Hello people of the OUR forum,
i come with a highly theoretically but still simple idea about how to turn a permanent magnet on and off. I tried to find topics where this idea might already be talked about but i coudnt find any so if someone here can identify a similar idea i would like him/her to relay this information to me so i can find answers why there's no working free energy generator out there already C.C
(to be honest - i broke my brain around the practical problems. there are too many god damn atoms in even the smallest magnet to turn every magnetic atom on and off with the idea im going to propose but lets just start theoretically)
permanent magnets
they work because quantum physics says every part of an atom (electrons, protons, neutrons) is a tiny magnet. electrons whizzing around the nucleus of an atom in probability clouds also create a tiny magnet (actually they create the bulk of the tiny magnet i was told by youtube videos). then there is also the orientation of said electrons in all the different and weird probability clouds that "can be" depending of the "size" of the atom. so if you add up all those effects you get atoms with bigger and smaller magnets but they have all one thing in common - the electron.
the electron is the common culprit that creates the bulk of the magnetic field of an atom (i'm looking at you iron). so what if we just temporary strip electrons from those atoms that have a net magnetic field until they dont? what i'm imagining is a permanent magnet that is also a big capacitor where we can strip the electrons from the magnetic material thus turning the magnet off. now we connect the capacitor to some coil to make an oscillating circuit and we have a permanent magnet that turns itself off and on. pulling away the electrons costs us energy but we also create a dip in the magnetic flux. the magnetic field is purely generated by quantum effects so maybe there is a chance to harness the flux change for free. the oscillating circuit is something we have to deal with and it's natural losses (ideally with the gains from the flux change of the magnet and some extra; perpetual motion of the first kind; yay). well - here the practical problems also start to kick in. you can't strip a permant magnet of all its electrons that contribute to the magnetic field cause there are just too many of them. you get absurd electric charge numbers if you try to remove even one electron from every atom in "magnet-sized" piece of iron. when you look at pictures of the electron configuration of iron with the up and down arrows you can assume that you have to remove even more electrons from the atom to completely shut down its magnetic field so it becomes even more unrealistic. i found this neat website that shows all the up and down arrows for all the elements https://www.seilnacht.com/Lexikon/psval.htm
just click on one element and it shows the electron configuration on the left side. Alot of parallel arrows mean highly magnetic. anti parallel arrows mean tiny magnets cancel each other out so no net field.
if any of this makes sense could some smart guy/gal put this into some calculations or simulations to see what could be expected/measured in a real setting?
thank you very much for reading.
with kind regards
David
Dave, I don't think magnets come with an off switch, but I like you're thinking. My first fidget spinner pulse motor was based on static magnets, coils on top and a spinning rotor with PM's. The coil would simultaneously suppress the static pm underneath, while repelling the rotor pm spinning above.
If you want to turn things off and on, start with an electromagnet.
If you examine the BH characteristic of square loop material you will realize that the two B values at H=0 represent a permanent magnet that can be switched between two states. So we do have a means to switch magnets, to reverse their polarity. The area of the BH loop represents an energy density that when multiplied by the volume of the magnet gives you the energy you must supply to reverse it. Switching a magnet takes energy, a significant amount of energy. Add to that the resistive losses in the coil. Note that the ampere-turns needed to create the switching H value is hugely more for a bar magnet than for the same amount of material in a ring because of the need to dtive B through the air, so the coil loss is significant. As the previous reply says, use an electromagnet that uses soft ferromagnetic material.
Smudge
good evening everyone,
i'm aware that you can switch the polarity of a magnet with a high enough magnetic pulse but that's not the goal (and i know it would cost energy/require work to do that).
what can we agree on when i say "let's turn the magnetic field off"? i'm looking at the atomic level of what makes a permanent magnet magnetic. we have an atom (iron) with its electrons whizzing around its core in those strange and hard to understand orbitals/shells (1s | 2s | 2p | 3s | 3p | 4s | 3d). iron atoms have half-filled electron shells that amplify the total magnetic field of the atom because for whatever reason the magnetic moments are aligned in those half-filled shells and iron is also ferromagnetic (i can only refer to that webside again https://www.seilnacht.com/Lexikon/psval.htm or there is also this neat youtube video that helped me understand the mechanics behind permanent magnets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM)
now the most simple question that arises for me is - what happens if we just "remove" electrons from the magnetic atom until it isnt magnetic anymore? how far can we push this idea? what happens to the properties of the magnetic atom when you remove more and more electrons? now we do this to every crystal and domain (the domains are already aligned) of the material and we end up with a (brutally) electrically charged magnet that isnt magnetic anymore. but when we let the electrons flow back into the magnet the magnetic field should restore itself.
does this make it more understandable?
Quote from: david on 2023.11.27, 03:16:06
...what happens if we just "remove" electrons from the magnetic atom until it isnt magnetic anymore?
Even if you ignore the magnetic moment of the nucleus, removing electrons from the iron metal is tantamount to ionizing it completely and turning it into a bunch of positive ions. Even if such metal could hold itself together, it would exert humongous electric Coulomb force on its surroundings.
