Certainly not. One of the proofs is that if we can start from the movement of a charge to know the magnetic field, we cannot start from a magnetic field to know the movement of charges because the solutions are not unique.
I don't see that as proof at all. We are talking about a single electron having a magnetic moment hence creating a magnetic field. Your "not unique" solution is for multiple charges.
QuoteAnother is the experiment of Stern and Gerlach which demonstrates that the electron is not a simple loop of current, reason for which one introduced the concept of spin!
And introduced the concept of spin having both angular momentum
and magnetic moment.
Quote..... So when you talk about a current loop for spin, when no angular velocity of charge is known or knowable, you are no longer in the non-fuzzy of a PM.
Really!!! I thought the angular velocity of spin was well known in terms of Planck's constant.
QuoteIn this case you have to propose an experiment whose result cannot be explained by conventional science.
This is what you have indirectly done by suggesting that Coler's device might have something to do with electron spin. I think this is a good idea, which is why I intervened in this thread. But now we have to find a way to use this idea to duplicate his device. I have just started to study spin currents, maybe that will help.
Irrespective of our different viewpoints I think we agree that a bunch of electrons in a region of space (like an electrode surface) having their spins aligned will create a magnetic field. And if the number quantity of those electrons changes then so does the field. And that change could induce voltage into a coil through which some of the field passes which in turn can pass through a load resistance to deliver power. Since the driving force changing the electron quantity is dominantly electric (like charging a capacitor) CoE demands that the electric drive should supply that power. But the feed back from the load current is magnetic, and examination of that field indicates that its electric inducement into the capacitor charging circuit is not of the correct phase to account for that electrical loading effect. As you say it needs an experiment to find out. Unfortunately doing various sums around this problem I think the experiment needs electrolytic super capacitor technology to get anywhere. The capacities associated with the Coler Fe rods are not enough to account for the results there.
Smudge
Why can't we rotate the aether instead of the electrons?
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.01, 15:50:06
You said earlier "The magnetic field is the electric field distorted (it is no longer isotropic) when seen by a moving charge". You used the word "is" but our concept of a magnetic field is different to that of an electric field
Our concepts of electric and magnetic field are different, wrongly, for historical and also practical reasons. But they are exactly the same thing, and this is demonstrated by relativity :
"
the sources that create the field are at rest with respect to one of the reference frames. Given the electric field in the frame where the sources are at rest, one can ask: what is the electric field in some other frame?
Knowing the electric field at some point (in space and time) in the rest frame of the sources, and knowing the relative velocity of the two frames provided all the information needed to calculate the electric field at the same point in the other frame. In other words, the electric field in the other frame does not depend on the particular distribution of the source charges, only on the local value of the electric field in the first frame at that point. Thus, the electric field is a complete representation of the influence of the far-away charges. [...] That is, the magnetic field is simply the electric field, as seen in a moving coordinate system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
For more information and examples, see chapter 14-8 page 231 of Paul Bickerstaff's course (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Cours/R.Paul%20Bickerstaff%20-%20Claustrophobic%20physics.pdf), especially § 14-8-1 where he finds by relativity the forces on parallel wires carrying currents.
QuoteBut if whatever travels at velocity c from a charge is something that cannot be changed, then that is the deeper level that I am looking for. And that brings in the aether.
The idea of ether comes from the fact that we are talking about electromagnetic waves and that a wave needs a propagation medium, which determines its speed.
Is the limiting speed c related to this ether? As this speed is a limit to everything, including the transmission of information or gravity, I think that it goes far beyond electromagnetic waves, which removes one of the reasons for wanting an ether for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
If I send in space, at any speed, a spring with an oscillating mass at each end, I observe an oscillation, I can define a wavelength and thus see it as a wave, and yet this object which looks like a wave is not one. A photon traveling in space could be of this model, thus not requiring an ether.
I am not closed to the idea of ether, we know that the quantum vacuum is not really empty, but I do not see any convincing demonstration of its necessity for a field.
QuoteNot here where we are talking about an electron sized coil around an electron. But I can simulate an array of tiny coils in FEMM to see how they produce a field external...
I do not doubt that the simulation gives consistent results. What worries me is the order of magnitude of the current in the small coils.
Have you calculated the current in a loop of the electron radius, capable of generating the same magnetic moment as the spin? The result could invalidate the loop hypothesis, for example if the speed of the charge were to be greater than the speed of light.
QuoteA magnetic moment creates a magnetic field and you have said that a magnetic field requires relative motion. Now you are saying the magnetic field from electron spin doesn't require motion. You can't have it both ways.
The magnetic moment does not create anything, it characterizes the intensity of the magnetic field.
And I have already answered: these notions depend on the context.
If we talk about spin as a quantum object, we do not talk about the speed of rotation of a charge, a spin is not a classical rotation although it has a magnetic moment.
If we talk about current loops, then by definition of what a current is, there is motion.
Why would you want an element of reality to be represented by only one model, the classical model?
QuoteWe are talking about a single electron having a magnetic moment hence creating a magnetic field. Your "not unique" solution is for multiple charges.
The "not unique" solution is not specific to multiple charges. In the case of the magnetic field, it implies only the currents; that is to say that the knowledge of a magnetic or electric field in space does not allow, in a unique way, to calculate the intensity nor the configuration of the charges or currents which could give rise to it, thus even less the charge or the chargeS at the origin of the current. There are theoretically an infinite number of possible paths and current intensities to create any magnetic field, including the spin field.
QuoteI thought the angular velocity of spin was well known in terms of Planck's constant.
A spin is not a classical rotation. If it is, please tell us which charge is rotating at which angular velocity and on which trajectory.
QuoteIrrespective of our different viewpoints I think we agree that a bunch of electrons in a region of space (like an electrode surface) having their spins aligned will create a magnetic field. And if the number quantity of those electrons changes then so does the field. And that change could induce voltage into a coil through which some of the field passes which in turn can pass through a load resistance to deliver power. Since the driving force changing the electron quantity is dominantly electric (like charging a capacitor) CoE demands that the electric drive should supply that power.
I agree
QuoteBut the feed back from the load current is magnetic, and examination of that field indicates that its electric inducement into the capacitor charging circuit is not of the correct phase to account for that electrical loading effect. As you say it needs an experiment to find out. Unfortunately doing various sums around this problem I think the experiment needs electrolytic super capacitor technology to get anywhere. The capacities associated with the Coler Fe rods are not enough to account for the results there.
Whether the feed back is magnetic or electric makes no difference, it is electric in all cases for the reason of relativity said above. Consequently between source and load, all the effects of voltages and currents are always reciprocal.
Imho if free energy were to emerge from classical electromagnetic setups, no matter how they are twisted, it would have been done long ago. I am therefore researching where it is less explored, at least in the field of energy, with spin currents. They can be produced at the interface of ferromagnetic/non-ferromagnetic metals, as we have at Coler, and spin currents can create forces on conduction electrons. All this is complex and I am just starting out.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.02, 15:56:10
A spin is not a classical rotation. If it is, please tell us which charge is rotating at which angular velocity and on which trajectory.
Again, you should look into Distinti's latest work. I'll even attach his most recent paper.
If I may use his terms. 2 inertialess "pretons" spinning at the speed of light each having half a charge of an electron are what make up an electron. This is deduced from his model of induction which was experimentally fitted using a search algorithm many years ago. Expanding on this model of induction it can be shown that these pretons spinning about each other also cause a force to emerge that is equivalent to what is now known as the mass of an electron leading to the fact that mass or better yet inertia is not an intrinsic property of fundamental particles.
@broli
Alternative physics theories, mostly incompatible with each other, can be found by the hundreds on the WEB. Even if we spent all our life, we could not validate or invalidate them all.
Fortunately, most of these theories either do not predict anything more than the established theories, so we do not need them, or they are not scientific. We can therefore limit ourselves to those that show us that they are scientific.
To be scientific, they must be refutable, and therefore contain in themselves the means to refute them, notably by a confrontation with facts and observations in relation to what they predict.
To avoid wasting my time, I therefore have a demand, with theorists, that they accompany any new theory with descriptions of experiments allowing to obtain new effects that the already established theories would fail to predict.
Is this the case with Distinti, concerning his "pretons"?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.03, 10:39:03
To avoid wasting my time, I therefore have a demand, with theorists, that they accompany any new theory with descriptions of experiments allowing to obtain new effects that the already established theories would fail to predict.
An expert's participation would be better spent helping to devise falsifiable experiments based on a novel concept rather than demanding it of others.
Like Oliver Heaviside, turning Maxwell's nearly-incomprehensible quaternions into simple formulas and relations that engineers could more easily use and apply.
Have been doing some more research into spintronics and it's quite fascinating especially spin orbit currents.
This talk is very interesting and includes many gold nuggets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN1M2_jxSfg
What is most amazing to me is the fact where he starts talking about how angular momentum can be taken out of the lattice and transferred to the electron spin due to the conservation of angular momentum. This is quite amazing. As transferring angular momentum from a high mass object to a low mass object essentially increases its energy state. Like a figure skater pulling their arms in.
Here's another mention of this:
https://youtu.be/XClsXAqU6ZM?t=466
@broli
Thanks for the links, I will look at this carefully.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.08.03, 13:09:47
An expert's participation would be better spent helping to devise falsifiable experiments based on a novel concept rather than demanding it of others.
Like Oliver Heaviside, turning Maxwell's...
And how can the one who provides the new concept know that it is a new concept, if he has not made the effort to design an experiment, even a thought experiment, that could demonstrate it?
Perhaps this is simply bullshit. The notion of refutability is paramount in science, my demand should be self-evident.
Heaviside did not introduce new physical concepts, like pretons. His concepts are in math. He only proposed new tools for dealing with conventional electromagnetism, so of course it was refutable since it was enough to apply them to the classical experiments already known.
This paper describes the electron as a super fluid friction-less vortex. So it is then a spinning mass. And a spinning charge.
Smudge
It seems the vortex/twist model of atoms/particles may have been a common perspective among the 19th century electrical engineers
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-magnetic-nanoknots-evoke-lord-kelvin.html
QuoteI was stuck with a thought inline with the idea of this thread. I want to put out this question. What happens when you hang a magnet and have a coil with a changing coil around it.
As smudge mentioned the electron spin will remain constant forever. So will the changing current which applies a circular electric field mechanically torque the magnet?
This is kind of a rhetorical question as we all know no rotation is produced. So somehow this torqueing force or electrical field is "eating" up by the electron spin. This leads to another interesting thought.
That is that you might produce a mechanical force that has no reaction force due to the electron spin.
If you have an iron rod with a coil around it you do get a torque as the electron spins get aligned and each spin carries angular momentum (famous experiment Einstein-de Haas effect. The opposite is true if you rotate the rod you get some magnetization, the Barnett effect). That would also be true for a magnet (like alnico) where the applied current also aligns some spins. Doesn't generally happen with Neo because it has no permeability, but if you could have some DC to get it close to the Hc reversal of magnetization then you could see an effect (but would require superconductor to eliminate losses).
Smudge
Hey Smudge you tripped me up a bit. Because it looks like you edited my post instead of replied to it as I was sure I did not type that :o.
As for your reply. I'm familiar with the Einstein-De Haas effect and as you point out this is due to the rotation of the electron spin, this rotation causes an interaction and energy exchange with the lattice which conserves angular momentum.
However with PM the spins are already aligned and immovable. As you also pointed out in your presentation, these spins act like a constant current source when a circular electric field is applied to them. My question is if the circular E-field does not speed/slow them then what does it do to them. Does it somehow impart a mechanical force instead which couples back to the lattice? If it does we should observe a rotation of the PM around its own axis. If it doesn't then this "longitudinal" force acting to reduce/increase the spin has no perceivable affect on these electrons or the whole lattice. The implications of this are big, as we can make a force "vanish" if applied in a linear fashion you can create a propelling force.
EDIT: I added a visualization aid of what I'm trying to say. The balls represent the positive and negative charges. The faded connections is their lattice coupling. In a non magnetized and non conductive material the changing E-field will interact both with the positive and negative particles. These force will be equal and oppesite in size so no rotation will occur. However in the magnetized case
there is an additional force acting on this virtual spin current. So the big question really is, does the force acting on the source of the electron spin couple back to the lattice or does it just vanish. As far as I'm aware no study has been done on this.
One reason that scenario B would be the right one is that if we see the spin as a rotating charge, and it rotates at a speed close to c, it no longer sees the electric field induced by the external current variation in the same way.
The electromagnetic effect is therefore no longer necessarily reciprocal, because the spin charge is not in an inertial frame of reference as are those of an ordinary electric current.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.14, 17:07:51
One reason that scenario B would be the right one is that if we see the spin as a rotating charge, and it rotates at a speed close to c, it no longer sees the electric field induced by the external current variation in the same way.
The electromagnetic effect is therefore no longer necessarily reciprocal, because the spin charge is not in an inertial frame of reference as are those of an ordinary electric current.
This is what I'm also trying to highlight. If true this means you can apply this to a linear system too as you can see attached. When current flows momentarily in the single wire piece and due to the reaction forces not impressing on the electron spin, in theory the total MECHANICAL force of the system will be unbalanced and the system as a whole will feel a force. Attached I'm visualizing the forces in Weberian style (along the radial axis) but these forces are similar to what you find in a rail gun. The only difference in the railgun is that the current is a "real" current and thus the force acting on it will actually be felt as a longitudinal mechanical force in the rails.
