It is a rare privilege to be on the verge of something quite new in the Scientific world. In the field of magnetism there is a specialised area that up to now has only been of interest to palaeologists who study rocks, where certain features of magnetism allow them to determine their age and the Earth's magnetism at that early time. The significant feature of interest is the science behind how remanent magnetism decays with time, since this is fundamental to extrapolating from measurements taken now to the magnetism that existed thousands of years ago. Not surprisingly this remote corner of science is not of interest to experts in the use of magnetism for delivering electrical or mechanical energy, i.e. electrical generators, motors, and transformers. Those experts are familiar with remanent magnetism since it influences the efficiency of their devices, but it is labelled as "permanent magnetism". That so-called "permanent magnetism" decays over a time span of many years is of interest where permanent magnets are used in generators and motors since the requirement there is to have magnets that last. Emphasis over the years has been on materials that maximise both the magnitude and life span of remanent magnetism. For so-called magnetically-soft ferromagnetic materials the "permanent" nature of some remanent magnetism is accepted, but generally with alternating currents it gets swept away so its only effect is to create hysteresis leading to core loss; although it cannot be eliminated ferromagnetic materials have been developed where remanence is minimised. There has been no interest in developing ferromagnetic materials where, after the magnetizing influence is removed, the remanence decays swiftly, then using that decay for some useful purpose. There are no accounts of experiments where this has been accomplished. There is no history, no theoretical analyses, no mathematics for this type of experiment to fall back on.
But recently the South Korean SEMP Research Institute claim to have obtained a decay time constant measured in milliseconds in specially heat-treated pure iron, and they have demonstrated equipment that use this effect. I have opened this thread for the purposes of exploring this new territory, and I start with a paper that deals with the theory to show that it offers a new method for converting thermal energy directly into electrical energy. We are used to heat pumps having COPs greater than unity, and this technique offers something similar but the output being electrical is far more useful than that of a heat pump.
My paper here makes no attempt to describe a practical embodiment, this is purely theoretical in order to show its COP potential and to garner interest in pursuing this work.
Smudge
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.01, 10:14:02
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?
That was something I was wondering too. I asked a question about ferrite vs iron in the SEMP thread a few weeks ago. In my mind, a flyback operating in discontinuous conduction mode on a ferrite core should yield better results than this specially treated iron.
That is the basis for the device I'm working on currently. It's essentially a flyback operating in discontinuous mode, where the secondary coils are open circuit until after the magnetic field is established by the primary. The secondary coils are connected just before the magnetic field in the primary collapses.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.01, 10:14:02
How is that mode of operation different form a flyback converter's with a sof ferrite that has a a fast remanence decay ?
A soft ferrrite has little remanence so you can't talk of remanence decay. What little remanence it has is "permanent" and doesn't decay. What you claim as fast decay is just the "soft" magnetic field decaying at a fast rate of your choosing and generating a high voltage spike. There is no overunity here. Try making a flyback converter using hard ferrite and you will be in trouble. You would need to drive the square BH loop into the second quadrant to get the B to go from positive to negative down that back edge, and ensure that it changes value quickly to get the flyback effect. And it would not be very efficient as you loose energy going round that square loop. Now you do have significant remanence but if you stop at the remanent point it is "permanent" and doesn't decay, it is hard ferrite.
Actually it is not really permanent, it does decay over many years. But imagine we can do something to the ferrite that makes the remanent magnetism decay quite fast. Now we can use that fast decay to drive voltage and current in a coil, we get some energy out. Note this is not what is happening in the flyback converter, it is starting at H=0 whereas in the flyback converter the "decay" is starting at some positive H and any output we achieve is just the soft magnetism going down from that positive H to zero. Then we only get out magnetic energy we put in. But in the hard ferrite there is another input to the core that is driving the remanent decay. That is thermal energy. So we have thermal energy trying to cause B to decay and at the same time our output current (delivering positive H) is trying to stop that decay. That is a totally different ball game.
Smudge
Quote from: lfarrand on 2024.05.01, 11:11:58
That was something I was wondering too. I asked a question about ferrite vs iron in the SEMP thread a few weeks ago. In my mind, a flyback operating in discontinuous conduction mode on a ferrite core should yield better results than this specially treated iron.
That is the basis for the device I'm working on currently. It's essentially a flyback operating in discontinuous mode, where the secondary coils are open circuit until after the magnetic field is established by the primary. The secondary coils are connected just before the magnetic field in the primary collapses.
See image for the difference between a flyback converter and a thermal converter.
What size should be core,to we could allowed to heat and cool it twenty five thousand time per second ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.01, 14:37:09
See image for the difference between a flyback converter and a thermal converter.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4659.0;attach=51090)
Thanks for that diagram but isn't the area under the red curve smaller than the area of the black triangle ?
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.02, 07:59:50
Thanks for that diagram but isn't the area under the red curve smaller than the area of the black triangle ?
Yes that is what I drew. But the red curve extends more to the right as the load resistor is lowered and the system demands more from the thermal input. Then you get into the OU regime as I showed in my pdf. The point I was trying to make is that the
area under the red curve is not magnetic energy stored in the core, it is energy extracted from the thermal domain.. If I am right as you lower the load resistor to get more thermal energy transfer the temperature drop in the core will increase and that has to be made good by thermal conduction from the ambient environment. Overall, taking the environment into consideration, energy is conserved. It is a form of heat pump, but unlike conventional heat pumps this one converts thermal energy into electrical energy.
Smudge
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.01, 16:56:03
What size should be core,to we could allowed to heat and cool it twenty five thousand time per second ?
I stated the ring-core dimensions as having a cross section area of 1 square cm and a magnetic length of 15cm. And it is not heated and cooled multiple times per second, it is cooled each cycle resuting in a continuous cooling that needs to be offset by thermal conduction from a heat source (hopefully a ground source or air source at ambient temperature).
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.02, 09:01:55
And it is not heated and cooled multiple times per second, it is cooled each cycle resuting in a continuous cooling
Smudge
So I don't fully understand how it works. I admit it. C.C
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.02, 08:49:07
Yes that is what I drew. But the red curve extends more to the right as the load resistor is lowered and the system demands more from the thermal input.
So you did not draw the B vs H graph proportionally.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.02, 08:49:07
The point I was trying to make is that the area under the red curve is not magnetic energy stored in the core, it is energy extracted from the thermal domain. If I am right as you lower the load resistor to get more thermal energy transfer the temperature drop in the core will increase and that has to be made good by thermal conduction from the ambient environment.
I hear you but I am still not convinced (open minded though).
Why doesn't the magnetizing pulse increase the temperature of the core ?
Now, if you want to have it tested empirically I'd like to suggest that you hand-draw a time-domain oscillogram because the practically-minded members here, think in terms of waveforms they can see on their oscilloscopes.
This means putting time on the horizontal axis and the currents flowing through the windings on the vertical axis.
I think that the most likely embodiment chosen by the empiricists here will resemble the dual winding flyback converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_converter) (maybe with a synchronous rectifier instead of the diode), so please tailor your time-domain diagram to such design (i.e.: two current traces, one per winding).
Of course, do contrast the waveform you expect to see from the delayed remanence decay with the waveform seen in the plain flyback-converter with a soft ferromagnetic core.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.02, 10:03:56
So I don't fully understand how it works. I admit it. C.C
What he is writing is that the core does not need to heat and cool rapidly, because the core gets cooled more upon its discharge than heated upon its charge cycle ...so the average is cooling.
I do not know why he thinks that the core loses more heat during its discharge than the heat it gains during its charge cycle.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.02, 11:32:41
What he is writing is that the core does not need to heat and cool rapidly, because the core gets cooled more upon its discharge than heated upon its charge cycle ...so the average is cooling.
Now I understood. :)
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.02, 10:41:06
So you did not draw the B vs H graph proportionally.
No it was illustrative only because I had already produced some calculated B v. H data in Figure 4 of my paper at the start of this thread.
QuoteI hear you but I am still not convinced (open minded though).
Why doesn't the magnetizing pulse increase the temperature of the core ?
Perhaps it does and it would be all to the good as the increase in thermal energy there is accounted for by the electrical input shown in the B v. H charts. With the electrcal output energy exceeding that input the cooling effect will yield a greater drop in temperature hence a continual overall cooling over repeated cycles.
QuoteNow, if you want to have it tested empirically I'd like to suggest that you hand-draw a time-domain oscillogram because the practically-minded members here, think in terms of waveforms they can see on their oscilloscopes.
This means putting time on the horizontal axis and the currents flowing through the windings on the vertical axis.
I think that the most likely embodiment chosen by the empiricists here will resemble the dual winding flyback converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_converter) (maybe with a synchronous rectifier instead of the diode), so please tailor your time-domain diagram to such design (i.e.: two current traces, one per winding).
Of course, do contrast the waveform you expect to see from the delayed remanence decay with the waveform seen in the plain flyback-converter with a soft ferromagnetic core.
At this time I see no point in producing a circuit that looks identical to the flyback converter with waveforms that also look identical as that will only add to the wrong perception that you and others have gained as evidenced by your replies. Further to that any attempt to build such a device is currently impossible as there is no core material available. I would much rather spend time pursuading everyone that this approach is different to anything that has been done in the past (including flyback converters) to get people to create the new core materials. And that means creating methods (circuits) that allow them to measure what they have created. In that vein I am preparing another paper that takes a power transformer that everyone is familiar with and showing that it is possible to create B v. H loops (or better still Flux-linkage v. Current loops) that do not represent energy magnetically stored in the core but correcty represent electrical output and input energies. This representation may be new to many and may help in getting people to understand the different meaning of my output B v. H loop that, unlike the flyback converter, is
not the reducing magnetic energy stored in the core but is the result of something non-electrical that is trying to reduce that stored energy inducing output current that opposes that reduction.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 10:42:14
At this time I see no point in producing a circuit that looks identical to the flyback converter with waveforms that also look identical as that will only add to the wrong perception that you and others have gained as evidenced by your replies.
