well
here i am again. having this itch to talk about magnets and energy and unlimited power. i can't escape it so i might as well get more technical/mathematical about it.
it's all in the same spirit of my original post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4549.0) but now i'm being more specific - turning single magnetic atoms (i'm looking at you iron) on and off (for proof of concept... for now).
the question i have in the title of this post is - how much (total) energy is in the magnetic field of an iron atom? so now you may ask - david - why do you want to know that? are you planing on liberating the energy in the magnetic field of the iron atom? How do you want to do that?
my answer is: by ripping out electrons (because they are the main cause for the atoms magnetic field) from it's half-filled orbital shells until the atom itself becomes effectively none magnetic (magnetic properties of the atom core can be/should be ignored). in my understanding by undoing a magnetic field you liberate the energy that was stored in the magnetic field. this value is something i can't figure out. i asked chatgpt about this but it always gives me some answer about "potential" energy that the magnatic atom has in an external magnetic field - not the energy that magnetic field itself has. so this would be one value i want to plug into the energy comparison and on the side we already know the energies that are needed for ripping out electrons from atoms - it's called: ionization energy.
here is a neat chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)
when we look down at iron it says
1st | 7.9024 eV |
2nd | 16.1878 eV |
3rd | 30.652 eV |
4th | 54.8 eV |
5th | 75.0 eV |
6th | 99.1 eV |
7th | 124.98 eV |
and so on
to be perfectly honest - i dont know how many electrons we have to remove until we remove the unpaired electrons from the half-filled shells that contribute the lion share of the magnetic properties of the iron atom but at least we have some kind of ballpark.
thanks for reading and hopefully i hear from you soon
David
Quote from: david on 2024.07.30, 16:25:44
the question i have in the title of this post is - how much (total) energy is in the magnetic field of an iron atom?
Maybe there is no energy at all? Just like we can't take energy from a permanent magnet until we move it past the coil.
The forces involved in ordinary matter are almost unimaginable. For example, a 1 cm aluminum cube has around 7.82 x 10^23 electrons total and only 7.7% are free electrons. If we could removed all the free electrons the surface potential would be 1.81 x 10^18 or 1.81 quintillion volts. Now if we only wanted a small surface charge like 10,000 volts we would only need to remove 0.0000000055% of the free electrons.
As we can see the energy and forces in ordinary matter are almost beyond our comprehension.
So the problem of "ripping out electrons" is problematic. If we moved all the free electrons in the 1 cm aluminum cube 1 meter away the cube would be at 1.81 quintillion volts and the force of attraction 768 trillion tons according to ChatGPT. We could only remove a very small fraction of the free electrons before any insulation would break down and the physical material ripped apart. It's kind of amazing when we think about it.
In fact, this concept is how I reproduced Tesla's radiant matter experiments. If a large discharge around 500kV strikes a body in a very small time period the energy does not have time to dissipate. The concentrated energy exceeds the strength of the material and starts ripping it apart on the surface. Since the surface and the ejected material have a like charge the particles of material are ejected at high velocity from the source as radiant matter. It's literally grade school science however as you can imagine there are many dangers involved. A capacitor discharge at 500kV with a striking distance around 7 inches is lethal.
In conclusion, I don't think it would be possible to remove enough electrons to effect the magnetic field. We could not even remove any amount of the free electrons to matter before the voltage and forces became excessive. Remove only 1% of the free electrons in a 1 cm aluminum cube and your at 260 trillion volts :D.
AC
i'm aware of the incomprehensible forces regarding charged particles and scaling their numbers up to everyday objects.
i was thinking about solutions in that regard but for now it's just about the concept - is there energy to be made by removing electrons from magnetic atoms until their magnetic field collapses (and there is some sort of energy release from that collapsed magnetic field) and how much energy do we have to put in?
Removing electrons from iron atom is opposed by the electric force, thus iron's ionization energies predominantly represent the energy of the electric field between iron's protons and electrons.
To obtain the magnetic energy per unit of space volume we can use the formula B2/2μ0
Since the intrinsic hyperfine magnetic field inside metallic iron is -33 Tesla, then 1cm3 of iron represents 433.3 Joules.
oh my... thank you for your contribution verpies
"intrinsic hyperfine magnetic field inside metallic iron" - that is a mouthful but with the numbers you have given i can calculate the magnetic field energy of one iron atom.
Density of iron is 7.874 g/cm3
so 1cm³ of iron weighs 7.874g
iron has 55.845 g/mol
7.874 / 55.845 = 0.140997 ~ 0,141
1 mole = 6.022x10^23 particles
6.022x10^23 x 0,141 = 8.49086x10^22
and now i divide 433.3 Joules by 8.49086x10^22
433.3 / 8.49086x10^22 = 5.10313x10^-21 Joule
1 Joule [J] = 6.241506363094x10^18 Electronenvolt [eV]
5.10313x10^-21 x 6.241506363094x10^18 = 0,0318512324 eV
...so the intrinsic hyperfine magnetic field energy of 1 iron atom is 0,0318512324 eV? that is grossly underwhelming :-[
Quote from: david on 2024.08.01, 01:02:59
"intrinsic hyperfine magnetic field inside metallic iron" - that is a mouthful
That data comes from
this paper (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30444).
Quote from: david on 2024.08.01, 01:02:59
...so the intrinsic hyperfine magnetic field energy of 1 iron atom is 0,0318512324 eV? that is grossly underwhelming :-[
...what if it does not become depleted?
Anyway, that energy is comparable to the kinetic energy of a bullet from a pistol.
If you are looking to get more energy out of iron then aim to destabilize its nucleus. See
this thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.0).
How many electrons fly per second in an electron beam in a picture tube?
And how many electrons fly in the beam of electron beam welding?
6.242 × 1018 electrons per second for each Ampere of current.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.01, 18:58:39
6.242 × 1018 electrons per second for each Ampere of current.
Then we could add zaryad to your aluminum cube,with help of stream of electrons. Or cancel ones by stream pluses particle.
