Since my age will prohibit me from getting any financial gains from this idea, I offer it to all here for consideration and possibly experimentation.
Smudge
Smudge,
I cannot open this attachment. It appears truncated to 570kB.
Please check on your local hard drive what its length is supposed to be.
My computer says size 570 KB (584,490 bytes) and size on disk 572 KB (585,728 bytes).
I have downloaded the file from OUR and it has the same properties and opens OK.
I note that we had over 1800 people on line today!!!!
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.10, 18:00:18I note that we had over 1800 people on line today!!!!
I wouldn't exactly call them "people".
i dont get anything with the download. blank download page only. tried earlier also.
can you try to uplaid again in a new post?
mags
I got a 4 page write up on core memory and femm display of the mag density. Is 4 pages all there is?
thay
Yes it is only 4 pages. Here is the file again but this time I saved it on a memory stick first. Earlier it was saved in the cloud.
Thank you, Smudge - for the intriguing 4-page PDF. I'm reading it ...
O0
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.09.10, 18:20:49I don't get anything with the download. blank download page only. tried earlier also.
Can you try to uploid again in a new post?
Mags,
Try downloading it again. I think it was problem with compression by the new forum software and I have rectified it.
Please report your success / failure.
ok. yes. it works now
thanks
mags
@Smudge Since the electrons are free, they rearrange their distribution within the iron conductor to equalize the potential. The Coulomb force resulting from the redistribution of free electrons counteracts the force associated with the magnetic gradient.
One might draw a parallel with the Hall effect, where a magnetic field transverse to a conductive strip forces the current-carrying electrons to move across the conductor, allowing a transverse voltage to be measured.
However, in the Hall effect, the Lorentz force acts on the electrons from one edge of the conductive strip to the other, while no force acts on the transverse circuit outside the strip; consequently, the net force on the electrons in the transverse circuit is non-zero, and a current flows.
In the first case, however, if electrons were to leave the high-magnetic-intensity zone to follow a transverse path, they would experience a force equal and opposite to the one that brought them there. In other words, connecting the top and bottom of the iron circuit shown in Fig. 4 via an external circuit would not generate any current, because the existence of the same "magnetic potential difference" between these two points means they are at the same electric potential.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.16, 13:23:11Since the electrons are free, they rearrange their distribution within the iron conductor to equalize the potential.
So why don't they all immediately repel themselves to the surface of any conductor ?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.16, 13:23:11@Smudge
Since the electrons are free, they rearrange their distribution within the iron conductor to equalize the potential. The Coulomb force resulting from the redistribution of free electrons counteracts the force associated with the magnetic gradient.
Yes that is true if there is no electrical connection, no load current to flow. Same thing happens in a non magnetic conductor that has an induced electric field. That rearranged distribution makes one side have an excess of electrons while the other has a deficiency. There will be a voltage that can be measured.
QuoteOne might draw a parallel with the Hall effect, where a magnetic field transverse to a conductive strip forces the current-carrying electrons to move across the conductor, allowing a transverse voltage to be measured.
However, in the Hall effect, the Lorentz force acts on the electrons from one edge of the conductive strip to the other, while no force acts on the transverse circuit outside the strip; consequently, the net force on the electrons in the transverse circuit is non-zero, and a current flows.
Yes
QuoteIn the first case, however, if electrons were to leave the high-magnetic-intensity zone to follow a transverse path, they would experience a force equal and opposite to the one that brought them there.
Why are we talking about transverse paths? The magnetic force is along the field lines, it is longitudinal. And that path where the electrons have left the iron is not within a magnetic field so there is no equal and opposite force.
QuoteIn other words, connecting the top and bottom of the iron circuit shown in Fig. 4 via an external circuit would not generate any current, because the existence of the same "magnetic potential difference" between these two points means they are at the same electric potential.
Is that a new law that you have discovered? The redistribution of the electrons will alter the "magnetic potential difference" so it can't remain the same. I don't follow your reasoning here.
Smudge
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.09.16, 13:45:22So why don't they all immediately repel themselves to the surface of any conductor ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.16, 16:07:20...
