Free electricity using Earth's rotational energy?

[F6FLT]

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-generate-electricity-earth-rotational-energy.html

If we're at the center of the earth in a fixed (non-rotating) inertial frame of reference, we see any conductor on the earth's surface crossing the earth's magnetic field with a speed depending on its latitude. The conductor's charges are therefore subject to the Lorentz force, and if the conductor is properly oriented, a voltage will develop along its length.
However, this voltage causes a rearrangement of the charges and a new static configuration develops (extremely rapidly), cancelling out the electric field.
If we carry out the analysis from the conductor's frame of reference, i.e. rotating with the earth, it's identical: we don't see the Lorentz force since v=0 in our own frame of reference, but we do see an electric field E equivalent to that VxB seen from the center of the earth, with the same consequence of charge redistribution preventing us from circulating current.
After the well-known observation that no energy can be extracted from the Earth's magnetic field, the authors provide the key to getting around the problem, but I confess I'm having trouble following them.

"The extremely rapid and continuously ongoing field cancellation within any conductor appears to make it impossible to use the 𝐯×𝐁 force to generate electricity even for the m=0 components of Earth's field. However, Eq. (12) hides an implicit assumption that can be violated [2]. Since ∇x∇𝑉=0 always, Eq. (12) cannot be satisfied within a magnetically permeable object with a topology chosen to ensure ∇x(vxB)≠0 (13) within the object. The inequality of Eq. (13) holds, for example, in the interior region 𝑎<𝜌<𝑏 of a magnetically permeable conducting cylindrical shell of inner and outer radii 𝑎 and 𝑏 (with 𝜌 the radial coordinate in a cylindrical coordinate system centered in the shell), and long axis perpendicular to 𝐯 and 𝐁 (see Fig. 1)."

Why? If anyone understands, please enlighten us. For me, this is incompatible with relativity, where it can only be in the frame of reference where we see both the field B and the velocity V of the charges, that we can recover their energy.

In any case, with a 30 cm MnZn ferrite tube, they claim to produce a permanent voltage in the 15 µV range, eliminating possible temperature-related artifacts, and opening the door to possible scalability (otherwise, of course, the interest would remain purely theoretical).

[panyuming]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZR95bXuMbQ



*earth spin generator:*

Join acclaimed TV science filmmaker Simon Holland in this captivating exploration of groundbreaking renewable energy! In this video, we delve into the remarkable innovation by a Princeton University scientist who has developed an electrical generator powered by the Earth's rotation. This incredible concept is rooted in the pioneering work of Michael Faraday, whose brilliant observations laid the foundation for modern electromagnetism.

Discover how this revolutionary generator harnesses the Earth's rotational energy to produce clean, sustainable electricity. As we face the urgent challenge of climate change, advancements like these could play a crucial role in our transition to renewable energy sources.

In this engaging documentary, Simon Holland breaks down complex scientific principles into easily digestible insights, showcasing the potential of this technology to reshape our energy landscape. You'll learn about the engineering challenges, the science behind Faraday's law of induction, and the future implications for global energy production.

Don't miss this enlightening journey into the intersection of science, innovation, and sustainability! Subscribe to our channel for more fascinating content on science and technology, and hit the notification bell to stay updated on our latest videos!

[Verpies]

In any case, with a 30 cm MnZn ferrite tube, they claim to produce a permanent voltage in the 15 µV range, eliminating possible temperature-related artifacts, ...

I will believe it if that voltage varies sinusoidally as a function of the tube's angle.
It would make a novel compass.

[panyuming]

 
If a copper wire generates a voltage on the earth, it cannot be measured or utilized. Because of the measurement or utilization, a closed loop will be formed, so that the total voltage = 0.
If the video says it correctly: a ferrite coil can slow down electrons.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZR95bXuMbQ
There is a voltage difference between the power generation coil that is decelerated and the electronic speed difference between the conventional measurement circuit without deceleration or the circuit using the circuit.

