South Korea-based SEMP Group and Abu Dhabi-based Global Solutions for Project Management have launched a pathbreaking innovation that will shape the future of clean energy – the AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator (AISEG) at COP28 organized in Dubai, UAE.
AISEG is the world's first successful system that generates higher efficiency output compared to input power. With over 70 patents in 60 countries, it does not have any rotating parts, does not produce carbon or heat emissions, is self-powered and delivers outstanding efficiency. It has a compact footprint and near-permanent lifespan - a one-stop solution for the world's energy needs.
SEMP Research Institute devised an AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator (AISEG) innovated based on the principles of Biot-Savart's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law?useskin=vector) and Faraday's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction?useskin=vector).
(https://i.ibb.co/0BwCYZY/AISEG-Launch-Photo.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mvx9hth)
(https://i.ibb.co/znZZ7MS/AISEG-5.png) (https://ibb.co/h7VVZ6K)
Looks interesting. From what I can see in their launch photo, they're using 8x IGBT modules fixed to some pretty beefy heatsinks which suggest it's a high current device. There are 60x high wattage incandescent light bulbs hooked up. To be honest, their demo unit doesn't look too dissimilar to a few devices that I've seen on the various OU forums.
They have a YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@sempworld
This video explains the principle of operation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJH8Ad2b44
Here are some screenshots from the above video:
(https://i.ibb.co/ZWm3Gs1/AISEG-1.png) (https://ibb.co/WgtQG9p)
(https://i.ibb.co/GtGy8JP/AISEG-2.png) (https://ibb.co/MGKrthN)
(https://i.ibb.co/BgRL37G/AISEG-3.png) (https://ibb.co/fC7MFK9)
(https://i.ibb.co/qyKFMbw/AISEG-4.png) (https://ibb.co/98639Rj)
(https://i.ibb.co/MNwH6Bv/AISEG-6.png) (https://ibb.co/6s9SBXM)
I'm not entirely sure what they mean by 'bandwagoning', but it seems like all they are doing is chopping up a DC input 120 times per second and exciting 30x coil packs with a time varying magnetic field.
I think they've just added AI to the name of the device because it's a hot topic at the moment.
Nice! Hopefully this gets in production quickly. I don't think the South Koreans are prone to scams as many countries are so I'll lean toward this being valid. It does sound somewhat similar to Holcomb energy system in that it seems to be using moving magnetic fields without any physical moving devices. Their website:
https://www.semp.or.kr/en/%EB%B0%9C%EC%A0%84%EA%B8%B0%EC%9D%98-%EC%97%AD%EC%82%AC
They have test results from nationally accredited testing institutes on the website. From a PDF there it appears from a o-scope printout they have 0.799 kilowatt input and are getting 18.192 kilowatt output.
Robert Murray-Smith has just posted a video on the AISEG (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNo_TYPK3nE).
Is there any chance someone here could find their patent applications. They say there are PCT patent applications.
Smudge
I scoured the KIPO database and found the patent application. I've attached the original copy in Korean, along with a machine translated English verison.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the coil stacks have square loop ferrite material within them. There is one secondary coil running the length of the long core and a plurality (good patent word that!) of primary coils. The primry coils are given short duration current pulses in the sequences mentioned in the video. These create semi-permanent areas of magnetic polarization along the core that result in a cumulative effect as seen by the secondary. The secondary sees a magnetic field that changes value in steps somehat like voltage multipliers get a stepped waveform. Need more time to hone this into a workable scheme.
Edit, thanks for those patent details, your post came in while I was writing this one.
Smudge
Quote from: lfarrand on 2023.12.17, 04:26:29
Robert Murray-Smith has just posted a video on the AISEG (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNo_TYPK3nE).
That's a good overview of this device.
This Murray guy has a knack of stating the obvious which I would have never thought to explain to my audience, such as the difference between traffic laws and physical laws.
Anyway, he is correct about the ubiquitous fallacy of multiplying average voltage and current to yield average power (especially input power), however this objection does not apply to the calculation of output power when the load is purely resistive, because with such a load, there is no way for the current to be out of phase with the voltage.
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.17, 11:57:14
Need more time to hone this into a workable scheme.
Do you see any orthogonal magnetic fluxes in this scheme ?
Quote from: lfarrand on 2023.12.17, 11:47:17
I scoured the KIPO database and found the patent application. I've attached the original copy in Korean, along with a machine translated English verison.
Thanks for the patent application links.
This thing is just a bad joke.
bi
I've attempted to bring out the details from the presentation slide shown in the video.
(https://i.ibb.co/tcGHx1t/Slide-details.png) (https://ibb.co/ftgXnT5)
Far better to show the exploded view in the patent. Here the core 40 is pure iron in the form of a tube so that it can be kept cool by forcing air through it. Temperature is important because the pure iron has to be heat treated in the presence of some carbon (white charcoal?) to alter is demagnetization time. From the waveform images in the patent the iron has to hold its magnetization after the driving current is switched off, so I was nearly correct my assumption of square loop material. In the exploded view there are two coils labelled 10 and three labelled 20. The actual device has more than that. The coils 20 are connected in series and are the output secondary. The coils 10 are the input and are connected in parallel and driven with narrow pulses that alternate in polarity. Each coil has a pure iron (also heat treated) annulus 90 top and bottom and they are insulated from each other by plastic annuli 80. When they have a number of these stacks working together the annuli pole pieces 90 are joined to the mating pole pieces in the adjacent stacks
Smudge
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.17, 13:42:38
Do you see any orthogonal magnetic fluxes in this scheme ?
Not at the moment but now I know their magnetic configuration I will work up a finite element simulation.
Smudge
I found a couple more patents natively written in English that might be easier to read / understand.
Thanks for those patent applications, they are certainly more readable, although not without typos (whoever did the translations has got pole pieces 90 and insulation plates 80 (as in the Korean originals) mixed up number wise). The significant feature here is that unlike normal transformers the Fe core members are deliberately driven into a semi-permanent magnetized state by short pulses of current. Normal permament magnetization has a natural demagnetization time of years. Here they have treated the Fe to have a natural demagnetization time of 1/450 of a second or less. That is something quite new and allows a system to be derived where alternate states of semi-permanent magnetization are achieved with narrow pulses of current. During the natural demagnetization (which is thermally driven) the reducing flux in the secondary coils induces voltage to drive current through the load. That is my take on the new science here.
Smudge
.
Surely you all recognize this AISEG device?
It's the Buforn patent #57955 from 1914. The main difference is a logic controller instead of a commutator.
Look at the coil arrangements.
Quote from: Cadman on 2023.12.19, 13:37:20
Surely you all recognize this AISEG device?
It's the Buforn patent #57955 from 1914. The main difference is a logic controller instead of a commutator.
Look at the coil arrangements.
It's hard to say what we see.
Does anyone know how AISEG works? Because I do not know.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2023.12.20, 08:56:11
Does anyone know how AISEG works? Because I do not know.
If you look at their patents and the certificates of testing avaiable on their web site they use a series of short duration current pulses fed into a number of primary coils on a complex magnetic core arrangement. The first certificate quotes a duty cycle of 1.3% on with 98.7% off, and the second certificate quotes 0.5% on with 99.5% off. The output of the transformer is pseudo AC at 60 Hz. So this isn't a normal transformer. How can the transformer fill in the gaps between the pulses to get near a smooth AC waveform? IMO they use the fact that a narrow pulse can magnetize the core and that magnetization can hold there after the pulse has ended. How long can it hold? It can be years as in permanent magnetism. But SEMP claim they can get the core material to naturally lose its magnetism over a short period of time. So between the pulses you have naturally decaying magnetism that can be used to induce voltage into a loaded secondary and deliver power to a load. How much power, how much energy? The usual answer to that question is that you cannot get out more energy than that required to create the magnetism, i.e. that put in during the narrow driving pulse. But what is the science behind that answer? Has this ever been investigated? This "natural" loss of magnetization is driven by thermal considerations, the magnetically aligned domains gradually lose their alignment due to thermal fluctuations. Imagine we perform a series of experiments on a transformer having the SEMP core material where we apply a single magnetizing pulse without a load connected, then we connect the load at the end of the pulse and let the decaying magnetization drive current into the load. We measure input and output energy. We repeat the experiment with ever decreasing value of load resistor. Do we reach a point where output energy equals input energy and no more? Note that the input energy is related to the permeability of the core material, the higher the permeability the lower the energy. But that may not apply to the output energy. I am not clever enough to answer this question but I am prepared to accept that SEMP may have the answer (but don't know they do as their explanation for their overunity result is sheer nonsense).
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.20, 11:16:45
...the magnetically aligned domains gradually lose their alignment due to thermal .
What about acoustic fluctuations ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.20, 11:16:45
If you look at their patents and the certificates of testing avaiable on their web site they use a series of short duration current pulses fed into a number of primary coils on a complex magnetic core arrangement. The first certificate quotes a duty cycle of 1.3% on with 98.7% off, and the second certificate quotes 0.5% on with 99.5% off. The output of the transformer is pseudo AC at 60 Hz. So this isn't a normal transformer. How can the transformer fill in the gaps between the pulses to get near a smooth AC waveform? IMO they use the fact that a narrow pulse can magnetize the core and that magnetization can hold there after the pulse has ended. How long can it hold? It can be years as in permanent magnetism. But SEMP claim they can get the core material to naturally lose its magnetism over a short period of time. So between the pulses you have naturally decaying magnetism that can be used to induce voltage into a loaded secondary and deliver power to a load. How much power, how much energy? The usual answer to that question is that you cannot get out more energy than that required to create the magnetism, i.e. that put in during the narrow driving pulse. But what is the science behind that answer? Has this ever been investigated? This "natural" loss of magnetization is driven by thermal considerations, the magnetically aligned domains gradually lose their alignment due to thermal fluctuations. Imagine we perform a series of experiments on a transformer having the SEMP core material where we apply a single magnetizing pulse without a load connected, then we connect the load at the end of the pulse and let the decaying magnetization drive current into the load. We measure input and output energy. We repeat the experiment with ever decreasing value of load resistor. Do we reach a point where output energy equals input energy and no more? Note that the input energy is related to the permeability of the core material, the higher the permeability the lower the energy. But that may not apply to the output energy. I am not clever enough to answer this question but I am prepared to accept that SEMP may have the answer (but don't know they do as their explanation for their overunity result is sheer nonsense).
Smudge
I've also seen this data.
It used to be the same thing with SR193, if you know its device. Similar to Kapanadze.
He mentions that the magnetic core changes its magnetization by applying short pulses to it. Turns into a generator.
This effect has the basis of stochastic resonance. That's how he explained it.
The core is subjected to a special process of magnetization and demagnetization, causing the magnetic domains to crack. That's what he called it.
If you compare it, it has a lot of similarities.
We also see iron pads in the device. It looks like a magnetic field separator. The function of this may vary. It may be that this slows down the magnetic field or isolates it from impulses or something else.
I see that they produced and even tried to sell these generators in 2021.
Quote from: verpies on 2023.12.20, 11:52:16
What about acoustic fluctuations ?
Vibration supports demagnetization and magnetization.
I checked it personally, but it takes a lot of power to hit the iron core to create a magnetic field.
You can't hear the vibrations, but it is true that the patent mentions vibrations and it is even shown in the drawing. The entire core is screwed tightly. They explain it by the better work of the coils, because the closer they are, the better. We now know it's true.
Some interesting points made. I enjoy those from smudge.
Contemplating what he says, occurs to me this is nothing more than a dc/dc forward converter with a strange transformer.
Any energy derived from ferromagnetic material during demagnetization surely is less than what was required to magnetize it.
bi
Quote from: Smudge on 2023.12.20, 11:16:45
If you look at their patents and the certificates of testing avaiable on their web site they use a series of short duration current pulses fed into a number of primary coils on a complex magnetic core arrangement. The first certificate quotes a duty cycle of 1.3% on with 98.7% off, and the second certificate quotes 0.5% on with 99.5% off. The output of the transformer is pseudo AC at 60 Hz. So this isn't a normal transformer. How can the transformer fill in the gaps between the pulses to get near a smooth AC waveform? IMO they use the fact that a narrow pulse can magnetize the core and that magnetization can hold there after the pulse has ended. How long can it hold? It can be years as in permanent magnetism. But SEMP claim they can get the core material to naturally lose its magnetism over a short period of time. So between the pulses you have naturally decaying magnetism that can be used to induce voltage into a loaded secondary and deliver power to a load. How much power, how much energy?
I can break down this a bit.
The very short pulses can be used to charge resonant LC circuit(if there is any) but not for causing proper induction directly. Unless I missed something when having materials BH curves in mind. There is minimum time required depending of material to cause induction.
The magnetic memory of material keep magnetized state for period of time. But magnetization decay by itself is not enough to induce any serious amps on coils.
I would go over with magnets and coils relationship but because the coils there are black boxes, no one knows their components.
Ultimately when the claim is over unity it must be looped to prove it and power itself. Otherwise we are down to measurement errors and many other causes of incorrect data.
And if it is real overunity the process caused by catalyst input power must be identified as power source.
Cheers!
Quote from: bistander on 2023.12.21, 15:10:04
Any energy derived from ferromagnetic material during demagnetization surely is less than what was required to magnetize it.
bi
If you supply a current pulse to deliberately demagnetize the core I would agree with you. But I am suggesting this is not the case. The magnetization decays of its own accord over a short time period like 2mS. That will induce a voltage into a coil hence also current into a load. What evidence is there for the quantity of energy that can be extracted under this condition? Has anyone done the experiment? I have masses of data on the characterisitics of iron but nowhere can I find data on this peculiar non-permanent form of magnetism. We have permanant magnetism and soft magnetism but nothing in between. The magnetic field energy stored in the inter-atomic space far exceeds the energy you supply in the magnetizing pulse (F6 will disagree), is it possible that this natural decay of magnetization gives access to that energy? Can some clever atomic physicist answer the question?
Smudge
Smudge
How about reconnection theory ? Ferrite is soaked with Earth magnetic field , which is then repelled out of the core by short pulse of external energy source and then reconnection occurs generating excess energy from Earth field. Radiant energy is produced.
My wild guess....
Hope all your New Year dreams come true!
:D O0
Some photos
Thanks @maxmalone - where were these photos from?
A reverse image search of the top one indicates that some were taken at this presentation in 2017:
http://www.womancs.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=40675
Here is a google translation from the Korean:
The photos are from Google using the keyword: aiseg
you have to look in old resources
Thanks. It seems that a year later (Nov 2018) they were trying to sell systems to Vietnam.
https://www.newsprime.co.kr/news/article/?no=437283
Google translation below:
Quote from: Havercake on 2024.01.04, 16:48:08
Thanks. It seems that a year later (Nov 2018) they were trying to sell systems to Vietnam.
https://www.newsprime.co.kr/news/article/?no=437283
Google translation below:
I wonder why there isn't any more information.
