Goto page Previous  1, 2   Page 2 of 2

Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:40 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 @ OC To be frank I think we are talking at cross purposes. However, I've drawn a 3D version of the AGW cycle in case it helps anyone. Obviously, the legs relate to average rates and incremental changes. One is concerned with the principle, not the details._________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:36 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 Here's the problem Frank, in the WhiPMag, at midpoint between rotor magnets, we have N vs S or S vs N. At equitorial alignment we have N vs N and S vs S. Your graphs attempt to show the B vectors of both rotor and stator as well as the acceleration differentials. However, the stator B vector sweeps through four moving rotor magnet fields while interacting with both poles of all 5 magnets in play at any moment. All of which change the vectors. In addtion there is a parabolic geometric separation of the extremeties of the fields. This adds a second level of complexity as we migrate from the greater density to a more uniform field shape at a distance. This migration is difficult to map because the magnet surfaces have sharp angles which concentrates the flux. And these angles are located in different planes. So in one place during the moment you may experience and inverse square of the distance and in another an inverse cube of the distance as respects the density. I don't think the cycle can be charted as you show it If you want an answer, break this code: 2-1 6-2 7-3 9-7 4-5 1-7 1-6 7-4 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 21-2

Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:55 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 "The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook." William James (American philosopher and psychologist)_________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 @ Harvey Irrelevant complexities aside, I think I may see part of your problem. I am treating the Brotor as the quasi-H variable in the HB diagram (a BH diagram rotated 180deg about the 45 degree slope) the Bstator is therefor the B variable of the HB diagram. The slopes of the four legs relate to the properties of the Bstator magnet, obviously. The energy generated is that of the Bstator. One would have to draw another diagram for the power cycle of the Brotor magnets using the relevant properties of those magnets. For this second diagram the Bstator would be functioning as the quasi-H variable. Having tackled many research problems with multi-factorial analysis I find it only to be expected that interaction of main factors A and B give positive and negative AB interactions, which in this case are energy gain and energy loss. They are simply the two sides of the same coin. Anyway, someone, somewhere is going to prove this soon. Maybe Steorn already have and are keeping schtum for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they received blood-curdling threats from a desert dweller. _________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 Geeze Frank, now your implying that Bstator increases when interacting with an opposing quasi Brotor (H) field. The BH curve relates to the magnetic material itself not the energy present to produce torque externally on the rotor. So your diagram means nothing related to the AGW 'power' cycle. [Might mention here also, the diagram does not represent the full 'cycle' at all] Additionally, two N42 axial magnets placed end to end N-S will not result in 2x field strength there are losses in the boundry layer. And the losses are even worse when placed N-N or S-S. Also, the quasi H of one magnet is not going to 'overcharge' another NdFeB magnet (and even if it was - the vector would have to be additive not opposite). \vecN_1 \hatN_1 + \vecN_2 \hatN_2 = \vecN_3 \hatN_3 = 0 Where \vecN_1\theta = 180° and \vecN_2\alpha = 0° Your implications are that for each AGW pass the magnets will increase in magnetism - I can't agree with that. How do you suggest that this 'extra energy' manifests itself to be used as torque?Last edited by Harvey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: ... the quasi H of one magnet is not going to 'overcharge' another NeFeB magnet (and even if it was - the vector would have to be additive not opposite).

I disagree and agree:

NdFeB magnets are capable of presenting a strong enough external field (H) to influence another NdFeB magnet (B) in close proximity. This increase/decrease in B will then vanish as the distance between the magnets increases.

As you said, in order for this influence to be positive the vectors must be additive, thus my earlier remarks about pushing a minor loop up into the 1st quadrant. Even then, if all actions are instantaneous, as represented by 2 dimensional BH curves, it would be impossible to utilize any of the increased potential. However, I think there might be a way when magnetic viscosity (time) is considered.