Don't treat it like that. It would be better for you to considered me as the devil's advocate. Your idea stands to become more refined by a challenger than a yes-man.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 10:42:14
Further to that, any attempt to build such a device is currently impossible as there is no core material available.
I know, but you know how to make it. I do not find the high-temperature carbon diffusion challenging ...only the starting material before treatment.
Would uncoated powdered-iron toroidal core be optimal as the starting material ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 10:42:14
I would much rather spend time persuading everyone that this approach is different to anything that has been done in the past (including flyback converters)
So show us measurable differences.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 10:42:14
...to get people to create the new core materials. And that means creating methods (circuits) that allow them to measure what they have created.
Very well. What measurement methods do you propose ?
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.03, 11:35:50
Don't treat it like that. It would be better for you to considered me as the devil's advocate. Your idea stands to become more refined by a challenger than a yes-man.
Yes and I am pleased to receive comments from challengers. However I am 90 years old, I have an ailing wife aged 89 who's care takes up much of my limited time so I must ration what time I can devote to this endeavour.
QuoteI know, but you know how to make it. I do not find the high-temperature carbon diffusion challenging ...only the starting material before treatment.
Would uncoated powdered-iron toroidal core be optimal as the starting material ?
I have no idea, I don't know how the carbon creates the superparamagnetc grains necessary for the wanted effect. It would be helpful if we had some expert in magnetic material science on board. My only observation here is that the SEMP technique probably gives the surface of the Fe the characteristic, not the whole volume, so it would be better to treat thin Fe sheets or tape then make the cores up from that. Alternatively treat Fe powder, then make powder cores from that.
QuoteSo show us measurable differences.
What measurement methods do you propose ?
I would use a ring core (tape wound if using treated Fe tape) with two windings (bifilar) in a single layer covering the whole core. One winding would be pulsed with a series of current unidirectional pulses with a dead space (zero current) between them. The other winding would be used to provide induced voltage to a digital scope with math function that integrates the voltage wrt time. An identical toroid with untreated Fe would undergo the same. Comparison of the two waveforms should show whether the remanent decay between the magnetizing pulses is present for the treated core. Since the integration turns the waveform into a plot of B v. time the difference should indicate what is going on within the cores. I know this technique will require finesssing to get it right, but that could be done using soft material of known characteristic to iron out the measurement bugs.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 13:53:07
I have no idea, I don't know how the carbon creates the superparamagnetc grains necessary for the wanted effect. It would be helpful if we had some expert in magnetic material science on board.
I think Grumage is the closest one to that on this forum, but I would not call him a magnetic material expert - just a metal processing expert.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 13:53:07
My only observation here is that the SEMP technique probably gives the surface of the Fe the characteristic, not the whole volume, so it would be better to treat thin Fe sheets or tape then make the cores up from that.
Carburizing solid iron can be done in depth when the carbon is derived from methane. It displaces air/oxygen and pyrolizes above 700ºC and penetrates iron deeply even when it is not powdered. With porous iron, the methane penetration is complete. Heating iron in methane atmosphere is easy and not dangerous if air ingress is eliminated. The side effect is hydrogen generation. Would hydrogen be a detriment?
BTW: One of the papers that you've posted here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4653.msg111767#msg111767) mentions hydrogen's effect on the iron.
However, I have some trepidations about exposing iron to AC magnetic fields during the carburizing process (e.g. with inductive heating), because I do not know whether the domains/crystals can be moving when the carburizing process is happening.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.03, 13:53:07
Alternatively treat Fe powder, then make powder cores from that.
Sintering iron powder is beyond my capability and others here would find it so, too, due to the combination of heat, pressure and hot powder oxidation in air. Maybe Grum has a hot press but I doubt he can avoid oxidation unless he builds an argon tent around it...
I can cast a mixture of iron powder & resin, though and I think many members here can do it too, but the iron's density, thermal conductivity and magnetic permeability of such mixture is poor ...and iron crystals in such mixture are not in close proximity to each other, which might matter for the effect you are describing.
In this paper I use the classical transformer to show how some hysteresis loops constructed using magnetic properties like B and H or Flux and mmf yield energy that is not the energy stored magnetically in the core or the energy lost in the core. They represent energy transferred from input to output. This is to get people's mind away from the fixation that natural remanent magnetism decay used to obtain energy can't deliver more energy than that used to magnetize the core. I maintain that the output loop can far exceed the input loop as shown in the paper posted at the start of this thread.
Smudge
@Smudge
I read your latest paper.
It is an easy read and I appreciate that in your analysis you stick to the flux and mmf and geometric drivatives of those and mention the emf only minimally.
What, I do not understand is the difference that the fall of the flux makes in a quickly decaying remanence of a special core vs. the fall of the flux in an ordinary soft ferro/ferimagnetic core. Why can the former fall be utilized and the latter cannot? Is the difference only in the engineering difficulty?
Also, how does the thermal mechanism that is responsible for the decay of the core's remanent flux, affect the magnetization stage ? ...when the core's flux is increasing.
Also, I talked with others and they do not understand the red fragment in the following sentence:
"If we use this natural decay to induce current into a coil connected to a load resistor we expect to see a sudden rise in output coil mmf followed by an exponential decay as shown in Figure 13."
Everyone (incl. me) understands the subsequent induction caused by the exponential decay.
I understand that sudden rise in the context of a flyback converter's typical behavior: As the primary mmf is switched off, the current in the secondary winding takes over the maintenance of the flux that penetrates it ...but that assumes the flyback circuit's topology, which you do not state explicitly.
You might want to consider elaborating on that in your paper.
P.S.
You did not answer the question in my previous message (marked with a question mark).
Is it possible to obtain a similar effect using electrostatic phenomena (ferroelectric capacitors)?
A ferroelectric capacitor also changes its temperature when charged, and also changes its capacitance when the temperature changes.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.08, 10:57:13
@Smudge
I read your latest paper.
It is an easy read and I appreciate that in your analysis you stick to the flux and mmf and geometric drivatives of those and mention the emf only minimally.
What, I do not understand is the difference that the fall of the flux makes in a quickly decaying remanence of a special core vs. the fall of the flux in an ordinary soft ferro/ferimagnetic core. Why can the former fall be utilized and the latter cannot? Is the difference only in the engineering difficulty?
No it is not an engineering difficulty. The flux in an ordinary soft ferro core needs coil current to maintain it so is always related to any current flowing, including the case for a charged inductor being discharged by having a resistor across it carrying the discharge current. The energy retrieved cannot exceed the energy put into the inductor and this can be shown in many ways using known formula such as those I use here. Remanent flux is different as it is not related to current flowing in a coil, it is there with zero current flowing. That makes a big difference to the math, it is not the same as the soft core case.
QuoteAlso, how does the thermal mechanism that is responsible for the decay of the core's remanent flux, affect the magnetization stage ? ...when the core's flux is increasing.
I also worried about that but what little evidence I can find for magnetizing a core near its Curie temperature is that it lowers Hc and reduces the magnetizing energy. I take it that increasing the random motion of the spins makes them easier to get aligned. Of course this could be completely wrong but until there is experimental data we won't know.
QuoteAlso, I talked with others and they do not understand the red fragment in the following sentence:
"If we use this natural decay to induce current into a coil connected to a load resistor we expect to see a sudden rise in output coil mmf followed by an exponential decay as shown in Figure 13."
This is a case where it may have been clearer if I showed a circuit diagram. This scheme could be made with a single coil that gets switched from magnetizing mode to demagnetizing mode but it would be better to use two coils, one for magnetizing and the other for demagnetizing. The latter coil would be open circuited during the magnetizing phase then when the magnetizing current is switched off the remanent field starts to decay. At this point the output coil has its load resistor switched in so the current in that coil jumps up to a peak value. That is the "sudden rise in mmf".
QuoteEveryone (incl. me) understands the subsequent induction caused by the exponential decay.
I understand that sudden rise in the context of a flyback converter's typical behavior: As the primary mmf is switched off, the current in the secondary winding takes over the maintenance of the flux that penetrates it ...but that assumes the flyback circuit's topology, which you do not state explicitly.
It may not be the flyback circuit topology, for the sake of simplicity I assume a simple switch connecting the load resistor. I accept that a circuit diagram would have helped. The output coil current does not
take over maintenance of the flux but it does
attempt to reduce the decay, there is some driving force causing that decay that the current battles against.
QuoteP.S.
You did not answer the question in my previous message (marked with a question mark).
You asked whether hydrogen production during a particular iron carbonizing process would be a detriment. I don't really know but there is a market for hydrogen so it could be a bonus.
Thank you for your feedack, it is appreciated.
Smudge
In this core, it seems there is remanent flux with no coil current.
https://youtu.be/DAtsWeNX9ew?si=mXO_MIyntPvh0flo
PMH Perpetual Motion Holder Ed Leedskalnin
Another demonstration with softer(?) core.
https://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?si=94OxOZDCbN29E0zL
PMH w soft core.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 04:48:30
In this core, it seems there is remanent flux with no coil current.
https://youtu.be/DAtsWeNX9ew?si=mXO_MIyntPvh0flo
This is a nice classical demonstration of the ferromagnetic remanence.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 04:48:30
Another demonstration with softer(?) core.
https://youtu.be/r9Kg69cQteg?si=94OxOZDCbN29E0zL
The first part of this experiment exhibits classical behavior, too.
However, the second part of the experiment (when the red winding is shorted) bothers me because I estimate the L/R time constant of the red winding to be much shorter than 1s. Without inductance and resistance measurements, I cannot be certain, though.