They have reportedly signed a dozen or so contracts to deliver many units. There is no information whether it was a fraud or the orders were completed.
It's 2024. They explained this by the lack of valid patents. Only in 2022 did they receive several patents. What's next ?
QuoteI wonder why there isn't any more information
Yes - it is all rather mysterious.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.04, 17:21:39
I wonder why there isn't any more information.
They have reportedly signed a dozen or so contracts to deliver many units. There is no information whether it was a fraud or the orders were completed.
It's 2024. They explained this by the lack of valid patents. Only in 2022 did they receive several patents. What's next ?
It was patented by Buforn in 1914
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.04, 17:21:39
I wonder why there isn't any more information.
...
The likely reason is that the first scam failed, so they're trying to relaunch it to get new investors.
Who can believe that in 5 years we'll have more than today, when 5 years after their 2017 announcement, nothing has come out, contrary to their forecasts?
I don't see anything convincing in their announcements, they can't even provide the 70 patents they're talking about, nor the reports of the expert appraisals allegedly carried out by independent companies, some of which are claimed to be American, but I didn't hear any names given in response to the person who asked for them in one of the COP28 videos.
I saw no development on the theoretical aspect, nor on the origin of the additional energy.
Finally, their site is full of references to a clean, green world, which is typical of the environmentalist conditioning we've seen around past scams, the latest with Hxxxx. Last but not least, references to an AI for surfing on trendy topics don't bode well.
Edit : name covered) pm sent)
...
F6FLT - 70 patents? I think it's about all the patents of their activities.
This is a research institute of Korea. This is how they introduce themselves. Is this a planned fraud? Who is behind this? Korean government?
This is some nonses. On the other hand, they sign contracts. How is it possible that Arabs buy blindly?
Their website looks like a typical green energy scam website, I agree with that.
"This is some sonses."
What is 'sonses'?
Thanks in advance.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.01.05, 15:20:53
"This is some sonses."
What is 'sonses'?
Thanks in advance.
bi
oh... This is some nonses.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.05, 16:34:51
oh... This is some nonses.
Thanks. That is nonsense. Makes sense now.
bi
I am writing a paper with the title Remanent Magnetism as an Energy Source. Below is the introduction chapter. When you have read this are you still convinced the SEMP system is a scam?
Smudge
Everyone skilled in the science of magnetism or electromagnetism knows about remanent magnetism, the magnetic field BR that exists within ferromagnetic material after the current that creates the field is turned off. There are two features of ferromagnetic materials that are important: -
• For permanent magnets it is desirable that the remanent field remains permanent throughout its operating environment. Temperature affects this, at temperatures above the Curie point the field disappears completely and near the Curie point the field degrades. "Hard" materials for permanent magnets have been developed to maximise their BR values and to have high Curie temperatures well above their operating environment, leading to magnets that hold their magnetization for tens of years or more.
• For transformer cores it is desirable to have zero remanent field. This is not achievable, but "soft" materials have been developed to have sufficiently small BR that the resultant area of their BH loop is small, thus minimising core losses. As these use alternating polarity fields the remanence alternates hence the any permanent nature of the field is of little consequence.
Throughout the years of power transformer development, it appears that no attention has been paid to materials that might exhibit semi-permanent magnetism, where the magnetism is ephemeral, presumably no one could see any practical use. Here the material is magnetized to a field BR with a current pulse, then with no further current input the field decays to zero. It is expected that this might happen at temperatures near the Curie point, so this feature would be a thermal effect. That this might happen at ambient temperature has not been a consideration, hence it appears no work has been carried out to achieve this. Until now!
The SEMP Research Institute is a South Korean Group that has a partnership with Global Solutions for Project Management in Abu Dhabi. Their AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator (AISEG) recently demonstrated at the COP28 Summit held in Dubai is claimed to have efficiency significantly greater than 100%, and a study of their patent applications reveal they use within their transformers a unique core material, pure iron that has undergone a special form of treatment. They claim that this treatment yields a demagnetization time can be as little as 1/450 seconds (2.22mS). They do not state how their system uses this feature, but further study of their patent applications shows that it relies on ephemeral remanence BR where the magnetic field decays naturally with that order of demagnetization time. A study of their waveforms reveal that the magnetizing is performed by narrow pulses of current at a pulse rate of 120 per second. Their over-unity efficiencies reach highest values at the narrowest pulse widths where they quote a 0.5% duty cycle. That is 41.7μS pulses repeated every 8.33mS. During the 8.29mS off-time a separate series of coils obtain induced voltage from the decaying magnetism that then feed current to the load. With their heat treatment process creating such short demagnetization times the field decay can be completed within the 8.29mS off-time ready for the next magnetizing pulse. During this time energy is being delivered to the load but no electrical energy is input. They alternate the magnetizing direction each 8.33mS so the output voltage waveforms appear as pseudo 60Hz AC. The question then remains, can energy in each output pulse exceed the initial input energy needed to magnetize the iron? The standard answer to this question given by most scientists is NO, Conservation of Energy (CoE) demands this. But during the output pulse Lenz's Law tells you that the induced current is trying to stop the remanent BR decay, something at present unknown is causing that decay and that is the driving force for the output energy. Thus, that unknown driving force could be the source of excess energy, and when that source is considered CoE is satisfied. If the SEMP claims of efficiencies far exceeding 100% are true, then perhaps the answer to the above question is YES. This paper investigates this possibility.
It should be noted that ephemeral remanence (BR fields that decay naturally without any electrical stimulation) is an unknown feature of magnetism that is currently not taught or studied. One possibility is that this is a thermal phenomenon, thermal agitation of the atomic dipoles responsible for the magnetism causes them to lose their spatial alignment. If so, then excess energy could be received thermally, the system could extract heat energy from the environment, in effect acting as a heat pump. A magnetic refrigeration heat pump is a known process that currently uses exotic materials like gadolinium and praseodymium. Clearly iron is a much cheaper material for that use. The iron cores used in the SEMP system are not solid but are thin-walled tubes through which air is passed. Although they claim this is for cooling purposes it could equally be the opposite.
A second possibility is that the BR decay comes from quantum uncertainty disturbing the dipole alignments in which case energy is extracted from the aether in which everything lies. Until this ephemeral BR is investigated we will not know, but in view of the SEMP claims such investigations should take place.
This device can be easily compared to other similar devices, e.g. Meyer. They also have similar coil settings and a pure iron core. Mayer writes that it is a transmutation of iron. It's possible that we don't fully understand what's going on. Whether the magnetic domains are rotated or aligned. What causes this rapid process where not much energy is needed. This is what SR193 wrote about. "We have mages managed." The pulse reverses the magnetic field in the ferrite for a short pulse.
Maybe it's just something similar, but very similar.
The color of the SMEP core does not resemble the appearance of iron and is probably painted with paint. This is even described in the patent. After the technological process, it is protected with e.g. oil. or in this case, maybe paint.
Residual magnetization is always a problem in a regular transformer, that's true, but how can it work for us?
example: we have a glass with water. We pour out 90% and something remains at the bottom. 10% water. How can we pour out 100% of the water and have 10% at the bottom?
I know this isn't a perfect example, but maybe it's enough to understand that it doesn't work like that.
Rather closer to what Mayer writes.
Hello Smudge, will you post the article here when it is finished/published, or will it be available to read? I am very interested in reading the rest.
@Smudge
Your idea that heat would be the cause of demagnetization after the pulse and therefore the source of the energy, is within the realm of theoretical possibility.
However, the magnetization energy also depends on the heat; it must be greater when the magnetic dipoles are thermally agitated, since more effort is required to align them. Otherwise, it would be a Maxwell demon. If nothing demonstrates in the general case the theoretical impossibility of a Maxwell demon, on the other hand it remains very uncertain and requires an unmistakable experimental demonstration. If the OU is as significant as they say, the cooling would surely not have gone unnoticed, but they don't talk about it. They only speak of an asymmetry of physical phenomena, of CP violation, and of the coupling of magnetic moments in resonance, all things where, moreover, the conservation of energy applies as everywhere. So I don't see the point in imagining what they themselves don't propose.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.01.08, 18:35:22
@Smudge
Your idea that heat would be the cause of demagnetization after the pulse and therefore the source of the energy, is within the realm of theoretical possibility.
However, the magnetization energy also depends on the heat; it must be greater when the magnetic dipoles are thermally agitated, since more effort is required to align them. Otherwise, it would be a Maxwell demon. If nothing demonstrates in the general case the theoretical impossibility of a Maxwell demon, on the other hand it remains very uncertain and requires an unmistakable experimental demonstration. If the OU is as significant as they say, the cooling would surely not have gone unnoticed, but they don't talk about it. They only speak of an asymmetry of physical phenomena, of CP violation, and of the coupling of magnetic moments in resonance, all things where, moreover, the conservation of energy applies as everywhere. So I don't see the point in imagining what they themselves don't propose.
The magnetization energy is easily derived from the BH characteristic and does not depend significantly on heat. I do not see this as a Maxwell demon. Here is my latest paper on the subject.
Smudge
Smudge
QuoteThey claim this treatment yields a demagnetization time that can be
as little as 1/450 seconds (2.22mS), but they do not define what they mean by
"demagnetization time". Also they do not state how their system uses this
feature, but further study of their patent applications shows that it relies on
ephemeral remanence BR where the magnetic field decays naturally with that
order of demagnetization time.
I can add to this point from my work with induction and switched reluctance generators. SRG's magnetize a moving iron rotor core as it aligns with a stator coil. We magnetize the rotor core with an impulse on alignment and as the rotor core moves away from the stator coil the "changing magnetic field" induces an electric current in the coil. The generator function relies on the fact that the moving iron core changes the stator magnetic field faster than a stationary iron core.
Stationary iron rotor core and stator coil = inductor
Moving iron core and stationary stator coil = generator.
As we can see the only requirement to produce an "induction generator" is that the magnetic field change more than expected. Simply put, induction and power generation only occur when a magnetic field changes and the amount of change determines the power generated. In other words, the stator coil does not care whether the magnetic field is moving away or collapses faster than expected (demagnetization) because the field change the coil experiences is the same.
As Faraday eluded concerning induction, it does not matter how the field change occurs only that it does.
AC
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.12, 16:45:52
The magnetization energy is easily derived from the BH characteristic and does not depend significantly on heat. I do not see this as a Maxwell demon. Here is my latest paper on the subject.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Nice job on the white paper. I think I am able to understand. I do wonder, when looking at the demagnetization, why you're not in quadrant 2. And then using a permeance coefficient and recoil permeability yielding a B value much lower than B
r.
Beyond that, using the energy represented by the areas in the shown B H curves, the volume of iron, assumed current and frequency, can the approximate energy be calculated and compared to the input?
Personally I don't believe this "hysteresis energy" can come anywhere close to the magnitude they claim. My experience with wound field motors and generators is that iron (steel) hysteresis loss (energy) amounts to only a few percent of rated power output. I don't see why this ephemeral retentivity would not be on the same order of magnitude.
As with many of these FE or OU schemes of which I am skeptical, I hope I'm wrong.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.01.13, 06:18:20
Hi Smudge,
Nice job on the white paper. I think I am able to understand. I do wonder, when looking at the demagnetization, why you're not in quadrant 2. And then using a permeance coefficient and recoil permeability yielding a B value much lower than Br.
In normal transformer operation magnetization and demagnetization both occur in the first quadrant. The demagnetization there is only partial (from Bmax down to Brem). The remaining demagnetization (from Brem down to zero) takes place in the second quadrant. (The process then repeats itself on the second half cycle in quadrants 3 and 4) SEMP ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN TRANSFORMER THEORY, SOMETHING UNLNOWN TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, TRANSFORMER ENGINEERS, MAGNETIC ENGINEERS, PHYSICISTS, PHYSICS PROFESSORS, SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORLD. They magnetize to Brem in the first quadrant with a current pulse that rises then falls back to zero. THE FINAL DEMAGNETIZATION FROM Brem DOWN TO ZERO OCCURS DUE TO SOME UNKNOWN PHENOMENON THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERMALLY DRIVEN. So there is nothing to drive the system into the second quadrant. The Lenz clamping load current in that part of the cycle keeps the driving H in the first quadrant. (Then there is a repeat at opposite polarity where you get quadrant 3 involved)
Smudge
Quote from: bistander on 2024.01.13, 06:18:20
Personally I don't believe this "hysteresis energy" can come anywhere close to the magnitude they claim. My experience with wound field motors and generators is that iron (steel) hysteresis loss (energy) amounts to only a few percent of rated power output. I don't see why this ephemeral retentivity would not be on the same order of magnitude.
As with many of these FE or OU schemes of which I am skeptical, I hope I'm wrong.
bi
Why do think that two different loops that have different driving forces will have the same area?
Smudge
I would love to believe that SEMP discovered something no one has seen before, but let's be realistic. The core would have to be prepared in a previously unknown way. However, adding carbon is not a miracle mechanism because this method has been used for a long time. It's called carbonizing, right.
You are talking about slowing down the demagnetization process and demagnetizing it spontaneously. Have you ever had a coil with a core and a load? What you call demagnetization is the BEMF force that acts every time for in and out. When the current from the coil is disconnected, the coil tends to get rid of the magnetic field, right. If the transformer core maintains magnetism then it stops demagnetization because it cannot do so. The core is, for example, a magnet. You won't make the magnet act as a transformer core. This is why there is a problem here.
The SEMP core would have to exhibit additional properties. E.g. magnetize with a small pulse up to 100% of its magnetic field. So, for example, a 1% pulse causes 100% core magnetization. Yes? what about demagnetization? here we now have another problem. A load that is constant.
Disturbing things should be noticed, such as the removal of information from websites that informed about SEMP. Why ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.13, 09:26:54
Why do think that two different loops that have different driving forces will have the same area?
Smudge
Would not B H loops with the same area represent equal energies? Could their iron be that much different than motor lamination, like 10's of orders of magnitude?
You spent time showing B H area energy. I thought you were implying the excess energy was originating there. How does it relate?
My point is, even if all the energy (area encompassed B H) was converted to electrical output, it falls way short of what they claim. I was hoping that you may have some evidence of the magnitude of that B H energy from your analysis. I can just go on my gut here as I no longer have the analytical capability.
Thanks.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.01.13, 09:59:09
Would not B H loops with the same area represent equal energies? Could their iron be that much different than motor lamination, like 10's of orders of magnitude?