I have been scouring the internet for many hours now and have yet to find any definite conclusion on this. So far Scenario B remains to be the most plausible which also has the most interesting implications.
EDIT: Shortly after making this post I found a paper that was literally published a few days ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17766-z
I haven't read the whole thing but look at this abstract:
QuoteThe classical laws of physics are usually invariant under time reversal. Here, we reveal a novel class of magnetomechanical effects rigorously breaking time-reversal symmetry. These effects are based on the mechanical rotation of a hard magnet around its magnetization axis in the presence of friction and an external magnetic field, which we call spin revolution. The spin revolution leads to a variety of symmetry breaking phenomena including upward propulsion on vertical surfaces defying gravity as well as magnetic gyroscopic motion that is perpendicular to the applied force. The angular momentum of spin revolution differs from those of the magnetic field, the magnetic torque, the rolling axis, and the net torque about the rolling axis. The spin revolution emerges spontaneously, without external rotations, and offers various applications in areas such as magnetism, robotics and energy harvesting.
This is so mind blowing, how can such an effect been hidden for so long :o
Thanks for finding this, Avery interesting paper
Regards
Mike
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.14, 15:31:36
Hey Smudge you tripped me up a bit. Because it looks like you edited my post instead of replied to it as I was sure I did not type that :o.
Sorry about that, having trouble with my new computer running microsoft 365 that is so different from the windows XP of my old one. :-[
QuoteAs for your reply. I'm familiar with the Einstein-De Haas effect and as you point out this is due to the rotation of the electron spin, this rotation causes an interaction and energy exchange with the lattice which conserves angular momentum.
However with PM the spins are already aligned and immovable. As you also pointed out in your presentation, these spins act like a constant current source when a circular electric field is applied to them. My question is if the circular E-field does not speed/slow them then what does it do to them.
If you imagine that the spin and angular momentum are genuine rotations that have circumferencial movement that is inherited from the aether background, then the circular E field applies reverse force to whatever is driving it. Since this does not change the spin movement the background has to apply an equal forward force hence the background supplies energy. The spin does not change, the virtual current does not change, so its like an induced voltage on a constant current source, the source supplies energy.
QuoteDoes it somehow impart a mechanical force instead which couples back to the lattice? If it does we should observe a rotation of the PM around its own axis. If it doesn't then this "longitudinal" force acting to reduce/increase the spin has no perceivable affect on these electrons or the whole lattice. The implications of this are big, as we can make a force "vanish" if applied in a linear fashion you can create a propelling force.
EDIT: I added a visualization aid of what I'm trying to say. The balls represent the positive and negative charges. The faded connections is their lattice coupling. In a non magnetized and non conductive material the changing E-field will interact both with the positive and negative particles. These force will be equal and oppesite in size so no rotation will occur. However in the magnetized case
there is an additional force acting on this virtual spin current. So the big question really is, does the force acting on the source of the electron spin couple back to the lattice or does it just vanish. As far as I'm aware no study has been done on this.
It's a good question. It seems like a simple experiment to perform.
Smudge
I just happen to have a couple spherical magnets about an inch in diameter. I didn't see any round glasses off hand so I had a couple empty plastic round vitamin bottles and put a magnet in each one. Starting at the bottom and rotating the bottles the magnets just stayed on the bottom regardless of what directions I rotated them. Even turning the bottle on their side and even slightly tilted downward they did not move off the bottom so I thought maybe there is a slight widening near the bottom.
I then pulled the magnets about half way up each bottle and did more rotation. At that point the magnets did move upward to the top of the neck. Fascinating although it would seem to be a rather weak force as they wouldn't come up off the bottom and to my eyes I didn't actually see any widening at the bottom of the bottles. Even when fully upside down they won't move off the bottom. However that may be explained by the slight upward convex shape on the bottom of the bottles which I assume now kept the magnets from rotating.
Quote from: e2matrix on 2022.08.15, 16:32:14
I just happen to have a couple spherical magnets about an inch in diameter. I didn't see any round glasses off hand so I had a couple empty plastic round vitamin bottles and put a magnet in each one. Starting at the bottom and rotating the bottles the magnets just stayed on the bottom regardless of what directions I rotated them. Even turning the bottle on their side and even slightly tilted downward they did not move off the bottom so I thought maybe there is a slight widening near the bottom. I then pulled the magnets about half way up each bottle and did more rotation. At that point the magnets did move upward to the top of the neck. Fascinating although it would seem to be a rather weak force as they wouldn't come up off the bottom and to my eyes I didn't actually see any widening at the bottom of the bottles. Even when fully upside down they won't move off the bottom. However that may be explained by the slight convex shape on the bottom of the bottles which may keep the magnets from rotating.
I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.
You could observe this effect also if you put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.15, 16:56:41
I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.
You could observe this effect also if you move put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.
I'll try that in a while. Fascinating effects. Currently charging up a head mounted camera so I can try doing a brief video of the anti-gravity effect in the bottles I used.
Anti-gravity Eyeballs in video ;) : Background sounds were accidental but somehwhat fitting 8)
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.15, 16:56:41
I'm quite curious myself about this effect so I ordered some spherical magnets. Friction also plays a role here. But the summary is that if you try to roll a magnet it will try to resist this by starting to spin around it's magnetization axis and end up moving side ways. This side ways motion was in the paper then also used to climb up against gravity.
You could observe this effect also if you put the magnet on a piece of paper and try to roll it by moving the paper. It should not roll but instead spin and magically move sideways, illustrated below.
I tried the paper action but didn't have much luck reproducing that effect. I'm guessing all my counters have a slight back lean so no matter which way I pulled the paper the ball seemed to wander toward the wall and I didn't seem to notice a spin around the axis.
You sure are a quick one e2matrix. And yeah the sound were kind of freaky. I want to join in on the fun. Especially to see how much work it takes to spin these tubes and comparing it to the gravitational potential gain.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.15, 11:15:45
...
EDIT: Shortly after making this post I found a paper that was literally published a few days ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17766-z
...
This is so mind blowing, how can such an effect been hidden for so long :o
I ask myself the same question! How did we miss it? Have we fallen into a parallel universe where the laws of physics have changed? :)
This is a fantastic new playground. Thanks for the news.
I have some serious reservations about this new paper. Firstly they don't define the experiments clearly. They show one rolling plane video (3)and talk about it as though it is an inclined plane; the viewing angle makes it look like that but clearly it is a horizontal plane. Also they talk about the magnetic field within which that single sphere is immersed and refer to the earth's field, but my reading of that experiment tells me there is a field coming from something below the table top. When I look at their two sphere experiments in the plastic tubes, their math assumes that the static attraction between the two spheres hold their fields and their magnetization parallel, like two parallel bar magnets in attraction. That is not the how the magnetized spheres would start. The natural attraction would be with the magnetizations along the same axis, ie one sphere with its N pole against the plastic and the other sphere with its S pole there. This is particularly true for video #4 which effectively has a bar magnet below the glass, yet video 4 is not analyzed at all, it is merely given a mention in the conclusions. I am not clever enough to decide whether their claims would hold if they altered their math to account for this different vector orientation, but to my mind what they observe is easily seen when you use the equivalent surface current model for the magnets. Another observation is associated with the friction forces. If a sphere is in contact with a surface due to a force on the sphere normal to that surface, and you tried to slide the sphere along the surface without letting it roll, you would have a certain coefficient of friction. If you did the same experiment but now the sphere is spinning about its axis normal to the surface, would the coefficient be the same? I suspect it won't be. I see no evidence that this was taken into account
Having said that the effects are most unusual and could be worth more investigation.
Smudge
Quote
They show one rolling plane video (3)and talk about it as though it is an inclined plane; the viewing angle makes it look like that but clearly it is a horizontal plane.
I agree. I think there is a mistake and that their comment is about video #2.
Quote
their math assumes that the static attraction between the two spheres hold their fields and their magnetization parallel, like two parallel bar magnets in attraction.
I don't think we can criticize them with certainty on this point, everything will depend on the intensity of the attraction which in my opinion can be stronger when the axes are parallel than when they are coaxial.
In the first case the field lines loop in the air over the distance of about 2 radii R + the thickness e of the tubes, above and below the poles, that is to say in all 4*(R+e). In the second case, it would be two diameters + the thickness of the tubes, so the same thing, but in the first case the whole would fit in a smaller volume, which is a priori the best arrangement for the minimal magnetic potential energy.
Quote
Having said that the effects are most unusual and could be worth more investigation.
I agree, we really need to explore this avenue, there is really something new that we hadn't noticed at all. I think I will order some spherical magnets to check the facts first.
Then it would be tempting to switch from the mechanical effect to an electrical effect by replacing the spherical magnets by electrons with spins all oriented in the same direction. Their forced rotation (by what means, I don't know, an induction from an alternating current?) should result in a linear displacement and therefore a continuous current, always in the same direction, something I had already tried in vain in different ways.
I have collected the texts on the subject here (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Exp%C3%A9riences/Em/Magn%C3%A9tisme/RollingMagnet/), including the Luxembourg patent, as well as an international patent application (in fact, the same text). The patent is from Elena Vedmedenko, the only declared inventor, the applicant being the University of Berlin. So I think that Wiesendanger who co-signed the Nature paper helped her with the mathematical analysis, but that the invention is only by Elena Vedmedenko
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.17, 16:38:59
I agree, we really need to explore this avenue, there is really something new that we hadn't noticed at all. I think I will order some spherical magnets to check the facts first.
Then it would be tempting to switch from the mechanical effect to an electrical effect by replacing the spherical magnets by electrons with spins all oriented in the same direction. Their forced rotation (by what means, I don't know, an induction from an alternating current?) should result in a linear displacement and therefore a continuous current, always in the same direction, something I had already tried in vain in different ways.
Are you describing a homopolar generator?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.17, 16:49:41
Are you describing a homopolar generator?
It would have been a kind of homopolar generator, but without mechanical motion, only by electrical forces on the charges.
The idea behind it was the rectification of a variable current, but without diode, so without threshold effect, which could open the way to a Maxwell demon with the rectification of the thermal agitation of electrons.
Sirs
About 10 years ago there was a pretty feisty builder at Stefan's who played with
magnetic spheres in a few different orientations and experimental topologies .
Point is he said he found issues with how the spheres were actually magnetized
Inconsistent north south orientations or even how the fields overlayed onto the spheres
(Different vendors had varied N-S placement on the sphere?
It stands out as he was having some issues with repeating previous experiments or ?
Long story short
Is this relevant here ?
I will try to find the builder ... his name/handle was "X" something ?
I think he was spinning a magnetic sphere in a glass also ?( other builders played with this spinning sphere too
Quote from: Chet K on 2022.08.17, 17:15:01
Sirs
About 10 years ago there was a pretty feisty builder at Stefan's who played with
magnetic spheres in a few different orientations and experimental topologies .
Point is he said he found issues with how the spheres were actually magnetized
Inconsistent north south orientations or even how the fields overlayed onto the spheres
(Different vendors had varied N-S placement on the sphere?
It stands out as he was having some issues with repeating previous experiments or ?
Long story short
Is this relevant here ?
I will try to find the builder ... his name/handle was "X" something ?
I think he was spinning a magnetic sphere in a glass also ?( other builders played with this spinning sphere too
That is definitely a good point too. My spherical magnets are also underway and I already have magnetic paper to check if there's inconsistent poles on their surface.
Quote from: e2matrix on 2022.08.15, 20:12:27
I tried the paper action but didn't have much luck reproducing that effect. I'm guessing all my counters have a slight back lean so no matter which way I pulled the paper the ball seemed to wander toward the wall and I didn't seem to notice a spin around the axis.
It seemed like a no brainer to try this since I already had magnet spheres. The rest was quick and easy as I've got a lot of empty vitamin bottles around I keep for small parts. The sound was from my phone which notifications use a custom sound from the movie "The Matrix" :) and a low hum from the nearby air conditioning condensor.
I definitely find this phenomenon interesting that the magnets seem to know which way is up against gravity. I turned the bottles upside down and tried it with the same result that they went up against gravity and to the bottom of the bottles when inverted.
Adding to the strangeness - a couple posts at overunity in response to this phenomenon there:
I just took the 2 bottles outside to try this. Now this is strange. It took much longer for them to move up and they kept going up and down in little increments but eventually came higher. So I wondered how this could be by just going outside. Ceiling? But that is not it as I went back inside and tried inside with the same result that it took much longer for them to go up and they acted exactly the same as outside - going up and down in little increments but eventually reaching the top. Gravity stronger today? LOL I have no explanation for the difference I see in the test today versus the test I did a couple days ago when I made the video. Inside test today was done in the same spot and it now takes much longer to get them to the top. Same temperature inside.
I left them sitting on the counter separated by about 18" and they had not been touched since the first test so I don't think it is dirt or oils causing this change. I will continue to try at different times today and the next couple days to see if there is any differences. I'll try washing eventually but at this point I'm fairly certain that is not the cause of this change. I'm considering the rather wild idea that the full moon on August 11th which is now waning might have had something to do with this. We know it affects the tidal ocean waves causing them to be higher when the moon is full so maybe it is possible this effect will lessen as the moon wanes. I'll be doing daily tests...
Tried this test again later in the day and now I don't seem to be able to get them to go to the top at all. They'll move up a small amount - about 1/4" or so but then go right back down I should add that I believe these are magnetized hematite which is weaker than neodymium although one has been stuck on a metal door for years and hasn't moved and the other stuck on a metal panel without any change in location. So I don't believe they have lost much magnetism if any in this test.
broli, are the ones you ordered neodymium? Looking forward to your experiences.