What Smudge is writing, is that the energy needed to magnetize the core can be smaller than the energy induced during the decay of its remanence.
It is important to notice that none of these experiments above exhibit a visible decay of the remanence. The decay of the current flowing in the red winding by the i
2R dissipation mechanism is not the same as the decay of the remanent magnetism of the core, although they can affect the holding force similarly.
Thanks verpies,
QuoteThe flux in an ordinary soft ferro core needs coil current to maintain it so is always related to any current flowing, including the case for a charged inductor being discharged by having a resistor across it carrying the discharge current.
by Smudge
Doesn't the first video contradict the above?
And the second video confirm?
I've seen accounts of experimenters who charge a homemade PMH and hang on their garage wall for years, then recording the separation of the keeper bar. Little if any remanent decay was noticed, although it wasn't accurately measured.
bi
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.09, 13:16:15
This is a nice classical demonstration of the ferromagnetic remanence.
The first part of this experiment exhibits classical behavior, too.
Yes and it demonstrates the fact that the magnet without its keeper has a demagnetizing effect that has a classical name that I have forgotten.
QuoteHowever, the second part of the experiment (when the red winding is shorted) bothers me because I estimate the LR time constant of the red winding to be much shorter than 1s. Without inductance and resistance measurements, I cannot be certain, though.
The experiment demonstrates the L/R (not LR) time constant is indeed in the order of 1 second. He does say the coil former is filled with many turns of fine guage wire for the red coil.
QuoteWhat Smudge is writing, is that the energy needed to magnetize the core can be smaller than the energy induced during the decay of its remanence.
It is important to notice that none of these experiments above exhibit a visible decay of the remanence. The decay of the current flowing in the red winding by the i2R dissipation mechanism is not the same as the decay of the remanent magnetism of the core, although they can affect the holding force similarly.
Agreed.
Smudge
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 13:45:08
Doesn't the first video contradict the above?
And the second video confirm?
No because the core in the first video is not completely soft and the one in the second video - is.
I always thought that the difference between soft and hard ferromagnetic materials was the degree and speed of decay of remanent magnetization. In other words: a soft material loses its magnetization very quickly or instantaneously, while a hard one - very slowly or not at all.
Smudge suggests that it is not a matter of speed but a different phenomenon entirely.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 13:45:08
I've seen accounts of experimenters who charge a homemade PMH and hang on their garage wall for years, then recording the separation of the keeper bar. Little if any remanent decay was noticed, although it wasn't accurately measured.
I haven't witnessed a perceptible decay of remanence either.
Smudge writes that the remanent magnetization decays slowly over years but my childhood recordings on magnetic tapes are still playable.
None of it means that a material cannot be engineered which exhibits a faster decay of remanent magnetization.
Attached are two files describing the iron carburizing processes.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.09, 23:01:08
Attached are two files describing the iron carburizing processes.
Usually the process is followed by rapid quenching and that is where the SEMP process differs. It seems they have discovered that transformer Fe can have its remanent magnetism retention time reduced from many years down to milliseconds simply by not performing rapid quenching, but instead let the object cool slowly over 10 hours or more while remaining in a high carbon environment. Surely that is something that should be verified.
Smudge
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.09, 17:04:20
I always thought that the difference between soft and hard ferromagnetic materials was the degree and speed of decay of remanent magnetization. In other words: a soft material loses its magnetization very quickly or instantaneously, while a hard one - very slowly or not at all.
Smudge suggests that it is not a matter of speed but a different phenomenon entirely.
I always thought that a perfect soft material can only inherit its magnetization by the application of an external influence, there is no remanence to be considered. Only hard material has remanence. But of course all soft materials do have some (hopefully small) remanence that causes the BH loop to have area and creates losses. It is generally assumed that the losses appear as heat in the material. The question on how long this (small) remanence would survive if it was allowed to remain is not germain to how well a transformer works as it is assumed to be permanent magnetism. In use it does not remain permanently as it gets swepped away and its presence is already accounted for by that BH loop area. Only recently have I discovered that materials can have remanence with decay times ranging from from many years (tens, hundreds, thousands?) down to milliseconds or less.
QuoteI haven't witnessed a perceptible decay of remanence either.
Smudge writes that the remanent magnetization decays slowly over years but my childhood recordings on magnetic tapes are still playable.
Will that still be true in another 100 years? Are the sound volumes the same as when they were recorded?
Smudge
Here are some more thoughts and formula on this subject. Every way I look at this the system yields OU.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.14, 10:34:24
Will that still be true in another 100 years? Are the sound volumes the same as when they were recorded?
IDK x2.
Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient. :)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.20, 16:57:18
Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient. :)
Zaev's next paper that appears at the end of this one is more relevant as it uses the difference between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy.
Here is a photo copy.
Smudge
Here is another interesting paper from Zaev. His material seems to be difficult to find!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.21, 21:51:56
Here is another interesting paper from Zaev. His material seems to be difficult to find!
Regards,
Pm
Looking back at the large number of scientific documents I have amassed in my computer I see I already downloaded these Zaev papers in 2007! He touches on many aspects that I am exploring now. I think his approach (that is using magnetically soft material, so differs from my "hard" material that is not quite "hard") uses very narrow input pulses that start the magnetizing process while initial permeability is very low, but having started that process the magnetization continues to build up after the end of the pulse (that he ascribes to
magnetic viscosity or
magnetic accomodation). That creates greater energy magnetically that is recovered in the demagnetization cycle. Note his use of the initial permeability u
i and maximum permeability u
max and their ratio to determine the ratio between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy. The significant feature is u
max/u
i should be high, as indeed it is in many ferrites. I have come across an early paper (1954) looking at conditions for square hysteresis loops in ferrites that gives u
i for some ferroxcubes and other materials.
Smudge
Smudge,
In your Zaev documents, would you happen to have "Genesis of Inductance Energy"? He supposedly talks more about the initial fast high energy pulse to create a 'spontaneous magnetization' or 'avalanche-like' chain reaction in the vacuum.
Pm
As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the conversion of thermal energy without a temperature gradient into other energy. Or am I wrong ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.22, 16:37:20
As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the conversion of thermal energy without a temperature gradient into other energy. Or am I wrong ?
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the conversion of thermal energy from a single-temperature thermal bath.
But no other physical law prohibits it. Since thermodynamics is a statistical law, we might well ask whether a Maxwell demon might not be possible on a local scale. No general proof of the impossibility of a Maxwell demon has yet been provided; only in special cases.
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.22, 13:15:25
Smudge,
In your Zaev documents, would you happen to have "Genesis of Inductance Energy"? He supposedly talks more about the initial fast high energy pulse to create a 'spontaneous magnetization' or 'avalanche-like' chain reaction in the vacuum.
Pm
No, but I do have "Fuel-less Energetics (Problems, solutions, forecasts)".
Smudge
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.20, 16:57:18
Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient. :)
Zaev's work is interesting to read, but after analysis, we realize that it's all truisms and that he's never managed to produce an experiment that would surprise us.
When he says that if ∂C/∂V<1 then electrical energy is gained in a capacitor, nobody has ever said otherwise. And when he says that the usual equations would no longer apply, that's wrong, they still apply, but you still have to choose the right ones, i.e. those with the instantaneous values you'll have to integrate, and integrate those at the origin of ∂C/∂V<1.
For example, we could have ∂C/∂V<1 with a capacitor whose capacity decreases as we charge it. If we take the mechanical case, this would mean that its plates would move apart, thus requiring mechanical work in addition to electrical work, which would end up in the form of additional electrical energy.
The question is how to do this at an energy cost lower than the gain. This applies to all parametric devices. Until now, changing the "parameter" (such as the distance between plates, or changing permittivity) has an energy cost. Ambient heat is obviously a natural candidate to provide this work, and the Vasilu-Karpen battery is the ideal example of the method. But while the principle is crystal-clear, there is no clear experimental evidence to support this possibility, not even from Zaev.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 09:34:22
If we take the mechanical case, this would mean that its plates would move apart, thus requiring mechanical work in addition to electrical work, which would end up in the form of additional electrical energy.
And they say that if the solenoid increases in diameter (let's imagine for simplicity that the wire is rubber) due to the flow of current in it.
The energy of the magnetic field in this solenoid increases. And besides, the solenoid performs mechanical expansion work for us.
Double benefit. The only cost is an increase in current.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.23, 10:20:13
And they say that if the solenoid increases in diameter (let's imagine for simplicity that the wire is rubber) due to the flow of current in it.
The energy of the magnetic field in this solenoid increases. And besides, the solenoid performs mechanical expansion work for us.
Double benefit. The only cost is an increase in current.
If that's what they're really saying, they're wrong. If things were as naive as that, we'd have had FE by the 19th century. How could you think it would have escaped Faraday's or Lorentz's intelligence?
If the diameter increases, the inductance increases. But the increase in inductance causes a variation in flux that opposes the current, so we'll have to raise the voltage to maintain the same current during the transition, i.e. provide a work W=∫(L*i).di where L is current or time depending.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 12:51:55
If that's what they're really saying, they're wrong. If things were as naive as that, we'd have had FE by the 19th century. How could you think it would have escaped Faraday's or Lorentz's intelligence?
The biggest problem of man is his ego. It won't matter what or who overlooked what. Admit fault, accept the change and move on, this goes for both sides. Or else the cycle of conflict, inequality and violence only repeats. Those that do not adapt to change will not last in nature either. Cooperation trumps competition.
We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation. The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.
The cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.
That's why, in this kind of eventuality, we have to talk about facts before theory, like abnormal results of experiments verifiable by any expert in the field.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 13:31:13
We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation. The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.
The cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.
That's why, in this kind of eventuality, we have to talk about facts before theory, like abnormal results of experiments verifiable by any expert in the field.
