SEMP AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator (AISEG)

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification. To imagine a theory so vague (what energy from the "quantum domain"?) that it can't even allow experiments to be set up to verify it, and on top of that to explain an unverified fact (OU), I really don't see where we can go with this.
A theory is made to verify observations, not to invent them or to support announcements that are more commercial than scientific, like AISEG, because they are provided without the slightest proof of concept.

[Smudge]

Well done again F6.  I will take my ideas elsewhere.

[Verpies]

"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification. To imagine a theory so vague (what energy from the "quantum domain"?)

The same that is responsible for keeping the internal motions of the atoms and negative ions.

...that it can't even allow experiments to be set up to verify it,

I can't recall Smudge ever claiming that experiments cannot verify the internal motions of the atoms.
There are many of them, for example this one.

[Verpies]

Well done again F6.  I will take my ideas elsewhere.

C'mon. You're too old to react like this.
What about all others that hold your ideas in high regard ?

[Smudge]

@Smudge

"Excess energy comes from the quantum domain" is a statement with no operational justification.

So the field from a permanent magnet (and its energy) doesn't come from atomic particles?   

A theory is made to verify observations, not to invent them

So it is wrong to theorize, then follow this with experiments?

or to support announcements that are more commercial than scientific, like AISEG, because they are provided without the slightest proof of concept.

What proof do you need?  Are you so firmly embedded within your own prejudices that in the world according to F6 their measurements must be wrong?  Or they did not really carry out any measurements? 

[Smudge]

C'mon. You're too old to react like this.
What about all others that hold your ideas in high regard ?

Just spoke with Chet and I am still here.

[Verpies]

@Smudge:
This video should upset you because it does not go deep enough.
https://youtu.be/XbIWmVXZOfE?t=2

[Smudge]

@Smudge:
This video should upset you because it does not go deep enough.
https://youtu.be/XbIWmVXZOfE?t=2

Yes, but look at this comment further down the web page.

"As a metallurgist I can add that steel changes lattice structure from ferrite (ferromagnetic) to austenite (para- or nonmagnetic) in that region. By adding nickel this temperature is lowered to room temp, thats why stainless steels with nickel is not magnetic."

That suggests you can create steel with any Curie temperature you want just by controlling the amount of nickel.  And that could also lead to steel with a known remanent magnetism decay time at room temperature.

[Verpies]

"As a metallurgist I can add that steel changes lattice structure from ferrite (ferromagnetic) to austenite (para- or nonmagnetic) in that region. By adding nickel this temperature is lowered to room temp, thats why stainless steels with nickel is not magnetic."

That suggests you can create steel with any Curie temperature you want just by controlling the amount of nickel.  And that could also lead to steel with a known remanent magnetism decay time at room temperature.

Yeah but the ferromagnetic martensite or ferrite lattices do not form spontaneously in these steels upon cooling.  They form when the steels are cold-worked i.e.: hammering, cold-rolling, bending.  The Curie temperature for destruction of these ferromagnetic phases is quite high in the 600ºC - 800ºC range, but once destroyed they do not recreate themselves upon cooling, thus the transition is one-way only.  Nickel acts as a stabilizer of the austenite phase thus the higher-nickel grade stainless steels (e.g. the 310) resist this transition altogether.

Below is a list of some Ni containing steels and their properties:

AISI 304: A_C1 ~727–850°C, A_C3 ~900–950°C, T_N ~35–48 K. Paramagnetic at room temperature unless cold-worked to form martensite (T_C ~600–770°C).
AISI 316/316L: A_C1 ~800–900°C, A_C3 ~950–1000°C, T_N ~30–40 K. Paramagnetic unless martensite forms.
AISI 301: A_C1 ~700–800°C, A_C3 ~850–900°C, T_N ~50–60 K. More prone to martensite formation.
AISI 310: A_C1 ~900–950°C, A_C3 ~1000–1050°C, T_N ~20–30 K. Highly stable austenite, consistently paramagnetic.
AISI 321: A_C1 ~800–900°C, A_C3 ~950–1000°C, T_N ~35–45 K. Paramagnetic unless heavily deformed.