[F6FLT]

If a copper wire generates a voltage on the earth, it cannot be measured or utilized. Because of the measurement or utilization, a closed loop will be formed, so that the total voltage = 0.

If the video says it correctly: a ferrite coil can slow down electrons.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZR95bXuMbQ
There is a voltage difference between the power generation coil that is decelerated and the electronic speed difference between the conventional measurement circuit without deceleration or the circuit using the circuit.

What we do know is that a closed rigid circuit crossing a constant magnetic field produces no current. The reason is obvious, just consider that we have two half-circuits moving together and therefore cutting the same field, so their ends are at the same potential, consequently closing the circuit serves no purpose. This is true even if the observer on earth added an extra displacement to the circuit.

So what happens if we "slow down" the electrons somewhere with a ferrite? A ferrite contains charges and also moves with the conductor. The charges in the ferrite are subject to the Lorentz force. They are also redistributed. If it is an insulator, the redistribution consists of a displacement of the electron clouds in relation to the nuclei, under the effect of E=VxB, a displacement of charges which has an influence on the magnetic field and which, we can bet, cancelling out the delay we were hoping for.

This is best understood in terms of relativity. The magnetic field is a relativistic effect on the coulombic field. When all the charges are moving at the same time at the same speed, the overall effect on a rigid circuit can only be zero. It is only when one part of the circuit is mobile in relation to the other, by deformation or by sliding contacts as in the Faraday disc, that we can have an influence of electrons from one part on the other, creating the imbalance that allows a current to flow.
So in the end I think they're screwing up, and that a few microvolts could be created by various artefacts.

[panyuming]

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

[Verpies]

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

According to this video, the voltage DOES vary as a function of the cylinder's orientation angle. I mentioned this  here.

• Also, a full rod/cyliner does NOT work but a hollow one does.
• Furthermore, the choice of the material matters (the ones with lower magnetic Reynold's coefficients are better, e.g.: MnZn)
• A larger diameter hollow cylinder is supposed to generate a higher voltage.
• The generated voltage is supposed to be higher at lower geographical latitudes.
• Last but not least, thermoelectric and photoelectric effects have been ruled out.

P.S.
Electrons moving 30cm in a billionth of a second (1ns) is plausible but stretched, however moving this distance in a billionth of a billionth (sic!) of a second (1as) is FTL.

[Aking.21]

 NASA has  explored generating electricity in space by "dangling" a wire through Earth's magnetic field. This concept is tied to experiments with electrodynamic tethers, notably the Tethered Satellite System (TSS) missions.
In one such experiment, during the TSS-1R mission in 1996 aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia, NASA deployed a satellite connected to a 19.7-kilometer (12.2-mile) conductive tether. The idea was to move the tether through Earth's magnetic field, inducing an electric current via electromagnetic induction—similar to how a generator works. The motion of a conductor through a magnetic field generates voltage, and in this case, the setup produced up to 3,500 volts and 0.5 amps of current. However, the experiment hit a snag when the tether unexpectedly snapped due to an electrical arc caused by the high current, ending the test prematurely.
The concept leverages the interaction between a long conductive wire and Earth's magnetic field to produce power, offering a potential method for spacecraft propulsion or electricity generation without fuel. While the TSS-1R mission didn't fully succeed, it demonstrated the principle and paved the way for further research into tether-based technologies. Earlier tests, like one in 1993 with a shorter 1,640-foot tether, also showed promise, generating 50-100 volts in a simpler setup. These efforts highlight NASA's innovative attempts to harness space's natural environment for power.