But we need energy source .
well - all my research now shows me, that the energy of the tiny atomic magnet is magnitudes underneath the ionizing energy of the atom and this almost took the wind out of my sails... but i can't just stop. I made a small illustration to bring home the idea and to show the two states of the iron atom i want to emphasize on.
does this not look significant?
ah tiny magnetic field that can be flipped... and we dont have to "pay" energy to create this tiny magnetic field. the atom just has to switch between being ionized and not being ionized. i'm not sure how much energy is wasted in this process and if you could brake into positive energy gain somehow.
one thing i want to mention now is the problem that was brought up quite fast - the volatility of such atom. you can never have a solid where individual particles are all having ++++ electric charge. such object would just explode. my idea is to have some kind of chemical bonds or whats refered to as "doping" in semiconductor technology that divert electrons away from the half-filled shells of the iron atom. in my mind when the electrons are not in the exact position to interfere constructively you will also have no magnetic field. i can try to make a picture about that later.
but now you may ask - how do i plan on reverting this artificially caused gridlock? my answer would be by sending a current through that material in hopes that the flowing electrons do occupy the orbitals of the iron atom again so the tiny magnetic fields reemerge again... for just a moment. maybe that's all we need to get use out of the temporay activation of the atomic magnetic fields.
i'm tired. i have to sleep now :P
Quote from: david on 2024.08.04, 03:27:36
I made a small illustration to bring home the idea and to show the two states of the iron atom i want to emphasize on.
It does not account for the
Nucleon Magnetic Moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon_magnetic_moment).
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.04, 20:13:08
It does not account for the Nucleon Magnetic Moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon_magnetic_moment).
I know but the nucleon magnetic moment is also magnitudes smaller than that of the undisturbed iron atom with it's unpaired electrons orbiting it. I read somewhere that a single electron has a greater magnetic moment than its atomic core that it is bound to. In most atoms the magnetic fields of the orbiting electrons cancel each other out. But not in iron (and some other elements). That's why i like the idea of manipulating the iron atom so much.
Making iron non-ferromagnetic on demand is one issue - twisting its magnetic moments in one direction is another.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.05, 13:02:53
Making iron non-ferromagnetic on demand is one issue - twisting its magnetic moments in one direction is another.
a regular, permanent magnet could do that.
here are some more sketches
How are you going to remove electrons from Iron without quintillions of Volts and huge electric forces ?
Alas, two spheres spaced 1 meter apart and charged to 1 Coulomb each will electrically repel with a force equivalent to the weight of over 91.5 thousand metric tons. ( see this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html) ).
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.05, 23:16:40
How are you going to remove electrons from Iron without quintillions of Volts and huge electric forces ?
Alas, two spheres spaced 1 meter apart and charged to 1 Coulomb each will electrically repel with a force equivalent to the weight of over 91.5 thousand metric tons. ( see this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html) ).
how did we come from single atoms with maybe 4-5 electrons removed to an object thats is charged with 1 Coulomb? we are talking in complete different ballparks regarding the charges we are working with.
we have one iron atom where we remove 4 electrons for example - that is 4x elementary charge which is 1.602176634E−19 which is 6,408706536E-19
and now we multiply by a number of iron atoms that we can spread out in a sensible way without electric forces becoming too high. that's what i meant with suspended iron atoms in the sketch. we have this list with electron volts which are needed to remove electrons from iron atoms.
1st 7.9024 eV
2nd 16.1878 eV
3rd 30.652 eV
4th 54.8 eV
5th 75.0 eV
6th 99.1 eV
7th 124.98 eV
can we put an electric field to this number or an actual Voltage number for our electrodes? i dont know how to calculate that. and then we have to calculate somehow how many electrons we can seperate in a real scenario.
the electrons rush to the positive electrode but there is also a barrier that prevents the electrons from reaching the electrode while the iron atoms are stuck in place. this is where the charges start to accumulate and where we have a real limit how many charges we can actually seperate. hopefully it's enough so that the "magnetic field" switching of the iron atoms is actually measureable and for all intense and purpose does some work. like a flicker in magnetic flux that can be transformed into work.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.06, 01:35:18
how did we come from single atoms with maybe 4-5 electrons removed to an object thats is charged with 1 Coulomb?
Because 1 gram of Iron consists of ≈10
22 iron atoms.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.06, 01:35:18
we have one iron atom where we remove 4 electrons for example...
So you have ≈4×10
22 electrons to be removed, which collectively carry a charge of ≈4×10
22e in 1g of iron..
Converting that collective charge of ≈4×10
22e to Coulombs yields ≈6408C.
since 1 Coulomb = 6.241509×10
18e,
...and the elementary charge, e = 1.602176634×10
−19 S.
but i never mention 1 gram of iron. i know 1 gram of iron has a bajillion atoms in it.
think about it this way - how many charges can we reliably seperate with technology we have nowadays? now divide this number by 4 and we have the amount of iron atoms we can work with. that wont be one gram of iron. that's a few nano or micro grams of iron. we have machines that can put on single layers of atoms right? this is the scope i'm talking about.
maybe i can get some math going with this. there are some convenient formulas for counting charges, voltage, capacitance and so on - thank god no differential equations required
Quote from: david on 2024.08.06, 12:00:24
...that's a few nano or micro grams of iron. we have machines that can put on single layers of atoms right? this is the scope i'm talking about.
So what can you do with 1 microgram of ionized Iron ?
Anyway, 1 microgram of Iron with 4 electrons per atom removed still has a charge of 0.006408 Coulombs and two such specks will electrically repel with a force equivalent to the weight of 37.6 metric tons.
you still thinking about it the wrong way - we are not talking about a solid. we are talking about individual iron atoms floating in some kind of medium. 1 microgram of individual floating atoms in a given space so when the electric field gets applied all the iron atoms get +4 positively charged and the medium doesn't get teared to shreads.
Why? What difference will the ionization of that microgram of Iron make ? Physical or chemical...
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.06, 14:26:29
Why? What difference will the ionization of that microgram of Iron make ? Physical or chemical...
the difference is the magnetic field/magnetic moment of the iron atoms being "off" when they are ionized and "on" when they are neutral.
i'm sorry if i'm not making this clear enough.
But if small colloidal conductive particles, for example copper, moved by Brownian motion, in a solution in the magnetic field of a permanent magnet.
The entropy of this system will decrease, won't it ? ;)
Quote from: david on 2024.08.06, 15:09:03
the difference is the magnetic field/magnetic moment of the iron atoms being "off" when they are ionized and "on" when they are neutral.
i'm sorry if i'm not making this clear enough.
You are making that clear, but what of it?
You will have expended a lot of chemical or electric energy to ionize a few atoms and decrease their unaligned magnetic moments.
How is that supposed to yield free energy ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.06, 18:01:51
But if small colloidal conductive particles, for example copper, moved by Brownian motion, in a solution in the magnetic field of a permanent magnet.