Like this experiment for instance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
Facts, data, an experiment anyone can do at home (or at the gym) and math a high schooler understands? Where are the world changing formidable applications using it today? The blackbird team has only faced ridicule and denial so far regardless of how much proof they put forward. Is this how science should be conducted according to you?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 13:31:13
We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation. The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.
If you read the Zaev paper I posted in reply #38 today doesn't he reference work by competent scientists that have shown evidence that our thermodynamic laws are at fault? And that these competent individuals were then written off by the majority of the Russian scientific establishment. Much like Laithewaite's infamous TV demonstrations at the Royal Society have been expunged from their records. Is that what you call cooperation?
QuoteThe cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.
So Laithewaite and those Russian scientists understood almost nothing?
Smudge
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.23, 14:48:43
Like this experiment for instance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
...
Those who see this as a departure from the laws of physics are the ones who just don't get it.
This experiment is a remarkable demonstration of the relevance of the laws of physics. It's only surprising at first sight, like a considerable number of scientific experiments, because common sense in science is not the common sense of sensible experience.
If we understand Newton's first law, we know that no energy is needed to move at constant speed, so the speed of the machine is in no way linked to the speed of the wind, but to the energy we can draw from it, which can be cumulative.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.21, 15:11:38
Zaev's next paper that appears at the end of this one is more relevant as it uses the difference between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy.
Here is a photo copy.
Smudge
OK, thanks!
PM
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 15:06:53
Those who see this as a departure from the laws of physics are the ones who just don't get it.
This experiment is a remarkable demonstration of the relevance of the laws of physics. It's only surprising at first sight, like a considerable number of scientific experiments, because common sense in science is not the common sense of sensible experience.
If we understand Newton's first law, we know that no energy is needed to move at constant speed, so the speed of the machine is in no way linked to the speed of the wind, but to the energy we can draw from it, which can be cumulative.
Who is talking about a departure? As you say it is fully within newtons laws of motion. But then you DO agree that it keeps accelerating until it hits the sonic wall? If so where did that kinetic energy come from?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.23, 14:52:10
If you read the Zaev paper I posted in reply #38 today doesn't he reference work by competent scientists that have shown evidence that our thermodynamic laws are at fault?
...
"Evidence" ? C.C It's not enough for a few cranks (there are some in academic science too) to interpret an experiment as being contrary to the laws of physics, for it to be so. There needs to be a consensus on the reality of the facts, and a demonstration that an explanation is impossible according to the known laws of physics.
Some scientists believe that a Maxwell demon is possible. But no really convincing experiment is provided that would lead to general acceptance.
In any case, if there is such a thing as "alternative science", someone should show me the alternative technology that goes with it.
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.23, 15:11:26
Who is talking about a departure? As you say it is fully within newtons laws of motion. But then you DO agree that it keeps accelerating until it hits the sonic wall? If so where did that kinetic energy come from?
As I just said: wind!
What would prevent a wind turbine from using its own energy to move forward?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 15:24:29
As I just said: wind!
What would prevent a wind turbine from using its own energy to move forward?
As a self proclaimed seeker of truth you sure did little homework on this to think its a wind turbine, at the very least you could have watched the video in its entirety. And here you are talking about how the greats could have missed something so obvious and you are missing what is in plain sight. But I digress, I guess some nuts can only be cracked by a hammer. I hope your nut is ready for said hammer because its going to be a big one.
Smudge and all,
After studying Zaev's paper "Inductive Conversion of Heat Environmental Energy to Electrical Energy" and his comments about "spontaneous magnetization", I decided to try some experiments. I was going to attempt to replicate his 16-coil setup but decided to try a 4-coil setup instead. After pondering the setup for awhile, I concluded that the parallel and series connections of the primaries and secondaries along with the k factors, complicated greatly the outcome calculations. So, I conceived the following setup which seems to prove his theory IMO.
The schematic below shows the test setup. The circuit works in the following manner: Mosfet M1 is held on by PG1 for a period of time that allows fixed currents to stabilize In L1 and CUT (coil under test). There will be a difference in the fixed currents between L1 and CUT depending on the on resistance of M1, the DC resistances of L1 and CUT, and the voltage of Vcc. When M1 turns off, the currents in L1 and CUT will reach levels that create an energy balance between L1 and CUT.
L1 is an inductor wound on an EC-52 ferrite gapped core set with a 4-section bobbin to reduce the self capacitance. It is linear to >900ma. The CUT is 42 turns of 25ga magnet wire that is evenly wound on a 2"(51mm) OD, 1.25" (32mm) ID, .75" (19mm) H ferrite toroid in P7070 material.
The energy drop in L1 is easily calculated but the energy gain in CUT is determined from a previously generated charging profile that shows the current and power values over time from a fixed voltage supply. Reference trace R1 is current and R2 is power. Granted, the actual energy recovered in CUT will probably be ~85% of the calculated charge energy but will still yield a COP>1.
The CUT can have no gaps in it's core and the efficiency will be higher if operated below the saturation knee.
So, from the L1 start and finish scope pix we see the currents are 155.0ma and 143.1ma respectively. Therefore the loss in L1 over the cycle is (.155^2-.1431^2)*.0183/2 = 32.46uJ.
Then, we see the start and finish currents in the CUT are 130.9ma and 180.4ma respectively. Placing vertical cursors on the R1 trace to establish the start and finish current levels, we see the mean power of R2 to be 9.801 watts. This power level for R2 was determined during the profiling of the CUT with the average of the instantaneous products of the CUT current and the voltage supply which in this case was 64v DC. This results in an energy level to raise the CUT from 131ma to 180ma of 9.801*6e-6 = 58.8uJ. Based on these figures, the COP would be 58.8/32.46 = 1.81. With the recovery of CUT at 85%, the COP = 50/32.46 = 1.54.
My conclusion of this is that Zaev is correct in that a sudden shock into a soft ferrite core material produces a shock to the aether that results in higher than normal magnetization of the CUT.
All comments welcome and appreciated.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 12:51:55
so we'll have to raise the voltage to maintain the same current during the transition, i.e. provide a work W=∫(L*i).di where L is current or time depending.
Yes,I was mistaken.On the spreading coil necessary increase voltage and not current.
But "rubber" coil will be doing mechanic work for us by its dilatation.
And besides, this coil will increase its magnetic energy at the same time.
I have the idea,where we could take extra voltage. But that is another theme.
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.23, 16:02:23
As a self proclaimed seeker of truth you sure did little homework on this to think its a wind turbine, at the very least you could have watched the video in its entirety. And here you are talking about how the greats could have missed something so obvious and you are missing what is in plain sight. But I digress, I guess some nuts can only be cracked by a hammer. I hope your nut is ready for said hammer because its going to be a big one.
The propeller is connected to the wheels, so any rotation of the propeller causes the machine to move forwards or backwards, with only the forces of friction to overcome, since movement only requires energy to overcome friction or to accelerate.
What is friction? There are two significant points to consider: the friction of the wheels on the ground, which is absolutely essential otherwise the machine would slide with the slightest wind.
The friction of the wind on the blades, which translates into an overall force in the direction of the wind, and through the deflection of the wind by the inclination of the blades, into a transverse force that turns the propeller.
When the machine is stationary, it is locked to the ground by the friction of the wheels. The transverse force tends to turn the propeller, which tends to turn the wheels, which tend to move the machine. For the machine to move forward, this force must be greater than the force exerted by the wind on the machine as a whole. Since the gear ratio between the propeller and the wheels can be arbitrarily set by a set of gears or pulleys, the force that can be exerted to turn the wheels in order to move can be arbitrarily large.
The larger the ratio (many propeller revolutions for few wheel revolutions), the greater the force but the slower the machine will move. The smaller the ratio (few propeller revolutions for many wheel revolutions), the faster the machine will move, but the force will be weak, and if it's too weak, it won't surpass the overall force exerted by the wind on the whole machine.
The efficiency of the machine is therefore determined by this ratio and the reduction of all other sources of loss, such as axle friction.
An arbitrarily large force can be obtained from a small force, but their work will be the same. As for the question of wind speed and machine speed, they are not linked in any way as long as there is a difference, i.e. a non-zero relative speed of the wind in relation to the machine, which makes it possible to draw energy.
Finally, the direction of motion can be forward or backward, depending on the technical realization, but this doesn't change the question as long as the relative wind speed is not zero.
Once again, if you don't understand all this, it's because, like many others, you haven't yet grasped the difference between force and energy/work, and that relative speed is mainly related to energy, not force.
Contrary to your answer, the comparison with a wind turbine is perfectly relevant to the video if you understand the general principles involved, and answers your previous question "where did that kinetic energy come from?". It's only you who doesn't see the connection and isn't trying to understand, prefering to look anywhere for anomalies in physics when it's ignorance of its laws that generates the illusion. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.24, 06:32:54
The propeller is connected to the wheels, so any rotation of the propeller causes the machine to move forwards or backwards, with only the forces of friction to overcome, since movement only requires energy to overcome friction or to accelerate.
What is friction? There are two significant points to consider: the friction of the wheels on the ground, which is absolutely essential otherwise the machine would slide with the slightest wind.
The friction of the wind on the blades, which translates into an overall force in the direction of the wind, and through the deflection of the wind by the inclination of the blades, into a transverse force that turns the propeller.
When the machine is stationary, it is locked to the ground by the friction of the wheels. The transverse force tends to turn the propeller, which tends to turn the wheels, which tend to move the machine. For the machine to move forward, this force must be greater than the force exerted by the wind on the machine as a whole. Since the gear ratio between the propeller and the wheels can be arbitrarily set by a set of gears or pulleys, the force that can be exerted to turn the wheels in order to move can be arbitrarily large.