Ferrite to Austenite Transformation (A_C1 and A_C3):
This is a structural transition where the body-centered cubic (BCC) ferrite (ferromagnetic) transforms to face-centered cubic (FCC) austenite (paramagnetic). Nickel stabilizes the austenite phase, lowering the temperature at which this transformation occurs.

Néel Temperature (T_N):
Some austenitic steels like the 304 exhibit antiferromagnetic behavior at very low temperatures.

Nickel's Role:
Nickel is an austenite stabilizer, promoting the FCC structure over BCC, which makes austenitic stainless steels (e.g., 304, 316) paramagnetic at room temperature. The exact transition temperatures depend on the alloy's composition, including nickel, chromium, carbon, and other elements.

If the goal is to achieve transition temperatures near the room temperature, then it is the easiest to just use Gadolinium.

[F6FLT]

The same that is responsible for keeping the internal motions of the atoms and negative ions.
I can't recall Smudge ever claiming that experiments cannot verify the internal motions of the atoms.
There are many of them, for example this one.

Maintaining the internal motion of atoms and negative ions requires no energy supply. No energy is needed to maintain a motion that has no losses. Newton's first law alone proves this.

But of course, I agree, the matter contains energy, which is continually conserved and transformed in the "internal movements of atoms and negative ions".

So if we claim that the SEMP's energy comes from this continuously transforming energy, then these internal movements would change. The question is not the existence of energy - we know there is some anyway, since E=M.C² - but its extraction and the consequences of its use: the reduction or depletion of the process that supplies it.

Would SEMP slow down or even stop the internal movements of atoms? There is no evidence to support this idea, which is revolutionary for some, but delusional and throwaway in my view. The scientific method is used to explain observations, not to explain, instead of facts to be verified, suppositions based on dubious announcements made at COP28 by the same people who, 5 years earlier, had already made the same kind of announcement, with nothing to show for it since.

[Verpies]

Would SEMP slow down or even stop the internal movements of atoms?

If it did, it would result in ionization, transmutation, macroscopic motion or decrease of the thermal energy.  I did not check if their experiment exhibits any of these.

[F6FLT]

Knowing that E=M.C², we can always imagine that the energy is taken from somewhere in matter to justify our belief in the OU in any machine.
But the correct method is: nothing to observe, nothing to theorise about.

So I put the question to those who believe in it: if there are facts to be observed in the SEMP, what are they and how can they be reproduced to verify them?

[Smudge]

They clearly state that the carbonizing process of their core material creates a remanent magnetism decay time of milliseconds, and examination of their system shows this to be the source of their anomalous energy.  So here is something that is using to good effect internal thermal motions that create the demagnetization.  Surely this is something worth investigating?  They do not state what temperature they need inside their cabinet to achieve this effect, and I suspect it is quite high above ambient.  Has anyone given thought to the possibility of deliberately driving noise-like internal motions to create this demagnetizing at ambient temperature?  I have in mind an electric drive into the dielectric of a ferrite square-loop core to see if it can induce the demagnetization.  If it does and we can get energy out as in SEMP it might settle the question of whether the thermal (or in this case the non-thermal) drive is the source of the output energy.

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

Everything is worth investigation but I have reservations.

When I was sent to investigate and test these devices the inventors were often guessing. In reality I think most had no idea where the energy comes from. So we do a test and get strange readings. We trace it back to somewhere near or inside the cores and coils. Here is where I think most just take a wild guess and make something up so they can patent. The actual effect would most likely be considered intellectual property anyways. I say this because this is basically what every company does.

To put it into perspective, I once tested a fairly simple setup which showed a large COP>1. Just a bunch of coils and cores arranged in a certain geometry switched in a way few if any would ever consider. The setup and construction was very easy but the working theory took over a year to nail down. Where do we start when the device is so basic there is no place to start?. By all appearances nothing should happen nor could it but it does.

AC