But these thoughts don't really belong here. This has absolutely nothing to do with WhipMag.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 The resulting force vectors for the rotor and stator relate directly to the B vectors of each interacting rotor magnet and the relative stator. The complexity of which I have not yet attempted to tackle. Once the forces have been identified for rotor and stator the torqe vectors could be derived from the following force vector. \vecF_{WhiPMag} = \int_{0}^{180} \vecF_{sta} T * \int_{0}^{45} \vecF_{rot} T The forces \vecF_{sta} and \vecF_{rot} would be the sum total of all vectors present for a given position, thus the positions are syncronized by T where 0° represents the equitorial alignment in AGW. I am certain that an analysis of this will reveal that the forces are balanced. IOW from 0° to 89° stator position the forces will be positive, but from 91° to 180° the forces will be negative, thus netting to zero. Consequently, any losses in the system will result in rundown. In order to produce a gain, the negative force must be reduced or even nullified. This is best accomplished by shearing the field during this phase of the cycle. Shearing occurs when the momentum of the rotating object exceeds the MMF against it. You could probably model this negative MMF as Magnetic Friction. Like all frictions, their must be a coefficient. When you exceed it what happens? The friction no longer plays a part in the restriction of movement. Also, like friction, the coefficient is different for V_0 vs V_1250. This means the magnetic resistance decreases with RPM. Unlike friction however, the positive force does not shear so readily. IOW there appears to be a double standard here. The coefficient is different depending on the sign of the force. This indicates that there is a grain or force tendency. Examples of this type of friction in nature would include foxtail seeds, fur on a cat, pine needles, moving water etc. So Magnetic Friction seems to behave this way, resisting in one direction and not in the other. Obviously there is still a lot of work to do in quantifying these effects.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: Unlike friction however, the positive force does not shear so readily. IOW there appears to be a double standard here. The coefficient is different depending on the sign of the force. This indicates that there is a grain or force tendency.

I think it has more to do with the field intensity than direction. When 2 magnets are attracting, the field between them is focussed and concentrated. When in repulsion, the field is dispersed and not as dense.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 overconfident wrote: NdFeB magnets are capable of presenting a strong enough external field (H) to influence another NdFeB magnet (B) in close proximity. This increase/decrease in B will then vanish as the distance between the magnets increases.

Normally when working with these terms H represents the magnetic field in Ampere Turns while B represents the magnetic field in Tesla's. Essentially they both represent the same space both internal and external to the material. The BH curve is a product of two field sources where H usually refers to the solenoid field used to magnetize the material and B refers to the resulting field in the material. Since the material itself has hysteresis it will not hold 100% of the field when H is removed. If you take a newspaper page and wad it into a ball so that it just fills the cup of your palms what happens when you put it on the table? Hysteresis causes it to enlarge. If you want it to stay the same size as your cupped palms you must compact it more tightly.

When we bring two magnets together the B fields are added. This is vector addtion. Consequently the B of one magnet added to the B of another with the same vector will increase. However, distributive losses occur at the sharp surface angles sending some of the B vector into other directions. So you never really double the force. To my knowledge this does not alter the wiess domains in either magnet, and if it does it is not persistent. This is logical, otherwise domain orientation could be improved beyond H by stacking PM's and experience tells us otherwise. Instead, what we see is similar to stacking two springs on top of each other. The overall force is increased but neither improves or degrades the other.