The larger the ratio (many propeller revolutions for few wheel revolutions), the greater the force but the slower the machine will move. The smaller the ratio (few propeller revolutions for many wheel revolutions), the faster the machine will move, but the force will be weak, and if it's too weak, it won't surpass the overall force exerted by the wind on the whole machine.
The efficiency of the machine is therefore determined by this ratio and the reduction of all other sources of loss, such as axle friction.
An arbitrarily large force can be obtained from a small force, but their work will be the same. As for the question of wind speed and machine speed, they are not linked in any way as long as there is a difference, i.e. a non-zero relative speed of the wind in relation to the machine, which makes it possible to draw energy.
Finally, the direction of motion can be forward or backward, depending on the technical realization, but this doesn't change the question as long as the relative wind speed is not zero.
Once again, if you don't understand all this, it's because, like many others, you haven't yet grasped the difference between force and energy/work, and that relative speed is mainly related to energy, not force.
Contrary to your answer, the comparison with a wind turbine is perfectly relevant to the video if you understand the general principles involved, and answers your previous question "where did that kinetic energy come from?". It's only you who doesn't see the connection and isn't trying to understand, prefering to look anywhere for anomalies in physics when it's ignorance of its laws that generates the illusion. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.
Everything you said is correct except for this:
Quotebut their work will be the same
You again missed the subtle nuance of what is truly going on with the blackbird and the implications it has.
If the work done is the same, blackbird would come to a very quick halt and not keep accelerating until it hits the limits of the medium its in. Wind speed is irrelevant as shown by the treadmill.
The work done is NOT balanced. Derek in the video gave in fact a very good mathematical explanation of this. It is not work that is conserved because you are NOT operating in a closed system. But power in and power out ARE the same.
But you are right energy cant come out of nowhere. So where did the extra energy come from? Since you are not good at hints. Here is the answer for you; take a pocket of air and then push it, what makes the previous space it occupied be replaced by fresh surrounding air? The answer is GRAVITY, this near limitless potential causes a massive density gradient in the air. The propeller pushing on this density gradient is continuously creating empty pockets of air in front of it by pushing air back and thus the density gradient pushes it forward. But the wheels at the bottom tell the proppeller to push faster now and due to the mechanical advantage the propeller can only follow orders.
In short Blackbird converts potential energy from gravity into kinetic energy from the very fact it is riding between an interface the ground and air and that said air has a potential gradient. And yes you got very close until you took a side turn. Because the "secret" force that is making this all happen is friction. The universe can sometimes look us right in the eye but if you could zoom out from that Awkard position you would see a reflection of yourself which is poetic if you ask me.
Btw dont put all people in the same boat its destructive and unproductive. You dont know me personally and my capacities. In the past I have shared quite a few ideas that you pointed the faults of, and after going back and reviewing them . I often had to admit admit fault or even better I learned something new and used it to judge the merit of an idea more accurately the next time...even if it damaged my ego. This is the very reason that got me where I am now. I am quite reasonable and open to any side but this "us vs them" narrative you keep pulling up does not allow for constructive discussion or debates and gets you nowhere. I changed my mind too, whether science managed to miss something so obvious or not doesn't bother me anymore, I let it go as it brought me nowhere and was even sabotaging me. The real question is how do we go forward from here and work together on cool applications and learn from the mistakes of the past as to not repeat them in the future.
I am willing to give my time if such discussions remain civil and dont resort to belittling and ridiculing the opposing party with statements such as "Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.". Things can get heated at times and we all have an ego, but the reason humans are where we are is because we can cooperate on a scale exponentially larger than any species on earth. Conflicts and war? Any animal can do that. We can keep on fighting over ridiculous things like who has the most bananas, even start senseless wars over them, shoot and kill each other or we can set aside our egos for a minute and cooperate to shoot at the stars together while sharing said bananas.
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.24, 12:21:35
Everything you said is correct except for this:
You again missed the subtle nuance of what is truly going on with the blackbird and the implications it has.
If the work done is the same, blackbird would come to a very quick halt ...
I mean that the work of a force that is transformed by a gear is the same on both sides: strong force with small displacement or weak force with large displacement.
This work comes from the wind on the blades, which turns the propeller, which turns the wheels. All this is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and becomes obvious when you try to understand, not invent anything...
I don't know what else you've come up with... C.C "subtle nuance" ;D
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.24, 14:54:30
I mean that the work of a force that is transformed by a gear is the same on both sides: strong force with small displacement or weak force with large displacement.
This work comes from the wind on the blades, which turns the propeller, which turns the wheels. All this is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and becomes obvious when you try to understand, not invent anything...
I don't know what else you've come up with... C.C "subtle nuance" ;D
I am going to start a new thread as to not derail this one if you wish you can continue the discussion there.
In reference to my post #52, there is an issue with my estimated recovery efficiency of the CUT at 85%. The following scope pix show the efficiency to be much lower due to the B-H loop losses of the core material.
The first pix shows the Pin and the second Pix shows the Pout at 9.2w and 9.18w respectively. This results in Uin an Uout energy levels of 57.4uJ and 31.9uJ respectively for an efficiency of 55.6%. This more than cancels any gains in the charging phase of the CUT from L1. As the the induction level or H field is reduced, the efficiencies increase and at an Ipeak=50ma, there appears to be a slight gain but the levels are too low to put any significance on the results.
I will reduce the turns on the CUT to raise the peak of the linear H field to a more reasonable level to see what the results might be.
Regards,
Pm
The magnetic energy within the free space occupied by the magnet or core (that is actually the inter-atomic space) is not usually recognized as a usable source of energy, but it can be the source when remanent magnetism decay drives current through a coil into a load resistor. Here are two papers I wrote some time ago on this subject.
Smudge
For those who might be interested in exploring the SEMP technology you can do this with readily available ferrite cores. You can use a domestic oven to get your transformer within just tens of degrees C of its Curie point where it will exhibit the wanted effect, see attached paper. Anyone here up for this?
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.23, 15:35:45
Anyone here up for this?
Yes. I would like it.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.06.23, 16:52:14
Yes. I would like it.
I'll do it, too but not now. Ask Chet why when you talk to him.
I like where this thread is going. I would argue that Rubber and Iron are very similar in nature. How they behave and their thermodynamic nature, especially entropy wise are very similar.
When you stretch rubber, all the randomness disappears as you "align" its internals and its internal energy is released as heat back in to the environment. The most significant is how its entropy depends on the absolute temperature where higher temperatures actually make it behave more linear and thus rubber becomes "stiffer" at higher temperatures. Which can even be fine tuned with "doping" or adding other ingredients to it. The tire industry has a whole science on this. This would be similar to how the "curie temperature" is tweaked in ferromagnetic materials to amplify effects such as the "magnetocaloric " effect for instance.
Perhaps iron and "rubber" are cousins and we are barely scratching the surface of the true potential of these special materials :). If you look closely at iron you even see similar coil like "randomness" as domains but more importantly as the "walls" between them called "Bloch" and "Neels domain walls", these form circular 180° transition points and a big mess of coiled up states until you introduce an external field that "aligns" them aka lower its entropy. In rubber this would be akin to introducing a tension force, but a magnetic field will do the trick for iron or other ferromagnetic materials which would also cool the material aka Magnetic refrigeration.
I personally find this connection amazing. Aligning a system makes energy escape from it, and the environment temperature (the sun) causes it to heat back up. A true oscillating energy source. The only question is, what force is driving the alignment, and how "free" is that. Are "Permanent" magnets free enough? Makes you wonder about many other "rubbery" things. That is philosophical in itself haha.
Some interesting material on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPMF59f8KU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudAzFZdLls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBRBB6D8SdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovVO8NDdon4
Maybe the iron age has barely started as we discover its "rubber" like properties.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.30, 15:20:13
The magnetic energy within the free space occupied by the magnet or core (that is actually the inter-atomic space) is not usually recognized as a usable source of energy
because it is not usable as it is.
Quote
, but it can be the source when remanent magnetism decay drives current through a coil into a load resistor. Here are two papers I wrote some time ago on this subject.
Smudge
Even if this magnetic decay was fast enough for a significant dPhi/dt and, what is doubtful, represented a significant part compared to the energy that magnetized the magnet, how do you remagnetize the magnet at a lower cost than the energy supplied, to obtain a cycle?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.06.24, 21:01:22
because it is not usable as it is.
Please tell me why it is not usable, what is the logic that tells you it is not usable?
QuoteEven if this magnetic decay was fast enough for a significant dPhi/dt
What do you consider to be a significant dPhi/dt? Have you looked at the Neel formula to see what it predicts?
Quoteand, what is doubtful, represented a significant part compared to the energy that magnetized the magnet,
What do you mean by a decay time representing a significant part of an energy? You are talking in riddles here.
Quotehow do you remagnetize the magnet at a lower cost than the energy supplied, to obtain a cycle?
The electrical input energy needed to remagnetize a
permanent (we are not dealing with soft materials here) magnet is not directly related to the electrical energy obtainable when something non-electrical causes the demagnetization. It is related to that "something" that is supplying non-electrical energy.
Smudge
Following on from the previous message the energy required to magnetize is easily determined from the B v. H loop (area is an energy density that must be multiplied by the core volume to get energy in joules) or the Phi v. i loop (gives energy directly). During the build up from zero field the incremental permeability (dB/dH) plays its part. The initial relative permeability μ is low but then this rises to a very high value before reducing over the saturation knee. It is really the susceptibility χ that is changing in value where χ = μ-1. The non-zero susceptibility at any point during the rise is due to the changing alignment of the dipoles creating an H field of value χH adding to that put into "the air space occupied by the core" directly from the current. B = μ0(1+χ)H tells us this, we can write this B = μ0H +μ0χH where the first term is the B field from the current driving an air cored coil and the second term is the contribution from the magnetization M (=χH) of the partially aligned dipoles. The dipole alignment is acting somewhat like positive feedback in reducing the amount of current needed to drive current into the air-cored coil. We have the time history of that dipole alignment working to our advantage. So we need tiny amounts of H from the current to create enormous amount of M, (like H = 50 A/m creates BR = 0.5 Tesla that is MR = 39,789 A/m as in my previous papers).