Quote from: e2matrix on 2022.08.17, 22:46:36
broli, are the ones you ordered neodymium? Looking forward to your experiences.
Yes they are N38 rated and should be arriving somewhere today. Meanwhile I also compiled all the videos related to the paper in a single video with some captions to make them easier to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oijGMLErqck
I would like to build a small setup of those raised tube to see how much force it will take to make these spheres rise. At least the tubes don't need to be touching which also reduces friction but I bet there will be a significant force to overcome to make them rotate. Of course the question then is if this force will be larger than the work done against gravity.
@e2matrix
Thanks for the interesting feedback on your experiments.
I think that the friction coefficient of the spheres against the glass walls have a very important effect on the behavior of the spheres.
It is possible that the humidity of the air, or perhaps a question of temperature, generally very different between outside and inside, have an influence on this coefficient, which would explain the differences, as well as the time to recover the old behavior when we go from one environment to the other. It is also possible that the rolling of the spheres changes very slightly the surface state of the glass, leading to differences from one experiment to the other.
Only hypotheses...
Quote from: e2matrix on 2022.08.17, 18:44:28
...
I definitely find this phenomenon interesting that the magnets seem to know which way is up against gravity.
...
Magnets are subject to gravity, so they necessarily "feel" it.
The surprise is to see the same effect against gravity whatever the direction of rotation of the cylinders. This is why they talk about time symmetry breaking.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.18, 08:50:46
...
I would like to build a small setup of those raised tube to see how much force it will take to make these spheres rise.
O0
Quote
At least the tubes don't need to be touching which also reduces friction but I bet there will be a significant force to overcome to make them rotate. Of course the question then is if this force will be larger than the work done against gravity.
The tubes are rotated at the same time and at the same speed, so there is no slippage. In theory, the fact that they are touching each other does not cause any friction loss.
The magnets do not supply a force that opposes gravity. The supply a torque force that causes the magnets to rotate to act like driving wheels. It is those wheels in contact with the tube surface that then drive them one way or the other. Gravity doesn't come into which direction the drive goes. The upward force that holds the magnets against gravity is in the tubes, they are like legs. Friction plays its part in this, the static magnets don't fall down because they are clamped to the tubes, if there were no friction they would just fall to the bottom. It is a pity that the black spheres were not given some white markers so that you could see their rotations.
I disagree with F6 on the magnet orientations. The maximum attractive force will be with the axes coaxial, with poles at the touching point. There is no way the magnets can move along the tube from one static position to another in a pure rolling action so so the actual movement must involve some sliding.
Smudge
My ball magnets have just arrived and started playing with this, thus far purely manual and have mostly been testing the rolling causing a spin effect. However I think this may not be an intrinsic effect due to the electrons spin. I have a very difficult time replicating this, sometimes it starts spinning and sometimes it just rolls over its magnetization axis like a normal ball would. At first it seems there was some critical speed where above it started rolling like a normal ball would. So I tried this with two different ball sizes to see if there is a mass-volume/magnetic field ratio dependance but they behave seemingly equally random regardless of size or velocity. Sometimes they spin when rolled and sometimes they just roll normally.
What I'm starting to believe is that this effect happens because of earth's magnetic field or other nearby magnetic objects. This is especially obvious when you "bias" the sphere like in the glass plate video that was shown by Elena.
I have also played a bit with the rising tube magnet but I need to 3d print some parts as it was too clunky to do these experiments manually. However there does seem to be some interesting behaviors going on. But the sceptic in me is becoming more skeptical at the same time.
Hi Guys.
Is there any relation to the Hammel disc phenomenon? It would be nearly 20 years ago when I attached a Ceramic disc magnet to a 2" diameter Steel ball bearing and watched it rotate whilst under the influence of an oppositely polarised 4" ring of magnets.
Cheers Grum.
And, just for laughs....
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2545.msg40063#msg40063
Here's a first video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1UE5uVzuzA
Interestingly enough the lower the friction the better, the effect completely stops if you put something like a silicon oven mat under it. The easier the magnet can spin the better. So hard materials like glass are preferred.
I just did some FEMM runs which are 2D simulations so not spheres but infinitely long rods. They have a gap between them, and I just tried different magnetization directions. Surprisingly the attraction force is the same for the side-by-side parallel magnetizations as it is for the end to end magnetizations. I tried 45 degree (one tilted up and the other tilted down) and again got the same force, So if this also applies to spheres then you get the same max force whatever the rotation provided one rotates CW and the other rotates CCW, so I was wrong about the rolling situation, they can roll up or down in the twin tube situation.
Smudge
Great video and very instructive.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.18, 09:53:00
The magnets do not supply a force that opposes gravity. The supply a torque force that causes the magnets to rotate to act like driving wheels. It is those wheels in contact with the tube surface that then drive them one way or the other. Gravity doesn't come into which direction the drive goes. The upward force that holds the magnets against gravity is in the tubes, they are like legs. Friction plays its part in this, the static magnets don't fall down because they are clamped to the tubes, if there were no friction they would just fall to the bottom.
...
I agree, friction is the means by which the two forces are exerted, the rotational and the linear. A priori it would be in our interest to have the highest coefficient of friction so as not to lose anything in sliding (I am talking about the experiment with the two tubes in which the spheres climb).
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.18, 15:30:04
I just did some FEMM runs which are 2D simulations so not spheres but infinitely long rods. They have a gap between them, and I just tried different magnetization directions. Surprisingly the attraction force is the same for the side-by-side parallel magnetizations as it is for the end to end magnetizations.
As said above, in both cases the field lines have an equal path length in the air, so it is not really surprising. On the other hand, the smaller volume of the configuration in the "side by side" mode does not lead to a minimum of potential magnetic energy, contrary to my intuition.
Your simulation is extremely instructive. The effect must therefore be difficult or impossible to obtain with magnets of other shapes, for example cylindrical. That's likely why everyone missed it, spherical magnets are more for games or decoration, until now I had seen few experiments with them.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.18, 19:48:53
I agree, friction is the means by which the two forces are exerted, the rotational and the linear. A priori it would be in our interest to have the highest coefficient of friction so as not to lose anything in sliding (I am talking about the experiment with the two tubes in which the spheres climb).
You might think that but that's not true. Infact when I use plexiglass the magnets don't even spin and seize. The best results so far is using glass. The magnets smoothly rise up then. There's definitely a sweet spot but softer materials actually all perform worse right now. It's very counterintuitive. You can also definitely feel a resisting force when rotating the glass containers but it gets weaker when the magnets start spinning and moving up.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.18, 22:02:09
You might think that but that's not true. Infact when I use plexiglass the magnets don't even spin and seize. The best results so far is using glass. The magnets smoothly rise up then. There's definitely a sweet spot but softer materials actually all perform worse right now. It's very counterintuitive. You can also definitely feel a resisting force when rotating the glass containers but it gets weaker when the magnets start spinning and moving up.
Very interesting.
One could assume at first that it is a set of torques (magnetic, frictional force for rotation, gravity) that combine to provide a component that allows the sphere to roll upwards along the wall.
Your observation shows that the effect is more complex than that. Couldn't this mean that sliding is also needed? For example a sliding for the vertical axis rotations and a friction for the horizontal axis rotations? Or the opposite? We would need a non-isotropic wall surface.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 09:22:29
Very interesting.
One could assume at first that it is a set of torques (magnetic, frictional force for rotation, gravity) that combine to provide a component that allows the sphere to roll upwards along the wall.
Your observation shows that the effect is more complex than that. Couldn't this mean that sliding is also needed? For example a sliding for the vertical axis rotations and a friction for the horizontal axis rotations? Or the opposite? We would need a non-isotropic wall surface.
Actually I tried one with a glass bottle that was slightly wet. The magnets would then spin too but they would stay in place as the friction was too low due to the wet wall. Interestingly the force to rotate the bottle "felt" equally strong too. I'm also starting to think that perhaps the larger diameter of the cylinder the smoother you can turn the cylinders. In fact now that I think about it you could probably just use flat pieces of glass instead.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.19, 09:55:37
...
In fact now that I think about it you could probably just use flat pieces of glass instead.
I think so. But how to rotate the spheres ?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 10:16:19
I think so. But how to rotate the spheres ?
See attached illustration. Basically moving the glass panes in opposite direction and unlike the cylinders there would be no resistance due to curvature to overcome. Imo this would be the most low energy system you could make for this effect.
But with this scheme the rotations are in the same direction while with the tubes they were in the opposite direction.
It's still interesting to do, maybe the magnets will tend to go down?
Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 10:25:58
But with this scheme the rotations are in the same direction while with the tubes they were in the opposite direction.
It's still interesting to do, maybe the magnets will tend to go down?
You can see in the original Elena videos that it doesn't matter in which direction the tubes rotate relative to each other the behavior is the same and I also confirmed this.
The magnets will always go in the opposite direction of gravity. In my illustration above if the glass panes would be parallel with the horizon the magnets will just spin in place. So there needs to be a slight tilt on the magnets which the force of gravity provides.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 10:25:58
Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?
Her equation does contain the gyromagnetic ratio which is due to the electron spin and its mechanical angular momentum. But if it's indeed too distracting for Smudge we could spin up a different thread.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.19, 10:41:15
You can see in the original Elena videos that it doesn't matter in which direction the tubes rotate relative to each other the behavior is the same and I also confirmed this.
I had missed that, I thought that the two tubes had to rotate opposite each other. :(
So it's even more amazing than I thought. It could also work with only one magnet (maybe by replacing one with a ferromagnetic plate placed against the glass one?)
Quote
The magnets will always go in the opposite direction of gravity. In my illustration above if the glass panes would be parallel with the horizon the magnets will just spin in place. So there needs to be a slight tilt on the magnets which the force of gravity provides.
I see things the same way.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 10:58:27
So it's even more amazing than I thought. It could also work with only one magnet (maybe by replacing one with a ferromagnetic plate placed against the glass one?)
Indeed the other side does not have to be a magnet. Even a test with a spoon did the same.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.19, 10:25:58
Perhaps we should open a new thread on Vedmedenko, unless Smudge wants us to continue here because it would be related to the spin?
Smudge, any thoughts?
Let's leave it here for the moment as it is aligned electron spin that is the basis for permanent magnetism. I note broli has drawn his spheres with the magnetic axes in axial alignment. Is that how they start and end up?
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.19, 14:27:57
Let's leave it here for the moment as it is aligned electron spin that is the basis for permanent magnetism. I note broli has drawn his spheres with the magnetic axes in axial alignment. Is that how they start and end up?
Smudge
It's near impossible to align ball magnets with their poles anti parallel. They only tend to align axially at close range.
I did find some interesting orientations for most optimal vertical movement. By using a sphere magnet and a smaller "holder" magnet which goes up with it. Depending on the orientation of this holder magnet the sphere rolls up, in place, or even down against gravity.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.19, 15:08:36
I did find some interesting orientations for most optimal vertical movement. By using a sphere magnet and a smaller "holder" magnet which goes up with it.
What is the diameter of your magnets?
I ordered 19mm ones, and I think I have some 5mm magnets in a kids game at home from where I am away right now. I'll be able to experiment with both sizes in about 10 days.
Quote
Depending on the orientation of this holder magnet the sphere rolls up, in place, or even down against gravity.
Hard to make sense of it all. :(
I thought I might have an idea of why the spheres go up due to the direction of spin on a curved surface which I could see causing a climbing motion as they are pulled against the surface by the other magnet. However I can no longer get them to climb up at all in the same containers. No matter how long I rotate the containers they don't seem to want to climb at all now - not even a tiny bit of upward motion now. I thought maybe the surfaces inside the bottles had become more smooth and polished from doing these tests. So I took a rough dremel to the insides of the plastic bottles thinking that might give the magnets a better surface to grab onto and help pull them up. But no luck with that either. If I had gotten the results I've observed in the last two days initially I would have assumed some sort of hoax or some problem with my setup. Now I'm still left with a mystery of why it worked initially but seems even less able to climb now than at first. That leads me again to wonder if there isn't something related to the moon and it's effect on tides being part of this phenomenon. I'll be trying again to see if the effect is different on the next full moon. That might sound a bit far out for a theory but at this point I don't have any other explanation for the change in how the magnets are acting now versus the first tests.
broli, I also did clean the magnets and inside of the containers with no difference noted.
The coefficient of friction seems important, so the force with which the magnets attract each other, too.
The forces exert torques that depend on the size of the sphere while the weight is proportional to the volume, this could explain that all sizes of spheres may not be suitable...
When everyone reports their results, specifying the size of the magnets, their weight, and the quality of the neodymium (N38 ? N40 ?...) or its force of attraction could facilitate the lessons to be drawn.
Has anyone considered the sphere contact area when rotating might create tribo-electric charging of the contacting surface? Then there could be electrostatic forces coming into play.
Smudge
I'm guessing now the most likely issue with my pair of magnets is they have become weaker since they are not neodymium. Although they still adhere to the vertical metal area I had kept them without rolling down. I'll still be testing my 'full moon' theory though in a couple weeks.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.20, 16:12:58
Has anyone considered the sphere contact area when rotating might create tribo-electric charging of the contacting surface? Then there could be electrostatic forces coming into play.
Smudge
I doubt they would be significant. I even wondered if the magnets could be rotated by an electrostatic method rather than by friction (charge them on one part only and then apply a rotating electrostatic field), but that seems experimentally unattainable.