You spent time showing B H area energy. I thought you were implying the excess energy was originating there. How does it relate?
My point is, even if all the energy (area encompassed B H) was converted to electrical output, it falls way short of what they claim. I was hoping that you may have some evidence of the magnitude of that B H energy from your analysis. I can just go on my gut here as I no longer have the analytical capability.
Thanks.
bi
In the case of motor laminations you are thinking of the BH loop that represents losses, and it is close to the situation tht occurs when there is no mechanical load. There is another BH loop that includes the H from the load current, and that has a different and greater area, representing the situation when the motor is delivering power. The SEMP also has two BH loops. One is the input loop that I show having the green area as energy input while not delivering any output. The other is the output loop I show when it is delivering energy while not consuming any input. So two different loops under different conditions. No so different from the motor really.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.13, 15:04:47
In the case of motor laminations you are thinking of the BH loop that represents losses, and it is close to the situation tht occurs when there is no mechanical load. There is another BH loop that includes the H from the load current, and that has a different and greater area, representing the situation when the motor is delivering power. The SEMP also has two BH loops. One is the input loop that I show having the green area as energy input while not delivering any output. The other is the output loop I show when it is delivering energy while not consuming any input. So two different loops under different conditions. No so different from the motor really.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Thanks for the reply. So use a wound field DC motor/generator as example. The armature has a flux field or vector due to load current. The field excitation (field coil current) produces a main field or flux vector. The two combine to make an air gap flux wave (resultant vector). Mathematical resultant is cross product of armature flux
vector and field flux vector, which produces torque. The difference between the no-load air gap flux and loaded air gap flux is described as armature distortion or armature reaction.
The magnetic domains in the armature steel see a single round trip around the characteristic B H hysteresis curve for passage of a pole pair during rotation. The steel in the field yoke and poles shoes experience different hysteresis ranging from no-change to minor loops depending on location and geometry. The machine hysteresis loss includes all loops so is different loaded to no-load, but typically that difference is small.
In DC machines, another point of reference is the calculation of the mmf ratio, field to armature. For good performance/torque production, at full load, is desired near 1 : 1. Did your simulation provide such a ratio?
I don't see a drastic difference between the magnetic material cycling in the cores of the DC generator and the SEMP, except for magnetic circuit air gap length.
I'll study those B H curves in your paper in light of what you've said here. Thanks again.
bi
:D
I tried it in the past, and I try it again now: measuring the 220V winding of an iron-core transformer with a normal multimeter will receive an electric shock if your finger is between the pen and the terminal of the multimeter when you leave the pen of the multimeter.
In the past, it was only said that the back EMF increased the voltage of the winding.
Now looking at the energy, it seems that the energy sent to the transformer by the multimeter is not up to the intensity experienced by the electric shock.
Maybe measuring transformers has the same principle as SEMP?
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.13, 09:49:23
I would love to believe that SEMP discovered something no one has seen before, but let's be realistic. The core would have to be prepared in a previously unknown way. However, adding carbon is not a miracle mechanism because this method has been used for a long time. It's called carbonizing, right.
You are talking about slowing down the demagnetization process and demagnetizing it spontaneously.
That last sentence makes no sense, spontaneous is the opposite of slowing down. What SEMP claim is the forging process of carbonising (that usually uses rapid quenching by plunging into cold liquid) can use very slow quenching (cooling) like 10 hours, and this can give the iron a new characteristic that has not been used before. So it is different from the usual carbonizing.
QuoteHave you ever had a coil with a core and a load? What you call demagnetization is the BEMF force that acts every time for in and out.
You may call it BEMF but let's be clear, in this case it is an EMF (voltage) that comes from the flux changing wrt to time. The term BEMF is usually applied to electric motors, not transformers. It occurs on flux rise and on flux fall.
QuoteWhen the current from the coil is disconnected, the coil tends to get rid of the magnetic field, right.
You use the term "tends to" and I assume you mean that the current fall to zero is what creates the demagnetization. That is correct but it doesn't get rid of all the field and what remains is known as the remanent field Brem. Look at the BH loop for transformer steel and it is there at H=0.
QuoteIf the transformer core maintains magnetism then it stops demagnetization because it cannot do so. The core is, for example, a magnet. You won't make the magnet act as a transformer core. This is why there is a problem here.
That Brem is not a problem in transformers because it gets wiped away each half cycle, but it does occur. And if you disconnect the coil at that Brem point it stays there. Science recognises that Brem as permanent magnetism and it is a problem in power transformers when they have undergone certain tests, see this thesis https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2b2413f35e4c331eJmltdHM9MTcwNTE5MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0wODk2NTMwNC05MzMxLTY0NTAtMGY1MS00MmVjOTczMTYyNmUmaW5zaWQ9NTIwMQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=08965304-9331-6450-0f51-42ec9731626e&psq=Optimal+Demagnetization+of++Transformer+After+Winding++Resistance+Measurements&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9rdGguZGl2YS1wb3J0YWwub3JnL3NtYXNoL2dldC9kaXZhMjoxNTM3NjU4L0ZVTExURVhUMDEucGRm&ntb=1. (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2b2413f35e4c331eJmltdHM9MTcwNTE5MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0wODk2NTMwNC05MzMxLTY0NTAtMGY1MS00MmVjOTczMTYyNmUmaW5zaWQ9NTIwMQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=08965304-9331-6450-0f51-42ec9731626e&psq=Optimal+Demagnetization+of++Transformer+After+Winding++Resistance+Measurements&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9rdGguZGl2YS1wb3J0YWwub3JnL3NtYXNoL2dldC9kaXZhMjoxNTM3NjU4L0ZVTExURVhUMDEucGRm&ntb=1.)
So normal transformer steel does have some permanent magnetism, it is a magnet, and transformers do work OK.
QuoteThe SEMP core would have to exhibit additional properties. E.g. magnetize with a small pulse up to 100% of its magnetic field. So, for example, a 1% pulse causes 100% core magnetization. Yes?
What do you mean by a 1% pulse? Do you mean pulse amplitude, if so 1% of what? SEMP use a small pulse
time but of amplitude to get your 100% magnetization. That is not a problem.
Quotewhat about demagnetization? here we now have another problem. A load that is constant.
The demagnetization is not a problem, it occurs naturally on its own with no outside help. That is what SEMP have discovered with their long cooling time for the carbonizing process. And it happens fast enough for a significant voltage (your BEMF) to be induced into a coil and drive current through a load.
QuoteDisturbing things should be noticed, such as the removal of information from websites that informed about SEMP. Why ?
What information has been removed, can you be more specific.
Smudge
Explain to me where is the excess energy that SEMP discovered? I know you're going to tell me that it's from the core, but it's about an analogy, if that's possible.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.14, 13:46:45
Explain to me where is the excess energy that SEMP discovered? I know you're going to tell me that it's from the core, but it's about an analogy, if that's possible.
No it is not from the core. It is something that causes the core to lose its remanent magnetic field when there is no electrical drive to do this. As I state in my paper this could be thermal whereby the system draws in heat energy from its surroundings. The fact that SEMP pump air through the center of their cores is where that heat energy comes in, if it is a thermal effect. It could be more fundamental than that involving Heisenberg uncertainty knocking the billions of magnetic dipoles that create the field out of their alignment. Whatever it is it is something new within transformer operation. Let me give you an example of an experiment that illustrates the effect. We take a transformer, pass current through a coil to magnetize it then turn the current off. Now we heat the thing up towards its Curie temperature and while we do this we look for any voltage across the coil. When it reaches the Curie point the magnetic field disappears so we see a voltage spike. We can have a resistor across the coil and that resistor will receive an energy pulse. Now we reduce the temperature to just below below the Curie point and remagnetize the core. Increase the temperature again and get another energy spike out. We keep doing this so we get a train of input energy spikes and a train of output energy spikes. We find that the output energy exceeds the input energy but we are not surprised because we have another energy source that is thermal. We might find that we do not need to do the alternate heating cooling. If we hold the temperature just below the Curie point we might find that after the first magnetizing pulse the field decays quickly on ts own due to the significant thermal agitation of the dipoles. We get an output energy spike into our load resistor. Then we repeat the process to get trains of pulses. That is what SEMP do. Maybe their temperature controlled cabinet does just that, holds the transformers near Curie temperature.
Smudge
I really like your explanation of the Curie point but it would have to be at a reasonable temperature of about 300C because the wires won't hold. They write about it, but I don't know if that's what they meant.
Such a process must be very accurate with respect to the magnetic field decay temperature. Heating and cooling 120 times per second. Is it possible ? This worries me a bit.
ex.: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-OFcHG969mQ
Let's think: To control this process, it would be necessary to constantly monitor the temperature or changing demagnetization times. This would have to be described in a patent or at least visible in videos, but we only see a simple trigger circuit for the IGBT. It's Timer and drivers. That's all you can see.
Additionally, the presentations are in places such as the building and some outside, which changes the temperature. These may not be big changes, but they are there.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.14, 18:07:26
Heating and cooling 120 times per second. Is it possible ? This worries me a bit.
Me to worried it during a few year as well.
You have missed the point, you hold the temperature constant at just below Curie point. That creates the situation where Brem is not permanent, it decays in milliseconds.
Smudge
How does SEMP control this process?
max
QuoteI really like your explanation of the Curie point but it would have to be at a reasonable temperature of about 300C because the wires won't hold. They write about it, but I don't know if that's what they meant.
A more plausible theory would be that temperature has nothing to do with the effect.
Most of these devices use high frequency drives which generates a lot of heat by eddy currents aka induction heating. Now add in large thick coils stacked into a long cylinder where the heat has nowhere to go and a hollow air cooled core becomes obvious. As well higher frequencies require less core material so a solid core becomes a liability.
My guess is they may have used something like a thin wall amorphous metal tube which may or may not involve magnetostriction or parametric power generation. Amorphous metals, aka metallic glass or metglass, is made by rapidly cooling molten metal before it can form a crystalline structure.
In fact, I talked with a few FE inventors building similar devices and induction heating effects were an issue. A few watts is hardly a problem but once we get into kilowatt power levels it's a big problem. No offense but I'm not buying into this thermal energy theory.
AC
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.14, 20:10:11
You have missed the point, you hold the temperature constant at just below Curie point. That creates the situation where Brem is not permanent, it decays in milliseconds.
Smudge
I know that's what it's about. The problem is that the time needed to change the temperature does not quite match 120 times per second. Not even up to 60Hz either.
Is there a current surge in the coil? The moment of demagnetization would have to be exactly at the moment of changing the polarization of the current or the opposite impulse.
Air will not be able to cool the core in this way.
The moment of starting the device would have to be delayed by the time the core warms up and then the temperature should be kept constant within a certain range.
It's not possible with what we see.
They even write about 40 kW and there is also information that they are building MW.
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.15, 07:28:35
I know that's what it's about. The problem is that the time needed to change the temperature does not quite match 120 times per second. Not even up to 60Hz either.
Let me make this clearer. I only mentioned changing the temperature to above and below the Curie point to get the message across that demagnetization by this method could deliver more energy out during the demagnetizing than was put in to do the magnetizing. I did not say this would be done 120 times per second. I then went on to suggest that if the temperature was held constant near the Curie point then the Brem would not remain constant but would decay on its own over a short period of time. It is the input current pulse to rmagnetize the core that is done 120 times per second.
QuoteIs there a current surge in the coil?
Of course there is, that is the whole point, that is the output pulse.
QuoteThe moment of demagnetization would have to be exactly at the moment of changing the polarization of the current or the opposite impulse.
No, no, no! There is no opposite impulse and the magnetizing current does not change polarization. The natural (thermally driven) demagnetization takes place immediately after the magnetizing pulse current ends.
QuoteAir will not be able to cool the core in this way.
If the excess energy in the output pulses is coming from the heat in the core that will be a cooling effect, and the blown air through the coil has to replace that heat. That is not a problem.
QuoteThe moment of starting the device would have to be delayed by the time the core warms up and then the temperature should be kept constant within a certain range.
It's not possible with what we see.
They even write about 40 kW and there is also information that they are building MW.
But if their discovery of milliseconds natural demagnetization time is at room temperature then the excess energy is taken from the room.
Smudge
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.01.14, 21:44:50
My guess is they may have used something like a thin wall amorphous metal tube which may or may not involve magnetostriction or parametric power generation. Amorphous metals, aka metallic glass or metglass, is made by rapidly cooling molten metal before it can form a crystalline structure.
No need to guess, they clearly state they use iron that has been forged and cooled in a certain manner. It is a thin walled tube. They claim that process gives the material the property where Brem is no longer permanent magnetism, it decays on its own without any electrical help like a reversed current. We don't know what is driving that demagnetizing process but it is clear to me that SEMP use that to get their excess energy.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.15, 16:45:14
... but it is clear to me that SEMP use that to get their excess energy.
Smudge
Yes, if it's not fake.
These walls in the core are not that thin at all. The drawings in the patent show solid walls :-\
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.01.15, 18:53:11
Yes, if it's not fake.
These walls in the core are not that thin at all. The drawings in the patent show solid walls :-\
The patents show a tube, here is a screenshot with the item numbers overwritten by me. Yes the walls are not thin so there will be eddy current heating.
Smudge
And here is the full core but ok.
https://patents.google.com/patent/KR101913746B1/ko
See the images in this patent.
The story seems to change frequently.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.01.16, 17:11:42
https://patents.google.com/patent/KR101913746B1/ko
See the images in this patent.
The story seems to change frequently.
bi
That patent is for a DC-DC converter. I think their discovery of a Brem that is not permanent magnetism has created a transformer where the input current is "DC" (actually pulses of current in the same polarity) and the output is "DC" (pulses of current in the same polarity), and they have patented this. My guess is that while developing this they discovered they could get more power out than in and that led to the later patents.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.17, 11:38:06
That patent is for a DC-DC converter. I think their discovery of a Brem that is not permanent magnetism has created a transformer where the input current is "DC" (actually pulses of current in the same polarity) and the output is "DC" (pulses of current in the same polarity), and they have patented this. My guess is that while developing this they discovered they could get more power out than in and that led to the later patents.
Smudge
A la TPU, DC induction, but where does the current come from in this unit? In the TPU it is induced into the core capacitance and then used when a load is connected, it is more simple than you can imagine.
Regards
Mike
Yes, everything is definitely simple when you talk about it.
Why was S.Mark convicted of fraud? He took the money and never fulfilled his promises.
I know his story and what he said and wrote.
As far as I know, unfortunately, he is no longer alive.
it is sad: http://padrak.com/ine/SMARK.html
maxmalone
QuoteWhy was S.Mark convicted of fraud? He took the money and never fulfilled his promises.
I know his story and what he said and wrote.