We are dealing with square-loop material where the MH loop has a flat top. When we look at some external "force" making MR decay, if this drives current through a loaded coil we do not have any initial χ as it is zero, the B v. H slope is μ0. We do not have any time history giving an advantage. So we have effectively an air-cored coil where the current is attempting to stop or slow the M decay. It needs a lot of current to have any effect, the H from that current can far exceed the 50 A/m maximum value used for the magnetization. So immediately we have the start of a B v load-current H loop that is way outside the magnetizing loop. All my attempts to then complete the output BH loop yield over-unity that reaches significant values. To make this acceptable to the scientific community I reason that this is temperature driven and there is the source of the anomalous energy, it takes heat from the environment. But I rather think that this could be more fundamental than that, like taking magnetic energy from the inter-atomic space since the external "force" is doing just that.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.25, 15:31:41
Following on from the previous message the energy required to magnetize is easily determined from the B v. H loop (area is an energy density that must be multiplied by the core volume to get energy in joules) or the Phi v. i loop (gives energy directly). During the build up from zero field the incremental permeability (dB/dH) plays its part. The initial relative permeability μ is low but then this rises to a very high value before reducing over the saturation knee. It is really the susceptibility χ that is changing in value where χ = μ-1. The non-zero susceptibility at any point during the rise is due to the changing alignment of the dipoles creating an H field of value χH adding to that put into "the air space occupied by the core" directly from the current. B = μ0(1+χ)H tells us this, we can write this B = μ0H +μ0χH where the first term is the B field from the current driving an air cored coil and the second term is the contribution from the magnetization M (=χH) of the partially aligned dipoles. The dipole alignment is acting somewhat like positive feedback in reducing the amount of current needed to drive current into the air-cored coil. We have the time history of that dipole alignment working to our advantage. So we need tiny amounts of H from the current to create enormous amount of M, (like H = 50 A/m creates BR = 0.5 Tesla that is MR = 39,789 A/m as in my previous papers).
We are dealing with square-loop material where the MH loop has a flat top. When we look at some external "force" making MR decay, if this drives current through a loaded coil we do not have any initial χ as it is zero, the B v. H slope is μ0. We do not have any time history giving an advantage. So we have effectively an air-cored coil where the current is attempting to stop or slow the M decay. It needs a lot of current to have any effect, the H from that current can far exceed the 50 A/m maximum value used for the magnetization. So immediately we have the start of a B v load-current H loop that is way outside the magnetizing loop. All my attempts to then complete the output BH loop yield over-unity that reaches significant values. To make this acceptable to the scientific community I reason that this is temperature driven and there is the source of the anomalous energy, it takes heat from the environment. But I rather think that this could be more fundamental than that, like taking magnetic energy from the inter-atomic space since the external "force" is doing just that.
Smudge
Smudge,
Interesting! I tried a quick and dirty version of your device using Magnetics "P" material that has a Curie temp >210 degrees C but the BH curve is not square. I heated the core to ~90 degrees C using a PSO (Pulsed Saturating Oscillator) and then converted the circuit quickly to my assumed equivalent of your suggested constant current drive. I did not see any gain in the recovery phase but I was not close enough to the Curie temp IMO so the results are not conclusive by any means for many reasons.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.06.25, 16:34:25
Smudge,
Interesting! I tried a quick and dirty version of your device using Magnetics "P" material that has a Curie temp >210 degrees C but the BH curve is not square. I heated the core to ~90 degrees C using a PSO (Pulsed Saturating Oscillator) and then converted the circuit quickly to my assumed equivalent of your suggested constant current drive. I did not see any gain in the recovery phase but I was not close enough to the Curie temp IMO so the results are not conclusive by any means for many reasons.
Yes you need to be closer to the Curie temp. Look for a secondary voltage after the primary current has switched off that should indicate the remanence is decaying without any electrical help.
I found the attached documents on square-loop material useful.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.26, 15:06:15
Yes you need to be closer to the Curie temp. Look for a secondary voltage after the primary current has switched off that should indicate the remanence is decaying without any electrical help.
I found the attached documents on square-loop material useful.
Smudge
Smudge,
Thanks for the links! I found that I have on hand Ferroxcube toroids that are in 3R1 material. These are designed for magnetic amplifiers and have a square loop with a Curie temp of >230deg C.
If I may also suggest that there are perhaps options to your current driven bifilar coil/core arrangement. The tightly wound bifilar primary and secondary windings can be thought of as equivalent to a single winding less the IW capacitance and could be used if isolation isn't required. In this case, the input source could be a constant voltage source providing the input current ramp to the single winding. The collapse or 2nd phase would then place the falling current through a diode to the load resistance that is connected to the power supply to capture the decay energy.
Regards,
Pm
@PM,
Do not confuse falling current with falling remanence. The input voltage you propose must be a pulse that gives rising current up to that required to reach saturation Bsat, but then the current must fall back to zero to reach the remanence point Brem. With a gap before the next pulse comes along there will normally be zero voltage as Brem remains constant. It is there that you must look for a voltage due to Brem decay, there will be a fast rising voltage (and current if a load is across the coil) spike followed by an exponential fall. I would be inclined to initially look for the voltage spike with the coil unloaded at that time. Note that the current polarity for both the drive current and the load current is in the same direction, so separating them using a diode is not possible IMO. It has to be done with active semi-conductor switches.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.26, 18:57:52
@PM,
Do not confuse falling current with falling remanence. The input voltage you propose must be a pulse that gives rising current up to that required to reach saturation Bsat, but then the current must fall back to zero to reach the remanence point Brem. With a gap before the next pulse comes along there will normally be zero voltage as Brem remains constant. It is there that you must look for a voltage due to Brem decay, there will be a fast rising voltage (and current if a load is across the coil) spike followed by an exponential fall. I would be inclined to initially look for the voltage spike with the coil unloaded at that time. Note that the current polarity for both the drive current and the load current is in the same direction, so separating them using a diode is not possible IMO. It has to be done with active semi-conductor switches.
Smudge
You need "EVIDENCE" Smudge, not hyperbolic theories which are hard to replicate and which the local sceptics will never accept :). I have been thinking about this for a while now, what would be the nail in the coffin experiment. The electromagnetic domain would only spark more debates, it needs to be something very simple, something mechanical, something a kid with a 3d printer and some basic materials kan replicate at home so that debates quickly become a waste of time. If evidence is undeniable then all domains can be much easily explored, especially the magnetic one that you are focusing on right now. But there is need for a kid friendly version first.
This paper is not strickly on the present topic but deals with ferromagnetic ring cores dimensional resonance which may be useful for some members here:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/)
Gyula
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.25, 09:59:20
Please tell me why it is not usable, what is the logic that tells you it is not usable?
What do you consider to be a significant dPhi/dt? Have you looked at the Neel formula to see what it predicts?
What do you mean by a decay time representing a significant part of an energy? You are talking in riddles here.
By "significant", I mean "sufficient to see it without ambiguity in the measurements".
If the suppositions I made don't suit you, forget them, they didn't condition my final question.
Quote
The electrical input energy needed to remagnetize a permanent (we are not dealing with soft materials here) magnet is not directly related to the electrical energy obtainable when something non-electrical causes the demagnetization. It is related to that "something" that is supplying non-electrical energy.
Whatever the means of obtaining magnetization, the magnetic energy density is W=B²/2.µ. This energy will have to be supplied for magnetization (plus losses) and it doesn't matter which means is used, be it electrical, mechanical by influence, or anything else.
It's therefore essential that you define the "something" you're talking about, and not from the formalism of the laws of physics, since they guarantee the conservation of energy through their internal mathematical consistency.
Quote from: gyula on 2024.06.28, 12:51:13
This paper is not strickly on the present topic but deals with ferromagnetic ring cores dimensional resonance which may be useful for some members here:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/)
Gyula
A ferrite could be used as a waveguide or as a resonant antenna. It's perfectly possible in theory. In practice, we don't have materials with both giant permeability and permittivity for practical use. If they are too large, the losses become too large. If we try to increase the working frequency for a smaller wavelength compatible with the size of the ferrite, we increase losses or enter zones of lower permittivity and permeability, which are generally frequency-dependent. This is Murphy's Law. I've already searched in vain for such materials, which would be ideal for small radio antennas. Materials technology is still far from the optimum we need. There's only the beginning of use in the GHz range with dielectric antennas, and it's only a question of dielectric, not permeability. We were born too early :(
Don't loopstick antennas work well? They are just strands of Litz wire wrapped around a ferrite core (usually MnZn), that are effective up to 5MHz-ish.
QuoteTo understand what MnZn Ferrites are or what that acronym means, one must first have a basic idea of what ferrites are. Simply put, ferrites are ceramic materials that are a mix of iron oxide, zinc, nickel, manganese and other compounds. Their ability to retain spontaneous magnetisation allows usage in a wide variety of applications.
Ferrites are predominantly divided into Hard & Soft Ferrites.
- Hard Ferrites are tough to magnetise because of their high coercivity, making them ideal to use in appliances like refrigerators, washing machines, and televisions.
- Soft Ferrites have a decent ability to conduct magnetic fields which is useful for developing transformer cores and also in electrical & medical devices.
What are MnZn Ferrites?
Soft ferrites further branch out to others, the most common ones being MnZn (Manganese-Zinc) & NiZn (Nickel-Zinc) ferrites. MnZn ferrites are a type of soft ferrite that carry good electrical & magnetic properties.