In Fe (or any conductive ferromagnetic metal) the spin hence magnetic moment of its conduction electrons contribute to its magnetization. It is possible to remove some of these leaving the (magnetized) Fe body with a positive charge so its magnetization is then reduced by a small amount. Pulling the spin-polarized electrons (tiny magnets) out of the magnetized FE body requires force to overcome the magnetic force pulling them back, but this is easily created by electric forces that are so much greater than magnetic forces. I do not know of any system that uses this electric control of magnetization, but it could possibly explain some anomalous results. The Yildiz motor uses a large number of NdFeB disc magnets glued into aluminum blocks. If the glue acts as an electric insulator then the E field induced from the changing B field at each magnet (E=vXB) could create small changes to the otherwise constant magnetization of each magnet. Note that once the electrons are pulled into the aluminum block they lose their polarization and only regain it when they return to the NdFeB magnet. Is that something worth exploring?
Smudge
hi again,
Smudge, you mentioned one thing that makes me question everything - electrons are tiny magnets. that is clearly what they said in the yt video. but does that now mean that everything with a magnetic field can just "pull" electrons? does this explain all of the fancy induction rules/formulas as well? my brain just melted a little bit. is this where the energy balance comes to zero too? pulling billions of tiny magnets from one big magnet although the strength of the magnet weakens the more tiny magnets we remove but it requires the same amount energy that we would get if we capture the energy/flux-change from when the tiny magnets return to the big magnet with 100% efficiency (which is also not possible)?
maybe its worth to point out one thing but i dont think it matters in this point of view. the magnetic field of the electron is also small in comparison to the magnetic field it generates when it is locked into orbit in an iron atom. because there is more motion and charges in motion also create a magnetic field so... wait a second
charges only have a magnetic field when they are in motion. so they are not really tiny magnets by themselves. i'm so confused right now.
does it cost extra energy to remove electrons from a conducting, magnetized piece of iron or are we just dealing with electric forces?
Turning it on and off only way to simulate that is by using anelectro magnet and gravity to apose the field.
Sil
@Sil
but that wouldn't be something new. I wonder if you could make iron the same as activated carbon which has this crazy large surface area in the smallest space which would make it possible to get access to as many electrons as possible in a small piece of iron.
And I wonder if removing even one electron from ever iron atom in a solid would change the magnetic behavior of the iron drastically. Maybe it changes from being ferromagnetic to anti-ferromagnetic.
Quote from: david on 2023.12.01, 02:43:14
I wonder if you could make iron the same as activated carbon which has this crazy large surface area in the smallest space which would make it possible to get access to as many electrons as possible in a small piece of iron.
Yes, it's called pyrophoric iron, it even ignites spontaneously in air.
I did it for fun. :)
Quote from: david on 2023.11.28, 01:19:07
hi again,
Smudge, you mentioned one thing that makes me question everything - electrons are tiny magnets. that is clearly what they said in the yt video. but does that now mean that everything with a magnetic field can just "pull" electrons?
I think you must educate yourself on magnetic fields "pulling" magnets. It is not the field value that does the pulling, it is the field gradient, the field must change with distance through space. Place a magnet within a uniform magnetic field and there is no pull, only a torque that forces the magnet to align with the field. And yes, electrons in a
non uniform field will act like tiny magnets to align themselves with the field and then get pulled towards the stronger field area. (That is if there is nothing in the way for them to collide with of course)
Quotedoes this explain all of the fancy induction rules/formulas as well?
No it does not. Those take no account of electron spin or magnetic moment.
Quotemy brain just melted a little bit. is this where the energy balance comes to zero too?
It takes energy to pull a tiny magnet from a region of uniform field to a region where there is no field because over that movement the field must decay, that gradient creates the pull back force that has to be overcome. The energy can be reclaimed by letting the magnet be pulled back and capturing the energy.
Quotepulling billions of tiny magnets from one big magnet although the strength of the magnet weakens the more tiny magnets we remove but it requires the same amount energy that we would get if we capture the energy/flux-change from when the tiny magnets return to the big magnet with 100% efficiency (which is also not possible)?
Of course it is possible but what have you gained?
Quotemaybe its worth to point out one thing but i dont think it matters in this point of view. the magnetic field of the electron is also small in comparison to the magnetic field it generates when it is locked into orbit in an iron atom. because there is more motion and charges in motion also create a magnetic field so... wait a second
charges only have a magnetic field when they are in motion. so they are not really tiny magnets by themselves. i'm so confused right now.
Electrons have spin and that is angular momentum. We don't know whether their mass is actually spinning (or whether this spin has some other source such as absorption of aether particles) but it is helpful to imagine that the mass is spinning. The angular momentum is quantized by the Planck constant. The electron also has a magnetic moment that is aligned with the spin so it is helpful to imagine that the electron's charge is also spinning (but that too might have an aetherial source). A spinning spherical volume of charge has a magnetic moment (there you have the charge movement that creates its magnetic field). The magnetic moment is in the order of the Bohr Magneton. Orbital magnetic moments are quantized by the Bohr Magneton and angular momentum by the Planck constant.
Quotedoes it cost extra energy to remove electrons from a conducting, magnetized piece of iron or are we just dealing with electric forces?
Both forces are involved but the electric forces are much greater than the magnetic ones. Whether you can gain anything by clever use of the two different forces remains to be seen.
Smudge
I thought this answer from ChatGPT was interesting...
QuoteThe magnetic field in iron (and other magnetic materials) is primarily due to the alignment and the movement of electrons within the atoms of the material.
In an atom, electrons have two types of motion that contribute to the magnetic properties of the material:
Spin: Electrons have an intrinsic property called "spin," which is a quantum property that can be thought of as the electron spinning around its own axis. The spin of electrons contributes to their magnetic moment.
Orbital motion: Electrons also move in orbits around the atomic nucleus. This orbital motion also contributes to the magnetic moment of the electron.