The entropy of this system will decrease, won't it ? ;)
Hi,
"colloidal" - that's a new one for me. My setup does fit this description and that this new effect (Brownian motion) plays a role now as well but i didnt think about it in that way. i'm just thinking about the "magnetic fields" of iron atoms and what happens when you manipulate the iron atoms so their magnetic fields "pop in and out" of existence. to answer your question - an undisturbed setup with copper particles in a solution and a permanent magnetic field will just increase its entrophy over time. the particles will just go into a state where everything is evened out (and aligned with the magnetic field). in my mind you need some kind of oscillation and hopefully you pick up energy during those oscillations and with this i go to verpies question
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.06, 18:46:39
You are making that clear, but what of it?
You will have expended a lot of chemical or electric energy to ionize a few atoms and decrease their unaligned magnetic moments.
How is that supposed to yield free energy ?
the energy is not expended in this setup. you can see this in the latest picture as well. the electrodes make up the capacitor part of the oscillating circuit and then i have drawn a solenoid inside the box as the counter part of the oscillating circuit. so now we have an electric field that changes direction and intensity just for the purpose of ionizing and neutralizing the electric charge of the iron atoms inbetween the electrodes. charged iron atoms also do work on the electrons so i dont think the energy was expended. this is what should turn on and off the magnetic field of the iron atoms and we also have the permanent magnet to solve the problem with the alignment of every atomic magnetic field. this should give us some pulsing magnetic field over the baseline of the permanent magnetic field and this is where i see free energy. we do not "pay" for the emergence of the atomic magnetic field everytime it switches between ionized and neutral - it's purely quantum mechanic. and who the hell knows where quantum mechanics gets its energy from. or i'm completely wrong and someone already calculated that the atomic magnetic field is not free and we do pay some sort of energy price when "deleting" or "creating" it.
i just have this very simple picture of the iron atom where electrons are the "fuel" for the magnetic motor of the atom. take it away and you have no magnetic field. and changing magnetic fields are normally associated with energy output.
I mean when a metal particle moves with Brownian motion in a magnetic field, this field induces vortex currents in particle .
And the forces acting on a particle will be different if it moves along or across the lines of force.
This means that chaotic movement will become more orderly.And only thanks
to the thermal energy of moving molecules.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.07, 11:09:17
I mean when a metal particle moves with Brownian motion in a magnetic field, it induces vortex currents in particle .
That is true for macro particles in which eddy current can develop.
It is false for single molecules and non-conductive salts of metals.
The motion of charged particles will still be curved by the Lorentz deflection regardless whether they can support eddy currents or not.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.07, 11:09:17
I mean when a metal particle moves with Brownian motion in a magnetic field, it induces vortex currents in particle .
And the forces acting on a particle will be different if it moves along or across the lines of force.
This means that chaotic movement will become more orderly.And only thanks
to the thermal energy of moving molecules.
hmm - i think when particles become more orderly in a setup like this it actually means that entropy is increasing. for entropy to decrease the system has to create some sort of imbalance but that doesnt happen here. everything just becomes more smooth and less energetic.
i watched another veritasium video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxL2HoqLbyA
there is a part in the video (11:33) where he actually explains a situation where entropy could decreases but it only happens in low particles systems. the more particles you have the less likey it becomes for entropy to decrease. and because everything is made out of a bajillion particles the chance for entropy to decrease is basically zero.
but of course it also made me think of ways how to create unlimited work/energy with this mechanism. the example with the two metal bars that only consist of 8 atoms each and 10 energy packets - it makes you think its totally easy to make an energy siphoning contraption in this scenario. bring the two metal bars together when they are in equilibrium, wait until one bar gets hotter than the other (9 vs 1 energy packets). seperate the bars again and store them. repeat this process simultaneously with a bajillion tiny metal bars and you end up with hot and cold metal dust.
well - i guess its impossible to make tiny machines that can bring together and seperate 8 atom metal bars that also work with less energy that we gain from this process - but it's still free energy we are gaining C.C
p.s. i have another thing that bugs me now but maybe i should put this in another thread? please tell me what i should do with this thought: imagine a macroscopic metal ring - 10cm in diameter - what happens if you remove "one" electron from this ring and then you put that ring in an environment where it can never get the electron back? there is now one atom in this macroscopic metal ring that is emanating a positive charge but where is it? It is not in a fixed postion! there are a bajillion (sorry i love this word too much) other electrons in this ring that still move freely between all the atoms so when one of those electrons fall onto the positive charged atom it will displace the positive charge on the ring. Isn't that correct? What is happening with this positive charge? is it going to zoom around the ring with backbreaking speeds? or is it doing some Brownian motion maybe? what i'm imagining of course is some sort of free energy because there is a charge running around the ring and maybe with some lorenz force we can get some roation of the ring itself going...
i should stop now - this is going way over my head. feels like a fever dream
p.p.s. yay - new posts :)
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 01:40:51
The energy is not expended in this setup. you can see this in the latest picture as well. the electrodes make up the capacitor part of the oscillating circuit and then i have drawn a solenoid inside the box as the counter part of the oscillating circuit. so now we have an electric field that changes direction and intensity just for the purpose of ionizing and neutralizing the electric charge of the iron atoms in between the electrodes. charged iron atoms also do work on the electrons so i dont think the energy was expended. this is what should turn on and off the magnetic field of the iron atoms ...
What you are describing is the Magnetoelectric Effect in which the permeability of the ferrite is modulated by the electric field occurring between two plates of a capacitor (the nonconductive ferrite contains iron atoms and acts as the "dielectric" of this capacitor).
This is nothing new. We have done experiments like this in this forum but the electric field predominantly influences the crystalline lattice and domain structure of the ferrite. The electron stripping phenomenon is negligible at the achievable voltages.
The diagram below depicts the test-setup for measuring this phenomenon.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=52009)
It works like this: when the LC tank (which C1 is a part of) is excited by a short pulse from an external loosely coupled coil or by a spark gap (or by other means) - a classic decaying ringdown occurs in the LC tank which frequency is determined by the inductance of L1 and capacitance of C1. The period & frequency of this ringdown can be observed by a voltage probe or a current probe and measured by an oscilloscope.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51989)
The inductance of L1 is determined by the turns of its winding, the properties of the ferrite as well as by its air gap. While the winding and the gap stay constant, the properties of the ferrite are influenced by the electric field occurring between the copper plates that hug the ferrite from both sides (the larger area of these plates the better...and the closer they hug the ferrite, the better, too).
Thus, C1 stays constant but the inductance of L1 is altered by the E-field and that can be observed as a varying frequency of the ringdown on the scope.