Is that a new law that you have discovered? The redistribution of the electrons will alter the "magnetic potential difference" so it can't remain the same. I don't follow your reasoning here.
Not a new law, just an application of existing ones.
When the medium is neutral, the electrons have no reason to move. When the magnetic field gradient tends to concentrate them on one side and reduce their number on the other, the internal Coulomb forces between them counteracts this, and a new equilibrium is reached.
In order to observe a voltage between the thick and thin regions of an asymmetrical ring, the circuit must be closed externally using a voltmeter. The current flowing through it is what I call the transverse current, which is supposed to be summed and measured across the output+ / output- terminals in Fig. 5.
However, as in the case of induction in a loop, there is no guarantee that the EMF along the output circuit will be equal to the potential difference calculated across the diameter. We must consider the forces acting on all the electrons in the output circuit, particularly near the junction points where the magnetic field gradient will tend to have the same effect as in the ring. This case would be equivalent to connecting the diametrical potential difference of the ring to the same potential difference in the external circuit. If the positive and negative terminals of a battery are connected, respectively, to the positive and negative terminals of another battery of the same voltage, no current flows.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.19, 18:08:55When the medium is neutral, the electrons have no reason to move.
So what happened to the Coulomb forces between the electrons in the "medium" ?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.19, 18:08:55...the internal Coulomb forces between them counteracts this, and a new equilibrium is reached.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.19, 18:08:55Not a new law, just an application of existing ones.
When the medium is neutral, the electrons have no reason to move. When the magnetic field gradient tends to concentrate them on one side and reduce their number on the other, the internal Coulomb forces between them counteracts this, and a new equilibrium is reached.
In order to observe a voltage between the thick and thin regions of an asymmetrical ring, the circuit must be closed externally using a voltmeter. The current flowing through it is what I call the transverse current, which is supposed to be summed and measured across the output+ / output- terminals in Fig. 5.
OK now I understand what you are saying.
QuoteHowever, as in the case of induction in a loop, there is no guarantee that the EMF along the output circuit will be equal to the potential difference calculated across the diameter. We must consider the forces acting on all the electrons in the output circuit, particularly near the junction points where the magnetic field gradient will tend to have the same effect as in the ring.
I agree with this considerations, and I must point out that the two potentials associated with the two magnetic field gradients in the copper conductor at the connection points are of opposite polarity with respect to the current flow, so they cancel out. Edit. My apologies but I took F6's reply s applying to something I am currently working on but haven't yet posted. Yes the electrons move through magnetic field gradients at the connection points and the two gradients would negate the internal induced potential if they acted in the same manner as that within the Fe material. But the external connections are not Fe, and the electron behaviour there is different. Within Fe the magnetization at any point is established in the local atom's magnetic dipole polarisation and the conduction electrons take on that polarisation. Thus the tendency for the electrons to drift according to the field gradient. That is not the case in non-magnetic conductors like copper. There the atoms and electrons remain unpolarised so zero drift even in a magnetic field gradient.
QuoteThis case would be equivalent to connecting the diametrical potential difference of the ring to the same potential difference in the external circuit. If the positive and negative terminals of a battery are connected, respectively, to the positive and negative terminals of another battery of the same voltage, no current flows.
Clearly I disagree for the reason stated. I was expecting this scheme to be challenged as I am not an expert in spintronics, but from what I have learned about electron spin interaction it involves a spin trnsfet torque in which angular momentum is conserved. Conservation of angular momentum leads to conservation of energy, and AI has already put that forward as a reason my (edit other unpublished scheme) won't work. But the driver for spin transfer torque is not the electron's angular momentum, it is the electron's magnetic dipole moment. I don't see a conservation law for dipole moment so maybe there is something here to build on.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.20, 08:49:31...Yes the electrons move through magnetic field gradients at the connection points and the two gradients would negate the internal induced potential if they acted in the same manner as that within the Fe material. But the external connections are not Fe, and the electron behaviour there is different. Within Fe the magnetization at any point is established in the local atom's magnetic dipole polarisation and the conduction electrons take on that polarisation. Thus the tendency for the electrons to drift according to the field gradient. That is not the case in non-magnetic conductors like copper.