The orbital motion of electrons is easy to understand and it's similar to how electrons move in a circular path around a coil of wire. All the smaller circular motions align and add up producing a larger magnetic field.
Electron spin on it's axis seems to suggest the circular motion of the stuff the electron is made of contributes to the magnetic field. However an electron is considered an elementary particle that is not composed of smaller particles.
It seems logical that the magnetic field may not be produced by electron orbital motion but is a consequence of the motion of the electron material. The electron material produces a magnetic field whether is spins around itself or other bodies as an orbit.
Thermal vibration and mechanical impacts can also disrupt the electrons path or direction producing random motion. Random motion of the electron material and misalignment of electron orbits reduces the external magnetic field. So again were left with the notion that the electron does not produce a magnetic field per say more so how the material it's made of moves within a space.
AC
This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.12.01, 22:49:07
This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............
I guess its how you look at it? That video was just showing flux redirection.
I believe this could be possible with super conductors. Recently I read this:
https://physicsworld.com/a/terahertz-laser-induces-room-temperature-superconducting-phase-in-a-fullerene-compound/
This is a very significant finding. A well known Super Conductor theoretical researchers who refutes BCS theory also has an interesting theory (based on findings and theories of a Russian scientists) Jorge E. Hirsch. Basically he claims that super conductivity occurs because the orbits of the electrons 'relax' andd therfore expands this has the iluusion of creating a radially outward current if we are talking about a cylinddrical shaped SC. Which explains the Meissner effect. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAusEgByKkY
He also has some interesting papers showing that the joule heating theory of BSC below their critical temp is BS. In other words the Meissner effect and its inversion is essentially a 0 energy effect. This is significant because not only does the Meisner effect expel magnetic field it actually pushes something away with a force, we usually see this in the form of the SC overcoming gravity and start to levitate on top of a magnet. This implies this potential energy had no cost.
Now take this new paper showing you can switch a SC on and off with very little energy using a laser and wrap a coil around this SC and stick a magnet to it. When you switch on the SC the Meisner effect causes the field to be expelled, this induces a large sudden flux change in the coil generating energy. You got yourself your free energy device.
i'm trying to make a post for the last 3 days now but there is always something that stun locks me when i try to make a response.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.12.01, 10:18:38
Yes, it's called pyrophoric iron, it even ignites spontaneously in air.
I did it for fun. :)
that sounds counter productive ;D
Quote from: SmudgeI think you must educate yourself on magnetic fields "pulling" magnets. It is not the field value that does the pulling, it is the field gradient, the field must change with distance through space. Place a magnet within a uniform magnetic field and there is no pull, only a torque that forces the magnet to align with the field. And yes, electrons in a non uniform field will act like tiny magnets to align themselves with the field and then get pulled towards the stronger field area. (That is if there is nothing in the way for them to collide with of course)
oh true. i was not aware of that anymore - there needs to be a field gradient for magnets to pull on each other. in the video i linked about how permanent magnets work there is a 2nd part that explains how normal electro magnets work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0) but they do it in special way. they use special relativity and electric forces to explain magnetic forces. everything that moves relative to you gets smushed in the direction its moving so suddenly you can have concentrations of electric charges that were not there before. i guess this works with magnets pulling on each other as well. the moving electrons inside the magnetized iron see a concentration of positive electric charges inside the other magnetized piece of iron.
Quote from: SmudgeIt takes energy to pull a tiny magnet from a region of uniform field to a region where there is no field because over that movement the field must decay, that gradient creates the pull back force that has to be overcome. The energy can be reclaimed by letting the magnet be pulled back and capturing the energy.
okay but how can you account for thatwhen it comes to energy input/output. the intial idea was to "capture" energy from the magnetic flux dip when you remove electrons from a magnetic atom. so you put in some work to remove an electron from an iron atom and in return you get some magnetic field change. the electron is the main contributer to the magnetic field of the atom. you have the magnetic field of the electron spin and you have magnetic field from the orbital motion. both disappear from the atom when you remove the electron. of course removing only one electron from an iron atom still leaves you with the other half-filled electron shells that do create an external field which you would have to overcome. the most extrem example would be to remove all the electrons from half-filled shells and only the full shells remain (magnetic fields of full shells cancel each other out). so now the magnetic field is basically zero and you dont have to work against it. and the electric energy you just used to remove the electron from the atom is preservered as much as possible in an oscillating circuit. the practical outcome would be to capture the magnetic flux change in the coil of the oscillating circuit itself so maybe the oscillation starts to swing up.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.12.01, 22:49:07
This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............
i saw devices like that but i dont see how you can gain more energy from it than you have to put in by opening the "flux-circuit" although... i can never tell how much energy you can actually gain from flux changes in the first place... there is always the principle of... induction and counter induction/counter torque... a rotor of a generator pushing against the magnetic field of the stator coils it just induced power in when the stator circuit is closed...
my brain is really bad at picturing how those things but - scratch that. i found it. a neat simulation that shows and animates everything about induction, winding direction, current flow! this thing has been on the internet for ages but it slips and reconnects to my brain in unpredictable ways :P
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/cheerpj/faraday/latest/faraday.html?simulation=faraday
i used the transformer tab to visualize what the idea should look like. in the simulation you have a battery with electrons flowing inside a coil and a secondary induction coil. you could compare this with the electrons "flowing" inside a permanent magnet. so now we remove the electrons from the magnet so the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker (in the simulation you move the voltage slider to reduce the voltage) causing an induction current in the second coil. this current amplifies the current magnetic field.
well - now i'm not sure what that means for the electrons we try to remove. also the counter induction thing should kick in and... now i feel like getting stun locked again. someone take over please :o
counter induction should make it harder for electrons to flow inside the electromagnet/battery circuit but this cant affect electrons flowing inside atom orbitals right?