[Smudge]

Having now educated myself for the term advection (which I had never used or known) compared to convection and diffusion (which I had known) I can now understand where this new principle comes from.  Treating magnetism moving within a permeable material acting like something (perhaps temperature or an impurity) advecting (moving in one direction) or diffusing within a fluid now makes sense.  Such magnetohydrodynamics requires a magnetic Reynold's number to act like the fluid Reynold's number in a real fluid.  So a lump of permeable material moving within a uniform magnetic field will have that field entering on one side and exiting on the other, hence moving within the material according to magnetohydrodynamic rules.  I can envisage the field within the material moving past a conductor embedded within the material at a rate that differs from the the field outside the material moving past the return path that contains the voltmeter, hence inducing a voltage reading.  What I cannot get to grips with is their vision of the field flowing radially through their rectangular closed circuit to reach the centre point of their cylinder.  I do not understand why they use the closed rectangular loop conductor within the ferrite for their math when the real closed loop that includes the voltmeter passes outside the ferrite.  In my view their internal path could be a single conductor, not two separate paths in parallel.

Smudge

[Smudge]

Their statement that a voltage V induced into their rectagular closed loop will result in 0.5V being seen by the voltmeter is just plain wrong, and I am surprised that this has not been picked up.  It is zero.  So all their calculations are just rubbish.  However the fact that the external field moving relative to the ferrite is at a different velocity to the field moving within the ferrite yields an E=vXB voltage induction into a wire embedded along the tube that is different to the E=vXB cancelling induction in the external return wire with the voltmeter in series.  Hence that closed loop sees an induced voltage.

Using their Rm number for M60 ferrite I calculate 48 microvolts for a 20cm wire embedded in the ferrite at their earth location.  Not their measured 18 microvolts but its of the right order.  It should be a simple task to get a single wire running inside a ferrite rod and do the test.  It doesn't have to be a tube, all their math that led them to a tube is based on their false idea that you get half a closed loop induced voltage of you connect an external voltmeter across it, so they looked for induction into their internal closed loop.

Smudge 

[Verpies]

It should be a simple task to get a single wire running inside a ferrite rod and do the test. 

I should be simple if the ferrite rod does not need to be drilled axially, e.g. by making a hollow cylinder out of a bunch of ferrite rings stacked axially. 
Since spin-polarized electrons cannot jump these small air gaps between the rings, will these gaps inhibit the phenomenon ?

How does the length of the hollow ferrite rod affect the induced voltage, anyway ...in your opinion ?

[Smudge]

I should be simple if the ferrite rod does not need to be drilled axially, e.g. by making a hollow cylinder out of a bunch of ferrite rings stacked axially. 
Since spin-polarized electrons cannot jump these small air gaps between the rings, will these gaps inhibit the phenomenon ?

I don't know how much the spin polarized electrons influence the "fluid" magnetic field velocity.  My guess is for the ferrite it has such a low conductivity that the velocity is more influenced by its dielectric property.  Doing the experiment with ferrite rings is so straightforward that it is worth doing anyway.  Incidentally Graham Gunderson built a low bandwith DC amplifier that gives a 'scope the ability to measure these microvolt DC levels.  He sent it to me, I passed it to Grum and he passed it to Itsu.  So Itsu has this facility.  For any measurement you have to null out DC offset using a control knob.  When you connect it to something using croc clips the thermocouple action between the croc clip and the item has a DC voltage just from the temperature difference at the instant of connection coming from your body temperature handling the croc clip, and that drifts as things stabilise.  For this experiment it needs a switch to make the connection to the circuit after the DC offset has been adjusted to zero.   

How does the length of the hollow ferrite rod affect the induced voltage, anyway ...in your opinion ?

IMO the voltage is proportional to the length of the conductor within the rod.

Smudge

[chief kolbacict]

Doing the experiment with ferrite rings is so straightforward that it is worth doing anyway. 

It would be better, maybe to use that small tube ? These were using often early. 