...
I disagree on this point. The effect referred to in the principle is the magnetic gradient. Regardless of the medium through which the electrons flow in the circuit, they will have to pass through the same magnetic gradients, both positive and negative. The net effect is zero.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.09.19, 19:45:39So what happened to the Coulomb forces between the electrons in the "medium" ?
The question isn't clear; please be more specific. By "Coulomb forces," I meant the Coulomb forces
between charges, even though we know that a Coulomb force can also arise from an external field.
When no current flows, all the forces acting on the electrons are in equilibrium; if a force is not due solely to the charges themselves—for instance, due to an electric field resulting from a magnetic gradient—then the Coulomb forces balance out following the rearrangement of electrons within the volume.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.09.20, 12:29:15I disagree on this point. The effect referred to in the principle is the magnetic gradient.
The effect is not just the magnetic gradient, it is also the electron spin polarisation. With zero polarisation (as in non-magnetic conductors) there is zero effect from the magnetic gradient. The situation at the connection points is far more complex than my or your simple statements on this subject. The magnetic simulations show a reduction from the internal field to almost zero external field over zero distance, but that is too simplistic. At the Fe to (say Cu or solder) junction the surfaces are not smooth so there will be atomic or molecular mixing through the magnetic gradient. The spin polarisation over that distance will not be the same as that which occurs in pure Fe, so I challenge your view that the gradient-induced voltage there will produce a net zero effect. I think an experiment could settle the dispute.
Having recently returned to doing experimental work I have obtained some 99.5% purity Fe sheet 0.5mm thick from Advent Research Materials http://www.advent-rm.com. The sheets are 10mm square and cost about £20 each. I have found a local company that does laser cutting who have cut me the shapes I want at a cost of £30 each. I could easily produce the flux-compressing ring-core shape required for this experiment but I do not have equipment to measure in microvolts. Many years ago Graham Gunderson sent me an amplifier that would do the trick but that is now in the posession of Itsu. It could measure the Seebeck effect of the temperature from your fingers when connecting a croc clip to some circuitry. I could send a shaped ring-core to Itsu if he agrees to do the experiment.
Smudge
Smudge, no problem.
I also gladly will send you the amplifier, so you can do the experiment yourself in your own time, no problem either.
Just send me a PM with the address, and you probably have it end of this week.
Itsu
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.21, 07:19:47The effect is not just the magnetic gradient, it is also the electron spin polarisation. With zero polarisation (as in non-magnetic conductors) there is zero effect from the magnetic gradient. The situation at the connection points is far more complex than my or your simple statements on this subject. The magnetic simulations show a reduction from the internal field to almost zero external field over zero distance, but that is too simplistic. At the Fe to (say Cu or solder) junction the surfaces are not smooth so there will be atomic or molecular mixing through the magnetic gradient. The spin polarisation over that distance will not be the same as that which occurs in pure Fe, so I challenge your view that the gradient-induced voltage there will produce a net zero effect. I think an experiment could settle the dispute.
Having recently returned to doing experimental work I have obtained some 99.5% purity Fe sheet 0.5mm thick from Advent Research Materials http://www.advent-rm.com. The sheets are 10mm square and cost about £20 each. I have found a local company that does laser cutting who have cut me the shapes I want at a cost of £30 each. I could easily produce the flux-compressing ring-core shape required for this experiment but I do not have equipment to measure in microvolts. Many years ago Graham Gunderson sent me an amplifier that would do the trick but that is now in the posession of Itsu. It could measure the Seebeck effect of the temperature from your fingers when connecting a croc clip to some circuitry. I could send a shaped ring-core to Itsu if he agrees to do the experiment.
Smudge
To measure microvolts, there are some 'vintage' instruments. I have an HP3468A, which is very reliable. But I see it still costs around £100 even today (https://www.ebay.fr/itm/267638249097).