Also, the BH curve is normally time invariant. It doesn't matter how long H is present or how fast it is removed, the material will still snap back to a point dictated by its hysteresis. This snap has been identified as happening at light speed. Until we can remove H faster than the speed of light I don't think we will be able to utilize hysteresis as a gain mechanism.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 We are obviously approaching the phenomena under consideration from such very different viewpoints that I don't consider it very profitable at present to try to reconcile them. As Dr Johnson said, "Those women will never agree. They are arguing from different premises." So please don't think me rude if I continue to develop my thesis and ignore your comments. Obviously, you are perfectly free to make them and will no doubt wish to do so if you think I am leading people astray. Let's both plough our own furrows and not waste efforts on trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, eh!_________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: Normally when working with these terms H represents the magnetic field in Ampere Turns while B represents the magnetic field in Tesla's. Essentially they both represent the same space both internal and external to the material. The BH curve is a product of two field sources where H usually refers to the solenoid field used to magnetize the material and B refers to the resulting field in the material. Since the material itself has hysteresis it will not hold 100% of the field when H is removed. If you take a newspaper page and wad it into a ball so that it just fills the cup of your palms what happens when you put it on the table? Hysteresis causes it to enlarge. If you want it to stay the same size as your cupped palms you must compact it more tightly. When we bring two magnets together the B fields are added. This is vector addtion. Consequently the B of one magnet added to the B of another with the same vector will increase. However, distributive losses occur at the sharp surface angles sending some of the B vector into other directions. So you never really double the force. To my knowledge this does not alter the wiess domains in either magnet, and if it does it is not persistent. This is logical, otherwise domain orientation could be improved beyond H by stacking PM's and experience tells us otherwise. Instead, what we see is similar to stacking two springs on top of each other. The overall force is increased but neither improves or degrades the other.

Technically, you may be correct but just try to locate a B vs. B curve anywhere in the literature. In the case I was discussing, I am using H to describe the magnetic field provided by an external source. B represents the externally measurable magnetic field produced by the magnet we are observing. M, however relates to the remanent potential, after any externally applied field is removed and the potential has stabilized.

 Harvey wrote: Also, the BH curve is normally time invariant. It doesn't matter how long H is present or how fast it is removed, the material will still snap back to a point dictated by its hysteresis. This snap has been identified as happening at light speed. Until we can remove H faster than the speed of light I don't think we will be able to utilize hysteresis as a gain mechanism. :cry:

If you will read magnetic viscosity references, you will see that B does not snap completely back to its relaxed state at lightspeed. There is an instantaneous snap followed by a slow creep back to remanence. The slow creep is dependent on the intensity and the duration of the externally applied field.

Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 overconfident wrote: Technically, you may be correct but just try to locate a B vs. B curve anywhere in the literature.

I have a feeling it's because it would plot a linear line.

Maybe I should purchase the paper here and see what I can learn

And I'm sure this one would be enlightening as well. I am especially entrigued with the statement that Magnetic Viscosity is described as the change in magnetization at a constant reverse field due to thermal fluctuation.

Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:03 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: Maybe I should purchase the paper here and see what I can learn :D And I'm sure this one would be enlightening as well. I am especially entrigued with the statement that Magnetic Viscosity is described as the change in magnetization at a constant reverse field due to thermal fluctuation.

Why not start at the beginning?

Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:43 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 Why not start at the beginning? http://books.google.com/books?id=1ZQ3AAAAMAAJ Section 43 looks interesting

Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:03 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: Why not start at the beginning? http://books.google.com/books?id=1ZQ3AAAAMAAJ Section 43 looks interesting :)

I read it cover-to-cover about 1.5 years ago. I don't remember now which sections discussed magnetic viscosity, but I seem to recall there were several, at least 2 or 3.

Still think it happens at lightspeed?

Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:07 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Yep.

You may want to review section 184 (pg 322) regarding hardened alloys.

IMHO these specifics are only important in the WhiPMag wrt to the dampers, spindles and bearings. They have little or nothing to do with the field curves of the magnets themselves other than these fields being used to magnetize and demagnetize the afore mentioned components.

Simply put, once a NeFeB has been magnatized you have play some serious hardball to change the B field.

K & J Magnetics FAQ:
23. Will neodymium magnets lose strength if they are held in repelling or attracting positions for a long time?
In most applications, the answer is simply "no". If the magnets will be exposed to higher temperatures while in repelling applications, the answer is "possibly".

27. Can I make a magnet that I already have any stronger?
No, once a magnet is fully magnetized (saturated), it cannot be made any stronger.
 Code: Material Type                     N42              Residual Flux Density    (Br)     13.0-13.2 KGs                Coercive Force           (Hc)     >11.0 KOe            Intrinsic Coercive Force (Hci)    >12 KOe Max.Energy Product       (BH)max  40-42 MGOe

Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Harvey wrote:
Yep.