Quote from: david on 2023.12.04, 01:03:05
i'm trying to make a post for the last 3 days now but there is always something that stun locks me when i try to make a response.
that sounds counter productive ;D
oh true. i was not aware of that anymore - there needs to be a field gradient for magnets to pull on each other. in the video i linked about how permanent magnets work there is a 2nd part that explains how normal electro magnets work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0) but they do it in special way. they use special relativity and electric forces to explain magnetic forces. everything that moves relative to you gets smushed in the direction its moving so suddenly you can have concentrations of electric charges that were not there before. i guess this works with magnets pulling on each other as well. the moving electrons inside the magnetized iron see a concentration of positive electric charges inside the other magnetized piece of iron.
No you have got that wrong with regard to magnets pulling on each other. The aligned spins (mostly orbits) responsible for the magnetization create the magnetic B field of the magnet that reduces in amplitude with distance, hence there is a magnetic gradient applied to the other magnet. Let us assume the magnet is aligned with x, then each of the spins (orbits in fixed atoms) in the other magnet (also aligned with x) of magnetic moment mu obey a force law F = mu*dB/dx. There is no concentration of charges needed for this. In Fe where there are mobile conduction electrons they also have spin that will align themselves (along x in this case) so they get a force driving them along x, and then you do get some charge separation so the pole closest to the other magnet gets a negative charge (surfeit of electrons) while the furthest pole gets a positive charge (surfeit of positive ions}. This small effect is not generally recognized and may be of no use, but I have suggested that a deliberate
electric polarization of a Fe magnet might be a means for getting OU. This is not switching a PM on and off but is a magneto-electric effect that might be of use to FE researchers.
Quoteokay but how can you account for thatwhen it comes to energy input/output. the intial idea was to "capture" energy from the magnetic flux dip when you remove electrons from a magnetic atom. so you put in some work to remove an electron from an iron atom and in return you get some magnetic field change. the electron is the main contributer to the magnetic field of the atom. you have the magnetic field of the electron spin and you have magnetic field from the orbital motion. both disappear from the atom when you remove the electron. of course removing only one electron from an iron atom still leaves you with the other half-filled electron shells that do create an external field which you would have to overcome. the most extrem example would be to remove all the electrons from half-filled shells and only the full shells remain (magnetic fields of full shells cancel each other out). so now the magnetic field is basically zero and you dont have to work against it. and the electric energy you just used to remove the electron from the atom is preservered as much as possible in an oscillating circuit. the practical outcome would be to capture the magnetic flux change in the coil of the oscillating circuit itself so maybe the oscillation starts to swing up.
You can't willy nilly remove electrons from atoms. To remove electrons from the inner shells you have to supply high energy photons (X rays) to knock one out and that creates other movements of electrons to refill the vacant shells giving off photons at other frequencies. Not quite within the capabilities of your FE experimenter.
Quotei used the transformer tab to visualize what the idea should look like. in the simulation you have a battery with electrons flowing inside a coil and a secondary induction coil. you could compare this with the electrons "flowing" inside a permanent magnet. so now we remove the electrons from the magnet so the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker (in the simulation you move the voltage slider to reduce the voltage) causing an induction current in the second coil.
Flux change causes an induced voltage, not a current. To get a current you must have a load present and then you have a current that is at 90 degrees phase to the flux
Quotethis current amplifies the current magnetic field.
No because it is not in phase with the flux. Lenz's law tells you that the current will oppose the change of flux, that is ceratinly not an amplification.
Quotewell - now i'm not sure what that means for the electrons we try to remove. also the counter induction thing should kick in and... now i feel like getting stun locked again. someone take over please :o
counter induction should make it harder for electrons to flow inside the electromagnet/battery circuit but this cant affect electrons flowing inside atom orbitals right?
It is not productive imagining something that you can't do, so forget the atomic orbits. Concentrate on something you can do, like having a Fe magnet with electrodes on each pole over a thin dielectric so you can polarise it electrically by applying a high voltage to the electrodes. Now you have some weak (possibly too weak?) control of its field. Put that into a motor system that uses a stator magnet to attract a rotor magnet using your magneto-electric control to make the attraction greater than the repulsion.
Smudge
There was person who have done it.
https://tedmagnetics.com/ (https://tedmagnetics.com/)
At least as it was announced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D)
At least this concept fascinated me at the time.
Hi guys :)
As it happens I did experiments with magnetic flux path switching for MEG in past, here are some insights from my experience.
You can create 2 paths with one less slightly less resistant with magnetic flux switching coil on it than another path and use very little energy when creating LC resonant circuit with that electromagnet. This is quite straight forward.
However, when magnetic flux path switches and you have pick up coil to make induction I had a problem.
When magnetic flux path switches it happens very quickly in nanoseconds range and most common problem is how to make proper induction on the pickup coil which magnetic flux pass through when switched.
The typical coil will lag behind against such fast magnetic flux strength change. If you can tackle this problem and make special coils fast enough (possible flat coils from tape for added capacity?) to pick up the magnetic flux change or special materials to slow down rate of magnetic flux change you will get results you are looking for.
P.S> From conventional physics point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction "The electromotive force around a closed path is equal to the negative of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux enclosed by the path" is exactly on the point here to make power from magnets.
Cheers!