I recognise that the issue of interconnection is complex, particularly with regard to spin polarisation. The devil is in the details, which are difficult for us to grasp from a theoretical perspective. Experimentation is necessary. It's brave to undertake this, as it's not easy and requires an investment, but the idea is worth testing. I'll be following this with interest.
Dear Mr. Smudge! Thank you for sharing this idea!
I did a simple experiment with your basic design the other day.
I didn't see any obvious results, so I didn't report it to you.
Today, it seems I got some good results, so I'm reporting to you.
I understand your idea,
which can actually be considered as power generation from a static magnetic field.
Then I modified your design by placing the Fe wire on a permanent magnet.
To observe it more clearly,
I connected 5 Fe wires in series and soldered copper wires to both ends of the irons.
All my measurements were recorded after things stabilized,
estimating that the thermoelectric effect due to temperature difference was negligible.
Multiple experiments gave roughly these results:
with no magnet, the multimeter read 0.000 mV;
placing the Fe wire on an N35 magnet, the reading was 0.025 mV.
I can only say that there was a relatively clear voltage appearing.
My measurement setup is really too ordinary, just a very common 4-3/4 digit multimeter.
So my measured results can't serve as proof.
I hope that you or other experts can conduct further experiments.
Sending you my sincere respect! Thank you, Mr. Smudge!
Thank you for those results, they are significant. I offered this experiment here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?msg=118188 and the following posts show Itsu doing this with a single iron wire. He got about 4 microvolts before losing the results and not being able to repeat them. You got 5 microvolts per iron wire so similar. Is your experiment repeatable? Please note that in this experiment with a magnet the B field passing from the iron into the solder connection is continuous, meaning there is a B field within part of the non-magnetic wire, whereas in the ring-core that is not the case. That could offer a better result for the ring-core flux concentrator.
Smudge
@ panyuming
If your experiment is repeatable here is something you can do to finesse the significance of the result. Try adding resistors across the output gradually reducing in value until the output voltage halves. You then have the situation where both the resistor and the device are consumimg DC power which you can calculate knowing the voltage and the resistance value, total power = 2*(V2/R). A demonstration of a passive device delivering power is really significant.
I did this with a device that was not passive and the problem was getting the low value (milliohms) resistor. I had available various reels of copper wire so I cut lengths that gave me different values. The value is easily calculated or deduced from published wire data.
Smudge
Hello, esteemed senior Smudge!
I really did forget your previous post.
I went back to take another look. I saw Mr. Itsu said that the balancing time should be more than 20 minutes.
Because my multimeter automatically powers off after 7 minutes, obviously when I tested before, the balancing time never exceeded 7 minutes.
I tested again. This time I often pressed the multimeter's hold button twice to prevent it from shutting down.
The longer the balancing time, the smaller the voltage reading; after 20 minutes, the reading went from 5 µV to 0 µV.
Actually, this multimeter only shows 0000 when the voltage is below 5 µV.
I wore two winter gloves to handle the action of placing the wire on the magnet.
Even the original initial 25 µV was gone. :-[ :(
I can confirm panyumings findings.
5 iron nails soldered together using silver plated copper wire.
Setup is
T1.jpg
and the meter reads without magnet
T2.jpg
Testing for AC without magnet
T3.jpg
Testing for AC with magnet
T4.jpg
Testing with Magnet
T5.jpg
Picture with Magnets
T6.jpg
Testing again Moved magnets slightly
T7.jpg
Rechecking with magnets removed
T9.jpg
I will do a long duration test next O0
Unfortunately i can confirm Itsu's finding that after 30 minuets it was back to zero.
Edit
i wonder if the residual AC pickup is stopping the effect.?
Quote from: Peterae on 2026.09.23, 10:46:58i wonder if the residual AC pickup is stopping the effect.?
How about the temperature gradients equilibrating over time and stopping any thermoelectric effects.
These are junctions of dissimilar metals after all...
:(
With three different people each doing this magnet-against-iron (or steel) experiment, getting an initial good result then seeing it disappear over time, I do wonder whether if there is some weird unexplained effect going on within the iron. If a repeat experiment using fresh nails or iron wire gives the same results then it could be worthwhile taking ones that have been through this above their Curie point to see whether the initial good result comes back. That would tell us something about the weird effect.