Alternatively, L1 and C1 can form a TD Oscillator (https://youtu.be/PuG8CCUbg58?t=621) with a Tunnel Diode and a small battery ...or a Colpitts Oscillator with a transistor and a small battery and if you have an inductance meter then it can be connected directly to L1 and C1 can be deleted.
The photos below show the physical embodiment of this test-setup.(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49559)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51983)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51985)
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 14:21:47
hmm - i think when particles become more orderly in a setup like this it actually means that entropy is increasing.
No, entropy is the measure of disorder - not order.
Magnetic field can affect the order of ferromagnetic substances. It is nothing new, for example see
this (https://youtu.be/uJ_NpWnCXzM).
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.07, 14:25:05
No, entropy is the measure of disorder - not order.
Magnetic field can affect the order of ferromagnetic substances. It is nothing new, for example see this (https://youtu.be/uJ_NpWnCXzM).
i'm not sure what entropy trys to represents then. what matters is that there is an energy gradient where things can happen. there has to be a place of low entropy energy and high entropy energy. cooling something down or making it more orderly and spaced out means you have more high entropy energy.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 14:21:47
...the example with the two metal bars that only consist of 8 atoms each and 10 energy packets - it makes you think its totally easy to make an energy siphoning contraption in this scenario. bring the two metal bars together when they are in equilibrium, wait until one bar gets hotter than the other (9 vs 1 energy packets). separate the bars again and store them. repeat this process simultaneously with a bajillion tiny metal bars and you end up with hot and cold metal dust.
This is the idea behind Maxwell's Demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon) and the problem with it is that measuring, deciding and separating these bars costs more than you think.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Rotaxane_Crystal_Structure_EurJOrgChem_page2565_year1998.png/440px-Rotaxane_Crystal_Structure_EurJOrgChem_page2565_year1998.png)
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.07, 16:00:46
This is the idea behind Maxwell's Demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon) and the problem with it is that measuring, deciding and separating these bars costs more than you think.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Rotaxane_Crystal_Structure_EurJOrgChem_page2565_year1998.png/440px-Rotaxane_Crystal_Structure_EurJOrgChem_page2565_year1998.png)
Ok - I can accept that
well... it still makes me think about it. damnit...
why does it cost so much energy? C.C
I will stress my brain with that later. What i want to talk about now is that Ferroelectric Effect you mentioned
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.07, 13:38:44
That is true for macro particles in which eddy current can develop.
It is false for single molecules and non-conductive salts of metals.
The motion of charged particles will still be curved by the Lorentz deflection regardless whether they can support eddy currents or not.
No molecules,no charge of my particles.It is simply macro pieces of metal,which is quite little,to moved by impact of warm molecules. It's a pity that effect will be small. I think. Because size this colloid particle is small,and velocity is small as well. :(
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.07, 16:32:35
It is simply macro pieces of metal,which is quite little,to moved by impact of warm molecules. It's a pity that effect will be small. I think. Because size this colloid particle is small,and velocity is small as well. :(
If the particles are big enough to support eddy currents and if they are conductive and resistive, then they will be slowed down by the magnetic field, however the eddy currents induced in them will be converted to heat according to i
2R.
If the particles have zero resistance, then their average speed will NOT be slowed down by the magnetic field.
@verpies
so with the Ferroelectric Effect you are telling me that it is possible to change the permeability of a given substance (ferrit in your example) by applying an electric field to it? do i understand this correctly? this baffles me because if we had just this effect we should already have free energy devices
i made another sketch to show what i mean.
the question would be now - when we close the acceptance coil circuit how would a current create a feedback force that pushes against the electric field change? Do you guys understand what i mean? is there maybe some absence of feedback? that is always something we look for in generators.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 19:46:16
so with the Magnetoelectric Effect you are telling me that it is possible to change the permeability of a given substance (ferrit in your example) by applying an electric field to it?
Yes, but not all ferrites exhibit this phenomenon.
It is also possible to change the permeability of the ferrite by the Villari effect.
...and temperature - for completeness.
Note that changing the permeability is not synonymous with changing the magnetic flux. This is especially important in complex magnetic circuits which consist of many alternative magnetic flux paths.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 19:46:16
do i understand this correctly?
Yes
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 19:46:16
i made another sketch to show what i mean.
Your sketch has three major flaws:
1) The magnetic flux path is not closed.
2) The majority of the PM's flux will penetrate the coil even if the ferrite is absent.
3) In this configuration of the magnetic circuit, the change of the ferrite's permeability does not maximize the changes of magnetic flux, which penetrates the coil.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 19:46:16
this baffles me because if we had just this effect we should already have free energy devices
Maybe we do. See this (https://youtu.be/gbeseiPPCeM?t=192).
Quote from: david on 2024.08.07, 19:46:16
the question would be now - when we close the acceptance coil circuit how would a current create a feedback force that pushes against the electric field change?
The electric current flowing in that coil opposes the change of magnetic flux which penetrates that coil. If that current encounters no resistance than this opposition is total and the flux remains constant.
This affects the magnetic moments of electrons and nuclei, effectively freezing them in space.
The question whether that opposition pushes back on the electric field as it attempts to move these electrons and domains can only be answered by an experiment.
hmm,
i dont understand why permeability is not synonymous for magnetic flux and why a majority of the PM's flux will penetrate the coil even if the ferrite is absent. ferrit has high permeability so it should bundle magnetic flux through the coil much better than air. the ferrit will definitely snap onto the magnet which means that there is good flux path through the coil but we could also close the flux path with a common iron horseshoe if that helps.
we didnt talk about how the electric field actually changes the permeability of the ferrit core - will it go up or down and how big is the change that we can achieve?
those other methods of changing permeability are not recoverable. the electric field is the only thing that can retain its energy.
Quotefrom wiki:
The inverse magnetostrictive effect, magnetoelastic effect or Villari effect, after its discoverer Emilio Villari, is the change of the magnetic susceptibility of a material when subjected to a mechanical stress
temperature is always a loss so electric field is the only thing that seems plausible
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
I don't understand why permeability is not synonymous for magnetic flux
Because it is only a factor in the Hopkinson's law and that law applies to all flux paths - not only the one you consider. If air was a magnetic insulator than things would be different ...but it isn't.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
...and why a majority of the PM's flux will penetrate the coil even if the ferrite is absent.
Because of field geometry and coil's placement. Draw the magnetic flux lines in your sketch and see for yourself.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
ferrite has high permeability so it should bundle magnetic flux through the coil much better than air.
First of all, the word "bundling" implies spatial concentration of the magnetic flux - not the magnitude of the flux.