A rotating sphere will roll along a surface at a velocity determined by the rotation rate and the angle between the rotation axis and a line normal to the surface. The image below shows the case for the rotation axis parallel to the surface, normal to the surface and at an angle. Looking at broli's video where the rotation axis looks to be normal to the surface, perhaps it is actually at a slight angle. You can count the rotations as the sphere moves and it looks like the rotation axis could be about 7 degrees off the normal. It would be useful if broli could confirm that. If so then it is a rolling action, not a sliding action.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.21, 14:49:51
A rotating sphere will roll along a surface at a velocity determined by the rotation rate and the angle between the rotation axis and a line normal to the surface. The image below shows the case for the rotation axis parallel to the surface, normal to the surface and at an angle. Looking at broli's video where the rotation axis looks to be normal to the surface, perhaps it is actually at a slight angle. You can count the rotations as the sphere moves and it looks like the rotation axis could be about 7 degrees off the normal. It would be useful if broli could confirm that. If so then it is a rolling action, not a sliding action.
Smudge
Yes I believe this would be the main mechanism of action. Due to the tilt of gravity and forced alignment of both magnets with each others fields, you get an interesting play between spin and and translation which causes the magnets to move in a particular direction while spinning. I don't think this has anything to do with the gyromagnetic nature of electrons which is mentioned in the paper. Or it could be partially but that contribution will probably be tiny in my opinion.
This is also confirmed by not being able to replicate the first effect reliably; that is the magnet prefers to translate and spin around its axis of magnetization instead of roll over its axis of magnetization. This heavily dependent on my geographic orientation which indicates to me earths magnetic field is probably the cause of this effect. Away from the equator there is a significant downwards/upwards pointing magnetic field.
Just catching up on this thread. I still have some spheres from Rodin experiments. Thanks for the vid Broli. I'll have to have a closer look.
My ball magnets have arrived: neodymium N38 coated with chrome, Ø 19 mm.
My test tubes being too narrow, I took glasses, and reproduced without any problem the effect described by Vedmedenko, whatever the direction of rotation of the tubes.
With plastic glasses (see photo), the force to rotate the tubes is very important, much higher than the weight of the magnets.
With real glasses, the balls rise very easily. By causing a rapid but short rotation, the balls continue to rise on their own for several centimetres, after the rotation of the tubes has stopped. The greater the angle of rotation of the tubes, the greater the distance they then travel. This is quite amazing. [error. See reply #134]. If we are not careful, the balls will be ejected from the glasses.
So I put the glasses upside down to avoid ejection, but then the balls go up much less easily. It is incomprehensible, unless the conicity of the glasses, however weak, has an importance.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.25, 12:33:10
My ball magnets have arrived: neodymium N38 coated with chrome, Ø 19 mm.
My test tubes being too narrow, I took glasses, and reproduced without any problem the effect described by Vedmedenko, whatever the direction of rotation of the tubes.
With plastic glasses (see photo), the force to rotate the tubes is very important, much higher than the weight of the magnets.
With real glasses, the balls rise very easily. By causing a rapid but short rotation, the balls continue to rise on their own for several centimetres, after the rotation of the tubes has stopped. The greater the angle of rotation of the tubes, the greater the distance they then travel. This is quite amazing. If we are not careful, the balls will be ejected from the glasses.
So I put the glasses upside down to avoid ejection, but then the balls go up much less easily. It is incomprehensible, unless the conicity of the glasses, however weak, has an importance.
I would perhaps think that the glass wall gets thinner at the top.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.25, 13:21:37
I would perhaps think that the glass wall gets thinner at the top.
This may well be the case. Unfortunately I don't have the right containers to check it.
I just did another test: glass plate on one side, glass on the other.
The balls still go up easily, but much better when you roll the glass along the glass plate (even with the bottom up) than when you rotate it on the spot.
Surprisingly, a translation of the glass plate while the glass remains fixed, does not cause the balls to rise. Could it be that the friction on the glass plate is not sufficient to make it rotate?
I also added a spacer between the glass and the plate. Beyond 7 mm, i.e. about 1 cm between the balls, the force is no longer sufficient for a clear rise (thickness of the glass plate: 1.2 mm. Thickness of the glass at the top: 2.2 mm).
If we replace the glass plate by a ferromagnetic plate (the wall of my PC), and keep only one ball in the glass, the effect works perfectly, whether we make the glass roll, or turn it on the spot.
Single magnet experiment, it works:
The glass with the magnet is rotated or rolled along a vertical ferromagnetic wall. I did the test with a metal cabinet (see photo), and the wall of my PC: the magnet also goes up easily.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.25, 12:33:10
...
By causing a rapid but short rotation, the balls continue to rise on their own for several centimetres, after the rotation of the tubes has stopped
...
Erratum: this is an artifact, related to the fact that the wall thickness of a glass is less wide near the rim than near the bottom, as Broli had understood.
So when the rim is up, the magnets come closer as they rise, which adds a vertical force that may cause them to continue to rise after the glass has stopped rotating.
When the rim is at the bottom, the magnets don't rise as well because they move away from each other.
Same thing with the glass against a ferromagnetic wall.
We optimize by putting the glasses head to tail: the increase in thickness of one is compensated by the reduction in thickness of the other. In this condition, the magnets stop when we stop turning the glasses.
I use the FEMM 2D finite element simulator because it is free, but it does have a 3D facility. When set up in axisymmetric mode it gives you a cut across a 3D picture, but only for systems that are truly axisymmetric. The sphere is such a system so I have looked at the field at the surface of the sphere and this confirms my view that the radial field emanating from the poles is stronger than the field at the equator. Thus the natural position of the two spheres is pole-to-pole. And against a ferromagnetic surface it is pole-to-pole with its image. Movement of the surface causes a slight tilt from this orientation (both spheres tilt) so now their axes are not aligned and it seems to me that they spin about their tilted axes so that the final movement across the surface as seen in the reference plane of the surface is at an inclined angle. In the reference system of the observer the sphere moves at right angles to the surface movement and does not move with the surface, which seems counter intuitive, but in actual fact it is simply rolling along that inclined line. I don't see any potential for over-unity here.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.27, 14:36:41
...
Thus the natural position of the two spheres is pole-to-pole. And against a ferromagnetic surface it is pole-to-pole with its image.
I confirm. The balls are oriented with their magnetic axis horizontal. I marked with a point the position of a pole of a ball. At rest and when it rolls, the mark remains at about 90° from the wall.
Quote
Movement of the surface causes a slight tilt from this orientation (both spheres tilt) so now their axes are not aligned and it seems to me that they spin about their tilted axes so that the final movement across the surface as seen in the reference plane of the surface is at an inclined angle. In the reference system of the observer the sphere moves at right angles to the surface movement and does not move with the surface, which seems counter intuitive, but in actual fact it is simply rolling along that inclined line. I don't see any potential for over-unity here.
Smudge
The effect of gravity is missing in your analysis. We understand the horizontal tilt of the axes when we turn the glass. And there is another tilt, the one by the force of gravity. The center of gravity of the balls is at a distance of one radius from their contact point on the wall. The force of gravity therefore exerts a torque that will cause a slight vertical tilt downward.
The combination of the two results in the ball rolling upwards along the wall, as you say. But the axis of rotation remains almost horizontal. If we reduce this to the earth's sphere, it is as if the rolling was only on a circle of high latitude, for example 85° or more, and not on the whole circumference.
If this is the case, I do not understand the complexity of the analysis in Nature, with the invocation of a break of temporal symmetry.
But there is a point that our explanations do not take into account. If it is a simple rolling on the wall, why does the increase in friction reduce the effect, until it becomes impossible?
I think I finally understood the mechanism, the same whether you have 2 magnets or one and a magnetic surface.
The magnetic axis is close to the horizontal, but not exactly because of the gravity force on the ball magnet. It is slightly tilted.
Turning the glass tends to pull the sphere away from the distant magnetic attraction point (the other magnet, or the magnetic surface). The force of attraction opposes it, which triggers the rolling of the ball to stay close to the attraction point.
This rolling is done around the magnetic axis, imposed, which is slightly tilted vertically by the force of gravity as we have seen, and slightly tilted horizontally because of the drive of the sphere by the glass. The tread is a very small circle around the magnetic axis. Its tilt, deviated from the horizontal by gravity and from the vertical by the drive of the sphere by the glass, is oriented in such a way that the bearing forces the sphere to climb on the glass wall.
This explains everything else.
If the surface is not hard enough (plastic), the tread widens, and as it is along a circle of very small radius around the magnetic axis, the frictional force that drives the sphere is no longer exerted on this one circle, or poorly.
If the glass is rolled on a magnetic surface rather than turned on the spot, the effect is more important because the tendency to move the sphere away from the point of maximum attraction is without friction.
To verify the principle, I made the following test with a glass plate: on one side a ball magnet, on the other a cardboard and the other ball. The cardboard is translated in relation to the glass plate. The sphere on the cardboard is driven, does not rotate, remains at constant height. The sphere on the glass side is driven by the other one and rotates on an almost horizontal axis.
The sphere on the cardboard fixes the magnetic attraction point of the sphere on the glass plate side. The sphere on the glass plate side loses a degree of freedom: attracted by the other one, it can't go up either. Only the tilt of its magnetic axis by gravity makes that its drive along the plate causes its rotation by the friction of its contact point on the glass, which is offset from the axis.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.08.28, 09:27:36
I think I finally understood the mechanism, the same whether you have 2 magnets or one and a magnetic surface.
The magnetic axis is close to the horizontal, but not exactly because of the gravity force on the ball magnet. It is slightly tilted.
Turning the glass tends to pull the sphere away from the distant magnetic attraction point (the other magnet, or the magnetic surface). The force of attraction opposes it, which triggers the rolling of the ball to stay close to the attraction point.
This rolling is done around the magnetic axis, imposed, which is slightly tilted vertically by the force of gravity as we have seen, and slightly tilted horizontally because of the drive of the sphere by the glass. The tread is a very small circle around the magnetic axis. Its tilt, deviated from the horizontal by gravity and from the vertical by the drive of the sphere by the glass, is oriented in such a way that the bearing forces the sphere to climb on the glass wall.
This explains everything else.
If the surface is not hard enough (plastic), the tread widens, and as it is along a circle of very small radius around the magnetic axis, the frictional force that drives the sphere is no longer exerted on this one circle, or poorly.
If the glass is rolled on a magnetic surface rather than turned on the spot, the effect is more important because the tendency to move the sphere away from the point of maximum attraction is without friction.
To verify the principle, I made the following test with a glass plate: on one side a ball magnet, on the other a cardboard and the other ball. The cardboard is translated in relation to the glass plate. The sphere on the cardboard is driven, does not rotate, remains at constant height. The sphere on the glass side is driven by the other one and rotates on an almost horizontal axis.
The sphere on the cardboard fixes the magnetic attraction point of the sphere on the glass plate side. The sphere on the glass plate side loses a degree of freedom: attracted by the other one, it can't go up either. Only the tilt of its magnetic axis by gravity makes that its drive along the plate causes its rotation by the friction of its contact point on the glass, which is offset from the axis.
I agree with this. I don't think there is any real effect due to the gyromagnetic property here. It's purely mechanical in nature and completely based on the friction force. I don't think you can get more energy out than in.
Quote from: broli on 2022.08.30, 08:39:16
I agree with this. I don't think there is any real effect due to the gyromagnetic property here. It's purely mechanical in nature and completely based on the friction force.
I think so too. If this is true, this is worrying for the credibility of Nature.
QuoteI don't think you can get more energy out than in.
Very likely. To be sure, we would have to measure the work of the rotational force of the glass against the weight x displacement of the magnet. But as no new physical principle seems to be at work, this is probably superfluous.
To get back to the original idea of this thread. Here's an interesting thought from what I have learned so far on how the electron spin behaves. When we assume that the electrons do indeed spin at the speed of light which is not that big of a stretch to make. We get an interesting time dilation effect. when PM's are rotated along their magnetization axis.
When a regular conductor carrying a current is rotated the field does not change. However in the case of a permanent magnet rotation should increase or decrease the magnetic field depending on direction. Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded. This has some very interesting implications at high angular velocities. You get asymmetries in the amount of work it takes to move charges closer and away from it.
@broli
Taking your first image I see you have drawn a current loop within a conductor where the conduction electrons move but the positive ions remain stationary. You have imagined the electrons travelling at limiting velocity c. Now consider a changing magnetic field through that loop from something external to the conductor (like a coil wound round the conductor) applying force that tries to accelerate the electrons to even greater velocity but they can't accelerate. That is the scenario I tried to impress on people, the spin of the ferromagnetic electrons (that this model emulates) cannot change. But it is an energy source since the total magnetic field energy has increased by an amount greater than the energy supplied from the coil. And the OU energy is accounted for by the voltage induced into that loop multiplied by the the loop current.
Smudge
Is that a homopolar generator?
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.08.30, 13:55:13
@broli
Taking your first image I see you have drawn a current loop within a conductor where the conduction electrons move but the positive ions remain stationary. You have imagined the electrons travelling at limiting velocity c. Now consider a changing magnetic field through that loop from something external to the conductor (like a coil wound round the conductor) applying force that tries to accelerate the electrons to even greater velocity but they can't accelerate. That is the scenario I tried to impress on people, the spin of the ferromagnetic electrons (that this model emulates) cannot change. But it is an energy source since the total magnetic field energy has increased by an amount greater than the energy supplied from the coil. And the OU energy is accounted for by the voltage induced into that loop multiplied by the the loop current.