[Smudge]

Just to clarify my position on this.  The first image below asks a question that is quite fundamental in regard to EM theory that maybe hasn't been asked before, and the second image is the result of the experiment that is the subject of this thread that seems to answer that question.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

A field is simply a scalar or vector (or tensor) associated with a position in space to model effects at that location.
A field increases or decreases at a given location, and/or changes direction if it is a vector. The projection of a spot of light moved along a wall is not associated with anything real moving along the wall, certainly not the light. It's the same with a magnetic field.
The notion of "field velocity" does not exist.  It's a convenient abuse of language, but it's not real at all; you mustn't confuse the map with the territory.

As the ferrite moves at constant speed in a constant field, there is no delay in the field inside, it is established and stable, and outside, the same.
A current generated by the Lorentz force can only be recovered in a circuit if there is a permanent imbalance in the mutual influence of all the charges in the circuit, resulting in a net force. By virtue of Stokes' theorem, the corollary of this is a variation in flux through the circuit, which we don't have here. So no current either. No current can be generated because, quite simply, there is no variation in flux through the circuit.

[F6FLT]

When you consider that Physical Review Research is a peer-reviewed journal, it's frightening to see the level of many physicists today. I'm afraid the days of the Amperes and Faradays are over.
Fortunately, thanks to AI, we can remain hopeful. I had a very interesting discussion on the anomalous Hall effect, associated with the skin effect, with Deepseek. Deepseek is much more pragmatic than ChatGPT, with lots of practical information and order-of-magnitude calculations. I'd recommend it. I look forward to the time when AI will be able to make discoveries.

That said, experiments takes precedence over theory. So if the current they're measuring isn't just an artefact, even if their theory is bogus, that doesn't mean their setup isn't worth exploring.

[Verpies]

A field is simply a scalar or vector (or tensor) associated with a position in space to model effects at that location.

I would refine this statement like this: A field is a spatial distribution of scalars or vectors (or tensors) associated with various locations in space that model effects at these locations.
These effects usually result in forces, which makes most fields "the field of forces" ...or "force fields", if you like.
Normally, forces accelerate things (cause motion) unless prevented by other forces.

Such definitions of fields usually do not concern themselves with the mechanistic or relativistic causes of these effects (the effects are assumed to just happen in space with a semblance of an explanation given about their cause [mostly heuristic], but their directions and magnitudes are meticulously defined).  This leads to mathematical (quantitative and qualitative) correctness and conceptual ignorance.  A common occurrence nowadays.

It is important to note that observer's motions can create the "illusion" of such fields of forces.  For example if the observer starts spinning, he can rightly claim that a field of forces suddenly appeared outside of him and that field has accelerated everything around him to spin/move with a velocity that is perpendicular to the radius of his rotation and proportional in magnitude to the radius of his observation.  He could make a similar claim if he started to move linearly albeit without the dependence of motions' magnitudes on the distance of his observation.  The neglect of observer's motion always causes the attribution of this motion to other objects. That's classical relativity that assumes 1D time and 3D space.

Increasing the dimensionality of time to 3 allows for much more complex relativity ...in which the forces can vary in space in more complex ways then the two manners which I just described above ...but most people's brains balk at such possibility.

[Smudge]

A field is simply a scalar or vector (or tensor) associated with a position in space to model effects at that location.
A field increases or decreases at a given location, and/or changes direction if it is a vector. The projection of a spot of light moved along a wall is not associated with anything real moving along the wall, certainly not the light. It's the same with a magnetic field.
The notion of "field velocity" does not exist.  It's a convenient abuse of language, but it's not real at all; you mustn't confuse the map with the territory.

I fully understand that, but I make no excuse for using E = v X B for a conductor moving through a B field for an observer who is stationary, and the same formula for an observer moving with the conductor where the E field now appears to come from a B field that is moving relative to the observer.   

As the ferrite moves at constant speed in a constant field, there is no delay in the field inside, it is established and stable, and outside, the same.
A current generated by the Lorentz force can only be recovered in a circuit if there is a permanent imbalance in the mutual influence of all the charges in the circuit, resulting in a net force. By virtue of Stokes' theorem, the corollary of this is a variation in flux through the circuit, which we don't have here. So no current either. No current can be generated because, quite simply, there is no variation in flux through the circuit.