Such concentration affects magnetic flux density (measured in Teslas or Gauss, symbolized by "B") - not the magnitude of the flux (measured in Webers, symbolized by "Φ"). Coils "care" only about the latter.
For example all the flux distributions below make no difference for the coil and alternation between these distributions does not cause any current induction in the coil.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55339)
Secondly, the flux in your sketch has no incentive to take paths outside of the space occupied by the coil.
The Hopkinson's law still applies and the magnetic flux through the coil will decrease a little in the absence of the ferrite, but not down to zero. It just has no incentive to go outside of the coil.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
the ferrite will definitely snap onto the magnet which means that there is good flux path through the coil
The force of attraction is determined by the spatial flux density gradient (dB/ds), not by the density of the flux (B) nor the flux magnitude (Φ) itself. Coils don't "care" about dB/ds nor B.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
but we could also close the flux path with a common iron horseshoe if that helps.
That will minimize alternative flux paths. (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3698.msg71411#msg71411)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49488)
A toroidal core is the optimal shape for magnetic flux.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
we didnt talk about how the electric field actually changes the permeability of the ferrit core - will it go up or down
Down
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
and how big is the change that we can achieve?
For an answer to this question you will have to measure it. It will depend on many factors, especially the substance. No gap in the core with a permanent magnet is necessary to measure the permeability of a ferrite. One winding is enough.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
those other methods of changing permeability are not recoverable. the electric field is the only thing that can retain its energy.
You are wrong about the acoustic method.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
temperature is always a loss
Usually yes, unless the heat comes from the environment. See
this thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4659.0).
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 02:30:07
...so electric field is the only thing that seems plausible
No
i have drawn the magnetic flux how i think it should be.
the conditions are given for induction to happen in my mind even without the iron horseshoe
That is how the flux looks like in an air gap of a closed magnetic circuit:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51995)
Notice that only few lines bulge out of the gap and complete their circuit outside of the core (leak out).
If the air gap becomes filled with high permeability ferrite then only these few fringing flux lines get pulled closer to the gap and slightly fewer lines leak out of the core.
Okay. I see what you mean. What happens if you make two air gaps? PM - airgap - ferrit - airgap - PM
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 15:00:21
Okay. I see what you mean. What happens if you make two air gaps? PM - airgap - ferrit - airgap - PM
If you alternate the permeability of the substance in the airgaps then the flux becomes proportionally diverted to that gap which has the lower reluctance and the flux amplitude (ΔΦ) is maximized in the arms and the system approaches optimal operating conditions.
The magnetic circuit can be practically realized with an E-core (https://secure.sayal.com/STORE4/prodetails.php?SKU=232728) and with only one PM in the middle leg in lieu of the winding appearing in this patent (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1044.0;attach=5799) but without the yoke denoted by 404 and PMs denoted by 402 and without any actual air gaps.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=52001)
good evening
i can see the idea behind the E shape core now as well. it has the same idea as my quick sketch but it's more optimized to control max magnetic flow. you have like 4 states in which the system can be by charging the two capacitors
00
01
10
11
i illustrated it in another picture.
charging one capacitor makes this side of the EƎ core weaker for magnetic flux so it gets diverts to the other side creating the condition for induction in the acceptance coil. or two coils? there are two acceptance coils or not? more optimization i guess - but now comes the more sobering part of this. i guess people build it and it didnt work. so there is some kind of feedback - something that weakens the electric field when pulling energy out of acceptance coils. it seems like the magnetic flux and the electric field pulling on the same thing. you either have alignment for a strong electric field and a weak magnetic flow or you have alignment for a strong magnetic flow and a weak electric field. i think this is the problem here.
let me bring back my idea where you actually "remove" magnetic alignment from iron atoms while it's electric field stays intact. imagine we replace the ferrit part with this colloidal iron atom mixture. it will have a much worse permeability but in this setup you can actually bring down the permeability to basically zero. or that of air. i mean i hope there is some measurable difference in permeability.
what do you think of this verpies?
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 22:10:48
I can see the idea behind the E shape core now as well. it has the same idea as my quick sketch but it's more optimized to control max magnetic flow. you have like 4 states in which the system can be by charging the two capacitors
00
01
10
11
Yes but you could just alternate between states 01 and 10.
Also, notice that although this magnetic path arrangement approaches the optimal one and is very simple, there is still room for improvement by making the coil experience a bidirectional flux with an H-bridge arrangement like in the patent.
Below are the switching waveforms for an electric H-bridge (an analogy):(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3710.0;attach=31118)
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 22:10:48
charging one capacitor makes this side of the EƎ core weaker for magnetic flux so it gets diverted to the other side creating the condition for induction in the acceptance coil. or two coils? there are two acceptance coils or not?
Yes, two coils for symmetry. One would perform the same function, too.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 22:10:48
but now comes the more sobering part of this. i guess people build it and it didnt work.
Actually, nobody had ever built this exact embodiment of your idea, as far as I know. The patent uses a different method of flux diversion.
Quote from: Patent US20090096219A1
Pg.12 (1), Paragraph [0011]:
"Another electrical means of implementing a reluctance switch is the placement within the primary magnetic path of certain classes of materials that change (typically increase) their reluctance upon the application of electricity.
Another electrical means of implementing a reluctance switch is to saturate a sub-region of a primary magnetic path by inserting conducting electrical wires into the material comprising the primary magnetic path."
The embodiment described in the patent uses the 2
nd method and you are proposing the 1
st method.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 22:10:48
so there is some kind of feedback - something that weakens the electric field when pulling energy out of acceptance coils. it seems like the magnetic flux and the electric field pulling on the same thing. you either have alignment for a strong electric field and a weak magnetic flow or you have alignment for a strong magnetic flow and a weak electric field. i think this is the problem here.
Maybe. This needs to be verified empirically.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.08, 22:10:48
let me bring back my idea where you actually "remove" magnetic alignment from iron atoms while it's electric field stays intact. imagine we replace the ferrit part with this colloidal iron atom mixture. it will have a much worse permeability but in this setup you can actually bring down the permeability to basically zero. or that of air. i mean i hope there is some measurable difference in permeability. What do you think of this verpies?
I don't see how that would be feasible.
https://youtu.be/uJ_NpWnCXzM
Yes, It's my friend,Weslik. :)
Only this ferrite is conduction of current quite good from me...
How do you try to applied high voltage to it ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.09, 07:22:13
https://youtu.be/uJ_NpWnCXzM
Yes, It's my friend,Weslik. :)
Only this ferrite is conduction of current quite good from me...