As far as I know, unfortunately, he is no longer alive.
-moved response to "FE inventors being scammed" thread.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4584.msg110196;topicseen#msg110196
It appears that SEMP have discovered a heat treatment for iron that makes it superparamagnetic at a temperature somewhat above ambient but well below the Curie point. Superparamagnetic iron is different from the ferromagnetic iron/steel used in power transformer cores, and it is this difference that allows then to use pulses in transformers that operate in a hitherto impossible manner. That is a groundbreaking discovery that should be taken note of by the scientific establishment. It's a pity this important moment is obscured by SEMP's PR language that reads as nonsense to most scientists.
Smudge
The image below is taken from a publication dealing with remanent magnetization in rocks, but the important aspect here is the formula 3.13 it gives for the exponential decay of remanent magnetization after removal of the magnetizing field. It then gives Neel's formula 3.14 for the time constant of that decay. That time constant can range from fractions of a second to many years and the remainder of the paper considers time constants of 109 years. Our interest is in fractions of a second as claimed by SEMP. Here is the evidence that remanent magnetization can decay due to thermal agitation of the atomic dipoles responsible for the field in ferromagnetic materials such as transformer cores. And that occurs at temperatures below the Curie point. SEMP have discovered a method of getting iron to absrob carbon so that its remanent field is unstable and decays to zero very quickly after removal of the magnetizing field. If that quick change of field induces voltage into a coil connected to a load resistor we get energy out that is driven by that thermal agitation. So overunity operation is quite simple, magnetize the core with a current pulse taking energy from an electrical source, then use the remanent field decay to get energy out driven thermally. This is a new means for converting heat energy into electrical energy, it is a form of heat pump that has COP>>1.
Smudge
How would carbonised iron differ from soft ferrite in terms of the remanent magnetism? If you applied a DC pulse to carbonised iron and soft ferrite, how different would the magnetic decay be? Would it be orders of magnitude different?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_(magnet)?useskin=vector):
QuoteFerrites can be divided into two families based on their resistance to being demagnetized (magnetic coercivity).
"Hard" ferrites have high coercivity, so are difficult to demagnetize. They are used to make permanent magnets for applications such as refrigerator magnets, loudspeakers, and small electric motors.
"Soft" ferrites have low coercivity, so they easily change their magnetization and act as conductors of magnetic fields. They are used in the electronics industry to make efficient magnetic cores called ferrite cores for high-frequency inductors, transformers and antennas, and in various microwave components.
QuoteSoft ferrites are not permanent magnets. They have magnetism (much like mild steel), but when the magnetic field is removed, the magnetism decreases. Soft ferrites are commonly used as transformers (to change the voltage from primary to secondary windings). As a result, soft ferrites are also called transformer ferrites.They have a low coercivity. The low coercivity means the material's magnetization can easily reverse direction without dissipating much energy (hysteresis losses), while the material's high resistivity prevents eddy currents in the core, another source of energy loss.
Quote from: lfarrand on 2024.01.24, 12:10:05
How would carbonised iron differ from soft ferrite in terms of the remanent magnetism? If you applied a DC pulse to carbonised iron and soft ferrite, how different would the magnetic decay be? Would it be orders of magnitude different?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_(magnet)?useskin=vector):
The answer to your question is I don't know. I guess few people do know, the reason being that in soft ferrites used in transformers the decay time is not of interest as it doesn't directly affect the performance. The ideal soft ferrite has no remanence, the BH curve is a line that passes through the origin where B and H =0. However all known soft materials do have some remanence and its only effect in normal transformers is to determine the width of the BH loop and therefore the energy loss per cycle. If the ferrite has single domain grains that have dimensions of a few nanometers then according to that Neel formula the ferrite would have the decay time in milliseconds that SEMP found. Some ferrites are manufactured by grinding down to grains that are single domains but I suspect they are much larger then the nanometer size required for that fast decay. I think the SEMP carbonizing process creates the small domain size certainly at the surface of the iron where the carbon creates the domains at the molecular level. So it is likely that current ferrites have decay times that are orders of magnitude different from the carbonized iron. But has anyone ever measured the remanence decay in ferrites?
Smudge
@Smudge,
Some info you might find relevant to your take on this device.
I implemented a similar principle when designing my take on Figuera's device.
This link is to JLN labs 2sgen page. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, there are 2 pdfs under "Interesting documents to read" related to ferrites, heat, and energy extraction.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm)
In my opinion there may be another more plausible explanation.
It is well known that most amateur FE inventors usually attributed an energy gain to obvious sources like the atmosphere or ground. However most of these same inventors who continued there research later claimed they were mistaken. They devised ways to negate the need for an antenna or ground connection and the device still worked. They also isolated the devices ruling out external EM fields and ambient heat as the source of energy.
Case in point, Moray generated 20kW output from a circuit using switches, vacuum tubes and air core coils enclosed in a 24" x 16" wooden box. While this device did use an antenna later devices didn't require one.
The point being, almost all these inventors really had no idea where the energy came from and simply made something up to placate others or so they could patent. It's simply human nature to keep moving forward and sort out the details later.
Let's think about it, what better way to protect an intellectual property than to give details they know would lead everyone on a wild goose chase ie. a futile pursuit or search. This giving the inventors time to raise more funds, do more research and write better patents.
Here's another clue, most amateur FE inventors used iron cores but almost all senior inventors having more experience moved to air core coils. By amateur I mean, one lacking the skills or insight of others with more experience. More experienced FE inventors used iron cores in there voltage step up/step down transformers while the heart of the device used larger air core coils. In my opinion this rules out any effects related to an energy gain in iron cores or from heat specifically.
AC
Thank you Smudge for decoding the SEMP patents and the AISEG information. Your white paper shows a possibility for a unique device that may be possible to replicate, especially as there's nothing 'exotic' about the makeup of the AISEG that couldn't be tackled, except for the special heat treated iron core.
There are full service shops out there for carburizing, and there are many low cost methods for DIY heat treating. Because we don't know the exact heat treating process it may take many trials (expensive if using a service), so DIY ...
Thanks to phoneboy for linking to the JLN Labs 2SGen material as contained within it is a test method ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm)) to measure the ratio between the magnetization energy and the demagnetization energy of a pulsed coil. The test is for both states on one coil, but I think the test could be split across two coils (input and output). Or there are other test methods?
Core heat treatment, demagnetization test, adjust core heat treatment, demagnetization test, repeat and continue until success or surrender.
Just enough information available to incline one to cautiously investigate and experiment ...
In the attached image I've circled the JLN Labs mag/demag circuit.
tak
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.12, 16:45:52
The magnetization energy is easily derived from the BH characteristic and does not depend significantly on heat. I do not see this as a Maxwell demon...
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.14, 16:09:41
...As I state in my paper this could be thermal whereby the system draws in heat energy from its surroundings...
These statements are contradictory. A device that draws its energy from a single thermal bath, such as the environment, is a Maxwell demon.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.01.26, 12:11:00
These statements are contradictory. A device that draws its energy from a single thermal bath, such as the environment, is a Maxwell demon.
The natural demagnetization that is driven thermally (not driven electrically) but delivers electrical energy is a Maxwell demon. The magnetization that is driven electrically and absorbs electrical energy is not a Maxwell demon. Where is the contradiction in my statements?
Smudge
@ tak22
Thank you for your interest, you are the only person here who has shown willingness to do any follow up work. Sadly I am 90 years old in April this year and in no position to do any work on this.
That JLN and Zaev work uses magnetization and demagnetization that are both driven electrically, and looks for total electrical energy output from both the mag and demag stages that exceeds the total energy input for both stages. The SEMP system does not work like that. The SEMP demag stage is not driven electrically, there is no electrical energy supplied during that stage. Yes the work you propose will lead to core material that is optimised for Zaev's overunity systems and that is a good thing, but it may not reach material optimised for the SEMP system. What is needed is some method for determining the natural decay time of Brem, and the problem there is the only means we have of measuring Brem is by destroying it, so we can't easily obtain a plot of Brem against time.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.26, 16:04:47
What is needed is some method for determining the natural decay time of Brem, and the problem there is the only means we have of measuring Brem is by destroying it, so we can't easily obtain a plot of Brem against time.
Thanks Smudge. Yes I am interested in prodding myself and others to do follow up work!
Maybe determining the natural decay time is just a 'nice to know' value? If we can measure the energy taken from the output coil and it's greater in a 'magic iron core' vs a control core, then all is good? SEMP has isolated input and output coils, so use the JLN measurement circuit on the output coil to show energy out? More magic, faster Brem decay, more output? Electronics is a weak knowledge area for me.
tak
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.01.26, 15:34:43
The natural demagnetization that is driven thermally (not driven electrically) but delivers electrical energy is a Maxwell demon. ...
Smudge
It's not a Maxwell demon. It would have to provide useful power and be maintained without depletion.
F6 posted this reply on another bench https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4587.msg110319#msg110319 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4587.msg110319#msg110319)
QuoteI haven't heard that room temperature demagnetizes with the possibility of recovering energy at the same time, unless the ferromagnetic material was initially hotter than room temperature because it had just been magnetized.
If one studies the Neel equation in post #73 it tells you that ferromagnetic material consisting of single domain particles at room temperature will demagnetize exponentially with time, having a time constant that can be many years (permanent magnets) or fractions of a second (currently an unknown feature not used to any purpose). It should be clear to anyone skilled in electromagnetics that a decay of remanent magnetization in fractions of a second can induce voltage into a coil and drive current through a load, hence recovering some energy. Those same skilled people would likely accept that this one-shot energy pulse could occur at a hot temperature near the Curie point of the material. To then create a series of output pulses that yielded a useful average is clearly impracticable, the repetition frequency would be too low and the energy cost in heating and cooling would ensure overall efficiency close to zero. Whether the one-shot pulse input energy needed to magnetize is less than the one-shot output energy is a moot point not worth considering. Not surprisingly, also not considered is how near the Curie point would this impracticable system have to be. As F6 implies, the ferromagnetic material would have to be initially hotter than room temperature. And that begs the question, what is hot?
The Neel equation uses a thermal energy given by KT, where K is Boltzmann's constant and T is temperature,
and here it is absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin. That answers our question, an ambient temperature of 20°C is 293°K hot.
Our ferromagnetic material is 293 degrees hot, and that is 29% of the way towards the Curie point of electrical steel. Now the possibility that a ferromagnetic material can have a demagnetization time constant of milliseconds at room temperature is not pie-in-the-sky nonsense, such a material can exist. With such a material we can have a continual series of one-shot electrical magnetizing pulses each followed by thermally driven demagnetizing that delivers an electrical energy output pulse, and the average output is useful, this is practicable. Note that although this is thermally driven, there are not two thermal baths, only the one. Perhaps this points to the thermal agitation that creates the field decay being linked to quantum uncertainty, and this system is linked to the active aether that Tesla called the wheelwork of nature.
The ratio of the two energy pulses is now no longer moot. We know how to assess the input pulse energy, but how do we assess the output energy? If we wish to use our electromagnetic knowledge involving inductance and current, what inductance value should we use? If our remanent field is close to saturation, we know that the inductance is very low, the material has lost its high permeability and will have a value close to 1. Also, we know that by Lenz's law the output current will attempt to stop the demagnetizing thus holding the field close to this low inductance regime. Since this field decay is not driven electrically, it is quite possible that the output energy exceeds the magnetizing input energy where the high permeability, high inductance ensures that the remanent field is reached with very small input current and very little energy.
Why has this possibility not been considered before? The history of magnetic material development has followed various paths none of which has searched for fast remanent field decay. For permanent magnets and for magnetic recording the efforts have been in the opposite direction, retention of the field. For transformer cores the aims have been to extend frequency response and to minimise core loss, the latter leading to smaller remanent fields. For normal transformer operation the thermally driven decay time constant has been of no interest hence there is little evidence for this characteristic. Perhaps the difficulty in measuring this parameter in closed magnetic paths is another reason for the paucity of data. The ideal material for this new application is a high remanent field with a fast decay time-constant, and to date there has been no research into creating such material.
The superparamagnetic material obeying the Neel formula is an array of single domain particles. Some ferrites cores are made of such particles, the ferrite material is ground down to a fine dust where the grain size is a single domain. This material is put into a mould to create say a ring core, a toroidal current then aligns each grain dipole and the material is fired to produce a ring core with aligned domains that can flip to an alternative polarity if so desired. This creates highly anisotropic material that has desirable properties along the easy axis. But I guess no one has been interested in its remanent decay time constant.
Smudge
Smudge and all,
Here is a quote from a translated Russian paper titled 'THE PATH TO FUEL-FREE ENERGY LAYS THROUGH UNDERSTANDING THE OPERATION OF THE MAGNETIC CIRCUIT OF ELECTRICAL MACHINES' published in the Russian Physical Society.
"The work [5] describes the experimentally obtained excess of energy at the output of the transformer by 13.8 times compared to the energy supplied to the input of the transformer. That is, in this work Nikolai Emelyanovich Zaev (1925 – 2007), [6] proved that a device designed like a conventional transformer can be a source of energy if there is an isolation between the output and the input. In the experiments described in [5], this decoupling of the output and input was carried out by separating in time the process of supplying current to the primary winding of the transformer to magnetize the magnetic core and the process of taking energy from the secondary winding when connecting a load during demagnetization of the magnetic core."
Notice the bold statements I've highlighted which seems to give another means of separating core magnetization and demagnetization.
The paper is attached below.
Edit: I'd like to give credit to EF member 'straggl3r' for bringing this and other Russian docs to attention.
Regards,
Pm
Thank you Pm for this. I found this interesting
QuoteAfter Gennady Vasilyevich Nikolaev (1935 – 2008) redesigned standard transformers at one of the enterprises in Yekaterinburg, the enterprise began to pay an order of magnitude less for electricity. When the electricity supply company learned that the enterprise had not curtailed production, but continued to operate on the same scale, they went to court and after a court ruling, the transformers were cut up and removed from the territory of the enterprise, and standard transformers were installed in their place. G.V. Nikolaev was fired from the enterprise. That is, the method used by G.V. Nikolaev to release the energy of the magnetic fields of domains remained unknown.