I don't understand. Can't you just remove an arbitrary number of electrons from a small enough sample size with a large enough electric field? We have ionizing energies in mol down to the bare iron atom. Can't we translate this to an electric field that would achieve the same goal? The ,,stripping" energy needs to be captured in some way so x-rays are never an option. The energy needs to be between the iron atoms and some other metal but maybe the iron itself would just disintegrated if too many electrons are removed.
what would be the upper limit that we can remove? I do have some suspicion that removing one electron from an iron atom turns it magnetically into something like chromium because the first electron that is removed through an electric field would be taken from the filled 4s-shell. The iron gets even more half filled shells just like chromium but that makes it completely anti-ferromagnetic. What would be the setup to try those things?
I can only look at that link again that shows electron configurations.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.05, 20:58:56
When magnetic flux path switches it happens very quickly in nanoseconds range and most common problem is how to make proper induction on the pickup coil which magnetic flux pass through when switched.
The typical coil will lag behind against such fast magnetic flux strength change. If you can tackle this problem and make special coils fast enough (possible flat coils from tape for added capacity?) to pick up the magnetic flux change or special materials to slow down rate of magnetic flux change you will get results you are looking for.
Hall sensor? the ugn3503 I use is around 37ns + delay. It'll mean adding in a 5V circuit to support though.
Hi all,
From my previous MEG eperimentation here is concept below to control magnetiic flux of magnets. You might consider to try build one.
Also I could use some advice about where I could source 5-10mm wide insulated iron foil for the output coil.
P.S> The good read from previous magnetic flux switching experiments - https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=eecs_fac
Cheers!
Quote from: david on 2023.12.07, 02:44:59
I do have some suspicion that removing one electron from an iron atom turns it magnetically into something like chromium
No, it is still iron but now it is a positive ion. The iron nucleus has more protons than the chromium nucleus.
Smudge
...
Allen from Philosophy.org gave me a 'pen' that could detect the North Pole Field of any magnet with a light indicator. He wanted me to give it to JoeCell as a present.
So on my next visit, I handed it to Joe and he said to keep it cause he didnt need it. But its a present Joe.
So Joe picked up a magnet and used the pen and every time he held it to the magnet's N it either lite up and the next time didnt light up North Pole. He did this repeatedly to prove his point.
Joe can Flip the poles by Touch.
In another demo he took to magnets and holding them close together for a second the Field Just Collapsed in each magnet leaving a couple lumps of ferrite. Then doing the reverse they became magnetic again.
Magnets are not what they say they are.
Back to the drawing board.
Many have seen Joe flip the Polarity of the Battery in the car making the 'spark' to the spark plug the wrong polarity and no matter how you crank the engine over it will not start.
In another demo, the battery was flat from the lights being left on. To start the car a COIL was placed between the 2 terminals of the Battery so the Other Side of the Battery was now active and in an second of turning the key,. the engine started. Batteries also arent what you think they are.
Understanding these two NON PHYSICAL Phenomena will upwise humans immensely.
Quote from: MerLynn on 2023.12.14, 00:49:48
So Joe picked up a magnet and used the pen and every time he held it to the magnet's N it either lite up and the next time didnt light up North Pole. He did this repeatedly to prove his point.
Joe can Flip the poles by Touch.
Anecdotes are not evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
This is a scientific forum, not a story telling board.
Quote from: MerLynn on 2023.12.14, 00:49:48
Allen from Philosophy.org...
That seems like a better forum for your stories.
@verpies
There is no forum at philosophy.org
and Allen (my dear close friend) passed away this year.
WATCH Joe de-pole neodymium magnets with HIS HANDS... in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM3x2z5Twno
towards the end around 8 minute mark.
It's not just a 'story' what MerLynn says. plz try to keep an open mind. a closed mind can't learn anything new!
Cheers, wlw
This is noting special. Magnets can be demagnetized when put closely in repulsion, especially low coercivity magnets.
I've done it myself with AlNiCo magnets.
Also, that video contains no measurements of the remanent magnetization, so it is anecdotal.
If you have two disc magnets magnetized through their small (thickness) dimension (as most are) and you force two together in repelling mode (very difficult especially with neos) you can get one of the magnets (the weakest one) to flip its polarity so now they attract. This feature is not some new science (although some obviously believe otherwise) and is readily explained by current scientific theory. I have used small circular disc neos to flip the polarity of ferrite magnets. You can easily flip just part of a magnet and create what some people wrongly call a tripole, but is in fact a linear quadrupole having a N pole at each end a S pole at the centre. The only probelm with doing this is that the stronger magnet loses some strength, and if you use a large disc to flip a smaller one the loss is not uniform over the volume of the large magnet, leaving the magnet with internal stresses that can eventually cause the magnet to break apart.
Smudge
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.14, 15:28:43
This is noting special. Magnets can be demagnetized when put closely in repulsion, especially low coercivity magnets.
I've done it myself with AlNiCo magnets.
Also, that video contains no measurements of the remanent magnetization, so it is anecdotal.
sad but true. No comprehension of the Science being Denied.
There's no 'remnant' to measure
Joe works with Ferrite Magnets. Neodymium is NOT magnetic. Its a Static Catalyst to enhance the Field Effect of Iron. Just Like Chromium added to iron is a Catalyst to INHIBIT the Field effect of Iron as in Non Residual Magnetic Stainless Steel. So it dont rust just like iron being conditioned with a Pure North Pole Energy as a washer between two SAME North Pole FERRITE Ring magnets.
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.13, 10:28:03
No, it is still iron but now it is a positive ion. The iron nucleus has more protons than the chromium nucleus.
