Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy

[Verpies]

Doesn't the first video contradict the above?
And the second video confirm?

No because the core in the first video is not completely soft and the one in the second video - is.

I always thought that the difference between soft and hard ferromagnetic materials was the degree and speed of decay of remanent magnetization.  In other words: a soft material loses its magnetization very quickly or instantaneously, while a hard one - very slowly or not at all.
Smudge suggests that it is not a matter of speed but a different phenomenon entirely.

I've seen accounts of experimenters who charge a homemade PMH and hang on their garage wall for years, then recording the separation of the keeper bar. Little if any remanent decay was noticed, although it wasn't accurately measured.

I haven't witnessed a perceptible decay of remanence either.
Smudge writes that the remanent magnetization decays slowly over years but my childhood recordings on magnetic tapes are still playable.

None of it means that a material cannot be engineered which exhibits a faster decay of remanent magnetization.

[Verpies]

Attached are two files describing the iron carburizing processes.

[Smudge]

Attached are two files describing the iron carburizing processes.

Usually the process is followed by rapid quenching and that is where the SEMP process differs.  It seems they have discovered that transformer Fe can have its remanent magnetism retention time reduced from many years down to milliseconds simply by not performing rapid quenching, but instead let the object cool slowly over 10 hours or more while remaining in a high carbon environment.  Surely that is something that should be verified.

Smudge

[Smudge]

I always thought that the difference between soft and hard ferromagnetic materials was the degree and speed of decay of remanent magnetization.  In other words: a soft material loses its magnetization very quickly or instantaneously, while a hard one - very slowly or not at all.
Smudge suggests that it is not a matter of speed but a different phenomenon entirely.

I always thought that a perfect soft material can only inherit its magnetization by the application of an external influence, there is no remanence to be considered.  Only hard material has remanence.  But of course all soft materials do have some (hopefully small) remanence that causes the BH loop to have area and creates losses.  It is generally assumed that the losses appear as heat in the material.  The question on how long this (small) remanence would survive if it was allowed to remain is not germain to how well a transformer works as it is assumed to be permanent magnetism.  In use it does not remain permanently as it gets swepped away and its presence is already accounted for by that BH loop area. Only recently have I discovered that materials can have remanence with decay times ranging from from many years (tens, hundreds, thousands?) down to milliseconds or less.   

I haven't witnessed a perceptible decay of remanence either.
Smudge writes that the remanent magnetization decays slowly over years but my childhood recordings on magnetic tapes are still playable.

Will that still be true in another 100 years?  Are the sound volumes the same as when they were recorded?

Smudge

[Smudge]

Here are some more thoughts and formula on this subject.  Every way I look at this the system yields OU.

Smudge

[Verpies]

Will that still be true in another 100 years?  Are the sound volumes the same as when they were recorded?

IDK x2.

[chief kolbacict]

Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient.

[Smudge]

Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient.

Zaev's next paper that appears at the end of this one is more relevant as it uses the difference between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy.

Here is a photo copy.

Smudge

[partzman]

Here is another interesting paper from Zaev.  His material seems to be difficult to find!

Regards,
Pm

[Smudge]

Here is another interesting paper from Zaev.  His material seems to be difficult to find!

Regards,
Pm

Looking back at the large number of scientific documents I have amassed in my computer I see I already downloaded these Zaev papers in 2007!  He touches on many aspects that I am exploring now.  I think his approach (that is using magnetically soft material, so differs from my "hard" material that is not quite "hard") uses very narrow input pulses that start the magnetizing process while initial permeability is very low, but having started that process the magnetization continues to build up after the end of the pulse (that he ascribes to magnetic viscosity or magnetic accomodation).  That creates greater energy magnetically that is recovered in the demagnetization cycle.  Note his use of the initial permeability u_i and maximum permeability u_max and their ratio to determine the ratio between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy.  The significant feature is u_max/u_i should be high, as indeed it is in many ferrites.  I have come across an early paper (1954) looking at conditions for square hysteresis loops in ferrites that gives u_i for some ferroxcubes and other materials.

Smudge

[partzman]

Smudge,

In your Zaev documents, would you happen to have "Genesis of Inductance Energy"?  He supposedly talks more about the initial fast high energy pulse to create a 'spontaneous magnetization' or 'avalanche-like' chain reaction in the vacuum.

Pm

[chief kolbacict]

As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the conversion of thermal energy without a temperature gradient into other energy.  Or am I wrong ?

[F6FLT]

As far as I understand, the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the conversion of thermal energy without a temperature gradient into other energy.  Or am I wrong ?

The second law of thermodynamics prohibits the conversion of thermal energy from a single-temperature thermal bath.
But no other physical law prohibits it. Since thermodynamics is a statistical law, we might well ask whether a Maxwell demon might not be possible on a local scale. No general proof of the impossibility of a Maxwell demon has yet been provided; only in special cases.

[Smudge]

Smudge,

In your Zaev documents, would you happen to have "Genesis of Inductance Energy"?  He supposedly talks more about the initial fast high energy pulse to create a 'spontaneous magnetization' or 'avalanche-like' chain reaction in the vacuum.

Pm

No, but I do have "Fuel-less Energetics (Problems, solutions, forecasts)".

Smudge

[F6FLT]

Here is some analogy getting electricity energy from heat of an environment without a temperature gradient.

Zaev's work is interesting to read, but after analysis, we realize that it's all truisms and that he's never managed to produce an experiment that would surprise us.

When he says that if ∂C/∂V<1 then electrical energy is gained in a capacitor, nobody has ever said otherwise.  And when he says that the usual equations would no longer apply, that's wrong, they still apply, but you still have to choose the right ones, i.e. those with the instantaneous values you'll have to integrate, and integrate those at the origin of ∂C/∂V<1.