Except that he uses gadolinium - not ferrite.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.08, 23:56:25
Actually, nobody had ever built this exact embodiment of your idea, as far as I know. The patent uses a different method of flux diversion.
my idea or your idea? the setup we looking at now is your idea or not? or maybe you derived this design from the patent? the patent design was build or not? also i prefer simpler designs with less effectiveness so its easier to understand and explain.
so... if we actually want to build our current design with the two magnetic paths... do you know where to get all the components and what ferrit material we would need?
and how would we measure energy in and out of this system? hmm... for me the easiest way to measure energy would be capacitors. we have a starting capacitor with an initial amount of energy and then we do one "pulse" of energy transfer by connecting the starting capacitor with C1 or C2 and then put a capacitor on the acceptance coil with a diode so the capacitor cant oscillate with the acceptance coil and dispers all it's energy.
then we measure starting capacitor, C1/C2 capacitor and acceptance capacitor for final amount of energy.
hmm - i still have no good feeling about his. it just feels like that this ferrit substance has magnetic and electric dipols bound to its physical alignment. it can't appease both. we have to get rid of one of the dipols.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
my idea or your idea? the setup we looking at now is your idea or not? or maybe you derived this design from the patent?
Your idea to affect the magnetic properties of iron-containing materials with electricity. The magnetic circuit optimization is mine and I derived it from the patent.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
the patent design was build or not?
I have never built it and don't know of anyone who has completed it.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
also i prefer simpler designs with less effectiveness so its easier to understand and explain.
The test for the magnitude of electric field's influence on a ferrite's magnetic properties is as easy as can be. Only one magnetic path and one winding needs to be wound on one of the commercially available ferrite cores and HV DC applied to two plates across the ferrite, while an inductance meter measures the inductance of the winding.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
do you know where to get all the components
Yes, except for the ferrite.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
...and what ferrit material we would need?
No, I will not narrow down the specific type of material for you. I will only remark that some ferrites are conductive and some are not.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
and how would we measure energy in and out of this system? hmm... for me the easiest way to measure energy would be capacitors. we have a starting capacitor with an initial amount of energy and then we do one "pulse" of energy transfer by connecting the starting capacitor with C1 or C2 and then put a capacitor on the acceptance coil with a diode so the capacitor cant oscillate with the acceptance coil and dispers all it's energy. then we measure starting capacitor, C1/C2 capacitor and acceptance capacitor for final amount of energy.
That would work.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.09, 12:21:59
hmm - i still have no good feeling about his. it just feels like that this ferrit substance has magnetic and electric dipols bound to its physical alignment. it can't appease both. we have to get rid of one of the dipols.
If you don't verify it empirically, you will never be sure.
I found this article about electric field controlled permeability
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.0c12765#
Unfortunately they are not searching for free energy in this article
Here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=52008) is the full article for other members.
The NiZn/PMN-PT ferrite described in this article increases its magnetic permeability as the electric field is applied, which is the opposite behavior to anything I had ever encountered.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.08.05, 23:16:40
How are you going to remove electrons from Iron without quintillions of Volts and huge electric forces ?
Alas, two spheres spaced 1 meter apart and charged to 1 Coulomb each will electrically repel with a force equivalent to the weight of over 91.5 thousand metric tons. ( see this (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html) ).
Well. And we don't know how to make a super-powerful press. And one is in our hands. :)
The question is only how to make ideal insulator,to keep,keep a huge charge from electrical breaking down.
Okay, just thinking out loud. Don't take this seriously.
this Ferroelectric stuff is still clouding my brain. i try to make sense of it but the closer you look the more things come up that need to be considered. it's so god damn tiring.
what i have come up with is that you have a molecule that has an electric and a magnetic dipole. having those two dipoles means that it has electric Permittivity and magnetic Permeability properties. then you have to ask yourself how are those dipoles aligned to each other. does it mean that both properties influence each other? could a strong enough magnetic field change the electric permittivity of the material? what would that entail? like what would happen if you have a charged capacitor with this material as dielectricum and you put it into a strong magnetic field? could the torque of the magnetic dipoles overpower the electric dipoles (i guess it could if you dont "mega" charge the capacitor)? but the electric dipoles are part of Permittivity and also the energy equation of the capacitor. does that mean it would steal energy out of the capacitor when the electric dipoles are no longer aligned with the electric field? but when we charged the capacitor we had to put in more energy to create this alignment.
its all so confusing. please someone help.
I sometime ago carried out an experiment with ceramic titanat barium capacitor .It hadn't any charge .I placed it between two coils. To coils was applied pulse of large current.
They told me that on terminals the capacitor will be pulse of voltage. But there was no anything. :(
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.28, 13:27:04
I sometime ago carried out an experiment with ceramic titanat barium capacitor .It hadn't any charge .I placed it between two coils. To coils was applied pulse of large current.
They told me that on terminals the capacitor will be pulse of voltage. But there was no anything. :(
i dont know what properties titanat barium has and if my weird thoughts with double dipoles can apply to this but in order to get charges on the electrodes of the capacitor i feel like you have to connect both electrodes during the pulse and quickly open them after the pulse. if the pulse polarizes the dielectric charges need to be able to flow from one electrode to the other. you can't do that by measuring voltage (high internal resistance).
Well. I'll try it on. I presume if terminals of our capacitor will be simply short circuit,it must be current pulse.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.08.28, 13:27:04
They told me that on terminals the capacitor will be pulse of voltage. But there was no anything. :(
The member of this forum "partzman" has recently described a similar experiment that ended up with a voltage across a capacitor.
Ask him for details.
Quote from: david on 2024.08.28, 16:08:13
i dont know what properties titanat barium has
Barium Titanate is a high-k dielectric, ferroelectric and piezoelectric and some more...
Quote from: david on 2024.08.28, 16:08:13
...and if my weird thoughts with double dipoles
It is simplistic. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoelectric_effect
QuoteIt is simplistic. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoelectric_effect
but no one who has access to this stuff has ever tried to make an energy creating device even if it is simplistic. It seems like most people are too afraid to test for "free energy". they dont want to taint their reputation or they are convinced it doesnt work so its useless to test it.
where do i get the most magnetoelectric material from? i really want to try something simple and cheap. something with a permanent magnet on a rotating axis, the magnetoelectric material between two electrodes and some crude high voltage circuit to switch the magnetic alignment of the magnetoelectric material and voila - you should have an electric motor.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.02, 01:29:54
...they don't want to taint their reputation or they are convinced it doesnt work so its useless to test it.