They are often preferred over NiZn ferrites because of their higher permeability, magnetisation ability & lower value of resistivity as compared to its counterpart. MnZn ferrites are also low in cost & power losses with high values of magnetic induction that are desirable by power applications, sensors, biomedical applications, inductors etc. Most of their applications rely on their properties of stress insensitivity & adequate working under 2 Mhz.
Useful Traits
One can notice multiple benefits of using the MnZn ferrites. Among all these, a few stand out that are often the deciding factor in using these ferrites.
Low Power Loss
Unnecessary power losses can vastly affect the performance of applications that work on constant power. Loss because of hysteresis is an example of this power loss. It happens during the magnetization and demagnetisation of the ferrite and is lost to the environment as heat. These losses build up with continuous use.
MnZn cores keep power losses because of such effects as low as possible, allowing the efficient working of electronic applications.
Low Remanent Magnetisation
Soft ferrites aren't permanent magnets but they don't lose magnetisation completely either. In the absence of a magnetic field, their magnetism decreases. In such cases, there is a residue value known as remanent magnetisation.
MnZn ferrites show an increase in value before decreasing and hence offer a low value of remanent magnetisation.
Low Coercivity
The coercivity of any material is its ability to withstand demagnetisation in an external magnetic field.
MnZn ferrites have low coercivity which means it has low resistance to any change in their magnetisation. This property lets them be readily used in applications where polarity will be often reversed.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.06.28, 14:41:26
Whatever the means of obtaining magnetization, the magnetic energy density is W=B²/2.µ. This energy will have to be supplied for magnetization (plus losses) and it doesn't matter which means is used, be it electrical, mechanical by influence, or anything else.
In that W=B²/2.µ formula when related to the B within ferromagnetic material the permeability µ contains the relative permeability of the material. For soft material with a perfect linear B v. H (that doesn't really exist) there is no problem with that formula and it is easily shown that this energy density exacty agrees with the area of the BH loop triangle both for magnetization and demagnetization. Electrical energy out = electrical energy in. When it comes to real materials the relative permeability is not a constant, it depends on the H history leading to hysteresis. So what µ should we use in that formula? For square-loop material that has been magnetized (a permanent magnet) what µ would you use? The known incremental µ is µ
0 and if you use this value you get the energy density of the known B value of the magnet in air or free-space, the very thing that you say is inaccessible.
QuoteIt's therefore essential that you define the "something" you're talking about, and not from the formalism of the laws of physics, since they guarantee the conservation of energy through their internal mathematical consistency.
In an AC transformer we have the core being demagnetized over part of a cycle inducing voltage ino a coil driving current into a load resistor yielding energy far in excess of that supplied for the magnetization. In that case the "something" supplying that energy is the voltage.current in the primary coil.
For the system being discussed in this thread the "something" is the thermal input KT (K is Boltzmann's constant and T is absolute temperature) that appears in the Neel formula for the remanent magnetism relaxation time (decay time constant). When we use that non-electrically-driven decay we are not extracting the so-called magnetic energy stored in the core, we are extracting it from the effects of the thermal agitation. Yes the loss of magnetic energy needs replenishing and that is taken into consideration. We have to resupply that energy including losses just as we do in the normal transformer.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.06.30, 10:26:04
...When it comes to real materials the relative permeability is not a constant, it depends on the H history leading to hysteresis. So what µ should we use in that formula? For square-loop material that has been magnetized (a permanent magnet) what µ would you use?
We're talking about µ at the moment we apply the calculation. The relationships between B(t) and µ(t) are true at every instant, including that of magnetic energy density.
When µ varies, it's because the energy is distributed differently. For example, some of it may be lost through its work on realigning the magnetic domains at the same time as µ is reduced.
Whether the variation is in time or in space (e.g. a ferrite used as a transmission line), the equations apply step by step, in time or in space.
If we remain on a macroscopic scale and see only the whole, we can't draw any conclusions. If µ varies, we need to look step by step in time and space to see where the energy is going and in what form.
Quote
In an AC transformer we have the core being demagnetized over part of a cycle inducing voltage ino a coil driving current into a load resistor yielding energy far in excess of that supplied for the magnetization. In that case the "something" supplying that energy is the voltage.current in the primary coil.
I don't agree with this way of presenting the facts. That the magnetic energy of a transformer is constantly fed by the primary current and constantly consumed by the secondary current is nothing new. The quasi-concomitance of the two gives the illusion that the transformer doesn't store the energy passed from one to the other, but this is not true. There is a delay during which the energy is stored in magnetic form in the transformer core, during this very short transfer time. The principle is the same as if energy were passed through a capacitor alternately switched from input to output.
Quote
For the system being discussed in this thread the "something" is the thermal input KT (K is Boltzmann's constant and T is absolute temperature) that appears in the Neel formula for the remanent magnetism relaxation time (decay time constant). When we use that non-electrically-driven decay we are not extracting the so-called magnetic energy stored in the core, we are extracting it from the effects of the thermal agitation. Yes the loss of magnetic energy needs replenishing and that is taken into consideration. We have to resupply that energy including losses just as we do in the normal transformer.
Smudge
Heat is one of the forms in which magnetic energy can transform when µ or any other parameter changes, and it's one of the changes of form I mentioned in paragraph 1. I fully agree that this transformation can be achieved by supplying energy. But if you agree that "the loss of magnetic energy needs replenishing", that's the crucial point. If you can't replenish this energy at a lower cost, the device remains completely conventional, and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.07.01, 11:09:06
We're talking about µ at the moment we apply the calculation. The relationships between B(t) and µ(t) are true at every instant, including that of magnetic energy density.
When µ varies, it's because the energy is distributed differently. For example, some of it may be lost through its work on realigning the magnetic domains at the same time as µ is reduced.
Whether the variation is in time or in space (e.g. a ferrite used as a transmission line), the equations apply step by step, in time or in space.
If we remain on a macroscopic scale and see only the whole, we can't draw any conclusions. If µ varies, we need to look step by step in time and space to see where the energy is going and in what form.
You have dodged the question I posed and introduced your own personal perception of magnetism.
QuoteI don't agree with this way of presenting the facts. That the magnetic energy of a transformer is constantly fed by the primary current and constantly consumed by the secondary current is nothing new. The quasi-concomitance of the two gives the illusion that the transformer doesn't store the energy passed from one to the other, but this is not true. There is a delay during which the energy is stored in magnetic form in the transformer core, during this very short transfer time. The principle is the same as if energy were passed through a capacitor alternately switched from input to output.
You clearly have a different perception of the principles of transformer action than I do. I am 90 years old and have been immersed in EM theory since the age of 16; in all those years I have never come across what you present here and with which I violently disagree. Show me some proof.
QuoteHeat is one of the forms in which magnetic energy can transform when µ or any other parameter changes, and it's one of the changes of form I mentioned in paragraph 1. I fully agree that this transformation can be achieved by supplying energy. But if you agree that "the loss of magnetic energy needs replenishing", that's the crucial point. If you can't replenish this energy at a lower cost, the device remains completely conventional, and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be.
Of course you can't because you have this (IMO incorrect) perception of energy transfer.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.07.02, 09:49:17
Of course you can't because you have this (IMO incorrect) perception of energy transfer.
If you think that you can or cannot, you are right in any case. (Henry Ford). :)
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.07.02, 09:49:17
You have dodged the question I posed and introduced your own personal perception of magnetism.
You clearly have a different perception of the principles of transformer action than I do. I am 90 years old and have been immersed in EM theory since the age of 16; in all those years I have never come across what you present here and with which I violently disagree. Show me some proof.
Of course you can't because you have this (IMO incorrect) perception of energy transfer.
Smudge
Hey Smudge. It seems people always ignore the importance of the all important aspects of hysteresis, time and time again. Everything has to be linear. I find it comedic really.
Heres a good reminder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiG0e1s6nV4
When you introduce "memory" you are breaking symmetries in time and energy starts to flow, one way or the other. Whether its "free" is a whole different debate. Rubber, Nitinol, Iron...all have a hysteresis. But hey we are all just crackpots here what do I know.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.07.01, 11:09:06
That the magnetic energy of a transformer is constantly fed by the primary current and constantly consumed by the secondary current is nothing new. The quasi-concomitance of the two gives the illusion that the transformer doesn't store the energy passed from one to the other, but this is not true. There is a delay during which the energy is stored in magnetic form in the transformer core, during this very short transfer time. The principle is the same as if energy were passed through a capacitor alternately switched from input to output.
Since transformers transfer power any quantity of energy involves time. You mention a short transfer time that is negligible compared to the time taken by the system to traverse its B v. H (or Flux v. Current) loop. The peak magnetic energy in the core (accumulated over time like a half cycle and is recycled anyway) is related to the peak energy transferred from input to output by the core's permeability, the higher the permeability the smaller that core energy. In a loaded AC transformer, the energy per half cycle appearing in the load resistor is far greater than the core magnetic energy associated with the changing field.
QuoteHeat is one of the forms in which magnetic energy can transform when µ or any other parameter changes, and it's one of the changes of form I mentioned in paragraph 1. I fully agree that this transformation can be achieved by supplying energy. But if you agree that "the loss of magnetic energy needs replenishing", that's the crucial point. If you can't replenish this energy at a lower cost, the device remains completely conventional, and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be.
The device is not conventional because it has not been done this way before. The nearest is charge and discharge of an inductor where input and output occur at separate times and the magnetic energy stored in the core equals both input and output energy. But this new system is not charge and discharge of an inductor. It is charge of a "permanent magnet" over one time span followed by another time span during which the "permanent" magnetic field is driven down to zero by some "external means". The energy taken from that external source appears in our load resistor. In a loaded AC transformer, as we lower the resistance value the energy transfer increases while the field change and core energy remains the same. The primary source supplies both energies. In this new system the "external means" acts like a primary to supply the output energy and the field change (decay), as we lower the load resistor value we extract more energy for the same field change.