For example, we could have ∂C/∂V<1 with a capacitor whose capacity decreases as we charge it. If we take the mechanical case, this would mean that its plates would move apart, thus requiring mechanical work in addition to electrical work, which would end up in the form of additional electrical energy.
The question is how to do this at an energy cost lower than the gain. This applies to all parametric devices. Until now, changing the "parameter" (such as the distance between plates, or changing permittivity) has an energy cost. Ambient heat is obviously a natural candidate to provide this work, and the Vasilu-Karpen battery is the ideal example of the method. But while the principle is crystal-clear, there is no clear experimental evidence to support this possibility, not even from Zaev.

[chief kolbacict]

If we take the mechanical case, this would mean that its plates would move apart, thus requiring mechanical work in addition to electrical work, which would end up in the form of additional electrical energy.

And they say that if the solenoid increases in diameter (let's imagine for simplicity that the wire is rubber) due to the flow of current in it.
The energy of the magnetic field in this solenoid increases. And besides, the solenoid performs mechanical expansion work for us.
Double benefit.  The only cost is an increase in current.

[F6FLT]

And they say that if the solenoid increases in diameter (let's imagine for simplicity that the wire is rubber) due to the flow of current in it.
The energy of the magnetic field in this solenoid increases. And besides, the solenoid performs mechanical expansion work for us.
Double benefit.  The only cost is an increase in current.

If that's what they're really saying, they're wrong. If things were as naive as that, we'd have had FE by the 19th century. How could you think it would have escaped Faraday's or Lorentz's intelligence?

If the diameter increases, the inductance increases. But the increase in inductance causes a variation in flux that opposes the current, so we'll have to raise the voltage to maintain the same current during the transition,  i.e. provide a work W=∫(L*i).di where L is current or time depending.

[broli]

If that's what they're really saying, they're wrong. If things were as naive as that, we'd have had FE by the 19th century. How could you think it would have escaped Faraday's or Lorentz's intelligence?

The biggest problem of man is his ego. It won't matter what or who overlooked what. Admit fault, accept the change and move on, this goes for both sides. Or else the cycle of conflict, inequality and violence only repeats. Those that do not adapt to change will not last in nature either. Cooperation trumps competition.

[F6FLT]

We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation.  The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.
The cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.
That's why, in this kind of eventuality, we have to talk about facts before theory, like abnormal results of experiments verifiable by any expert in the field.

[broli]

We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation.  The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.
The cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.
That's why, in this kind of eventuality, we have to talk about facts before theory, like abnormal results of experiments verifiable by any expert in the field.

Like this experiment for instance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag

Facts, data, an experiment anyone can do at home (or at the gym) and math a high schooler understands? Where are the world changing formidable applications using it today? The blackbird team has only faced ridicule and denial so far regardless of how much proof they put forward. Is this how science should be conducted according to you?

[Smudge]

We had cooperation since the 19th century among scientists, who all communicate with each other more than in any other corporation.  The result is the formidable technology we have today. The cooperation that counts is the cooperation of competent people.

If you read the Zaev paper I posted in reply #38 today doesn't he reference work by competent scientists that have shown evidence that our thermodynamic laws are at fault?  And that these competent individuals were then written off by the majority of the Russian scientific establishment.  Much like Laithewaite's infamous TV demonstrations at the Royal Society have been expunged from their records.  Is that what you call cooperation?   

The cooperation of those who believe that the least of their ideas is possible, because they understand almost nothing, not even the reasons why their idea has already been thought of and rejected for good, well-known reasons, is not only useless but counter-productive.

So Laithewaite and those Russian scientists understood almost nothing?
Smudge

[F6FLT]

Like this experiment for instance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
...

Those who see this as a departure from the laws of physics are the ones who just don't get it.

This experiment is a remarkable demonstration of the relevance of the laws of physics. It's only surprising at first sight, like a considerable number of scientific experiments, because common sense in science is not the common sense of sensible experience.

If we understand Newton's first law, we know that no energy is needed to move at constant speed, so the speed of the machine is in no way linked to the speed of the wind, but to the energy we can draw from it, which can be cumulative.

[partzman]

Zaev's next paper that appears at the end of this one is more relevant as it uses the difference between magnetization energy and demagnetization energy.

Here is a photo copy.

Smudge

OK, thanks!

PM

[broli]

Those who see this as a departure from the laws of physics are the ones who just don't get it.

This experiment is a remarkable demonstration of the relevance of the laws of physics. It's only surprising at first sight, like a considerable number of scientific experiments, because common sense in science is not the common sense of sensible experience.

If we understand Newton's first law, we know that no energy is needed to move at constant speed, so the speed of the machine is in no way linked to the speed of the wind, but to the energy we can draw from it, which can be cumulative.

Who is talking about a departure? As you say it is fully within newtons laws of motion. But then you DO agree that it keeps accelerating until it hits the sonic wall? If so where did that kinetic energy come from?

[F6FLT]

If you read the Zaev paper I posted in reply #38 today doesn't he reference work by competent scientists that have shown evidence that our thermodynamic laws are at fault?
...

"Evidence" ?    It's not enough for a few cranks (there are some in academic science too) to interpret an experiment as being contrary to the laws of physics, for it to be so. There needs to be a consensus on the reality of the facts, and a demonstration that an explanation is impossible according to the known laws of physics.
Some scientists believe that a Maxwell demon is possible. But no really convincing experiment is provided that would lead to general acceptance.

In any case, if there is such a thing as "alternative science", someone should show me the alternative technology that goes with it.