Smudge
Yes this was also inspired by your presentation. However I believe any torque you apply on the electron spin will couple back to the bulk material. I can't talk much about energy densities but I'm nearly sure that that the electron spins at the speed of light. After you this is the third time I have come across this notion from independent sources. If that's the case it would mean that high rotational velocities of a disc magnet should increase/decrease its magnetic field.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.30, 14:34:39
Is that a homopolar generator?
The more I think about it the more a homopolar would contradict the conclusion that the electron spins at the speed of light. If this were the case it would mean that a homopolar motor, where the magnet and conductor disc rotate together, would be by default an OU machine since the EMF generated with be in the direction to increase the current flow. But this is not what happens. In reality the back EMF keeps rising linearly.
To me this seems to contradict the idea that the electron spin would be spinning at the speed of light.
I am quite in tune with the idea of a spin at the speed of light. The electron could even be made up of standing wave photons. Being at the speed of light, just like the photon, the electron spin can neither accelerate nor decelerate.
The high rotational speeds of a disc magnet should increase/decrease its magnetic field, as it adds or subtracts turns/s to the spins.
But the difference cannot be significant: even with thousands of revolutions/s, the rotational speed of a magnet would be totally negligible compared to the angular velocity of a spin considered as a current loop, of the order of 7.77×1022rad/sec (see https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97706).
In this paper, we also learn that the magnetic field inside the spin would be of the order of 8.3 × 1013 T, which makes it completely illusory that an external field of the order of a few T or less has any significant influence on it.
I therefore share Broli's view that "any torque you apply on the electron spin will couple back to the bulk material", but that this coupling in the case of a magnet rotation is considerably below any expectation of experimental measurement, by more than tens of orders of magnitude.
The idea of playing on macroscopic elements and mechanical parameters to act individually on spin and modify its properties seems to me to be doomed to failure. I see spin as a perfectly stable entity that can only be an intermediate vector to act on something else.
Another example of the huge gap between the macroscopic and the microscopic. The acceleration of the electron is a source of electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, if a charged sphere is rotated, it will radiate. And as long as we remain in the qualitative, we can believe it. But when you go to the quantitative, everything collapses.
The acceleration of an electron in a field as weak as 1v/m is of the order of 20,000 billion g. Obviously it would reach the speed of light over an infinitely small distance. This is why relativistic corrections must be applied to its mass, which reduces its acceleration.
Can we seriously believe that with the centrifugal acceleration of a few g of the charges on a charged sphere, the electrons will radiate like those in an RF current?
Do electrons actually "rotate", or is this rotation illusory?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.08.31, 14:17:30
Do electrons actually "rotate", or is this rotation illusory?
This is not illusory but incomplete. One cannot describe the quantum domain with classical notions.
The spin is defined in a complex vector space of dimension 2 generated by 2 orthogonal states corresponding to up/down spins.
But described in the ordinary real space R
3 of dimension 3 with the position variables (x, y, z), the spin 1/2 of the electron is equivalent to say that it takes 2 turns to find the same position again, thus a "rotation" of 4*pi.
QM is math. The reality behind, we do not know it. To imagine it from our current experience of every day does not give much.
Not my forte', but I came across an old Floyd Sweet paper that seems to cover this same topic:
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.09.08, 22:18:11
Not my forte', but I came across an old Floyd Sweet paper that seems to cover this same topic:
Can you specify the elements of this paper and the logic that goes with it, which make you say that it "seems" to cover the same topic?
I doubt anyone was holding their breath for this test but as promised I'd try the two spherical magnets again on full Moon and they failed to go up as they did the first time when it was near full Moon. I tend to think that these hematite magnets have simply lost some magnetism over the course of testing this. First couple tries they did go right up nicely which I think relates to the spin direction that gets some traction on the upper side so they go up when spinning that way. I don't have any spherical neo magnets though to test this with. Did anyone else try with neo's?
This is the paper mentioned by Robert Holcomb in one of his vids discussing electron spin. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334153308_Magnetic_resonance_imaging_of_single_atoms_on_a_surface
Electron spin ...?( spintronics..
Version 2.0 ,I believe the first version was for storing data ?
The newest version is for ....
Everything electron ?? At "super speeds" and unheard of efficiency?
Here Sabine talks about it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O1_37hEtx5o
Respectfully submitted
Chet K
If you ask AI this question "Can a static magnetic field apply a force to a stationary electron" you will get the answer "NO". You will then get sidetracked towards time varying magnetic fields or moving electrons, where force does occurr. Why does AI give the wrong answer? Why does it ignore the electron's magnetic dipole of value the Bohr magneton? I have a number of books on electromagnetics and none of them deal with force on a magnetic dipole within a static non-uniform magnetic field. I have to look into atomic physics and the Stern-Gerlach effect to find the formula. There a beam of electrons exhibits beam splitting, so the electrons certainly are not stationary. But the formula for the magnetic field applying force to the electrons to split the beam is independant of the electron velocity, and applies equally to stationary electrons. My books are from the 1960's 1970's and I don't know whether modern electromagnetic text books deal with this subject, but the fact that AI doesn't find the answer suggest to me this ignorance is still prevalent. Also that there have been few experiments employing this little known effect. Since permanent magnets are a readily available means for creating non-uniform static magnetic fields this ignorance also explains the lack of experiments in the free energy movement.
This bench got sidetracked into experiments with spherical magnets, so perhaps now is the time to get back to the basics. Permanent magnets will apply a force to a free electron. Place a length of iron wire along the axis of a rod magnet, and the initerent electons in the wire will be drawn towards the magnet, thus electrically polarizing the wire with an excess of electrons at one end (close to the magnet) and a deficit at the other end. Thus it should be possible to measure a voltage acoss the wire in the microvolts range, perhaps tens of microvolts. Simple!! An everlasting battery. OK, microvolts are not much use, but if this is something that has never been done before it is just a start.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.24, 15:18:11
If you ask AI this question "Can a static magnetic field apply a force to a stationary electron" you will get the answer "NO". You will then get sidetracked towards time varying
This bench got sidetracked into experiments with spherical magnets, so perhaps now is the time to get back to the basics. Permanent magnets will apply a force to a free electron. Place a length of iron wire along the axis of a rod magnet, and the initerent electons in the wire will be drawn towards the magnet, thus electrically polarizing the wire with an excess of electrons at one end (close to the magnet) and a deficit at the other end. Thus it should be possible to measure a voltage acoss the wire in the microvolts range, perhaps tens of microvolts. Simple!! An everlasting battery. OK, microvolts are not much use, but if this is something that has never been done before it is just a start.
Smudge
nice idea. but if the magnet pulls free electrons to one end of the iron wire, would it allow any of them to flow into the meter in order to read the charge?
mags
since you brought it up...
would it be that one pole of the magnet can attract the electrons and the other pole repel them? like a yoke in a crt. I haven't looked at the circuits for the yokes to have my own answer yet so i post it here. if one pole can repel the free electrons in the iron wire to the other end, maybe they would be more free to flow to the meter. not sure how the electron flow through the leads from the meter would react to the magnet field on that end of the iron wire with the magnet in place.
mags
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cL7wZUll-X0
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RqSode4HZrE
Seems as though the experiment proposed with the magnet and iron wire will not work as described, as to the magnets affect on electrons.
mags
These examples illustrate what happens when the charged particles are moving but the magnet is not.
Consider what happens when the magnet is moving but the charged particles are not.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.25, 05:34:48
These examples illustrate what happens when the charged particles are moving but the magnet is not.
Consider what happens when the magnet is moving but the charged particles are not.
i get that. but if the electrons were to be attracted to a pole or repeled, we should see that in the examples. it does neither.
so possibly, if the magnet were perpendicular to the iron wire, pole aiming at the side of the wire, would it force free electrons one way or the other in the iron wire? just sayin.
mags
Your reply does not imply any consideration of what happens when the magnet is moving but the charged particles are not.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.25, 07:16:42
i get that. but if the electrons were to be attracted to a pole or repeled, we should see that in the examples. it does neither.
I never claimed that they were attracted to a pole or repelled.
The magnetic Lorentz force requires relative motion between a charged particle and a magnet (or its field).
There are effects that demonstrate the influence of a magnetic field on charged atomic particles such as electrons and protons without relative motion between them, ...but they all involve spin. See the Einstain-de Haas experiment (https://youtu.be/uQ5w4_0S2l4?t=136) and the Aharonov-Bohm effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJWESSjg5EA).
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.25, 07:16:42
so possibly, if the magnet were perpendicular to the iron wire, pole aiming at the side of the wire, would it force free electrons one way or the other in the iron wire?
That's called Hall effect (https://youtu.be/iPU_pzrg4UE?t=38) but it involves the motion of electrons (or other charge carriers) relative to the magnet.
This effect also happens in an iron wire, but it is very small because electrons move very slowly in iron. In other materials, where the electrons move faster, the Hall effect is more pronounced.
Interestingly the Hall effect can be self-squared, i.e. if the same current generates the magnetic field as the Hall current, then the moving charged particles are always deflected in the same direction. This make diode-less rectification possible (AC to DC without diodes or switches).
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.24, 19:53:01
nice idea. but if the magnet pulls free electrons to one end of the iron wire, would it allow any of them to flow into the meter in order to read the charge?
mags
That is the question to be answered by the experiment. Electrons passing into the copper connecting wires lose their spin-polarization so the magnetic field no longer affects them. There are two back-to-back Fe-Cu thermocouples in the circuit but they are at the same temperature so there should be no effect there. But the Seebeck effect is influenced by the presence of a magnetic field so that might create zero voltage around the closed loop.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.24, 20:18:24
since you brought it up...
would it be that one pole of the magnet can attract the electrons and the other pole repel them? like a yoke in a crt. I haven't looked at the circuits for the yokes to have my own answer yet so i post it here. if one pole can repel the free electrons in the iron wire to the other end, maybe they would be more free to flow to the meter. not sure how the electron flow through the leads from the meter would react to the magnet field on that end of the iron wire with the magnet in place.
mags
This pole attraction and pole repulsion concept is where people go wrong. A small magnetic dipole (tiny bar magnet) close to one pole of a large magnet can either be attracted or repulsed, depending upon its orientation. If you let the small magnet automatically align itself with the field it will always be attracted. Electron spin-polarization is just the degree of that automatic aligment that occurs in an electron cloud. So the other pole will also attract electrons.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.25, 07:16:42
i get that. but if the electrons were to be attracted to a pole or repeled, we should see that in the examples. it does neither.
Since those videos show entirely different experiments why do you claim the effect would show up there. It certainly would not.
Quoteso possibly, if the magnet were perpendicular to the iron wire, pole aiming at the side of the wire, would it force free electrons one way or the other in the iron wire? just sayin.
You haven't grasped what is really happening because I did not spell it out. A small magnetic dipole can be modelled as two opposite polarity (N and S) point poles but they are ficticious. Current flowing round a single turn loop is a dipole but you can't determine point poles there. To get the forces on that loop you have to look at each small current element and use Ampere's law to get the force at that point, and do this all around the loop. This then gives you the linear force on the loop (attraction or repulsion from the source of the applied field) and the angular force trying to align the loop axis to the applied field. For small dipoles (and the electron is quite small!) the linear force simplifies to F
x=µ⋅cos(θ)⋅dB
x/dx (and similarly for the other coordinates) where µ is the dipole moment and θ is the angle between the dipole axis and the applied B
x field. In your suggested arrangement the electrons would be attracted to the wire position closest to the magnet pole, that point would be at a negative potential.
The whole point of my post was that AI with its knowledge of all history could not find evidence that this known law that applies to two permanant magnets (one large and one small) has been applied to a permanent magnet and spin-polarized electrons. So it is worth investigatiing.
Perhaps this image illustrates the concept.
Here my replication attempt with the equipment i got.
I measure some -4uV on this 1.5m long iron wire (garden binding wire) no matter what direction / pole i connect the magnets stack to the wire.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGyDMttnRBk
Itsu
What if you stick the magnet to the other end of the iron wire ?
Also, are you ensuring lack of electric contact between the magnets and the circuit ?
Last, but not least, are you making sure that the magnet is not moving or vibrating ? Human hand is incapable of holding a magnet without vibrations. Any movement of the magnet will lead to Faraday's induction in that huge loop (its area should be minimized to minimize the pickup of the 50Hz powerline hum from the house's wiring, which is especially bad when heavy loads draw large currents).
If i stick the magnet to the other end of the iron wire, i get a similar valued positive reading, like +4uV.
It does not matter if i stick the magnet to the iron wire directly or via a few layers of insulation tape.
The magnet is sticking to the iron wire ends when both laying still on the floor, so no movement or vibrating should be present.
hey itsu
does the iron wire need to be that long? maybe if it works with a short length, then make another one with its own magnet and see if you can double the output voltage. if so then multiply more.
have you tried it with less magnets also?
mags
Hi Mags,
thanks for the suggestions, i will do them later on. This thing acts like a (small) battery as it takes time to get back to the zero baseline (even after shorting the COPPER leads).
I also would like to await Smudge his comment if this is even close to what he had in mind.
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.26, 15:45:36
Here my replication attempt with the equipment i got.
I measure some -4uV on this 1.5m long iron wire (garden binding wire) no matter what direction / pole i connect the magnets stack to the wire.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGyDMttnRBk
Itsu
Thanks for doing that Itsu. Also I am glad that DC amp Graham made for me is being used. That amp gets you into the region where small temperature difference between the Fe-Croc-clip thermocouples produce a reading. If you do your zeroing (that takes away drift in the amp) without the magnet present then touch one of the connections your body heat transfer will create a reading. Perhaps that explains why your readings take time to settle down. If you could arrange for the connections to be made without using your fingers that might prove this.