I have been convinced for many years that the internal magnetic dipoles responsible for ferromgnetism (referred to as circular molecular currents in that paper) can be a source of energy. I am familiar with a number of Zaev's papers but this is the first time I have come across Ruchkin or Nikolaev. The high COP's quoted are borne out by my current theoretical work where the separation between magnetization and demagnetization are in the time domain as done by SEMP. I can get ridiculously high COP's so before publishing my findings I am examining the assumptions that could be wrong. One assumption is that the input energy needed to move from a fully or partially demagnetized state B to fully magnetized Bsat is given by (Bsat-B)*Hc/2 multiplied by the volume of the core where Hc is the coercive force. This says Hc is a constant that does not increase if the remanant magnetism has a fast decay, which is at odds with the presumption that the thermal agitation causing the decay will affect the magnetizing process and will increase Hc. While that presumption will satify the adherents to Conservation of Energy, it seems practical evidence shows it not to be true. SEMP claim Hc is reduced by their carbonizing process, not increased. I have turned my attention to assuming the excess energy coming out of the ferromagnetic material reduces the heat energy in the material, which seems reasonable as we know this demagnetization is a thermal effect. I am currently modifying my spreadsheet that computes things at a series of small time increments to include the temperature drop of the material at each time step. So far this is looking good as I am getting small fractions of a degree at each time step, so the possibility of this system converting environmental heat into electrical energy looks good. Clearly the cooling of the core material can be offset by thermal conduction of heat energy from the outside environment. I think this overlooked area of EM needs to be actively researched.
Smudge
Smudge,
Here are two more Russian papers, one on the subject and the other interesting.
Regards,
Pm
@Smudge
I always enjoy reading you because there's enthusiasm, ideas, facts and logic.
But I don't understand your method. Are you hoping to demonstrate OU using the classical formalism of physics? If so, you won't have found the OU, but an error in the equations of physics which, as everyone knows, guarantee the conservation of energy.
If I can understand a physical phenomenon that could produce free energy, such as tapping into an almost inexhaustible new source, it's not the conventional equations of physics that would demonstrate this, but experimentation. And then we'll have to see whether the equations of physics are wrong, or whether it's just that we hadn't integrated the hidden source of energy.
If I assume you're in the latter case, which I'm not sure you are, then what do you think the hidden source is? Where would the supposed OU come from? What will be depleted when used? Or is your idea that of a type 1 perpetual motion machine?
Regarding the Russian papers, I'd like someone to explain to me how an electron in a secondary circuit can be sensitive to the electric or magnetic field of an electron in the primary circuit, without the electron in the primary circuit detecting the electron in the secondary circuit.
According to Maxwell's electromagnetism, this is impossible. According to special relativity, which is totally compatible with electromagnetism, it's also impossible, and it's even easier to understand why: it's impossible to distinguish source from load, it's a question of simple relative motion between charges and an arbitrary convention for saying what's "source" and what's "load", or what's "primary" and what's "secondary".
These articles claiming huge COPs, which I had already seen a few years ago, seem to me highly far-fetched.
Asymmetrical coupling between coils is possible by mechanical means:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903
But as mentioned, it's "circumventing", and if you include the rotating part in the energy balance, everything still conforms to classical electromagnetism.
@F6,
I am following the known laws that give the electrical energy needed to magnetize a closed transformer core using known Bsat and Hc. I then allow Brem to decay with time while, during that decay, voltage is induced into a coil connected to a load resistor. Lenz's law means the current there creates a field opposes the decay, hence slows down that decay. I find the energy into the resistor exceeds the magnetization energy when the resistor falls below a certain value. If this does really happen then there must be a source for the excess energy. Since the decay of Brem is a thermal effect I see the heat energy stored in the core as the source, and the core temperature must fall. To continually obtain excess energy by repeating the mag/demag process the core must have thermal energy supplied to it from the outside environment. Thus this could be a new means of doing that, converting thermal energy into electrical energy. No new physical laws are needed, it is simply doing something that has not been done before. You may claim that getting electrical energy out cannot exceed the electrical energy in on the basis that the energy is first converted to magnetic energy then converted back the other way from magnetic to electric. I would point out that transformers do not work that way, the electrcal energy per cycle in and out far exceeds magnetic energy in the core. The laws of physics do not preclude the magnetic field being the carrier between thermal agitation input driving load current opposing that input in a similar manner to AC primary current driving AC secondary load current that opposes.
Smudge
(Typed on my phone so may have typos)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.28, 17:17:56
Regarding the Russian papers, I'd like someone to explain to me how an electron in a secondary circuit can be sensitive to the electric or magnetic field of an electron in the primary circuit, without the electron in the primary circuit detecting the electron in the secondary circuit.
Because there is an intermediary that takes over, the direct electric or magnetic field from one electron to the other is of no consequence.
QuoteAccording to Maxwell's electromagnetism, this is impossible. According to special relativity, which is totally compatible with electromagnetism, it's also impossible, and it's even easier to understand why: it's impossible to distinguish source from load, it's a question of simple relative motion between charges and an arbitrary convention for saying what's "source" and what's "load", or what's "primary" and what's "secondary".
If you want to invoke Maxwell you need to consider much more than simple primary electron to secondary electron action, the intermediary huge number of interactions is far more complex.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.28, 19:57:31
...The laws of physics do not preclude the magnetic field being the carrier between thermal agitation input driving load current opposing that input in a similar manner to AC primary current driving AC secondary load current that opposes.
...
The laws of physics, in particular thermodynamics, forbid this. Electromagnetism does not prohibit it, but only at the level of each individual charge. On the other hand, the random thermal motion of particles prevents them from cooperating to obtain a macroscopic effect that would enable useful work to be done. The laws of physics guarantee the conservation of energy. It's not a question of physics, but of the pure mathematical logic of the formalism utilized to express these laws.
I'm not saying that the idea is bad, I'm saying that it can't be justified by the laws of physics.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.28, 20:25:55
Because there is an intermediary that takes over, the direct electric or magnetic field from one electron to the other is of no consequence.
If you want to invoke Maxwell you need to consider much more than simple primary electron to secondary electron action, the intermediary huge number of interactions is far more complex.
Intermediaries only complicate engineering issues, not matters of principle.
When there's an intermediary, all you have to do is break down the analysis: [source] <=> [intermediary] and [intermediary] <=> [load].
As the principles apply to each pair, the intermediary brings nothing new but blurs the visibility. The paper (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903) I've already quoted is exemplary in this respect. The coupling between coils is asymmetrical, and we could claim victory - we've got a "magnetic diode", we'll be able to break the conservation of energy! But not at all. When you break the system down into two parts, coil 1 <=> rotating part and rotating part <=> coil 2, everything is explained and in the end you have nothing new, just a clever system for practical applications, but still strictly respecting the laws of physics and the conservation of energy.
@F6,
The Curie magnetic pendulum is a perpetual motion machine that works. It could be used to do useful work e.g. by a ratchet mechanism raising a weight. Clearly it is very inefficient but if the heat energy supplied were free you would get free energy. So here we have thermal energy influencing the magnetization of ferromagnetic material that by your reasoning cannot work. What do you say to that?
Smudge
F6FLT
QuoteThe laws of physics, in particular thermodynamics, forbid this. Electromagnetism does not prohibit it, but only at the level of each individual charge. On the other hand, the random thermal motion of particles prevents them from cooperating to obtain a macroscopic effect that would enable useful work to be done. The laws of physics guarantee the conservation of energy. It's not a question of physics, but of the pure mathematical logic of the formalism utilized to express these laws.
I'm not saying that the idea is bad, I'm saying that it can't be justified by the laws of physics.
Nonsense and to a large extent your assertion has already been proven false by meta and nano materials.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/127
Exorcising Maxwell's Demon
Yours is an outdated concept which Feynman touched on supposing we could never build a small enough lever to act on the atomic level. This relating to Maxwell's notion of a demon small enough to cherry pick or discriminate individual energy levels. Note this is 18th century thinking by old men using outdated and flawed concepts.
The moment I heard scientists were building atomic scale machines it became obvious to me that Feynman was misguided and wrong. The only objection he had was that we could not interact on that level but now we are in fact doing just that.
Here are some more clues...
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202212/plants.cfm
New Models Expand Thermodynamics to Humidity-Driven Engines That Mimic Plants
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a16045/evaporation-engine/
Here Is the World's First Engine Driven by Nothing But Evaporation
Here we can see intelligent minds at work that can actually evolve. We are not separate from nature but an integral part of it. Can your glorious physicists build a seed which extracts energy from it's environment for decades, which can grow, self-repair and self-engineer itself resulting in a 300 foot tree?. In fact, they are completely ignorant as to why this happens and have zero insight how to replicate it. So ya, we have a very long way to go before we can start patting each other on the back on how clever we are.
AC
"Falling water drops power LEDs"
https://physicsworld.com/a/falling-water-drops-power-leds/
The article just claims it is conversion of gravitational potential energy, but doesn't really offer evidence.
Here is the paper - which is rather more circumspect about the origins of the power.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1985-6.epdf?sharing_token=2CE4W2eQkdfO1JWrhhLhrNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oic35Arf_rjxvOyqSqJsyRUVgVtjzGTDm5Bz1Kp5ynWw_SjEqIYpBJJmR_rxMziEXg_Fv0jTybdLtfWIdeHWua2DAHrI_zDwlON4xQsqzz8ejtAwcgOEk-Vop3dq4DqB4hIw8s1e2MrTjoft5Ypx7CFP6L50ghwWDSUnGnEEo3BgpyR3tHCkt_R-YFrKk49h4%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1985-6.epdf?sharing_token=2CE4W2eQkdfO1JWrhhLhrNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oic35Arf_rjxvOyqSqJsyRUVgVtjzGTDm5Bz1Kp5ynWw_SjEqIYpBJJmR_rxMziEXg_Fv0jTybdLtfWIdeHWua2DAHrI_zDwlON4xQsqzz8ejtAwcgOEk-Vop3dq4DqB4hIw8s1e2MrTjoft5Ypx7CFP6L50ghwWDSUnGnEEo3BgpyR3tHCkt_R-YFrKk49h4%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com)
Quote from: Havercake on 2024.03.30, 09:50:29
"Falling water drops power LEDs"
https://physicsworld.com/a/falling-water-drops-power-leds/
The article just claims it is conversion of gravitational potential energy, but doesn't really offer evidence.
Here is the paper - which is rather more circumspect about the origins of the power.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1985-6.epdf?sharing_token=2CE4W2eQkdfO1JWrhhLhrNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oic35Arf_rjxvOyqSqJsyRUVgVtjzGTDm5Bz1Kp5ynWw_SjEqIYpBJJmR_rxMziEXg_Fv0jTybdLtfWIdeHWua2DAHrI_zDwlON4xQsqzz8ejtAwcgOEk-Vop3dq4DqB4hIw8s1e2MrTjoft5Ypx7CFP6L50ghwWDSUnGnEEo3BgpyR3tHCkt_R-YFrKk49h4%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1985-6.epdf?sharing_token=2CE4W2eQkdfO1JWrhhLhrNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oic35Arf_rjxvOyqSqJsyRUVgVtjzGTDm5Bz1Kp5ynWw_SjEqIYpBJJmR_rxMziEXg_Fv0jTybdLtfWIdeHWua2DAHrI_zDwlON4xQsqzz8ejtAwcgOEk-Vop3dq4DqB4hIw8s1e2MrTjoft5Ypx7CFP6L50ghwWDSUnGnEEo3BgpyR3tHCkt_R-YFrKk49h4%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com)
If you look for TENG or triboelectric nanogenerators you will find much more of these. Again we see a case of where a form of "friction" can produce a form of electric potential energy which then can be turned into electric kinetic energy by dropping it across a load to heat the environment. Yet no exact measurements are ever made in how much "rubbing power" this really cost and instead baseless assumptions are made like "the source is gravity or people walking over a TENG". Now TENGs are not very power dense and depend a lot on the surface areas (I barely got any power on mine), but we shouldn't be limited to only the triboelectric effect to extract energy, there is a whole world of magnetism out there that can do something very similar. TENGs will be useful when we attain full mastery of the world of friction.
Because when we do the power density can be frightening:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25753-7
"Negative" friction should finally be seen for what it really is. A limitless source of energy in the short term and perhaps the answer to everything in the long run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUDResR96M
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.03.29, 19:46:50
F6FLT
Nonsense and to a large extent your assertion has already been proven false by meta and nano materials.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/127
Exorcising Maxwell's Demon
...
Before talking about nonsense, you should at least understand the papers you yourself offer.
Maxwell demons actually seem to be a good possibility of bypassing the laws of thermodynamics, I have always said it, but not the others (because the energy is always conserved, the demon of Maxwell or not. If you believe the opposite, I will explain to you why).
And no so-called "Maxwell demon" defaulting the laws of thermodynamics was produced.
It is well expressed in your paper:
"
This doesn't mean that the second law is breakable, but rather that physicists need to find a way to carefully formulate it to describe specific situations. In the case of Maxwell's demon, for example, some of the entropy production has to be identified with the information gained by the demon."
So your comments are as radical as they are false, and certainly false because they are radical, whereas in science doubt must be the rule, and proof by observation and measurement of real phenomena must be demanded.
We've also seen your delirious objections in electromagnetism, where you spoke of the absolute reality of the magnetic field when it's a notion relative to the observer. It's not by making fanciful interpretations or cherry-picking in a literature that you have no mastery of at all, that you can hope to bring me contradiction, contradiction that I'm ready to accept when there's a minimum of logic and facts C.C.
Quote from: broli on 2024.03.30, 14:14:46
...
Because when we do the power density can be frightening:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25753-7
...
Very impressive ! O0
This is how the Wimshurst and even Van der Graaf electrostatic machines work. It's possible that Testatica worked that way too.
This bench has been silent for over a year, it ceased four days after my last post there. In my personal life I have had problems that prevented me from continuing but now I am in a position for further deliberations.
I start with a basic formula the everyone here should recognise, relating the magnetic field B within a transformer core to the current creating that field,
B = u0uRH. (1)
H is the ampere-turns divided by the length around the transformer core closed magnetic path, u0 is free space permeability and uR is the dimensionless relative permeability. The presence of the core allows us to produce large B using minimum current that enables our power transformers to be highly efficient. The high values of uR come from what goes on inside the core where the initial application of low current causes some atomic dipoles to align or flip, that then increases the field which causes more dipoles to react and so on; that cumulative action is very much like positive feedback in an electronic circuit. The core material very quickly reaches the B values given by (1). When we look at the enormous number of atomic dipoles that are producing this cumulative action we can't treat them individually, we use a number density M which is dipole-moment per unit volume. We then find
B = u0H + u0M. (2)
Here the core material characteristic uR has disappeared. We have two field contributions, the current producing one B field (via H) as though the core was not present, and the atomic dipoles creating the other B field. This is all sensible as we know that the solid looking core volume is mostly free space, the atomic particles occupying very little volume. This feature, as though the core was not present, is used in one other part of EM theory dealing with permanent magnet load-lines where it is referred to as the air space occupied by the core. And it is important here on this bench as it influences how we deal with remanent magnetism decay. The thing to plant in your minds is that in any soft ferromagnetic core the air space occupied by the core has two fields planted there, one from coil currents and the other from the atomic dipoles.