Yes, that is all textbook stuff.  But since Stokes' is just vector math, and our concept of vector fields is a simplification of the real situation of trillions of atomic orbiting electrons in one region of space influencing trillions of conduction electrons in another region of space, is it not possible that Stokes' would not apply in certain cases?  The results of the experiment we are looking at here suggests this.  Are you certain that a conductor lying along the axis of a cylinder of plasma obeying magnetohydrodynamic rules moving through a uniform magnetic field will endure the same induced E field as one lying outside the cylinder?  Has anyone ever done the experiment?

Smudge

[Verpies]

... the real situation of trillions of atomic ...

More like sextillions...

...orbiting electrons in one region of space influencing trillions of conduction electrons in another region of space,

Sounds like a lot of motion that we ordinarily neglect.
...do you remember what I wrote about neglected motions ?

[Smudge]

Here is a FEMM run of a Ferrite tube in a uniform magnetic field.  Shown there are two conductors crossing that field, one inside the tube and one outside the tube.  I show the B field magnitudes given by FEMM for the two positions.  The field inside the tube is virtually zero.  Now if the tube and the conductors move together in the x direction will there be a difference in the v X B electric field seen by the conductors?  If the zero B field at the inner conductor results in zero v X B electric field on that inner conductor then the answer is a resounding yes.  So we can construct a rectangular closed loop that extracts energy from that movement.  Admittedly FEMM is only a 2D program so it simulates something that is infinitely long in the z dimension.  But we know intuitively that a long tube (length greater than diameter) will exhibit its magnetic screening properties around the centre point so we can still construct a rectangular loop that doesn't extend near the ends.  Worth trying the experiment.

Smudge 

[Smudge]

Anyone up for trying this experiment?  The voltmeter has to register 10's of microvolts DC so maybe not just a simple meter.  A more complex experiment uses multiple turns in the loop (say 100 then you are in the millivolts range).  I am surprised this has not been done before, but then maybe it has and I am ignorant of it.

Smudge

Edit.  For the Princeton data B=45uT and v=354m/S, if the zero B field inside the tube genuinely results in zero vXB induction there then for a 10cm length of ferrite tube the voltmeter would read 1.6mV DC from induction in the outside wire!!!  If this were real surely this type of induction would have been noted before.  Methinks the E=vXB that appears in every textbook on EM theory may need some qualifications.       

[chief kolbacict]

What would be if we take a  magnet pipe,instead ferrite one  ?   

[Smudge]

What would be if we take a  magnet pipe,instead ferrite one  ?   

Since the relative permeability of a magnet is close to 1 it will not divert the earth's field around the pipe so there will be zero voltage created in the loop.

[chief kolbacict]

Why don't we put down permanent magnet near our device? It will  give field much more stronger than earth's magnetic field. And it will be  moving with our device together as well. 

[Smudge]

Why don't we put down permanent magnet near our device? It will  give field much more stronger than earth's magnetic field. And it will be  moving with our device together as well. 

Since the conductor will not be moving with respect to the magnet it will not get induction from the magnet's field.  But you could create the situation where the PM nulls the earth's field on one half of the closed loop and not on the other half.  Then ask whether that null takes away the movement induction on that half?  That is similar to the ferrite tube case.  All our teachings and our gut feelings are that we will not get free energy in this way.

I am reminded of being called into a laboratory about 40 years ago where a military thermal imager was being developed.  This used a miniature Stirling engine to cool the IR sensor and the device suffered from noise from the sensor associated with the Stirling pump frequency, and no amount of fiddling could get rid of it.  I took a small fridge magnet, held it near the sensor to null out the earth's field to demontrate that the stainless steel spring in the Stirling engine was the culprit.  This was supposed to be non-magnetic but it clearly wasn't.  So nulling away the earth's field does work for some situations.

Smudge