All your findings are in agreement with the fact that the presence of the magnet (a) magnetizes the Fe wire as expected and the field along the wire reduces with distance away from the magnet creating dB/dx needed, (b) that the conduction electrons become spin-polarised (align with that internal field) and (c) they get pulled towards the magnet by the dB/dx. This is all predicted by known theory. This may be the first demonstration of an almost everlasting battery, so well done! I say almost because we know the magnet will run down over many years. So what use is a battery that delivers maybe picowatts? I think this could be a demonstration of energy extracted from the quantum domain, and by that I mean from that which keeps electrons spinning perpetually. I am currently doing the math to hopefully show that the continuous supply of picowatts comes from that domain.
If you put another magnet at the other end of the Fe wire with its opposite pole close, then both ends will be negative with the centre of the wire positive. Perhaps you could try that.
If others could do the experiment that would consolidate this performance. Then we need someone to come up with how this effect can be turned into something useful. Creating an array of say 10
6 nanosized versions gets the voltage up but doesn't get you anywhere because of the resistivity of the Fe. If science could come up with a superconductor offering the spintronics of Fe then maybe we will get there.
Smudge
QuoteThanks for doing that Itsu. Also I am glad that DC amp Graham made for me is being used. That amp gets you into the region where small temperature difference between the Fe-Croc-clip thermocouples produce a reading. If you do your zeroing (that takes away drift in the amp) without the magnet present then touch one of the connections your body heat transfer will create a reading. Perhaps that explains why your readings take time to settle down. If you could arrange for the connections to be made without using your fingers that might prove this.
My pleasure Smudge.
Any idea what the Din interface on the side of the box (see picture 1) is for?
When without any magnets close, in a stable situation and zeroing out, then touching the red wire connection side of the iron wire with my fingers, will show -10uV within 10s.
It takes 20 min. or so for the measured value returns to 0uV (heat dissipated again?.
Doing the same now with the black side connection of the iron wire, will show +10uV within 10s and taking another 20 min to return to 0.
QuoteIf you put another magnet at the other end of the Fe wire with its opposite pole close, then both ends will be negative with the centre of the wire positive. Perhaps you could try that.
Be aware that the values mentioned e.g. 4uV will NOT be the same all the time, meaning a next SAME measurement will show perhaps 2uV and another 6uV, but the trend is the same (positive).
I have split my stack of 10 magnets into 2 stacks of 5 magnets, each measuring 525mT.
Putting 1 stack with its N-pole at the red lead end of the iron wire it will measure -4uV after 1 min., when then attaching the other stack N-pole to the black lead end of the iron wire (1.6m long and 1.5mm diam. by the way) then the measured value will increase and reach 0uV after 10 min or so.
Now measuring with the black lead in the middle of the iron wire shows same value (0uV)
Swapping the black side stack from N-pole to S-pole will show 4uV both with the black wire at the end or in the middle of the iron wire.
So, putting the black wire in the middle of the iron wire seems to have no influence on the measurement.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.26, 21:34:58
hey itsu
does the iron wire need to be that long? maybe if it works with a short length, then make another one with its own magnet and see if you can double the output voltage. if so then multiply more.
have you tried it with less magnets also?
mags
Mags,
I tried to use a shorter wire, but this is not working, as the values measured are too low for my used equipment to stand out.
I called the magnet a battery sometimes, which obviously is wrong :D
So i should try with an even longer (or thicker?) wire to see better results.
Anyway, video of testing this shorter wire here: https://youtu.be/I-hJ5PAr8yw
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.27, 21:55:10
I tried to use a shorter wire, but this is not working, as the values measured are too low for my used equipment to stand out.
Maybe it is not about the wire length but about the area of the loop that it forms together with the test leads.
Itsu,
Thanks for doing more experiments. Going back to your first video you expected the voltage polarity to reverse when you reversed the magnet and were surprised when it remained at the same polarity. Reversing the magnet also reverses the field direction in the wire, and that reverses the conduction electron dipoles, so the electrons always get attracted to the magnet. The magnet end of the wire is always negative. I was pleased that your results showed this effect to be real. Your next experiments with magnets at each end of the wire
QuotePutting 1 stack with its N-pole at the red lead end of the iron wire it will measure -4uV after 1 min
as expected
Quotewhen then attaching the other stack N-pole to the black lead end of the iron wire (1.6m long and 1.5mm diam. by the way) then the measured value will increase and reach 0uV after 10 min or so
also as expected as that end should also be negative with respect to the middle of the wire where the fields cancel.
QuoteNow measuring with the black lead in the middle of the iron wire shows same value (0uV)
That I did not expect. You should now get a negative reading but somewhat smaller than the -4uV above
QuoteSwapping the black side stack from N-pole to S-pole will show 4uV both with the black wire at the end or in the middle of the iron wire.
You say "will" show, but I assume you mean that was measured, in which case that is unexpected. But I have to point out that the electrons are attracted along the wire by the value of the longitudinal B field and the rate of change of that field along the wire dB/dx at the position in the wire under consideration. As you have found your measured values are sensitive to the surroundings; your wire is not straight so that deviation could affect those values somewhat, even more so when you have magnets at each end.
Your latest video with shorter wire is expected to show reduced values of negative voltage at the magnet end of the wire, and it does tend to show that. I would suggest going back to the longer wire but try to do the experiment with the wire further away from other equipment on the bench or table (including beneath the table). Maybe even having longer connecting wires to get the meter and amplifier further from the wire so your body movement or position has less effect. I think you have demonstrated something real happens within the wire, something that has been neglected or not considered before, and I think it is worth pursuing this line of enquiry.
Smudge
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.28, 09:15:41
Maybe it is not about the wire length but about the area of the loop that it forms together with the test leads.
IMO that area will not affect the results, but that is easy to find out. Measuring DC microvolts is difficult due to noise (the amplifier Itsu uses has a low pass filter to suppress noise effects) and DC drift. But on the whole I think his results are tending to support the attraction of conduction electrons in Fe wire by having a magnet attached. That attraction obeys known rules. What has not been shown is the induced DC votage driving current so as to extract power into a load, so the jury is out as to whether this is an everlasting picowatt or microwatt battery.
Itsu,
I did not answer your request for information regarding the Din interface on the amplifier. Graham Gunderson built that for me some 20 years ago and he did give me the circuit, but several computers later I can't find that data. I will try to contact him but he has gone through a number of email addresses over time.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.28, 10:10:37
IMO that area will not affect the results, but that is easy to find out. Measuring DC microvolts is difficult due to noise (the amplifier Itsu uses has a low pass filter to suppress noise effects) and DC drift.
The loop area should not affect any DC effects but the ordinary low-frequency AC induction in that loop could confuse the x1000 µV amplifier.
I would not be surprised if that amplifier could not completely low-pass filter out the 50Hz powerline hum.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.28, 10:15:48
Itsu,
I did not answer your request for information regarding the Din interface on the amplifier. Graham Gunderson built that for me some 20 years ago and he did give me the circuit, but several computers later I can't find that data. I will try to contact him but he has gone through a number of email addresses over time.
Smudge
Smudge, it is not that important, i guess it is to connect an external meter (+- uV meter) or so.
Concerning this:
QuoteQuoteSwapping the black side stack from N-pole to S-pole will show 4uV both with the black wire at the end or in the middle of the iron wire.
You say "will" show, but I assume you mean that was measured, in which case that is unexpected.
Yes, i mean i did measure this, somehow there is no difference in the data when attaching the black lead to the end of the iron wire or in the middle.
I will retest to confirm this and also retest the shorter wire with the longer connection leads as verpies mentioned it could be due to these longer wires (loop).
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.26, 15:45:36
Here my replication attempt with the equipment i got.
I measure some -4uV on this 1.5m long iron wire (garden binding wire) no matter what direction / pole i connect the magnets stack to the wire.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGyDMttnRBk
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I just did some tests with a setup similar to yours. I replaced the wire with an iron bar covered in stainless steel.
When I place the magnet at one end, I don't see much change. If I leave it there for 10 to 20 seconds and then remove it, I see an increase of between 20 and 40 µV, followed by a slow decrease. But this effect, which I've seen several times, doesn't seem to be systematic.
As in your configuration, there is indeed at times a clear signal of a current that appears to be abnormal. But there are several possible reasons and it is difficult to identify them (for example, contacts between different metals to establish the circuit, e.g. copper/iron, we know that these junctions create DDPs). It needs to be explored further.
I am lucky to have an old but reliable HP 3468A, which measures µV directly. In the photos, the white areas just hide the mess :-). We can see that we only had 2µV with the magnet, but 21µV just after I removed it and before the voltage slowly dropped.
Here is an unfinished paper on this topic. Itsu's -4uV from his 0.5T magnets if of the right order compared to my calculated 10uV from 1T. That basic equation (1) is known but I can find no evidence of it being used other than in the Stern Gerlach beam splitting. I will continue with this paper to include a consideration where the electron dipoles are modelled as tiny current loops to show that the energy into a load comes from those current loops; as they move along the non-uniform field the voltage induced into those loops loads their current sources and that exactly accounts for the everlasting energy output.
Smudge
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.28, 13:24:51
The loop area should not affect any DC effects but the ordinary low-frequency AC induction in that loop could confuse the x1000 µV amplifier.
I would not be surprised if that amplifier could not completely low-pass filter out the 50Hz powerline hum.
I am sure it does, I have used it attached to an oscilloscope and there is no sign of 50Hz hum. I think some of the drift being observed is due to the low-pass filter having sub hertz cut-off.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.28, 16:21:38
Hi Itsu,
I just did some tests with a setup similar to yours. I replaced the wire with an iron bar covered in stainless steel.
When I place the magnet at one end, I don't see much change. If I leave it there for 10 to 20 seconds and then remove it, I see an increase of between 20 and 40 µV, followed by a slow decrease. But this effect, which I've seen several times, doesn't seem to be systematic.
As in your configuration, there is indeed at times a clear signal of a current that appears to be abnormal. But there are several possible reasons and it is difficult to identify them (for example, contacts between different metals to establish the circuit, e.g. copper/iron, we know that these junctions create DDPs). It needs to be explored further.
I am lucky to have an old but reliable HP 3468A, which measures µV directly. In the photos, the white areas just hide the mess :-). We can see that we only had 2µV with the magnet, but 21µV just after I removed it and before the voltage slowly dropped.
Hi F6,
i was hoping that someone with a good uV meter would join in, so thanks for that.
I, too, see very little response (only +-1uV) on my short iron wire (30cm) compared to the earlier used 1.6m wire, even with longer connection leads to create a comparable "loop" length.
I also noticed that touching the wire and/or connectors/magnets with my fingers will cause a much bigger voltage swing (10 to 15uV) which stays on for several minutes then simply using the magnets only.
So therefor i carefully try to avoid touching anything with my fingers when working on the setup.
But the effect you mentioned of not seeing much change when connecting the magnet and only after removing the magnet to see a 20 to 40uV change, i have not noticed here.
(by the way, it can initially take up to 5 minutes for a reasonable change to be seen here).
Could it be that the makeup of your rod (an iron bar covered in stainless steel) has anything to do with this?
Anyway, perhaps you find the time to look for a 1.6m @ 1.5mm piece of garden iron wire to repeat your test.
Itsu
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.28, 09:15:41
Maybe it is not about the wire length but about the area of the loop that it forms together with the test leads.
I made the following test with the short iron wire, but with extended connection leads to have about the same "loop" length as with the longer wire.
It shows similar results (+-1uV) as with the short wire and short connections on the bench, but it seems to fluctuate more and shows a kind of rising first followed by a slow decrease, see video: https://youtu.be/EeNds3Q8-j4
FWIW,
I have an HP3455A which has 1uv resolution. I tried various pieces including baling wire(soft iron), chrome plated steel, iron rod, etc, and found no abnormal measurements with a stack of 5 x 3/8" N52 neo pms. There were varying readings of +/- 2 to 3uv in all cases with both PM polarities. These same variations were seen with the copper connecting leads shorted. Yes I checked the continuity or resistance values of each piece with the connections made.
Pm
Thanks, PM, for doing the tests and presenting your results.
I, too, have only marginal values like in the 3 a 4uV's, and they vary a lot, but i do see a constant difference in polarity when either putting the magnet at the black side or the red side.
Putting a piece of electrical tape in between the magnet and the wire seems to stabilize the fluctuations somewhat.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.28, 19:53:00
...
I also noticed that touching the wire and/or connectors/magnets with my fingers will cause a much bigger voltage swing (10 to 15uV) which stays on for several minutes then simply using the magnets only.
So therefor i carefully try to avoid touching anything with my fingers when working on the setup.
This is probably due to the mains current field in which we are immersed. If we bring back 50 Hz by touching the conductor, and there is non-linearity in the input of the measuring device, this results in a direct current. The fact that it remains after touching is surprising; perhaps it is related to our effect. I was surprised to find that I had virtually no interference of this kind here (touching the conductor causes my measurements to vary by only 2 µV).
Quote
But the effect you mentioned of not seeing much change when connecting the magnet and only after removing the magnet to see a 20 to 40uV change, i have not noticed here.
(by the way, it can initially take up to 5 minutes for a reasonable change to be seen here).
Could it be that the makeup of your rod (an iron bar covered in stainless steel) has anything to do with this?