We can resurrect the core material permeability if we introduce the core susceptibility X where X tells you how much M you get for a given coil ampere-turns/m (H),
M = XH. (3)
Then since uR = 1 + X we get from (2) back to (1).
I can't stress enough the importance of (2) in dealing with remanent magnetism decay where the driving current creating the magnetism is no longer present. Initially in the magnetizing pulse we do have a driving current producing H and also producing M via (3), giving us B for very little current. At the end of the pulse we have BREM = u0MREM and it is MREM that then decays. During that decay the H that is present from the load current created by the decaying B tries to negate that decay. But it is the M that is decaying, we don't have M=XH available to us to deduce the effect of the load current on B and obtain the B waveform. That waveform leads to the current waveform hence also the energy. So, deducing the load current is equivalent to having transformer coils wound on an air core (a Rowland ring in many EM texts) with a primary ampere-turns starting at a value equal to MREM then decaying at the known exponential time constant, and with the secondary resistively loaded. Solving this in the magnetic domain is a trivial task involving a first order differential equation. The susceptibility X plays its part in establishing the small values of HSAT and input energy needed to magnetize the core but plays no part in the MREM decay.
To give an example a ring core reaching a BSAT of 0.5T needs a pulse of 75mA peak into 100 turns with an input energy of 170μJ. The resulting MREM is equivalent to a current of 600A in a primary coil on the core considered as air. That 600A decaying at a 2mS time constant creates an open circuit secondary pulse voltage of 2.5 volts. When loaded with 1 Ohm that drops slightly and the pulse output energy is over 6 mJ.
You might ask why does SEMP not declare such enormous OU COPs? To start with they don't use closed magnetic circuits. Their quoted decay of milliseconds does not occur at ambient temperatures, they have their equipment in an insulated container which IMO has to be heated to the correct temperature and held there. The passage of air through their cores is not for cooling, it is to keep them at the correct temperature. After the initial heating up from an external power source, some of the OU electrical output is used to maintain the temperature and that energy is not included in their COPs. SEMP also extract energy during the magnetizing pulse so they cannot achieve the enormous COPs that I have quoted here.
Now some quotes from other people's posts on this bench with my comments.
It's not a Maxwell demon. It would have to provide useful power and be maintained without depletion.
But that is what it does!!
A device that draws its energy from a single thermal bath, such as the environment, is a Maxwell demon.
Although the temperature is the driving effect, this may not be drawing energy from the environment. It may be tapping into the dipole spins acting as quantum dynamos.
A more plausible theory would be that temperature has nothing to do with the effect.
A high temperature is needed to get the decay.
You are talking about slowing down the demagnetization process and demagnetizing it spontaneously.
How is slowing down spontaneous?
However, the magnetization energy also depends on the heat; it must be greater when the magnetic dipoles are thermally agitated, since more effort is required to align them.
Not true. At high temperatures BSAT reduces and so does the H needed to reach it.
But magnetization decay by itself is not enough to induce any serious amps on coils.
Oh really? Have you evidence for this?
Smudge
I should mention that there is one other reason that SEMP are not achieving the high COPs that I am quoting. IMO square loop material is the best candidate for this feature and that is what I assumed. The SEMP Fe cores will certainly not be square loop.
I am convinced that the SEMP device works at some high temperature well above ambient. And having now studied how the decay of any PM material's field is reduced from many years down to milliseconds as the temperature is increased, any square loop material can be made to exhibit millisecond decays at some temperature near the Curie point. MnZn ferrite has a Tc of 230C so it is possible to do experiments with a domestic oven.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.05, 18:34:17
...We then find
B = u0H + u0M. (2)
Here the core material characteristic uR has disappeared. We have two field contributions, the current producing one B field (via H) as though the core was not present, and the atomic dipoles creating the other B field.
...
I can't stress enough the importance of (2) in dealing with remanent magnetism decay where the driving current creating the magnetism is no longer present. Initially in the magnetizing pulse we do have a driving current producing H and also producing M via (3), giving us B for very little current. At the end of the pulse we have BREM = u0MREM and it is MREM that then decays. During that decay the H that is present from the load current created by the decaying B tries to negate that decay. But it is the M that is decaying, we don't have M=XH available to us to deduce the effect of the load current on B and obtain the B waveform.
...
When we apply direct current to a coil, the field created by the electric current reorients the material's magnetic dipoles, and the electrical energy used to work on the dipoles is stored in the B field. The B field models this re-orientation of the dipoles. The electric current then serves only to overcome Joule effect losses.
It's the extra energy needed at the start to reach the final current, i.e. the energy required in addition to that needed to overcome the Joule effect, that represents the magnetizing energy.
When we supply an alternating current to a coil, the alternation corresponding to the current rise is equivalent to the previous case, until we reach the sinusoidal maximum, at which point the additional energy compared to the joule losses will have been stored in the B field. At the alternation corresponding to the fall in current, the collapsing energy of B is returned to the current, so less energy is required from the source. This explains why an LC resonant circuit is able to maintain an oscillation, and all the better if the circuit resistance remains low. Over a whole number of periods, losses aside, we have an energy balance of zero.
The idea that demagnetization is linked to a natural phenomenon, for example because we're working near the curie point, or that magnetization/demagnetization takes place slowly or quickly, or that it involves a delay that would allow it to take place after the source current has been cut off, doesn't change the issue at all. Magnetic energy can be recovered in any case. But the collapse of the B field can't provide more than the initial energy, because there's no reason why the work involved in reorienting the dipoles to the rest position should be greater than that involved in orienting them when B is at its maximum.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.07, 14:20:02
But the collapse of the B field can't provide more than the initial energy, because there's no reason why the work involved in reorienting the dipoles to the rest position should be greater than that involved in orienting them when B is at its maximum
Maybe you did not mean this, but what you have written implies that the energy supplied to magnetize the core occurs after B has reached its maximum value, and that is not the case. The energy is drawn from the source while B is rising due to the dipoles coming into alignment, and the value of B finally reached comes predominantly from the aligned dipoles; the applied current only produces a small contribution to B . Your statement seems to admit that work is involved (energy is consumed) for both the magnetization and the demagnetization phases. You only have to look at the first and second quadrant of a typical BH curve to see that the two energies are not the same, the demagnifying energy consumed in the second quadrant is less than the magnetizing energy in the first quadrant.
The SEMP system does not supply energy to demagnetize, there is some external source doing that. Energy appears in the load resistor as the B field decays. I see no reason why that work output from reorienting the dipoles to the rest position should be linked to that involved in orienting them into alignment when that reorienting field is simply the carrier of energy from the external force to the load resistor. Yes, that external force must supply the extra energy over and above the realignment value.
QuoteIt's the extra energy needed at the start to reach the final current, i.e. the energy required in addition to that needed to overcome the Joule effect, that represents the magnetizing energy.
You seem to divorce the Joule heating from the magnetizing energy, but the Joule heating of the core is inextricably linked to the BH loop area and the loop only has area if remanent magnetism plays its part, which is very much the case here.
QuoteWhen we apply direct current to a coil, the field created by the electric current reorients the material's magnetic dipoles, and the electrical energy used to work on the dipoles is stored in the B field. The B field models this re-orientation of the dipoles.
That is true only for linear material where there is no remanence. Then the energy stored in the B field is recoverable. In the SEMP system the remanent B field does not directly model the reorientation, it is the time history of the B field that models that energy. The integral of B wrt time yields the voltage that loads the current source, and very conveniently that energy is mapped by the area within the BH loop.
QuoteThe electric current then serves only to overcome Joule effect losses.
If by Joule losses you mean i2R losses then certainly that is directly linked to the current. But the current is essential for driving the dipole alignment and delivering the energy needed to do that.
QuoteWhen we supply an alternating current to a coil, the alternation corresponding to the current rise is equivalent to the previous case, until we reach the sinusoidal maximum, at which point the additional energy compared to the joule losses will have been stored in the B field. At the alternation corresponding to the fall in current, the collapsing energy of B is returned to the current, so less energy is required from the source. This explains why an LC resonant circuit is able to maintain an oscillation, and all the better if the circuit resistance remains low. Over a whole number of periods, losses aside, we have an energy balance of zero.
Again you are considering a core that has negligible remanence where energy is stored then retrieved, where the quantity of energy stored relates to the B field via the uR of the core material. The small remanence determining the area of the BH loop you have dismissed as Joule losses. This does not apply to the SEMP system.
QuoteThe idea that demagnetization is linked to a natural phenomenon, for example because we're working near the curie point, or that magnetization/demagnetization takes place slowly or quickly, or that it involves a delay that would allow it to take place after the source current has been cut off, doesn't change the issue at all. Magnetic energy can be recovered in any case.
And what is the quantity of energy to be recovered? In my consideration of a square-loop material, when magnetized the core u
R has dropped to unity when the current is switched off. At that instant the energy stored in the B field with u
R = 1 is far greater than the energy used to magnetize. We have a core that acts like air if we ignore eddy currents. This is already known in magnetic theory where the air space occupied by the core is used to determine the load line applied to the BH curve of permanent magnets. I stick by my view that when some external force is driving the dipole reorientation it is driving the change in M so we can't then claim M is available to get u
R>>1, we must consider an air core. That yields an output energy that can exceed the original input by quite a margin. The source of that energy is the external force.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.09, 15:37:42
You only have to look at the first and second quadrant of a typical BH curve to see that the two energies are not the same, the demagnifying energy consumed in the second quadrant is less than the magnetizing energy in the first quadrant.
Yes, it follows
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.09, 15:37:42
You seem to divorce the Joule heating from the magnetizing energy, but the Joule heating of the core is inextricably linked to the BH loop area and the loop only has area if remanent magnetism plays its part, which is very much the case here.
Well, he is right on this one. The energy of the Joule heating is equal to the integral of i
2R over time, so in the absence of resistance (as with ideal coils) the Joule heating energy is zero.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.09, 15:37:42
...
The energy is drawn from the source while B is rising due to the dipoles coming into alignment, and the value of B finally reached comes predominantly from the aligned dipoles
This is what I say. What I said was that the final B was obtained at the cost of electrical energy during the current's rise, so obviously not after B is maximum (By 'When we apply direct current to a coil', I mean that it's at the moment when we make contact and the current starts to flow, that it supplies the energy, and until B is maximum, or stable in the case of a DC current).
QuoteYou seem to divorce the Joule heating from the magnetizing energy, but the Joule heating of the core is inextricably linked to the BH loop area and the loop only has area if remanent magnetism plays its part, which is very much the case here.That is true only for linear material where there is no remanence. Then the energy stored in the B field is recoverable. In the SEMP system the remanent B field does not directly model the reorientation, it is the time history of the B field that models that energy. The integral of B wrt time yields the voltage that loads the current source, and very conveniently that energy is mapped by the area within the BH loop.
The fact that the B/H relationship is not linear does not change the problem because it is a macroscopic view, but the validity of the instantaneous relationship of B or dB/dt with the current is always verified. There is only a step-by-step influence in both time and space of the dipoles on each other, each being seen by the other as a current creating a field. At each step between each dipole, the usual relationships apply. The potential energy of a magnetic dipole is Ep=-µ.B where µ is the magnetic dipole moment (not the permeability here).
If B does not vary linearly, neither does the potential energy, so the energy taken from the current to reorientate the dipoles will not be the same as in the linear case, but for each dipole it will always satisfy the same linear equation at a given instant.
To obtain the balance over a cycle, an integration has to be performed. But whatever the way in which the dipoles re-orientate themselves, whether their potential energy varies in one way or another, and whether the constraints linked to the material cause a non-linear macroscopic effect to appear, their final situation being the same as the initial situation, the energy balance will be zero because the potential energy does not depend on the path followed.
To justify an excess of energy over a cycle, we can envisage work being done somewhere by thermal effects, but certainly not by the laws of electromagnetism or mechanics, and even less by engineering equations.
Quote
the applied current only produces a small contribution to B .
...
And what is the quantity of energy to be recovered? In my consideration of a square-loop material, when magnetized the core uR has dropped to unity when the current is switched off. At that instant the energy stored in the B field with uR = 1 is far greater than the energy used to magnetize.
...
The intensity of the B field says nothing about the energy supplied. We do not have simple superimposed fields, the one linked to the current and the one linked to the dipoles of the material, but forces that oppose the current supplied as it rises, which requires more energy from the current source to maintain it. The regime is not static.
This is why it takes enormous energies to magnetise neodymium magnets, supplied in impulse form. Much more than is left in the field of the magnet.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.09, 20:49:43
...the validity of the instantaneous relationship of B or dB/dt with the current is always verified
An instantaneous relationship of B and current (i) requires an infinitely quick response of core's magnetization (M).
What do you mean by the relationship of the dB/dt and current (i) ? The monotonicity of the BH curve in one direction ? The derivative of the BH curve certainly is not monotonic ...
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.09, 15:37:42
At that instant the energy stored in the B field with uR = 1 is far greater than the energy used to magnetize. We have a core that acts like air if we ignore eddy currents.
Just because the dµ
R /di = 1 does not mean that µ
R = 1 at this point.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.09, 20:49:43
.......The potential energy of a magnetic dipole is Ep=-µ.B where µ is the magnetic dipole moment (not the permeability here).
If I may correct you here, Ep=-µ.B.sin(a) where a is the angle between the dipole axis and B. This brings the orientation of the dipole into consideration.
QuoteTo justify an excess of energy over a cycle, we can envisage work being done somewhere by thermal effects
Which is exactly my point.
Quotebut certainly not by the laws of electromagnetism or mechanics, and even less by engineering equations.
That's a brutal dismissal of our laws and equations. If OU is possible (and your above remark suggests it is) surely it is a worthwhile exercise to have engineering equations that allow us to design systems that do this. I will proceed with producing a more detailed paper showing my equations.
QuoteWe do not have simple superimposed fields, the one linked to the current and the one linked to the dipoles of the material
With respect I disagree. B=µ
0(H+M) clearly defines a field that is the sum of two components, one from the current (H) and one from the dipoles (M)
Quotebut forces that oppose the current supplied as it rises, which requires more energy from the current source to maintain it.
Now you have jumped to force opposing a current as an argument for fields not superimposing which is inconsistant. The force opposing the current is a voltage that is proportional to dB/dt hence proportional to both dH/dt (hence di/dt) and dM/dt. That is during the magnetization phase. Under demagnetization the same applies but now dM/dt is the driver and the force supports the load current.
Smudge
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.10, 00:35:15
Just because the dµR /di = 1 does not mean that µR = 1 at this point.