Itsu has sent me the DC amplifier (not received yet) so I will do my own experiments using strips of high purity iron sheet I have available. I will also have a number of ring-core flux concentrators made, connect them in series and see what I get using both DC and AC input to their primaries. And of course I will look at putting magnets against those ring-cores.
Smudge
Just to clarify, when it goes back to zero, its just a matter of taking the magnet away and replacing it back on the iron nails and the effect reappears and gradually diminishes over time again, its not a one off effect.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.24, 09:23:40Itsu has sent me the DC amplifier (not received yet) so I will do my own experiments using strips of high purity iron sheet I have available. I will also have a number of ring-core flux concentrators made, connect them in series and see what I get using both DC and AC input to their primaries. And of course I will look at putting magnets against those ring-cores.
Smudge
Great! Love to see cooperation and real experiments like this!
Quote from: Peterae on 2026.09.24, 09:43:52Just to clarify, when it goes back to zero, its just a matter of taking the magnet away and replacing it back on the iron nails and the effect reappears and gradually diminishes over time again, its not a one off effect.
Hi Peter,
Wondering whether the taking away and then the replacement movements cause a temporary induction? Or:
IF the movements are done extremely slowly (so that the induction by the normal change of magnetic flux in the iron is at a minimum), then it is possible a Barkhausen effect is created which diminishes within a certain time.
Barkhausen effect involves creating a small EMF in the nails and this involves some uA current in the closed circuit.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2026.09.24, 21:04:10Hi Peter,
Wondering whether the taking away and then the replacement movements cause a temporary induction? Or:
IF the movements are done extremely slowly (so that the induction by the normal change of magnetic flux in the iron is at a minimum), then it is possible a Barkhausen effect is created which diminishes within a certain time.
Barkhausen effect involves creating a small EMF in the nails and this involves some uA current in the closed circuit.
Gyula
I think this is probably whats happening, the effect is not there every time, it can take a few attempts to get the voltage, probably need to get the magnetic field approach correct on each nail at guess, i suppose we could prove that by separating the nails more and winding a small coil on each nail and then energizing the coils in series to induce a mag field on each nail equally and see if the voltage appeares
The amplifier from Itsu arrived today. Its use on this bench must wait until I get the special ring-core flux concentrators cut. Meanwhile I will be using it for experiments to find if energy can be extracted from electron spin to explain why the Hans Coler stromezeuger was OU.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.26, 14:31:56Its use on this bench must wait until I get the special ring-core flux concentrators cut.
Will you weld copper wires to these iron cores or solder them with a 3rd metal ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.09.26, 15:50:31Will you weld copper wires to these iron cores or solder them with a 3rd metal ?
I will initially try solder. I understand what the introduction of a 3rd metal means in respect of the Seebeck effect and temperature. I don't know what it means in respect of the reverse magnetic gradient and the electron forces therefrom, but you have to start somewhere. In other related work I am doing I might drive tapered copper rod into a hole in the Fe, as I am having difficulty doing the soldering.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.28, 06:32:57...as I am having difficulty doing the soldering.
Ask someone with a spot welder to weld the copper wire to the iron core for you.
Spot welder is just a capacitor that discharges a pulse of current into the junction of the two elements being welded. It creates a spark and locally melts the metals at the point of contact.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.28, 06:32:57I will initially try solder. I understand what the introduction of a 3rd metal means in respect of the Seebeck effect and temperature. I don't know what it means in respect of the reverse magnetic gradient and the electron forces therefrom, but you have to start somewhere. In other related work I am doing I might drive tapered copper rod into a hole in the Fe, as I am having difficulty doing the soldering.
The Seebeck effect should cancel itself out once the temperatures of the different parts have equalised. It wouldn't really be a problem to introduce a third metal, but it's simpler and neater to avoid soldering, as in your method. A slit in the iron, into which the copper wire is wedged, might also do the trick.