Anyway, perhaps you find the time to look for a 1.6m @ 1.5mm piece of garden iron wire to repeat your test.
Itsu
To answer your question, I suppose so. And I intend to try with a wire like yours, because the voltage at certain moments is undeniable, even with my setup.
I just connected the multimeter to measure current instead of voltage. In current mode, we are less susceptible to the mains field because of the low impedance. 10µA is the minimum value my equipment can read. It displays zero on average, but I sometimes get temporary fluctuations to 10µA, and I feel like I get it more often when the magnet is stuck to the end. It is difficult to say for sure that such a current is flowing. The effect is real, but we are dealing with very low power levels (for the moment :) ).
Is it here the same effect?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm)
I just tried with some iron wire (garden wire, covered in green plastic). With or without a magnet, no result!
I'll try other conductors.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.01.29, 11:40:41
Is it here the same effect?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm)
Nothing to do with it. At JLN, it's a matter of modifying the permeability of a ferrite torus using a magnetic field parallel to the plane of the torus (it's a parameric system, it works but not FE).
Possible hypothesis on how it works.
----------------------------------------
Something that has rarely been discussed here is the issue of contact potentials between different metals. These potentials are significant, e.g. Fe/Cu: 0.2v, Fe/Al: 0.42v, Cu/Al: 0.62v, Al/C ~0,90v, Fe/C ~0,50v, Cu/C ~0,30v.
They can never be measured directly, but only through subtle techniques, because in a closed circuit, regardless of the arrangement, the sum of these potentials will always be zero.
These potentials also depend on the contact surface (smooth, rough, etc.), but in this case it is as if we were adding an intermediate metal, and again, in a circuit, the sum will always be zero.
However, 1µV represents only 1/200,000th of the PD of the Fe/Cu pair. Could it be that a magnetic field acting in some way on one of the Fe/Cu junctions, and not on the other, could create this slight imbalance that provides us with a few µV?
(Even if this is not the case here, we can think of it as a principle to be implemented. It would then be a Maxwell demon.)
thanks for testing with the short wire, i too had very little response on a short piece.
Although my results are fluctuating and lately i can not get the response of +-4uV anymore, the effect of having a negative value at the red side of the wire and a positive value at the black side is constantly there.
I do not hear you and Partzman report that, does that mean that you are not seeing this effect?
Anyway, could your hypothesis also explain this positive/negative effect?
Here i used a freshly cut piece of the same iron wire (the old piece got some residual magnetism showing (8mT) on both sides) and it still shows this positive / negative effect, see video: https://youtu.be/W4XYgePfAGQ
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.29, 15:03:13
thanks for testing with the short wire, i too had very little response on a short piece.
Although my results are fluctuating and lately i can not get the response of +-4uV anymore, the effect of having a negative value at the red side of the wire and a positive value at the black side is constantly there.
I do not hear you and Partzman report that, does that mean that you are not seeing this effect?
You mean when you place the magnet on one side or the other, it changes the direction of the current?
Actually, I didn't get that effect. And you get the same direction of current regardless of the polarity of the magnet?
Quote
Anyway, could your hypothesis also explain this positive/negative effect?
Here i used a freshly cut piece of the same iron wire (the old piece got some residual magnetism showing (8mT) on both sides) and it still shows this positive / negative effect, see video: https://youtu.be/W4XYgePfAGQ
It's hard to say. There are two distinct things: 1) the often slow evolution of voltage and 2) the origin of the voltage. I don't want to be too categorical, but on my side, point 1) is a question of the contact surface of the metals.
In my opinion, mechanical movements surely cause the contact points to shift at the microscopic level, and then they slowly relax before reaching a new equilibrium position. This affects the current and voltage.
For point 2), there is no certainty at this stage as to whether it is related to the Voltaic potential of metals, but the interface between metals does seem to be closely linked to the source of the voltage, because with an ordinary generator, it would not vary so much.
I replaced the contact on my stainless steel bar with rolled aluminium foil, because the Fe/Al or stainless steel/Al couple is higher than Fe/Cu. When I rotate the bar in the aluminium foil for a few seconds in one direction and then the other, the voltage increases dramatically, exceeding 70 µV and, in current mode, 40 µA (no more need for magnets). Then I clamp the aluminium with a clamp. It quickly drops back to 40 µV, but several minutes later, I still have more than 10 µV and, in current mode, 10 µA. An hour later, I still have a few µV. There may also be electrolytic effects with air humidity and metal oxides, even though it is rather dry here and the contacts are tight. I don't know what else to do to pinpoint the source of these voltages.
New hypothesis:
- Ultimately, it seems impossible for Volta's potentials to do any work (except for an improbable Maxwell's demon).
- An electrochemical reaction can be ruled out. Even when the two metals interpenetrate, these potentials still exist.
- I asked ChatGPT what hypothesis would remain, and it gave me a plausible answer: the Seebeck effect.
Indeed: ΔT of 1–10 mK → µV to tens of µV.
These mK could be obtained by friction when the contacts are moved, which also exerts stresses that modify the resistivity. We could therefore be in the presence of a thermoelectric effect. I still have some doubts, as the return to equilibrium time is very long for temperature equalisation.
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.29, 15:03:13
thanks for testing with the short wire, i too had very little response on a short piece.
Although my results are fluctuating and lately i can not get the response of +-4uV anymore, the effect of having a negative value at the red side of the wire and a positive value at the black side is constantly there.
I do not hear you and Partzman report that, does that mean that you are not seeing this effect?
Anyway, could your hypothesis also explain this positive/negative effect?
Here i used a freshly cut piece of the same iron wire (the old piece got some residual magnetism showing (8mT) on both sides) and it still shows this positive / negative effect, see video: https://youtu.be/W4XYgePfAGQ
Itsu
This positive/negative effect occurs because the spin-polarized electrons (aligned with the internal magnetic field in the wire) are drawn towards the magnet. The magnet end of the wire is always negative wrt the other end. That is a good indication that what I hoped was happening really is.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.29, 12:51:38
Possible hypothesis on how it works.
----------------------------------------
Something that has rarely been discussed here is the issue of contact potentials between different metals. These potentials are significant, e.g. Fe/Cu: 0.2v, Fe/Al: 0.42v, Cu/Al: 0.62v, Al/C ~0,90v, Fe/C ~0,50v, Cu/C ~0,30v.
They can never be measured directly, but only through subtle techniques, because in a closed circuit, regardless of the arrangement, the sum of these potentials will always be zero.
These potentials also depend on the contact surface (smooth, rough, etc.), but in this case it is as if we were adding an intermediate metal, and again, in a circuit, the sum will always be zero.
However, 1µV represents only 1/200,000th of the PD of the Fe/Cu pair. Could it be that a magnetic field acting in some way on one of the Fe/Cu junctions, and not on the other, could create this slight imbalance that provides us with a few µV?
(Even if this is not the case here, we can think of it as a principle to be implemented. It would then be a Maxwell demon.)
Those contact potentials vary with temperature and also with magnetic field (Seebeck effect and Magnetic Seebeck effect). Also the remanence of the wire material could make the first measurement differ from subsequent measurements (because initially it was not partly permanently magnetized), so I am not surprised at the difficulty of these experiments. There are other ways of getting flux variations along the current path in metal by using conical shaped flux concentrators, perhaps more easily made as triangular shaped thin sheet. There are other ferromagnetic conductors available in sheet form, like mumetal. It is the flux concentration that pulls the electrons.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.29, 16:55:48
You mean when you place the magnet on one side or the other, it changes the direction of the current?
Actually, I didn't get that effect. And you get the same direction of current regardless of the polarity of the magnet?
Not the direction of the current (at least, i don't know as i am not measuring the current) instead i mean the polarity of the voltage.
Its always negative at the red connector side of the iron wire, and positive on the black connector side.
And, its always the same (negative at red etc.) regardless which pole of the magnet is touching the wire, but that is already explained by Smudge earlier.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2026.01.29, 19:48:18
Not the direction of the current (at least, i don't know as i am not measuring the current) instead i mean the polarity of the voltage.
Its always negative at the red connector side of the iron wire, and positive on the black connector side.
That is not quite what you observed. It is negative at the red connector side when the magnet is put there no matter which way around the magnet is placed. It changes to positive at the red connector when the magnet is placed at the black connector end. At least it did on your earlier measurements when you got 4uV. You have not been able to reproduce those 4uV values and that may be due to remanent magnetism in the wire. Is there any way to ensure you start with unmagnetized wire?
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.30, 08:14:18
That is not quite what you observed. It is negative at the red connector side when the magnet is put there no matter which way around the magnet is placed. It changes to positive at the red connector when the magnet is placed at the black connector end. At least it did on your earlier measurements when you got 4uV. You have not been able to reproduce those 4uV values and that may be due to remanent magnetism in the wire. Is there any way to ensure you start with unmagnetized wire?
Smudge
QuoteThat is not quite what you observed. It is negative at the red connector side when the magnet is put there no matter which way around the magnet is placed. It changes to positive at the red connector when the magnet is placed at the black connector end.
Yes, that is what I meant O0
Quoteon your earlier measurements when you got 4uV. You have not been able to reproduce those 4uV values and that may be due to remanent magnetism in the wire. Is there any way to ensure you start with unmagnetized wire?
That's what i did in my last test a few posts above.
The results are still noticeable, but not that pronounced at max + - 1.5uV after some minutes.
Pehaps this is the result of me being much more careful not to touch anything directly with my fingers compared to the first tests i did.
Itsu
Itsu,
The theory and magnetic simulations predict that a short wire will produce less voltage than a long wire. When you say you can no longer get 4uV have you tried another long wire test with a new piece of unmagnetized wire? A repeat of your first test where the magnet touches the wire, i.e. not having those plastic pieces between the magnet and the wire. That result where the voltage hovered around -4uV, then +4uV when the magnet was moved to the other end, was the most significant finding and I would like to know whther it was an artefact or something real. If you have already performed another long wire test to prove this then please ignore this request.
Smudge
Smudge,
QuoteThe theory and magnetic simulations predict that a short wire will produce less voltage than a long wire. When you say you can no longer get 4uV have you tried another long wire test with a new piece of unmagnetized wire?
I did notice that the short wire test did show less voltage, and yes, i did try with a freshly cut new piece of longer wire, see here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4307.msg118275#msg118275)
Since the first test with the long wire and the +-4uV results, i made some handling changes as to rule out any touching of the magnet, wire and connectors etc. with my hand / fingers and i also moved the connectors 5cm from the ends inwards as i found that (almost) touching the connectors with the magnet creates a reading.
Since those precautions, the results are practically reduced to zero or +- 1uV at most as can be seen in this video a just made (new piece of iron wire): https://youtu.be/pJeIpnR19a4
I tried to calibrate / check the amplifier box by using my FG to feed in a small signal (AC square wave) and see what the readings are, but it shows that the positive voltage of the AC square wave is higher that the negative part, so it seems there is some unbalance in the amplifier, see video here: https://youtu.be/RqXxdWoy0mM
So in the light of this all, and what Partzman and F6FLT have shown too, i doubt if the effect i have presented initially is real.
Itsu
Itsu,
Thanks for doing that. One last question, have you used the same croc clips, could they be magnetized?
Smudge
Smudge,
i used the same croc clips, but i just measured them to be NOT magnetized.
I also just used another set of connection leads with other croc clips and got similar results as this morning, meaning very little response -1uV max at the red side and +0.5uV at the black side.
Itsu
Thank you, I will give up on this line of enquiry as it doesn't lead anywhere. Thanks again.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.02.02, 16:19:47
Thank you, I will give up on this line of enquiry as it doesn't lead anywhere. Thanks again.
Smudge
Hello, esteemed senior Smudge!
The spatial scale of electron spin is relatively small. The thermal motion scale of free electrons is somewhat larger.
Grok3：The approximate radius of the circular trajectory of an electron due to thermal motion at 273K in a 1T magnetic field is about 6.31 × 10^-7 meters or 631 nanometers.
Grok3：In 30nm process semiconductor wafers, the thickness of the PN junction typically ranges from tens of nanometers to several hundred nanometers.
Grok3：A magnetic field affects the thermal motion of free electrons through a PN junction by exerting a Lorentz force on the moving electrons. This force causes the electrons to move in a curved or circular path, depending on the orientation of their velocity relative to the magnetic field. This phenomenon can influence the transport properties of the electrons across the PN junction, potentially affecting the junction's electrical characteristics.
If study the thermal motion of free electrons passing through a PN junction, would it be more noticeable than observing it in a segment of wire?
I used a 20x15x10mm N52 magnet and moved it back and forth over the STM32F103C8T6 microcontroller, and it did not affect its program operation. :D :P :-[ :'(
I used a 10kV silicon diode, which has a forward voltage drop of about 7V, roughly containing 10 PN junctions. Six of them are connected in series, sandwiched between two N52 magnets. The load resistor is 10 kΩ. Measuring the voltage with a regular 4½-digit multimeter reads 0.000 mV. :-[ :( ;D
I also struggled with this Hall effect, which is never significant, even in silicon or germanium PN junctions (but is significant with tellurium, see below). But now I have the answer. The Hall voltage due to the Lorentz force should be much greater, but as soon as it tries to appear, the internal electrostatic force in the material immediately balances it out. You can't have a significant voltage across a good conductor without huge currents. That's why Hall effect measurements are made on conductors of very small thickness.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about NHLE. The electronics industry has always worked wonders for us, and it is now on the verge of overcoming this difficulty in a way, thanks to giant non-linear Hall effects. In certain materials (Te), the current flowing through them produces enormous magnetic fields locally at the nano scale, thanks to what are called 'Berry curvatures'. The Hall effect becomes a consequence of the magnetic field created by the same current flowing through the material. As B and I change sign at the same time, we have a rectifying effect, and this rectification has no threshold! This is what I have tried to do many times, but in vain, because at the macroscopic level and for common materials, the Hall effect remains insignificant.