Forgive me but I don't see where dµ
R /di = 1 comes from, but maybe that is not what you meant to say. My guess is you are saying that the slope of the BH curve at B = B
R and H = 0 may not mean that µ
R = 1 at that point. For the SEMP Fe cores I agree, but I am considering square-loop material with idealised characteritics and µ
R = 1 does apply at that point.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.09, 17:26:46
Well, he is right on this one. The energy of the Joule heating is equal to the integral of i2R over time, so in the absence of resistance (as with ideal coils) the Joule heating energy is zero.
I am taking Joule heating as being heating of both the core and the coil. Traversing around a complete BH loop takes energy that is either dissipated in the core or mysteriously disappears into some other dimension.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.10, 08:26:24
B=µ0(H+M) clearly defines a field that is the sum of two components, one from the current (H) and one from the dipoles (M)
Could you draw the MH curve for posterity ?
The slope of its ends will be horizontal on the graph, won't it ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.07, 08:20:37
I am convinced that the SEMP device works at some high temperature well above ambient. And having now studied how the decay of any PM material's field is reduced from many years down to milliseconds as the temperature is increased, any square loop material can be made to exhibit millisecond decays at some temperature near the Curie point. MnZn ferrite has a Tc of 230C so it is possible to do experiments with a domestic oven.
I happen to have 4 Ferroxocube TN36/23/15-3R1 square loop toroids: https://elnamagnetics.com/wp-content/uploads/library/Ferroxcube-Materials/3R1_Material_Specification.pdf (https://elnamagnetics.com/wp-content/uploads/library/Ferroxcube-Materials/3R1_Material_Specification.pdf)
If there were a suggested POC experiment I'd be interested in trying it.
A source for square loop info: http://qrp.gr/squareloop/index.htm (http://qrp.gr/squareloop/index.htm)
tak
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.10, 09:37:06
Could you draw the MH curve for posterity ?
The slope of its ends will be horizontal on the graph, won't it ?
Yes and here is an idealised square-loop.
Quote from: tak22 on 2025.05.10, 15:21:35
I happen to have 4 Ferroxocube TN36/23/15-3R1 square loop toroids: https://elnamagnetics.com/wp-content/uploads/library/Ferroxcube-Materials/3R1_Material_Specification.pdf (https://elnamagnetics.com/wp-content/uploads/library/Ferroxcube-Materials/3R1_Material_Specification.pdf)
If there were a suggested POC experiment I'd be interested in trying it.
A source for square loop info: http://qrp.gr/squareloop/index.htm (http://qrp.gr/squareloop/index.htm)
tak
That is great news, your MnZn ring cores will be ideal as you can get them close to Tc in a domestic oven. I will write up my ideas for an experiment for your consideration.
@tak,
Are your cores coated with polyamide (nylon) 11? If they are its melting point is 180-190C and we want to get to near 230C. How difficult is it to remove?
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.10, 08:26:24
...
If OU is possible (and your above remark suggests it is) surely it is a worthwhile exercise to have engineering equations that allow us to design systems that do this. I will proceed with producing a more detailed paper showing my equations. With respect I disagree. B=µ0(H+M) clearly defines a field that is the sum of two components, one from the current (H) and one from the dipoles (M)
...
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.09, 23:02:56
An instantaneous relationship of B and current (i) requires an infinitely quick response of core's magnetization (M).
What do you mean by the relationship of the dB/dt and current (i) ? The monotonicity of the BH curve in one direction ? The derivative of the BH curve certainly is not monotonic ...
By 'instantaneous', I mean a direct interaction between two entities, such as two magnetic dipoles like electrons, when we consider a single instant, not a duration, and in a context where the propagation time of the effect vector can be legitimately neglected.
The B field models a macroscopic average, or resultant, of all the dipole fields. This does not invalidate the model which describes each interaction between dipoles by a linear equation. The B/H non-linearity is not in fact due to an electromagnetic phenomenon, but due to the material, the constraints I suppose of the crystalline lattice on the electrons which mean that the force to orientate the magnetic dipoles will have to be different according to their instantaneous orientation and the history of the overall magnetisation already achieved.
Modelling by the B=µ
0(H+M) field is a translation into the electromagnetic domain of 'mechanical' effects in the material that disturb the orientation of the dipoles, resulting in non-linearity. This is practical in engineering, but in physics it does not allow us to draw direct conclusions about energy by overlooking the way energy is stored in the material. The only conclusions we can draw from physics is that the energy in the field is at most equal to the magnetisation energy.
Cores are uncoated :)
I also have a bunch of Ferroxcube TN36/23/15-3R1 ferrite cores, about 60 of them in fact. I thought the square BH curve looked interesting so I bought some when the opportunity presented itself a couple of years ago. They were becoming increasingly hard to buy since Ferroxcube stopped manufacturing them.
I'd also be interested in trying out anything you have to suggest Smudge.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.10, 15:39:29
That is great news, your MnZn ring cores will be ideal as you can get them close to Tc in a domestic oven.
An those who do not have such an oven can make-do with a halogen light bulb and some high-temp insulation (fiberglass, basalt wool, mineral wool, clay pot, fireclay brick, etc...) so the heat does not escape....
Hot air guns or hot air soldering stations are a viable source of controllable heat, but some thermal insulation is needed to maintain temperature uniformity.
Resistive heaters that use coiled Constantan/Nichrome wire generate unwanted magnetic fields. A halogen incandescent light-bulb or a hot air-gun is cleaner EM-wise and easier to obtain.
Gas flame is too hot and too hard to control. Also, it is chemically reducing or oxidizing (depending on the part of the flame) and it generates combustion fumes.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.11, 09:17:56
...we want to get to near 230C.
Normal winding wire will have its enamel coating thermolysed at 230°C and the adjacent turns will short-out if they touch. If the naked turns touch the hot core core, that might create some unwanted conduction. too.
Polyimide/Polyamide-imide coated copper wire is able to withstand 265°C.
There are high-temp specialty silicones that can withstand up to 530°C (~1000°F).
Thanks for that useful information Verpies. When I write up the experiment I already decided the wire needs that high temperature coating. At the moment I am cursing the Microsoft Word equation editor, the old version was much better. I will get there with persistence. I think temperature control will be the stumbling block in these experiments, it may be difficult to get a stable relaxation time but we'll see.
Here is my paper describing experiments using the MnZn ferrite ring cores. I am preparing another paper looking into the math.
Enjoy!
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.12, 06:28:36
I think temperature control will be the stumbling block in these experiments,
Modern hot air soldering stations have pretty good closed-loop temperature controllers and some of us already have them on our workbenches.
A pit or a channel surrounded by some thermal insulation is still necessary to keep the peripheral cooling at bay ...and the thermal gradients it creates. Drilling a hole in a white fireclay brick seems like the easiest way to accomplish this. No special drill bit is necessary - even wood drill bits work because the stuff is not dense and very crumbly.
Once you have that insulated pit/channel, just put the core inside and blow the temp-stabilized hot air into it.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.12, 08:13:00
Here is my paper describing experiments using the MnZn ferrite ring cores.
@Anyone: What is the maximum remanent B of these MnZn ferrite ring cores ?
@Smudge: Why does the primary need to be supplied with a current source? What's wrong with a switched voltage source ?
@Smudge: Wouldn't it be better to switch-in the load resistor only after the primary current falls to zero ? Would the typical fly-back converter topology be applicable here ? In such topology, the primary and secondary currents do not flow at the same time.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.12, 12:11:27
@Anyone: What is the maximum remanent B of these MnZn ferrite ring cores ?
410mT at 25C and 340mT at 100C. Applied H = 1200A/m
Quote@Smudge: Why does the primary need to be supplied with a current source? What's wrong with a switched voltage source ?
That was simply the way my brain works in the magnetic domain which is current driven. Yes a switched voltage source is what people will use so I will add more to include the likely waveforms. And as we know the core details I will go into the actual voltages and currents to be expected.
Quote@Smudge: Wouldn't it be better to switch-in the load resistor only after the primary current falls to zero ? Would the typical fly-back converter topology be applicable here ? In such topology, the primary and secondary currents do not flow at the same time.
Yes, and that would yield the greatest COP.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.13, 06:39:47
That was simply the way my brain works in the magnetic domain...
That is what I thought.
I still remember the flux capacitor in the magnetic domain.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.13, 06:39:47
410mT at 25C and 340mT at 100C. Applied H = 1200A/m
So it should be possible to calculate the energy in tak22's core (TN36/23/15-3R1) represented by this remanent magnetization and the expected voltage amplitude that will be induced when this magnetization decays in e.g. 1ms.
@Smudge
Quote
"Unlike a normal transformer where the secondary power is determined by electrical input to the primary, here we have thermally driven secondary power. The electrical power output from the secondary can exceed the electrical power input to the primary."
This implies that there is a significant temperature variation at the pulse repetition rate.
Do we agree on this point?
What I am about to say could be important in the search for OU. I have long held the view that electron atomic orbits and electron spin could be viewed as a source of energy in the same way that current in a coil is. MPI used the term "quantum dynamo" to express this. Various organisations have claimed to extract energy from electron spin, but AFAIK no one has put forward any math proof that their systems actually do this. In my spreadsheet calculations showing excess energy from remanent magnetism self decay I have just now looked at magnetization M as a source energy in the same way that H comes from a current source applied to a coil. When I look at this invisible source during the magnetization pulse where we supply current to do the magnetizing there is a large (because M>>H) invisible flow of energy from M. During the self demagnetization where we extract energy from induced voltage there is an invisible flow of energy into M. The two back and forth invisible flows are not equal. And guess what? The net invisible energy from the quantum domain accounts for the excess energy we get.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.13, 09:19:25
@Smudge
This implies that there is a significant temperature variation at the pulse repetition rate.
Do we agree on this point?
I would say a significant heat flow variation at the pulse rate. Temperature variation will depend on other features that will smooth those variations. But may be there is a more fundamental energy source that throws thermodynamic considerations to the wind as I have just posted.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.13, 09:09:23
So it should be possible to calculate the energy in tak22's core (TN36/23/15-3R1) represented by this remanent magnetization and the expected voltage amplitude that will be induced when this magnetization decays in e.g. 1ms.
Yes, I can put the known features of those cores into my spreadsheet. I will have to make a stab at the likely number of turns.
Thanks to Smudge and verpies for moving this in the direction of a starting build spec!
I've looked into where to get 240 degree magnet wire in small quantities and so far Remington is the most likely.
https://www.remingtonindustries.com/magnet-wire/magnet-wire-240-c-22-awg-polyimide-6-spool-sizes-available/ (https://www.remingtonindustries.com/magnet-wire/magnet-wire-240-c-22-awg-polyimide-6-spool-sizes-available/)
tak
Here is a quick note about the proposed experiments just to get things on the move. More later.
Edit. I just realized I wrote demagnifying when it should be demagnetizing. It's an age thing!!
Shouldn't the slow demagnetization occur after the falling edge of the pulse ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.15, 15:58:55
Shouldn't the slow demagnetization occur after the falling edge of the pulse ?
Yes, that comes next. I put myself into the position of someone without the experience of a computer engineer using write and read pulses for magnetic memory, someone with access to an oscilloscope but not familiar with capturing single transients. What do they look for as they increase the temperature? I hope my simplistic waveforms tell them.
The next stage, showing the decaying voltage waveform, will open up a can of worms in respect of voltage polarity between rising and falling magnetization and that between input power and output power. Because we are so familiar with our power sources being voltage where "off" is an open circuit, and we have difficulty dealing with current sources where "off" is a short circuit, I need to be careful in getting this next stage right and explaining why.
I don't understand the idea behind this and what would justify the experiment. The advantage of working close to the curie point is that we can think of new possible effects due to the variation in magnetisation.
Magnetisation is a collective effect that is influenced by temperature. But whether it's temperature or thermal energy, they are linked to the heat capacity of the magnetic material, and therefore to significant thermal inertia. Being close to the Curie point only means changing the magnetic characteristics of the material, such as the BH curve. The idea that the variation in heat exchange could be as fast as the variation in the signal, which is too fast in relation to the thermal inertia, has no justification, and invoking quantum effects is a deus ex machina since it has nothing to do with the initial idea linked to the Curie point.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.18, 10:41:17
The idea that the variation in heat exchange could be as fast as the variation in the signal, which is too fast in relation to the thermal inertia,
I asked myself a similar question earlier. But the guru here answered that it is not so.
Heat flow does not have to change as quickly as electric current.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.18, 10:41:17
The idea that the variation in heat exchange could be as fast as the variation in the signal, which is too fast in relation to the thermal inertia, has no justification
You have correctly used the term "inertia" here. Looking at mass inertia you know that a sudden application of a force will result in the mass moving at a rate determined by the inertia. I used the word "sudden" meaning a fast rise time of the force pulse. The inertia is not slowing down the force pulse, it still has the same rise time. A current pulse into a capacitor is similar. In the SEMP system we have remanent magnetism decaying at a fast rate. Something is driving that decay and we assume it is thermal. Why do you tie this to thermal capacity when clearly it is not. Thermal force is the driving force and that is not slowed down by thermal inertia.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.19, 07:22:10
You have correctly used the term "inertia" here. Looking at mass inertia you know that a sudden application of a force will result in the mass moving at a rate determined by the inertia. I used the word "sudden" meaning a fast rise time of the force pulse. The inertia is not slowing down the force pulse, it still has the same rise time. A current pulse into a capacitor is similar.
"Thermal" is a statistical term, referring to the average agitation of particles, and therefore their kinetic energy. Contrary to what you say, thermal inertia obviously slows down the effects of forces, since electron collisions in the crystal lattice are what average particle agitation, degrading impulse energy by transforming it into thermal energy, which leads to the notion of temperature and determines Curie's point.
The example of the capacitor is incorrect: it's impossible to impose an impulse on a capacitor, we're always subject to the time constant t/RC, we can only charge it step by step, exponentially.
Quote
In the SEMP system we have remanent magnetism decaying at a fast rate. Something is driving that decay and we assume it is thermal. Why do you tie this to thermal capacity when clearly it is not. Thermal force is the driving force and that is not slowed down by thermal inertia.
This question here is related to Curie's point, otherwise the concept becomes banally irrelevant since magnetism can indeed vary rapidly. Without a logic linking this rapidity to magnetic parameters that depend on the Curie point and vary just as rapidly, I really don't see where the new idea lies.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.19, 08:23:00
"Thermal" is a statistical term, referring to the average agitation of particles, and therefore their kinetic energy. Contrary to what you say, thermal inertia obviously slows down the effects of forces
That is not contrary to what I say, I said just that, it can slow down the
effect but it doesnt change the
force.