Smudge
yes but the nucleus doesnt contribute to the magnetic properties of the atom. electrons and their orbitals do. their effects are a thousand times stronger than that of the nucleus i believe i read somewhere.
i just look at the electron orbitals - which ones are filled and which ones are not and by removing one electron from the outer most shell (which is i believe the 4s shell for iron) the new electron configuration looks alot like that of chromium. i make a picture and put them next to each other. removing one electron from every iron atom in a small collection of atoms should be doable without disintegrating the material.
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.14, 15:28:43
This is noting special. Magnets can be demagnetized when put closely in repulsion, especially low coercivity magnets.
I've done it myself with AlNiCo magnets.
Also, that video contains no measurements of the remanent magnetization, so it is anecdotal.
And yet we still have have conventional generator and motor designs with pitting same pole and opposite pole magnetic fields against each other. Then add kinetic force to overcome that design flaws. Which we call energy input to the resulting energy output then call it COP. ;)
Which begs to fix flaws in that design and this is where wild "overunity" becomes to manifest. And there are better ways to utilize Faraday's law of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction), all in geometry and engineering areas.
Just stop making generators for a moment literally like in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Induction_experiment.png/435px-Induction_experiment.png The resulting kinetic forces must work with each other or completely go on 90 degrees from prime movement vector. That is 3D vectors geometry for you to solve while still maintaining induction in coils. :) If you still go on old design, do it like mother Nature does - for every opposing kinetic force there is 3rd opposing kinetic force for that opposition with resulting net 0 neutral force. Like in Muller dynamo design. 6/8 coils/magnets arrangement to balance out kinetic forces to neutral around rotor.
Cheers!
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.14, 15:28:43
This is noting special. Magnets can be demagnetized when put closely in repulsion, especially low coercivity magnets.
I've done it myself with AlNiCo magnets.
Also, that video contains no measurements of the remanent magnetization, so it is anecdotal.
Ok try it again with NEO's...
if u can de-pole them in less than 30 seconds with ur hands...
and hold repelling neo magnets together with ur thumb and index finger...
THEN tell me (one more time) that you saw "nothing special" !!!
wlw
Quote from: david on 2023.12.14, 22:48:12
yes but the nucleus doesnt contribute to the magnetic properties of the atom. electrons and their orbitals do. their effects are a thousand times stronger than that of the nucleus i believe i read somewhere.
i just look at the electron orbitals - which ones are filled and which ones are not and by removing one electron from the outer most shell (which is i believe the 4s shell for iron) the new electron configuration looks alot like that of chromium. i make a picture and put them next to each other. removing one electron from every iron atom in a small collection of atoms should be doable without disintegrating the material.
Perhaps the attached document will shed some light. The atom can shed a small number (about 0.2-0.3 per atom) of 3d electrons as itinerant conduction electrons and these are responsible for the iron's ferromagnetic properties.
Smudge
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.12.15, 15:04:42
Ok try it again with NEO's...
if u can de-pole them in less than 30 seconds with ur hands...
and hold repelling neo magnets together with ur thumb and index finger...
THEN tell me (one more time) that you saw "nothing special" !!!
wlw
Lets behave like emotionless Commander Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock) for a moment. :)
Any magnet no matter the strength can be demagnetized with higher magnetic field strength than its own. The Neodium magnets are no exception just usually you do not have 10's of Teslas magnetic field in bakcground. And they also can be demagnetized by Curie temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature).
Just the point of the topic is, if you find a way to manage magnetic field to lock into itself - be that alternative magnetic flux path or opposite magnets to the poles, you can shift magnetic field strength from max to almost non-magnetic. Now with that in mind if you happen to have coild inside that field the Electromagnetic induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction) happens. Depending on coil reaction speed (higher inductance, more slow reaction) you may match the speed of magnetic flux change of the magnets.
And because the source of that coil magnetization is the magnet itself while magnetic flux changes the resulting countering magnetic field of the coil under load will be always weaker than the magnet itself. Which leaves magnets demagnetization outside of the scope.
Hopefully this clears some misunderstanding.
P.S> Some fun educational video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMma3OJUHhs
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.18, 15:33:37
Lets behave like emotionless Commander Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock) for a moment. :)
Any magnet no matter the strength can be demagnetized with higher magnetic field strength than its own. The Neodium magnets are no exception just usually you do not have 10's of Teslas magnetic field in bakcground. And they also can be demagnetized by Curie temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature).
@T
in the video Joe demagnetizes TWO magnets of equal size simultaneously. So there can be no 'higher' magnetic field than it's own. He also uses just his hands at 98.6°F temp not remotely high enough for Curie temp...
and yet the repelling poles DISAPPEAR until he can hold them together with thumb and finger.
now if we really think upon that all sorts of science just went out the window, such as Coulomb's law stating opposites repel. O0
Joe can even 'wind them back up' with his hands and the magnets become STRONGER than when they were handed to him.
then eventually they stabilize back to where they were initially charged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8czSVTwrA&t=28s WATCH
The real problem this thread faces is magnetic 'experts' believe there is nothing NEW to discover. They believe everything has ALREADY been worked out about magnetics.
A hindrance preventing them from extracting power from magnets
without needing to move them at all.
Cheers,
wlw
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4400.msg102854#msg102854 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4400.msg102854#msg102854)
astroboots ;)
Anyone would be fancy to play with some magnets and coils?