I try to comment only about technical stuff and stay away from psychology and sociology.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.02, 01:29:54
where do i get the most magnetoelectric material from?
Everywhere. Even some of the off-the-shelf ferrite cores exhibit these properties.
The problem is that these properties are not listed in their datasheets, so you cannot just ask the salesmen whether a given material is magnetoelectric.
The best you can do is make a test jig and test random cores until you find one with a significant magnetoelectric factor.
The more difficult path is to manufacture such core yourself according to the methods published in scientific papers.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.02, 01:29:54
where do i get the most magnetoelectric material from?
The attached document lists some compounds which have the properties you seek.
Hi verpies,
thank you for another contribution. you do bring technical infos to these topics
unfortunately those documents are a hard read for me. i dont see a way to extract information from it. The formulas on page 7 look nice but i could never figure out the energy balance when everything is linked together in a real setup.
the question i'm most concerned with is - what does the multiferroic material have to do in a somewhat self-explanatory test setup to give us overunity? what setup would give the best demonstration and could be reproduced easily?
the crazy thing is - in my mind a real overuntiy machine would always self destruct after some time because of excess energy build up unless... no wait - you just have to not make a feedback loop. controlling circuit and power output circuit must never be connected
the most simple design would be... a capacitor with a magnetoelectric material as dielectric. this is the controlling circuit. then we wrap a coil around this capacitor and this would be the power output circuit.
now we want the output circuit "create" more energy than we need for the controlling circuit... i just can't... i'm braining too hard again.
p.s. who's selling a chunk of solid Bismuth Ferrite. i only saw it in powder form
Quote from: david on 2024.09.11, 15:12:15
the crazy thing is - in my mind a real overuntiy machine would always self destruct after some time because of excess energy build up unless... no wait - you just have to not make a feedback loop. controlling circuit and power output circuit must never be connected
Then it is worth carefully studying the cases of explosions in various equipment. Laboratory and industrial. Cases for which no trivial explanation was found. And where there were no obvious chemical explosives present. There must be free energy involved.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.11, 15:12:15
unfortunately those documents are a hard read for me. i dont see a way to extract information from it.
In that case, endeavor to increase your scientific English skills.
The important takeaway from this document is that two types of Multiferroic materials exist. In one of them, the electric and magnetic properties are strongly coupled to each other ...and in the other - they are not.
Ask yourself: Which one do you like more ?
Quote from: david on 2024.09.11, 15:12:15
The formulas on page 7 look nice but i could never figure out the energy balance when everything is linked together in a real setup.
These formulas will not answer your questions - only experimentation will.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.11, 15:12:15
in my mind a real overunity machine would always self destruct after some time because of excess energy build up
Not necessarily. There are plenty of phenomena in existence that self-limit power.
The simplest one is P=i
2R, which is tantamount to stating that as the current increases, the thermal power losses increase parabolically.
Here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692) is an example of how this phenomenon limits power in magnetic pulse motors.
Quote from: david on 2024.09.11, 15:12:15
the most simple design would be... a capacitor with a magnetoelectric material as dielectric. this is the controlling circuit. then we wrap a coil around this capacitor and this would be the power output circuit.
Just because you change the magnetic permeability of the material inside a coil does not mean that the magnetic flux penetrating that coil arises spontaneously and current is induced in the coil.
Magnetic Permeability <> Magnetic Flux.
You need something similar to this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4696.msg113446#msg113446) to vary the flux through a coil.
Hi verpies,
i assume we need "strong" electric and magnetic coupling. Not even strong - we need "overunity" coupling so to speak. This is the only idea we have where "overunity" could happen but anyone with a science degree would never look for such a thing. When they write their mathematical formulas they always adhere to laws of energy conversation. i dont know if anyone could write a formula that "creates" energy in one of it's terms.
somehow you would also have to take into account that such formula would "destroys" energy when numbers are plugged in the other way around. symmetry you know. that would be the only saving qualtity of such a formula.
QuoteNot necessarily. There are plenty of phenomena in existence that self-limit power.
The simplest one is P=i2R, which is tantamount to stating that as the current increases, the thermal power losses increase parabolically.
Here is an example of how this phenomenon limits power in magnetic pulse motors.
well - heat build up would also destroy your device C.C
QuoteJust because you change the magnetic permeability of the material inside a coil does not mean that the magnetic flux penetrating that coil arises spontaneously and current is induced in the coil.
Magnetic Permeability <> Magnetic Flux.
but you dont change the permeability. in my mind you change the magnetic order/alignment of your molecules. the molecules of Multiferroic materials have magnetic and electric dipols. apply a field and the dipols react to it. when you apply both magnetic and electric field the one who generates more torgue wins.
but now i get stuck on crediting energy to the fields and torgue and how overunity could actually manifest itself
Quote from: david on 2024.09.25, 16:01:19
... This is the only idea we have where "overunity" could happen but anyone with a science degree would never look for such a thing. When they write their mathematical formulas they always adhere to laws of energy conversation. i dont know if anyone could write a formula that "creates" energy in one of it's terms.
...
Science is not about finding what some people believe or dream, but about modeling the real world we live in.
Physicists have one big flaw, unlike believers: they take the time to compare their theories with observations, and reject anything that doesn't conform to the facts.
I'm sure that once you've produced an unmistakable experiment with blatant results of "overunity", physicists will change their equations, they're just waiting for facts, not dreams or interpretations of facts.
Quotebut you dont change the permeability. in my mind you change the magnetic order/alignment of your molecules. the molecules of Multiferroic materials have magnetic and electric dipols. apply a field and the dipols react to it. when you apply both magnetic and electric field the one who generates more torgue wins.
The parametric system method has been around for ages. Change the permeability or permittivity, and the magnetic energy contained in an inductor or the electrical energy contained in a capacitor will increase. It's magic, all you have to do is change a parameter, as the equations show.
Except that parametric modifications always have an energy cost. For example, reducing the capacitance of a capacitor to increase its energy by the virtue that W=1/2.Q²/C requires moving the plates apart, and therefore providing mechanical work against the Coulomb force, which is easy to calculate as being equal to the additional electrical energy. Nothing is gained. With inductors, it's the same. This is the case for everything currently known, and is easily explained when we seek to understand the physics of effects at the elementary level, rather than sticking to simple engineering equations like W=1/2.Q²/C.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.09.28, 17:20:57
Physicists have one big flaw, unlike believers: they take the time to compare their theories with observations, and reject anything that doesn't conform to the facts.