Quote, since electron collisions in the crystal lattice are what average particle agitation, degrading impulse energy by transforming it into thermal energy, which leads to the notion of temperature and determines Curie's point.
But we have remanant magnetism decaying with a relaxation time in milliseconds that is clearly not slowed down by thermal inertia. We use that fast decay to deliver energy into a load. Where does that energy come from? The standard argument put forward by the non believers is it came from the energy we supplied in creating the remanent magnetism. I don't follow that argument. Can the statistical average agitation of particles be the source of that energy? If so where does thermal inertia come into the equation?
QuoteThe example of the capacitor is incorrect: it's impossible to impose an impulse on a capacitor, we're always subject to the time constant t/RC, we can only charge it step by step, exponentially.
Your mind is fixated on the voltage, not the current. We can impose a current impulse where the currect source has infinite internal resistance hence t/RC is zero. There current is the source and voltage is the result. In our system under consideration can't the statistical average agitation of particles be a source? If those agitations can drive the demagnification surely they can also drive energy into our load?
QuoteThis question here is related to Curie's point, otherwise the concept becomes banally irrelevant since magnetism can indeed vary rapidly. Without a logic linking this rapidity to magnetic parameters that depend on the Curie point and vary just as rapidly, I really don't see where the new idea lies.
I repeat, if those agitations can drive the demagnification surely they can also drive energy into our load?
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.05.19, 10:24:01
...But we have remanant magnetism decaying with a relaxation time in milliseconds that is clearly not slowed down by thermal inertia. We use that fast decay to deliver energy into a load. Where does that energy come from?
...
Fast decay is found everywhere in ferromagnetic materials. Whether or not there's a delay due to remanence makes no difference: the energy returned is the energy used for magnetization.
Here is something for your consideration. Enjoy!
Here are the idealized waveforms for the MnZn ring core experiments.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.05.20, 07:40:05
Fast decay is found everywhere in ferromagnetic materials. Whether or not there's a delay due to remanence makes no difference: the energy returned is the energy used for magnetization.
So where is the error in his math ?
Here is a chat about BH loops to show that they can be system plots and not material plots. Then plots of B v. M.
I have corrected and amended the document I posted so here is the new version (same file name). Enjoy!
To understand what really happens inside PM material where the magnetism self-decays at high temperatures I have used a spreadsheet to set up a quantity of magnetic dipoles. I have set them with their axes at 5-degree intervals from 5 to 85 degrees with respect to the axis of interest (17 dipoles). At each point there are two dipoles set 180 degrees apart (so now 34 dipoles). Thus, for the starting point all the fields cancel out, their sum is zero. Next, I apply some forcing function that I call H to the whole set that will cause dipoles to flip. H lies along the axis of interest. The value of H needed to flip a dipole depends on its angle, so I start with a simple sine function. Just using the sine function would result in modelling isotropic material, so I also include a gaussian function that favours the smaller angles to model anisotropic material. Below is the result showing B v. H and M v. H. This overly simple model has succeeded in modelling the initial rise from zero and the full hysteresis loop. I think that is a good first step.
I intend to develop this into a much larger array of dipoles at smaller angular increments but before doing so it strikes me that surely this has been done before by other people. If anyone can point me in the direction of this type of simulation for ferromagnets I would be grateful.
So what would happen at the limit case if the coil was ideal and the load resistor was 0Ω ?
Obviously such coil would maintain the remanent flux through it even if the remanent magnetization decayed to zero. ...would we be left with randomized atomic dipoles and current circulating in the coil ? ...if "yes", how could the dipoles randomize if the coil is keeping the magnetic flux constant ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.05.25, 10:35:33
So what would happen at the limit case if the coil was ideal and the load resistor was 0Ω ?
Obviously such coil would maintain the remanent flux through it even if the remanent magnetization decayed to zero. ...would we be left with randomized atomic dipoles and current circulating in the coil ? ...if "yes", how could the dipoles randomize if the coil is keeping the magnetic flux constant ?
IMO we would not be left with randomised dipoles, a few of them will flip to drive current to hold the magnetization at a constant level, the thermal agitation that is trying to flip dipoles to produce demagnification is countered by the presence of that current. I don't know what that level would be and I am hoping this spreadsheet I am working on will help solve that riddle. With the relative permeability close to unity it requres high current to hold back a small flux change. What I have learned so far is perhaps quite obvious, the dipoles that requre the least energy (small flux) to flip do so at the start of the initial magnetization build up, and those that require the most energy (high value flux) to flip are at the tail end of the build up because that flux is almost there.
If we demagnify by applying current we have to supply energy to take H negative to the -Hc value and the dipole flipping sets up the chain reaction that quickly takes the system to -Brem just beyond -Hc. What would happen if we had another coil connected to a load while we drive that negative H current in an attempt to demagnify? Well it is just a transformer, as we draw more energy into the load resistor so we have to supply more energy into the drive coil. The energy out is not then tied to the magnetization energy, it can far exceed it. But it is not OU because we supplied that input. If Nature supplies the drive input doesn't the same thing apply? Without knowing exactly how the self-demagnetizing takes place we are at a loss to predict what happens.
I have parsed the MR1 ferroxcube material data onto a spreadsheet to find its incremental relative permeability at remanence. I have taken the 100C hot case to find uR there to be about 2300, so it is not very square loop (a perfect square loop material would have uR=1 at remanence). When I plug this into my spreadsheet that deduces output energy it looses the ability to offer the huge COP's of perfect square loop material, but still offers COP>1.
For those who are sceptical about this route to OU I offer the following thoughts. One of the fundamental formula of EM is B=u0uR(H+M). For perfect square loop material at the remanent point where H=0 and uR=1 we have B=u0M. This says we have a volume of space containing a number of magnetic dipoles. We know those dipoles are tiny particles within inter-atomic space so the space volume under consideration is that free-space volume known to magnetic engineers as "the air-space occupied by the core". The magnetic energy density is u0M2/2 Joules/m3. That is a large amount of energy far in excess of that supplied to get to the remanent point. Is it real and if so where has that energy come from? If you were small enough to climb inside the material into that inter-atomic space and explore all that space you would find that energy to be real. And it comes from the atomic dipoles responsible for M. Those dipoles don't disappear when M=0, they are still there but their combined effect yields that zero. It is their individual alignments that change, they flip or rotate suring the build up from M=0. That huge internal energy change taking place during the build up comes from the dipoles, they are truly "quantum dynamos". Is any of that quantum energy avaiable to us during the self-demagnetization we are considering. If you argue that the manner in which the dipoles flip and rotate during the M build-up driven by our supplied H is identical to the manner in which they deflip and derotate driven by thermal agitation while delivering our output H then the answer is no, we would get out what we put in. But but thermal agitation combined with our output H that is opposing the drop in M is not the same as the input conditions, so it could lead to OU where the excess energy comes from the quantum domain, not from the thermal domain. "Quantum dynamos" could become the new buzz word.
@Smudge
"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification. To imagine a theory so vague (what energy from the "quantum domain"?) that it can't even allow experiments to be set up to verify it, and on top of that to explain an unverified fact (OU), I really don't see where we can go with this.
A theory is made to verify observations, not to invent them or to support announcements that are more commercial than scientific, like AISEG, because they are provided without the slightest proof of concept.
Well done again F6. I will take my ideas elsewhere.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.01, 12:26:09
"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification. To imagine a theory so vague (what energy from the "quantum domain"?)
The same that is responsible for keeping the internal motions of the atoms and negative ions.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.01, 12:26:09
...that it can't even allow experiments to be set up to verify it,
I can't recall Smudge ever claiming that experiments cannot verify the internal motions of the atoms.
There are many of them, for example this one (https://youtu.be/uQ5w4_0S2l4?t=153).
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.06.01, 15:39:25
Well done again F6. I will take my ideas elsewhere.
C'mon. You're too old to react like this.
What about all others that hold your ideas in high regard ?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.01, 12:26:09
@Smudge
"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification.
So the field from a permanent magnet (and its energy) doesn't come from atomic particles?
QuoteA theory is made to verify observations, not to invent them
So it is wrong to theorize, then follow this with experiments?
Quoteor to support announcements that are more commercial than scientific, like AISEG, because they are provided without the slightest proof of concept.
What proof do you need? Are you so firmly embedded within your own prejudices that in the world according to F6 their measurements must be wrong? Or they did not really carry out any measurements?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.06.01, 15:53:48
C'mon. You're too old to react like this.
What about all others that hold your ideas in high regard ?
Just spoke with Chet and I am still here.
@Smudge:
This video should upset you because it does not go deep enough.
https://youtu.be/XbIWmVXZOfE?t=2
Quote from: verpies on 2025.06.02, 23:26:56
@Smudge:
This video should upset you because it does not go deep enough.
https://youtu.be/XbIWmVXZOfE?t=2
Yes, but look at this comment further down the web page.
"As a metallurgist I can add that steel changes lattice structure from ferrite (ferromagnetic) to austenite (para- or nonmagnetic) in that region. By adding nickel this temperature is lowered to room temp, thats why stainless steels with nickel is not magnetic."
That suggests you can create steel with any Curie temperature you want just by controlling the amount of nickel. And that could also lead to steel with a known remanent magnetism decay time at room temperature.
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.06.03, 07:22:58
"As a metallurgist I can add that steel changes lattice structure from ferrite (ferromagnetic) to austenite (para- or nonmagnetic) in that region. By adding nickel this temperature is lowered to room temp, thats why stainless steels with nickel is not magnetic."
That suggests you can create steel with any Curie temperature you want just by controlling the amount of nickel. And that could also lead to steel with a known remanent magnetism decay time at room temperature.
Yeah but the ferromagnetic martensite or ferrite lattices do not form spontaneously in these steels upon cooling. They form when the steels are cold-worked i.e.: hammering, cold-rolling, bending. The Curie temperature for destruction of these ferromagnetic phases is quite high in the 600ºC - 800ºC range, but once destroyed they do not recreate themselves upon cooling, thus the transition is one-way only. Nickel acts as a stabilizer of the austenite phase thus the higher-nickel grade stainless steels (e.g. the 310) resist this transition altogether.
Below is a list of some Ni containing steels and their properties:
AISI 304: A_C1 ~727–850°C, A_C3 ~900–950°C, T_N ~35–48 K. Paramagnetic at room temperature unless cold-worked to form martensite (T_C ~600–770°C).
AISI 316/316L: A_C1 ~800–900°C, A_C3 ~950–1000°C, T_N ~30–40 K. Paramagnetic unless martensite forms.
AISI 301: A_C1 ~700–800°C, A_C3 ~850–900°C, T_N ~50–60 K. More prone to martensite formation.
AISI 310: A_C1 ~900–950°C, A_C3 ~1000–1050°C, T_N ~20–30 K. Highly stable austenite, consistently paramagnetic.
AISI 321: A_C1 ~800–900°C, A_C3 ~950–1000°C, T_N ~35–45 K. Paramagnetic unless heavily deformed.
Ferrite to Austenite Transformation (A_C1 and A_C3):
This is a structural transition where the body-centered cubic (BCC) ferrite (ferromagnetic) transforms to face-centered cubic (FCC) austenite (paramagnetic). Nickel stabilizes the austenite phase, lowering the temperature at which this transformation occurs.
Néel Temperature (T_N):
Some austenitic steels like the 304 exhibit antiferromagnetic behavior at very low temperatures.
Nickel's Role:
Nickel is an austenite stabilizer, promoting the FCC structure over BCC, which makes austenitic stainless steels (e.g., 304, 316) paramagnetic at room temperature. The exact transition temperatures depend on the alloy's composition, including nickel, chromium, carbon, and other elements.
If the goal is to achieve transition temperatures near the room temperature, then it is the easiest to just use Gadolinium.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.06.01, 15:46:15
The same that is responsible for keeping the internal motions of the atoms and negative ions.
I can't recall Smudge ever claiming that experiments cannot verify the internal motions of the atoms.
There are many of them, for example this one (https://youtu.be/uQ5w4_0S2l4?t=153).
Maintaining the internal motion of atoms and negative ions requires no energy supply. No energy is needed to maintain a motion that has no losses. Newton's first law alone proves this.
But of course, I agree, the matter contains energy, which is continually conserved and transformed in the "internal movements of atoms and negative ions".
So if we claim that the SEMP's energy comes from this continuously transforming energy, then these internal movements would change. The question is not the existence of energy - we know there is some anyway, since E=M.C² - but its extraction and the consequences of its use: the reduction or depletion of the process that supplies it.
Would SEMP slow down or even stop the internal movements of atoms? There is no evidence to support this idea, which is revolutionary for some, but delusional and throwaway in my view. The scientific method is used to explain observations, not to explain, instead of facts to be verified, suppositions based on dubious announcements made at COP28 by the same people who, 5 years earlier, had already made the same kind of announcement, with nothing to show for it since.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.06.05, 20:56:16
Would SEMP slow down or even stop the internal movements of atoms?
If it did, it would result in ionization, transmutation, macroscopic motion or decrease of the thermal energy. I did not check if their experiment exhibits any of these.
Knowing that E=M.C², we can always imagine that the energy is taken from somewhere in matter to justify our belief in the OU in any machine.
But the correct method is: nothing to observe, nothing to theorise about.
So I put the question to those who believe in it: if there are facts to be observed in the SEMP, what are they and how can they be reproduced to verify them?
They clearly state that the carbonizing process of their core material creates a remanent magnetism decay time of milliseconds, and examination of their system shows this to be the source of their anomalous energy. So here is something that is using to good effect internal thermal motions that create the demagnetization. Surely this is something worth investigating? They do not state what temperature they need inside their cabinet to achieve this effect, and I suspect it is quite high above ambient. Has anyone given thought to the possibility of deliberately driving noise-like internal motions to create this demagnetizing at ambient temperature? I have in mind an electric drive into the dielectric of a ferrite square-loop core to see if it can induce the demagnetization. If it does and we can get energy out as in SEMP it might settle the question of whether the thermal (or in this case the non-thermal) drive is the source of the output energy.
Smudge
Everything is worth investigation but I have reservations.
When I was sent to investigate and test these devices the inventors were often guessing. In reality I think most had no idea where the energy comes from. So we do a test and get strange readings. We trace it back to somewhere near or inside the cores and coils. Here is where I think most just take a wild guess and make something up so they can patent. The actual effect would most likely be considered intellectual property anyways. I say this because this is basically what every company does.
To put it into perspective, I once tested a fairly simple setup which showed a large COP>1. Just a bunch of coils and cores arranged in a certain geometry switched in a way few if any would ever consider. The setup and construction was very easy but the working theory took over a year to nail down. Where do we start when the device is so basic there is no place to start?. By all appearances nothing should happen nor could it but it does.
AC