Would be interesting to see if you would manage to pump out some amps while shorting one of two magnets flux from the attached concept... :)
O0
Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.12.19, 14:40:47
ps. u don't want North & South together like in ur pic. u want North & North or South & South, coil cancels flux and we capture the BIG field coming back across the coil. !
Yes, you can partially harvest energy back when disconnecting L1 due BEMF + first magnet flux locking over L1 coil. But also the L1 coil on magnet would produce bloch walls on magnet edges when energized. The L2 coil would be sitting around bloch wall from the second magnet when L1 is not energized but with energizing of L1 the sudden rush of magnetic pole would change magnetic flux density around L2 coil. Which produce EMF.
From what I am seeing on the scope of L2 when playing around with neodium magnets it is 2 spikes on L2. One slow rising over 30-40ms and 1 BEMF nanosecond range spike after.
The problem I have is the amps on L2 not being that much powerflul as voltage. And because we are dealing with swift inrush of magnetic flux from magnet that remains engineering challenge how to harvest induced EMF properly on L2 coil.
So, if you would like to get hands dirty on this you are very welcome :) It does not take fortune to get some magnets, transformer cores, driving circuits and make some coils.
P.S> Solving this puzzle would solve inner workings of Bearden's MEG too.
Cheers!
Why didn't anyone think of this? ....? because it doesn't work!
Nobody understood why? Nobody understands how a magnet with electricity works?
Instead of showing drawings, you can check it. I checked this a long time ago.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2023.12.20, 08:42:25
Why didn't anyone think of this? ....? because it doesn't work!
Nobody understood why? Nobody understands how a magnet with electricity works?
Instead of showing drawings, you can check it. I checked this a long time ago.
This statement is partially not true. The magnetic amplifiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier) was widely used back in the day.
It utilized transformer core saturation with DC magnetic field.
What was not widely explored is replacing AC input with DC input to make magnet. And DC input with pulsed DC input to block magnetic flux due core saturation and making sure the control coils are not doing transformer action.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.20, 09:23:19
This statement is partially not true. The magnetic amplifiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier) was widely used back in the day.
It utilized transformer core saturation with DC magnetic field.
What was not widely explored is replacing AC input with DC input to make magnet. And DC input with pulsed DC input to block magnetic flux due core saturation and making sure the control coils are not doing transformer action.
The coil and magnet always work symmetrically, so there is no way to change it. This can be seen by trying to influence the second magnet with another magnet. The coil does 100% the same thing, only it has greater losses, but the magnetic field balance is always the same.
Adding a magnet to a coil does not cause growth unless the magnet moves. It really doesn't take much time to test it in practice.
I only know one way to increase the current in the coil in a way that no one has thought of yet (I didn't know). Unfortunately, this is not anything that would result in a large increase, but the effect is an increase above 1. The input current decreases and the output increases.
No one was interested in this on ou.com, so there is no need to explain further here.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2023.12.20, 11:38:54
I only know one way to increase the current in the coil in a way that no one has thought of yet (I didn't know). Unfortunately, this is not anything that would result in a large increase, but the effect is an increase above 1. The input current decreases and the output increases.
Would you mind to share that method here for clarity?
Also I would like not to overtake whole thread here, what are other peoples thoughts and experiences on subject?
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.20, 14:41:49
...what are other peoples thoughts and experiences on subject?
I think it might be possible to rotate the entire ferromagnetic domains and have their angular momenta decay for an appreciable amount of time. Shot pulses causing prolonged changes in bulk magnetization
Some food for thought from basic experiments with magnetic flux path switching and locking (in Russian) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEPIjDL8F7Y
And in the video same problem with making induction from magnetic flux path switching too.
You had forgotten that magnet materials change its temperature when a material is magnetized and demagnetized.
If you organize a process to take heat from the environment and turn it into electricity...
This is difficult to do engineering, but there are no fundamental obstacles.
At least the source of energy is clearly visible.
Battery powered MEG? Output measurement error according to RMS. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/first-ai-nonrotational-power-cop28 https://youtu.be/bNo_TYPK3nE?si=_TgVfy9D4kR9YZQx
Quote from: JimBoot on 2023.12.21, 03:47:28
Battery powered MEG? Output measurement error according to RMS. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/first-ai-nonrotational-power-cop28 https://youtu.be/bNo_TYPK3nE?si=_TgVfy9D4kR9YZQx
The biggest concern I have is with regard to the input power measurement. I doubt a clampmeter will read a 10% duty cycle waveform accurately. Perhaps the clampmeter is already performing some averaging due to its response time, count rate, etc, and the input current pulses are actually closer to 1520 peak amps with the indicated 152 amps being closer to the average power draw (which they divide by 10 to account for duty cycle). Input power would then actually be 9.12 kilowatts, which would be sufficient to drive a fairly efficient boost circuit to the indicated AC output power levels. The size of the cables and switching devices look like they could handle a peak current of that magnitude and duty cycle. Super caps and several battery chemistries having low ESR are also capable of delivering peak currents of that magnitude and duty cycle..
If this is so, their input charger would have to input a continuous 60V at 152 amps to run the unit indefinitely or else the output power would decrease over time. In the video, I recall an AC Vout reading significantly lower than another Vout reading elsewhere in the video.
Just my 2 cents...
PW
Quote from: JimBoot on 2023.12.21, 03:47:28
Battery powered MEG? Output measurement error according to RMS. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/first-ai-nonrotational-power-cop28 https://youtu.be/bNo_TYPK3nE?si=_TgVfy9D4kR9YZQx
The ultimate test is always to rectify output to capacitor then loop output to input to power itself. Unless that is done and proven the claims with COP>1 (additional energy on output due unknown process to provide that power) remain unproven. There are myriad ways to fool meters. One of oldest ways is capacitor disruptive discharge to power the load while charging it with high frequency and low duty cycle pulses.