I find it interesting that you point this out as a flaw. Perhaps both physicists and dreamers can learn from each other strengths and weaknesses? As even 'facts' can become quite fluid in science if you look at the placebo effect for instance.
At the end of the day the common man or women does not care about 'facts', they care about living in comfort primarily and secondary they care about some higher meaning:). It's we the ego driven 'fact' chasers that pretend their goals are noble by meanwhile mimicking and stealing ideas which were provided freely by nature to then let our ego's go rampant by thinking we are better than others and start looking down on 'lesser' people.
Physicists or dreamers, I think we should let go of silly labels and just look at what ideas work to advance us and what don't using each others shared skill set. And both sides have their rotten apples, the ones that would rather sit on a comfortable throne as leaders and preachers rather than be dreamers and workers. Plenty of rich 'podcasters' out there in any field proving this point. I believe every student was a dreamer once, why else would they have chosen their path. But somewhere along the line dreams come crashing down and that is just sad. Dreamers and workers can transform the world if the right balance is met by setting aside their differences. I believe Game Theory is a very valuable tool in such endeavor.
Quote from: broli on 2024.10.02, 10:25:40
if you look at the placebo effect for instance.
That's right. It works. You can refuse heating by telling yourself that I'm warm. You can draw a bowl of food upper the fire on a canvas and imagine that it is real. I live that. But Americans and Europeans are mired in real comfort and do not want to give it up.
Quote from: broli on 2024.10.02, 10:25:40
...Perhaps both physicists and dreamers can learn from each other strengths and weaknesses?
...
Physicists can be dreamers too, and I'd go so far as to say that the best physicists are dreamers too.
But you missed the point of what I said: "they take the time to compare their theories with observations, and reject anything that doesn't conform to the facts". The placebo effect is a fact, objectively assessable.
The difference between a physicist and a pure dreamer is only there, in the method. In this way, the dreams of the former can become reality, you can go to the moon or communicate remotely via radio waves.
In free energy, we mostly have dreamers, pure dreamers who for ages have been rehashing their old legends about Tesla or Kapanadze, marvelling as if at the novelty of any conventional fact, and of course getting nowhere.
My labels serve to distinguish between the two. Those unable to make a selection should turn to religion. After all, the dream that praying to an all-powerful god could be effective in obtaining anything including free energy is a dream like any other, isn't it? So we should keep it too? and endlessly assert, as in the Kapanadze case, that if it doesn't work, it's because we haven't used the right practices, haven't prayed properly?...
Physics is all about putting labels on realities: the laws of physics. And it works. Mixing everything up, on the pretext that anything would be equal to or could be equal to anything, gets you nowhere.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.10.03, 08:59:47
Physicists can be dreamers too, and I'd go so far as to say that the best physicists are dreamers too.
But you missed the point of what I said: "they take the time to compare their theories with observations, and reject anything that doesn't conform to the facts". The placebo effect is a fact, objectively assessable.
The difference between a physicist and a pure dreamer is only there, in the method. In this way, the dreams of the former can become reality, you can go to the moon or communicate remotely via radio waves.
In free energy, we mostly have dreamers, pure dreamers who for ages have been rehashing their old legends about Tesla or Kapanadze, marvelling as if at the novelty of any conventional fact, and of course getting nowhere.
My labels serve to distinguish between the two. Those unable to make a selection should turn to religion. After all, the dream that praying to an all-powerful god could be effective in obtaining anything including free energy is a dream like any other, isn't it? So we should keep it too? and endlessly assert, as in the Kapanadze case, that if it doesn't work, it's because we haven't used the right practices, haven't prayed properly?...
Physics is all about putting labels on realities: the laws of physics. And it works. Mixing everything up, on the pretext that anything would be equal to or could be equal to anything, gets you nowhere.
To be honest I don't subscribe to either schools or 'sides' as both have daggers and if care is not taken stabbing will ensue. I believe a respectful balance can be made between any side if it can collectively pull all forward, you can believe in nothing and never go forward or you can believe in everything and fail to achieve anything. At the end of the day what makes anything 'real' and enter the 'real' space is by becoming a tangible physical device/technology/toy/experiment/art... that anyone can see, touch, feel, smell, hear, replicate, experience, confirm and enjoy for themselves that someone has pored their heart and soul into making it. Regardless of the source that brought it and their belief system. Science and knowledge have historically always been an aggregation of many contributors holding different belief systems across the entire world. I have many of my own beliefs, theories, and even 'truths' but even those change almost on a daily basis and sometimes get erased or rephrased and still I often conclude with 'I don't know'. As I have no way to provide evidence or proof for any of them. But our ego often gets ahead of us and that is when the slip ups occur.
Forcing others to 'believe' you is an even more foolish and dangerous endeavor. Ideas and words can be infectious and lead to cultish hive mind behavior and followers. Followers that are often, and sadly, used as mere pawns to satisfy an ego. Following someone is not bad not everyone has the capacity or even ambition to lead. But followers must also be careful of ego's that will lead them off a cliff. A good mantra is to perhaps not judge someone on their beliefs, theories or their words but on the actions they take. To me any belief system can have great value, its golden nuggets so to speak, and its a matter of respectfully taking what works for you and leaving what doesn't, which can be different for everyone. But either side yelling and fighting over THE TRUE belief system will help no one move forward. People should stop trying to change each other and their belief systems. Take what works for you and leave what doesn't work for you and move forward, it's not rocket science.
And on Tesla as the person, besides his current 'followers' keeping his story alive I do believe Tesla's story is a sad one and perhaps and often misunderstood one. Many times I wondered what Tesla did wrong to end up befriending and falling in love with a pigeon. I wondered why the world treated Tesla the way it did back then. Was he really just ahead of his time? Where his ideas too big of a scope for the investors at the time? Was human greed the main culprit? Did he become paranoid? Or did he just go crazy?
There could be some elements of truth in each of these. However I do not believe these were the main cause for his ultimate demise. I believe Tesla's story is about betrayal. I believe he felt, and what seemed to have been a constant stream of betrayal, from his environment and as a result decided to completely isolate himself and his heart from it by no longer sharing and no longer moving forward. But I have no way of knowing for sure. However If true then this is a truly tragic story if you ask me. Perhaps if Tesla worked and shared his work in a more loving and forgiving environment our world would have looked significantly different by now.
People will always hurt and betray each other regardless of their intentions, personality, relationship or belief system. Not being able to love, forgive and forget will keep everyone crawling on the dirty floor like little helpless babies no matter what new 'leader' comes.