Smudge
I came across this interesting piece by Harold Aspden (https://web.archive.org/web/20170928202139/https://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/reports/Es1/esr1.htm) which seemed relevant to the topic.
QuoteThe curious fact that our thermoelectric refrigeration device is built with an inherent functional symmetry and yet it always cools on its exposed test heat sink surface, it being noted that the electrical operating unit is mounted on the same panel that constitutes the second heat sink surface. The latter gets hot as the former cools, but, unless Scott Strachan builds a version that separates the electrical operating unit from the second heat sink we shall have to await the clear experimental evidence that, in truth, both surfaces are cooling as the device delivers electrical power!
The idea that one can build a power transformer which draws in heat and so cools a housing in which it is enclosed and at the same time converts that rejected heat into electricity fed along wires leading from that housing is one that seems beyond belief. It defies the second law of thermodynamics, but that should not deter a pioneer who has in his possession the device mentioned above.
The object of the experiment is to test a suspicion that current circulation within a bimetallic lamination can, under certain circumstances, result in cooling for current flow across the thickness of the lamination. The experiment acknowledges that such cooling would produce an EMF and put electrical power into increasing the current flow in the plane of the lamination, unless deflected from the lamination, transverse to its width. This means extra heating and anomalous loss augmenting the eddy-current loss, but such an anomaly is direct evidence of that underlying cooling and electrical generation.
The prototype devices all used thin film bimetallic layers of aluminium and nickel and involved that transverse 'deflection'. The 'circumstances' stated are that the lamination includes a ferromagnetic layer of thickness less than the 100 micron dimension, the size of a magnetic domain formed within the larger crystals of the material.
In the subject experiment, there was no transverse deflection but the other condition was met. Commercially available steel foil (known in the trade as 'shim steel') of 2 thousandths of an inch in thickness was obtained and an electroplating firm was asked to coat one face with nickel using an electroless plating process. The nickel coating was 0.7 thousandths of an inch in thickness. It was found that this could be cut into small rectangles for assembly in a 100 VA transformer core, supplied in kit form (eg. R.S. Components in U.K.). Thin card placed between the laminations was used to insulate them from each other. The arrangement was as shown in Fig. 10, with legs A and B being formed by the bimetallic pieces. Primary and secondary windings, respectively series-connected in pairs, were formed on each of the legs A and B.
The test involved observing on an oscilloscope the changing shape of the B-H magnetization loop as primary current input increased.
To present the B-H loop on an oscilloscope screen the secondary winding was connected across a 100k resistor in series with a 2 µF capacitor and the Y input to the oscilloscope was taken across the capacitor terminals. The H input was provided by incorporating a series resistor in the primary feed circuit and taking the X input from the potential drop across that resistor.
What I was intending by this experiment was to estimate the eddy-current loss resulting from the bimetallic lamination feature. Having done Ph.D. research studying anomalous eddy-current losses experimentally I was particularly curious as I had never heard of anyone ever before testing a transformer built using bimetallic Fe:Ni laminations. Moreover I knew that I was using laminations that were much thinner, though more conductive, than is customary in transformers.
Added to this, I knew from my Ph.D. research days, during which I measured the loss factors in different elemental sectors of the B-H loop, that there was a particularly high and inexplicable loss in a part of the loop where it was least to be expected.
F6FLT
QuoteThat the magnetic energy of a transformer is constantly fed by the primary current and constantly consumed by the secondary current is nothing new.
First we need to be clear that nothing is "consumed". Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. Energy is transferred from the primary to the secondary by way of a changing magnetic field. I say "magnetic field" as a generalization but it should be understood the field is made of billions of smaller magnetic fields relating to the atoms which make up the conducting and magnetic material.
QuoteThe quasi-concomitance of the two gives the illusion that the transformer doesn't store the energy passed from one to the other, but this is not true. There is a delay during which the energy is stored in magnetic form in the transformer core, during this very short transfer time. The principle is the same as if energy were passed through a capacitor alternately switched from input to output.
I would agree to some extent. I needed to know the actual facts of the matter so I started placing and embedding hall effect sensor arrays in and on inductors and transformers. As you say there is always a slight delay but I found there is much more to it. You see most don't seem to understand the how and why of the actual mechanism driving the energy transfer. In reality the secondary of a transformer acts almost identical to a shaded pole. That is, the primary current starts producing an expanding magnetic field which induces the secondary. The induced secondary then produces it's own current and secondary magnetic field. The secondary magnetic field then opposes the primary magnetic field which induced it in the first place. We can measure the extent of field opposition as a local increase in the magnetic field density and a shift in field polarity.
So in fact the induction process looks more like this...
Primary current, delay, primary magnetic field expanding, delay, secondary current induced, delay, secondary magnetic field expanding, delay, secondary field opposes the primary field, delay, increase of field density at primary/secondary transition point. Ergo, it is not one delay but many during each step of the induction process.
I would also note my experiments were made on transformers having separate primary and secondary windings. If a primary is wound over the secondary or vice versa it is nearly impossible to track the field changes.
AC
For those who insist that the energy obtained from this remanence decay cannot exceed the energy required to re-magnetize the core consider the following experiment. We have at our disposal a thin rod of our square-loop material that is pre-magnetized. It is now a permanent magnet, but one that can easily have its polarity switched by bringing it close to a more powerful PM. Energy is consumed in this process that is supplied from two sources. One source is the force needed to push the magnets together in repelling mode. Another is the energy supplied during the polarity flipping that occurrs suddenly, and is taken from the powerful PM, it gets some small loss of its magnetization. Depending on the shape of this powerful PM our thin rod might not get all its atomic dipoles flipped, and the same goes for dipoles in the PM. This will leave stresses in the materials that can eventually cause them to break apart. (I have had a NdFeB disc magnet fall apart after switching the polarity of a number of caramic magnets). Assume we use a horseshoe PM to get the entire rod material to flip. Then we adjust our experiment to stop the PM movement at the point where only half the dipoles have flipped, where our material is now demagnetized (very difficult to achieve but this is only a gedanken experiment). Now we can pull the PM away at no energy cost as there is zero force. We then remagnetize our material by passing current through a coil wound on it. We also make up the small loss of magnetization in our PM. An energy audit will tell us that we have supplied a fixed amount of electrical energy related to the demagnetization and remagnetization. We can repeat this process at some rep rate and our experiment continually consumes power.
Next we arrange for the coil around our material to be connected to a load resistor only during the demagnetizing phase of the movement. By Lenz's Law the current creates a field that opposes the demagnetizing field, there is greater opposing force on the moving PM. We get energy out in the load resistor that is exactly accounted for by the extra repulsion force hence extra input energy during the movement. The remagnetization input energies remain the same. As we lower the value of the load resistor we get more and more energy there but fully accountable by input energy during movement. The system is always less than 100% efficient when losses are taken into account, but electrical energy into the load can be many times the electrical energy needed for remagnetization. If we just consider only those input/output electrical energies we would get significant OU because we have not included the PM movement energy as a source. My remanent magnetization decay calculations are giving me significant OU because I have not included the source of that decay in the energy calculations.
Smudge
So in your gedanken experiment the demagnetization is caused by the work performed by the PM (a movement against the repulsive force).
...and in the proper experiment the demagnetization is caused by the heat.
Doesn't the magnetocaloric effect heat up the rod during its magnetization ?
Why isn't this magnetization immediately destroyed by the same heat when the magnetizing field is removed ?
Quote from: verpies on 2024.07.10, 17:39:18
So in your gedanken experiment the demagnetization is caused by the work performed by the PM (a movement against the repulsive force).
...and in the proper experiment the demagnetization is caused by the heat.
Yes, and the repulsion force is enhanced by the load current so more work that accounts for the load energy.
QuoteDoesn't the magnetocaloric effect increase the heat of the rod during its magnetization ?
Yes
QuoteWhy isn't the magnetization of the rod immediately destroyed by the same heat when the magnetizing influence is removed ?
A small increase in heat does not suddenly destroy, the Neel equation tells us it reduces the relaxation time. Also the extraction of energy from the heat bath into our load must reduce the heat thus compensating for that increase.
Smudge
Don't you think that Gadolinium would be easier to keep around the Curie temp than the ferrous materials ?
...cheaper too, if you account for the cost of the high temp kiln and keeping the copper turns insulated at high temperatures while keeping them from oxidizing and copper's increased resistivity at these temperatures.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/232962852067
@Verpies,
It has relative permeability only in the low tens which is why I did not consider it. If it was available in the right form for a core (long thin or ring shape) it would be worth doing an experiment.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.07.11, 17:54:10
It has relative permeability only in the low tens which is why I did not consider it.
It is not so bad when it is cooled.
According to the graphs below, Gadolinium's maximum permeability is achieved in the Dry Ice regime ...which is cheap and easy to work with (...well, easier than with LN and LH and with burning wire insulation and copper's oxidation at 770ºC).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51769)
Do the ferrous materials maintain their high permeability up to their Curie temp (T
C) ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.07.11, 17:54:10
If it was available in the right form for a core (long thin or ring shape) it would be worth doing an experiment.
It is:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/383881065303
Quote from: verpies on 2024.07.11, 21:34:05
It is not so bad when it is cooled.
According to the graphs below, Gadolinium's maximum permeability is achieved in the Dry Ice regime ...which is cheap and easy to work with (...well, easier than with LN and LH and with burning wire insulation and copper's oxidation at 770ºC).
That data is interesting. What we also need is relaxation time against temperature, where can we find this?
QuoteDo the ferrous materials maintain their high permeability up to their Curie temp (TC) ?
I don't know, how do we find that data?
[/quote]