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.21, 09:54:52
There are myriad ways to fool meters. One of oldest ways is capacitor disruptive discharge to power the load while charging it with high frequency and low duty cycle pulses.
Indeed.
The circumstances you've described all lead to high crest-factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor) waveforms. The output power measurements can be further falsified by reactive loads, but measuring the relative temperature or luminosity/spectrum of a purely resistive load is an accurate way to measure the average output power even for high crest-factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor) waveforms.
The average input power is much more difficult to measure ...unless the input energy is delivered by DC.
On the topic - anyone tried to assemble transformer core with magnet and:
1) Magnet having magnetic field strength around 90% of core permability;
2) The controil coil canceling magnetic field of magnet on full power in the core;
3) The output coil picking magnetic flux change from <10mH to ~90% of the max core permability
4) The waveform on control coil having sawtooth or similar waveform to simulate magnetic flux movement on output coil in range of BH curve of core and accounting magnetic memory of the core with adjusted duty cycle
5) The output coil inducing noticeable amps alongside voltage on 90 degrees
The results would be very interesting to see.
Cheers!
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.21, 10:17:16
Indeed.
The circumstances you've described all lead to high crest-factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor) waveforms. The output power measurements can be further falsified by reactive loads, but measuring the relative temperature or luminosity/spectrum of a purely resistive load is an accurate way to measure the average output power even for high crest-factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor) waveforms.
The average input power is much more difficult to measure ...unless the input energy is delivered by DC.
SEMP quote 120 pulses per second and their best results use a duty cycle of 0.5%, so a pulse width of 42uS. Their clamp-on current probe (Hioki CT6843) is a smart active device rated DC to 500KHz and 200A. They use a Hioki PW6001 power analyzer. Does that help in assessing the validity of their measurements?
Smudge
Why didn't they do an energy loop ? I didn't find this anywhere in the video.
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.18, 14:59:25
Perhaps the attached document will shed some light. The atom can shed a small number (about 0.2-0.3 per atom) of 3d electrons as itinerant conduction electrons and these are responsible for the iron's ferromagnetic properties.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
i didnt comment for a long time. i hope you are still there. also late merry christmas everyone.
i read that magnetic moments of iron atoms can aligne each other because of electrostatic forces of the electrons. they keep the magnetic moments from flipping into anti-parallel alignment. so removing electrons from the iron atom crystal formation would technically weaken this aligning force.
i would love to make some experiments or calculations to predict what would happen but i dont have the means to do that.
When reading https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/patents/patent-44267-year-1908/ (http://figuera%20patent) It did hit me:
Quote from: Figuera on 2023.12.28, 17:43:48
Watching closely what happens in a Dynamo in motion, is that the turns of the induced circuit approaches and moves away from the magnetic centers of the inductor magnet or electromagnets, and those turns, while spinning, go through sections of the magnetic field of different power, because, while this has its maximum attraction in the center of the core of each electromagnet, this action will weaken as the induced is separated from the center of the electromagnet, to increase again, when the induced is approaching the center of another electromagnet with opposite sign to the first one.
This is one of ways how to create virtual moving magnetic field.
So all we have to do in that case is extend or shrinken virtual magnet length. And we can have permanent magnet attached in series to multiple coils in that arrangement. With some coils in steps strenghening magnetic field and some coils canceling out to create similar action to moving magnet through generator coil.
Any thoughts for practical experiment? :)
Cheers!
The mere displacement of the coil's magnetic field as the movement of the magnet does nothing. I made such a device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rjhb8qDzls
Quote from: T-1000 on 2023.12.28, 17:43:16
When reading https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/patents/patent-44267-year-1908/ (http://figuera%20patent) It did hit me:This is one of ways how to create virtual moving magnetic field.
So all we have to do in that case is extend or shrinken virtual magnet length. And we can have permanent magnet attached in series to multiple coils in that arrangement. With some coils in steps strenghening magnetic field and some coils canceling out to create similar action to moving magnet through generator coil.
Any thoughts for practical experiment? :)
Cheers!
What you do is create two
equal inductive discharges into two distinct but close-frequency LC circuits and join their outputs together. It is a type of multiplexer used for combining different
audio frequencies into the same wire and keeping them separate., they will be all positive peaks of different amplitude and out of phase.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: maxmalone on 2023.12.28, 18:50:08
The mere displacement of the coil's magnetic field as the movement of the magnet does nothing. I made such a device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rjhb8qDzls
I would attempt to make multisection prirmary coil on "U" shape transformer. With each section winding as double <1mm diameter iron wire and each layer starting from the first layer start(this would make N+N/S+S magnetic poles stacked together on each layer). And each section making normal coil for electromagnet. Then have all sections stacked in series and also connected in series on laminated steel transformer core. Lets say, it would be 10 sections. The coils firing sequence would be for North side 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and for South 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 then the sequence inverted. This would gradually decrease current on North and increase for South magnetic poles over whole stacked coils length while strongest North/South poles magnetic field would change physical location on the transformer core. On the other side of U core in output coil you should get increasing magnetic field then reversing to opposite polarity like almost from AC input. Then also would try with single coil under whole series of stacked electromagnets.
In worst case scenario you should get inefficient transformer output. In best case scenario.. who knows :)
Cheers!