So we will soon have threshold-free 'diodes' :). But I bet Murphy's Law will find us yet another new trick to prevent us from rectifying thermal noise... :(
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49706-y
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.05, 18:09:12
So we will soon have threshold-free 'diodes' :). But I bet Murphy's Law will find us yet another new trick to prevent us from rectifying thermal noise... :(
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49706-y
Zero theshold diodes have been around for a while. I was working on the technology around ten years ago and invented a few zero threshold devices only to find Linear Devices beat me to it with electrically-programmable thresholds (EPADs). They claimed voltage thresholds down to 0.002v.
A super easy method is to pre-bias the gate of a low resistance mosfet to near zero volts. Literally any line voltage can then tip the gate voltage over the zero threshold and act like a diode. Zero threshold tech is pretty much mandatory for efficient energy scavenging circuits which was what I was working with.
In fact, any solar cell or panel can produce some power even from starlight at night with zero threshold devices. I used a zero threshold blocking diode then a zero threshold boost converter for very low output voltages. So the cut in voltage is very near zero volts.
Spin-dependent electrocatalysis with Gadolinium and external magnetic field.In some experimental setups, an external constant magnetic field is applied to the electrolyzer.
The gadolinium ions in the catalyst structure align their spins under the influence of the external field. This creates a "spin filter" on the electrode surface.
Since the oxygen molecule in its stable state is a triplet (its electrons have parallel spins), a catalyst with ordered gadolinium spins "forces" the outgoing electrons to also have the desired orientation. This prevents the formation of byproducts (such as singlet oxygen or hydrogen peroxide) and accelerates the oxygen gas evolution reaction by tens of percent.
Spin activation in alkaline electrolysis to increase oxygen yield:Nanostructured catalysts doped with gadolinium are used for low-temperature water splitting. As in high-temperature systems, the gadolinium's gigantic magnetic moment is critical here. When an external magnetic field of 0.1–0.5 T is applied to the electrolyzer, gadolinium ions on the electrode surface polarize the electron spins. This facilitates the transition of water molecules to the triplet state of molecular oxygen, reducing the reaction overpotential. Bimetallic nanoparticles with gadolinium exhibit ultra-low reaction onset potentials, comparable to platinum catalysts.
The problem of triplet oxygen in alkaline electrolysis:In an alkaline medium, water molecules must be converted into molecular oxygen during electrolysis. The main difficulty is that the initial hydroxyl ions are in the singlet state (electron spins are paired/opposite). Molecular oxygen in the ground state is a triplet (two unpaired electrons with parallel spins). The transition from singlet to triplet is quantum forbidden or hindered, which creates a high "overpotential" (excessive energy consumption) at the anode.
Gadolinium has the highest magnetic moment among stable elements (seven unpaired electrons). Spin alignment occurs in the gadolinium catalyst structure, as gadolinium ions, under the influence of an external magnetic field (or due to internal magnetic ordering in the nanoparticles), create a powerful local field.
When an OH ion is adsorbed on the active site of the catalyst near gadolinium, the strong magnetic interaction of Gd3+ forces the oxygen electrons to orient themselves in a specific manner. This "prepares" the electrons for the transition to the triplet state even before the O-O bond is formed. To achieve this effect, an external magnetic field of approximately 0.1–0.5 T is applied to alkaline electrolyzers. This field aligns the magnetic moments of the Gd3+ ions in one direction, transforming the electrode surface into a "spin bridge." Because the electron spins are already polarized, the recombination of *O and *OH radicals into an O2 molecule occurs almost instantaneously. The activation energy decreases, and the reaction proceeds significantly faster.
The use of gadolinium in alkaline electrolysis cells reduces overvoltage by 50–100 mV, thereby increasing current density by 20–40% while maintaining the same voltage. Furthermore, adding a small amount of gadolinium to standard nickel or iron allows them to compete in efficiency with expensive catalysts based on precious metals such as iridium or ruthenium.
Gadolinium in Hydrogen Evolution Catalysts:Gadolinium is most often incorporated into a matrix of transition metals (Ni, Co, Fe) or their oxides.
Gd3+ ions have a large ionic radius and a specific electron configuration. When incorporated into the nickel lattice, they cause localized deformation of the structure and redistribution of electron density on adjacent nickel atoms. This optimizes the metal-hydrogen bond energy. While pure nickel binds hydrogen too strongly, hindering its desorption as H2 gas, the presence of gadolinium weakens this bond.
The hydrogen evolution reaction at the cathode consists of two stages:
- Proton adsorption
- Combination of two hydrogen atoms into a molecule
To form a stable H2 molecule, the electrons of the two hydrogen atoms must have opposite spins (singlet state). The strong local magnetic field of the Gd3+ ion acts as a "quantum dispatcher." It promotes rapid spin reorientation of adsorbed hydrogen atoms. This accelerates their recombination and detachment from the electrode surface as gas bubbles.
Gadolinium combined with cerium oxide as a hydrogen evolution catalyst:Ceria provides a high concentration of oxygen vacancies, while gadolinium creates active magnetic centers.
Studies show that at the interface between Gd and CeO2, the activation barrier for bond cleavage in water molecules is reduced by almost half. Gadolinium "pulls" hydroxyl groups toward itself, releasing hydrogen for further reduction.
Although the spin effect is more pronounced during oxygen evolution, an external field can be used in electrolysis to accelerate hydrogen evolution at the cathode. The magnetic field interacts with ions in the electrolyte, creating localized microcurrents (Lorentz forces). This helps to more quickly remove hydrogen bubbles from the catalyst surface, preventing clogging of the active centers.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.02.05, 23:30:54
Zero theshold diodes have been around for a while.
...
Like free energy, it can be found everywhere C.C, but no one is able to turn it into something useful for everyone. When we mistake our desires for reality, the miracle solution remains in the mind of the believer.
As regards the experiments with iron wire against permanent magnets, the attraction of electrons in the wire to the high field end is expected, and AI confirms this. It involves the electrons being (a) spin polarized by (aligned with) the local field value and (b) being pulled by the field gradient. Unfortunately any attempt to use this effect or even just measure it involves some electrons exiting the iron to travel along normal (non-pemeable) conductors. In doing so they go through a field gradient taking them to zero field and also to zero spin polarization. That induces force that opposes the movement, so cancelling the voltage induction we want to measure. End of story!!
Or is it? I said in message #200 that I was giving up but my brain wouldn't let me. I asked myself is there any way we can use this effect but keeping the electrons within the iron? That means using the charge build up at each end of the wire as in capacitors. So capacitive coupling of some sort which means alternating charge and potential, not the DC value. With the iron now being used as a transformer core how can we get the non-uniform longitudinal field requred? The answer is to use flux concentrators where the flux along the core is constant but the flux density increases because of the tapered geometry. Now we are in uncharted and unmeasured territory doing something that as far as I and AI know has not been done before. We have an unusual style of tranformer core driven with AC where voltage induction is not derived from a secondary coil but is derived from charge separation along parts of the iron core.
Here is my first paper on the subject.
Smudge
@Smudge
The idea of using the magnetic field gradient to move electrons is very interesting, despite the predictable weakness of the voltages. As with Hall effect rectification detection, the concern is the same: as soon as the electrons move due to the magnetic field gradient, internal electrostatic forces oppose them and tend almost instantly towards a new state of equilibrium.
In any case, I think I have a better way to verify the reality of the voltage, which is either to place a coil between the two plates, forming an LC circuit tuned to twice the frequency of the magnetisation current, or to place a quartz crystal of this frequency, which constitutes a resonator with a much better Q factor.
The accumulation of energy through resonance should make it easier to see the 2xF signature of the current. It's still a challenge, because generators always have harmonics and we could confuse the 2nd harmonic with a weak signal of the same frequency. I've already had this problem in similar research.
Hi F6FLT,
You may have thought of using say a crystal ladder filter to clean up the generator output from the harmonics? And drive the test setup from the output of such filter.
If you have say 3 closely identical crystals in frequency, two of them would filter the harmonics and the 3rd one would serve as the high Q resonator.
Though you surely know ladder filters, here is a useful page on calculating the capacitors for crystal ladder filters, the online program gives the filter impedance and
response too, based on the measured crystal parameters. How to arrive at the crystal parameters in a simple way also included. https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/xtalfilters/xtalfilters.shtml (https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/xtalfilters/xtalfilters.shtml)
Gyula
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.03, 20:10:47
@Smudge
The idea of using the magnetic field gradient to move electrons is very interesting, despite the predictable weakness of the voltages. As with Hall effect rectification detection, the concern is the same: as soon as the electrons move due to the magnetic field gradient, internal electrostatic forces oppose them and tend almost instantly towards a new state of equilibrium.
In any case, I think I have a better way to verify the reality of the voltage, which is either to place a coil between the two plates, forming an LC circuit tuned to twice the frequency of the magnetisation current, or to place a quartz crystal of this frequency, which constitutes a resonator with a much better Q factor.
The accumulation of energy through resonance should make it easier to see the 2xF signature of the current. It's still a challenge, because generators always have harmonics and we could confuse the 2nd harmonic with a weak signal of the same frequency. I've already had this problem in similar research.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.03, 20:10:47
@Smudge
The idea of using the magnetic field gradient to move electrons is very interesting, despite the predictable weakness of the voltages. As with Hall effect rectification detection, the concern is the same: as soon as the electrons move due to the magnetic field gradient, internal electrostatic forces oppose them and tend almost instantly towards a new state of equilibrium.
I understand that and IMO that instantaneous state of equilibrium gives rise to the charge distribution I show.
QuoteIn any case, I think I have a better way to verify the reality of the voltage, which is either to place a coil between the two plates, forming an LC circuit tuned to twice the frequency of the magnetisation current, or to place a quartz crystal of this frequency, which constitutes a resonator with a much better Q factor.
The accumulation of energy through resonance should make it easier to see the 2xF signature of the current. It's still a challenge, because generators always have harmonics and we could confuse the 2nd harmonic with a weak signal of the same frequency. I've already had this problem in similar research.
If the system does drive displacement current through the capacitors, currents will flow within portions of the Fe core. The internal inductance of current carrying Fe is considerably greater than its external inductance, so we already have signifcant internal circuit resonance that might be used to good effect.
Smudge
would be nice if there were a prog that could do it all, unlike femm. like speaker driver design software. none to be had. used to be 2 of them. one was called spead, as i hope i spelled it correctly. many years ago.
found one article about a company that makes its own drivers. they say it is just basics and apply changes and test. to me that seems stone age for these times of great tech.
i dont think it should be impossible to make such software. so why isnt there any? at least not any available to anyone who wants it. but there most certainly should be.
mags
Hi Mags,
Would these links give good info for you or it is something different you think of (I am not an expert on loadspeakers):
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/get-me-up-to-speed-on-software.417032/ (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/get-me-up-to-speed-on-software.417032/) and https://loudsoft.com/ (https://loudsoft.com/)
Gyula
hey gyula
their title page is maybe a bit misleading. that is software to design the enclosure to specific volume and or vent tuning and show a graph chart of the results before building.
what im getting at is the driver, the speaker itself. the magnets. the voice coil and its electrical properties along with its length and weight. the magnetic core parts that are suppose to guide the magnets field to the voice coil. the suspension, as in the flexible rubber surround and its weight and tightness. the spider suspension, with likewise qualities to the rubber.. the cone or diaphragm stiffness and weight and active air compressing area. and more.
cant find that sort of prog. speakers are everywhere in our daily lives. is it all just build and test and redesign till the wanted qualities are gained? Spead was out like 20-25 yrs ago. eventually not available. another company Linear something was available also back then. havnt looked recently. spead was a true driver design product..
i use WinIsd beta for my enclosure designs. most shops, that still exist, find it very simple and trust able outcomes, and free. WinIsd pro does something special that would help in changing or improving an existing driver if one wants to get into that option. in pro if you change original specs of a speaker, it will recalculate the speakers abilities and other specs, such as sensitivity (spl@1w), Fs freq of resonance, etc. but it wont take you into the nitty gritty of design itself.
same with femm and others, they are lacking full sim possibilities.
sorry for interrupting. just making a case for such issues and wonder why we dont have access to these possibilities. when you think about it, there probably is such softwares, but they are most likely not made public and are proprietary. with all the tech available to us, one might think we would have access to something of the sorts these days. I have my own suspicions as to why we dont have access to speaker design sim software. have posted on that in the past many times. but wont here. just saying that if we did have full blown electromagnetic design software, it might make things to easy to see truths that are hidden from us. ^-^
mags
And this one seems doing most what you wish? https://loudsoft.com/finemotor/ (https://loudsoft.com/finemotor/) but pricey...
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2026.04.15, 19:40:37
And this one seems doing most what you wish? https://loudsoft.com/finemotor/ (https://loudsoft.com/finemotor/) but pricey...
Gyula
oh wow! nice find. over the years i have looked.
thanks
mags
ok, last post on this. yeah, high price and need 3 of the softwares. the cone software is the most. about 15k for all 3. ill look it over after work. looks like just a recent thing as of last year.
thanks again.
mags