You may want to review section 184 (pg 322) regarding hardened alloys.

IMHO these specifics are only important in the WhiPMag wrt to the dampers, spindles and bearings. They have little or nothing to do with the field curves of the magnets themselves other than these fields being used to magnetize and demagnetize the afore mentioned components.

Simply put, once a NeFeB has been magnatized you have play some serious hardball to change the B field.

K & J Magnetics FAQ:
23. Will neodymium magnets lose strength if they are held in repelling or attracting positions for a long time?
In most applications, the answer is simply "no". If the magnets will be exposed to higher temperatures while in repelling applications, the answer is "possibly".

27. Can I make a magnet that I already have any stronger?
No, once a magnet is fully magnetized (saturated), it cannot be made any stronger.
 Code: Material Type                     N42              Residual Flux Density    (Br)     13.0-13.2 KGs                Coercive Force           (Hc)     >11.0 KOe            Intrinsic Coercive Force (Hci)    >12 KOe Max.Energy Product       (BH)max  40-42 MGOe

In the first place, I have repeatedly denied here that magnetic viscosity plays any useful role in WhipMag behavior. Steorn claims magnetic viscosity is at the heart of Orbo. Frank seems to think there is some relationship, at least he keeps posting those fastin/slowout graphs.

Even hardened alloys and NdFeB magnets experience viscous effects. They are simply faster and less significant. When I was discussing this over on the Steorn forum, I suggested adding some soft iron pole-pieces to the magnets to enhance the viscous properties.

The K&J FAQ is referring to "permanent" changes. Download a BH chart for NdFeB, preferably one that shows all 4 quadrants, and see whether or not the B field can be increased beyond its remanent value temporarily by applying an external field. It doesn't matter whether that field comes from a coil or another permanent magnet.

I have been discussing transient changes, and the creep I mentioned previously. And the effects I am talking about can easily be exaggerated by adding more viscous materials into the mix, if desired.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 On the 13th July 2007 Korkskrew wrote: ============================================================== Ok, so the ball is approaching the magnet right? It has a certain amount of energy. As it approaches the magnet it speeds up because the magnet is attracting it. Now, as it leaves the magnet is still attracting it so it is slowing down. Without any loss mechanisms the ball leaves with the same energy it arrived with. Now we add in viscosity. As the ball approaches, the domains take some amount of time to line up so the attractive force is a little less than it would be if viscosity were not a factor. This means that the ball speeds up a little less than if viscosity didn’t exist. As the ball leaves, the domains are already lined up, so the ball is attracted more than when it approached. It loses more energy leaving than it gained as it approached. This is how viscosity is a loss mechanism. This is how viscosity always appears to be a loss mechanism. How Steorn thinks viscosity can be a gain mechanism I can’t figure out. That’s why I signed the NDA. I’m hoping at least to find out what they think viscosity is. ============================================================== Let's rewrite Korkskrew's post with the ball replaced by an unsaturated magnet in AGW mode and see what we get. ============================================================== Ok, so the pole of a magnet is approaching the like pole of another magnet right? It has a certain amount of energy. As it approaches the magnet it slows down because the magnet is repelling it. Now, as it leaves the magnet is repelling it so it is speeding up. Without any gain mechanisms the magnet leaves with the same energy it arrived with. Now we add in viscosity. As the magnet approaches, the domains take some amount of time to misalign so that the repulsive force is a little less than if viscosity were not a factor. This means that the magnet slows down a little less than if viscosity didn't exist. As the magnet leaves, the domains are already misaligned so the magnet is repelled less than when it approached. It gains more energy leaving than it lost as it approached. This is how viscosity is a gain mechanism. This is how viscosity does not always appear to be a loss mechanism. Presumably this is how Steorn thinks viscosity can be a gain mechanism. Perhaps if Korkscrew had been familiar with the experimental evidence of AGW he, like Steorn, would have been able to figure it out._________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 Here we have another problem. In the late 1800's tests were done on soft iron as well as other materials. Soft iron showed the most hysteresis. The test were performed up to 100,000,000 cycles per second. It was determined that the domains fully reverse easily even at a demagnetization rate of 100MHz. The circumferential speed necessary to exceed these rates is so high that the momentum of the magnet alone will shear any Permanent Magnet force including N52. IMHO the domain transfer rate is near C and the test apparatus used in the 1870 could not exceed 100MHz reliably. The hounds are barking at a squirrel not the fox. Last edited by Harvey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:01 am; edited 1 time in total

Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 I think I'm just going to quit posting in this thread. I can't see the sense in pursuing completely irrelevant stuff. I discussed these ideas at length in the "overconfident theory" thread on the Steorn site. I really don't have anything new to add. I will say that I disagree with both of the posts above this one. Sorry Frank, I just don't think this is the right place.

Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject:

Regular Contributor

Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 67

 Frank wrote: Now we add in viscosity. As the magnet approaches, the domains take some amount of time to misalign so that the repulsive force is a little less than if viscosity were not a factor. This means that the magnet slows down a little less than if viscosity didn't exist.

But that's backwards. On approach of like poles, less misalignment => more repulsive force => more energy spent => loss
 Frank wrote: As the magnet leaves, the domains are already misaligned so the magnet is repelled less than when it approached. It gains more energy leaving than it lost as it approached.

And that's backwards the other way. On recession of like poles, less repulsion => less energy gained => loss.

Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:40 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

 overconfident wrote: I think I'm just going to quit posting in this thread. I can't see the sense in pursuing completely irrelevant stuff. I discussed these ideas at length in the "overconfident theory" thread on the Steorn site. I really don't have anything new to add. I will say that I disagree with both of the posts above this one. Sorry Frank, I just don't think this is the right place.

OC, I'm sorry if I upset you - it certainly is not my intention. My information was taken from your references section in this forum.

http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_28/rsnz_28_00_001320.pdf

PDF page 14 (book page 195). It just seemed somewhat important since frank is working his thesis around the hysteresis curve and is applying it to the power cycle here.

Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:46 am Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

 Harvey wrote: OC, I'm sorry if I upset you - it certainly is not my intention. My information was taken from your references section in this forum. http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_28/rsnz_28_00_001320.pdf PDF page 14 (book page 195). It just seemed somewhat important since frank is working his thesis around the hysteresis curve and is applying it to the power cycle here.

The Rutherford paper is talking about high values of H and he also talks about skin effects, etc. at high speeds. These transactions fall far short of what the bulk saturated values would be if more time was available.

I'd like to refer you back to the Ewing book, sections 83 and 89. Please note that Ewing is talking about lower field intensities and more saturated materials.

I agree that Frank's curves don't appear to be anywhere close to reality. But I agree with him that there may be some way to leverage magnetic viscosity for some sort of gain. I just think the curve has to be pushed up into the first quadrant, something like the minor loop in the first quadrant of figure 2.10 on page 9 of:

I'm not upset with anyone here. I just don't think this discussion is contibuting anything worthwhile to further our understanding of WhipMag.

OC

Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 @ OC > I'm not upset with anyone here. > I just don't think this discussion is contributing anything > worthwhile to further our understanding of WhipMag. I have no wish to rock the boat or distract anyone from the valuable experimental work they are doing on the WhipMag. I shall therefore refrain from posting anything further in the WhipMag thread for which you and Al are moderators and post any thoughts and ideas in some other suitable thread. I prefer Fizzx to the Steorn forum since one can post images here and that isn't possible on the Steorn. Funnily enough, that was one of the best features of the SPUD which even had a blog where one could develop one's ideas in peace without idiots like BOR and Nova interrupting all the time with their irritating comments._________________ instaurare omnia in Christo

Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

 Frank wrote: @ OC > I'm not upset with anyone here. > I just don't think this discussion is contributing anything > worthwhile to further our understanding of WhipMag. I have no wish to rock the boat or distract anyone from the valuable experimental work they are doing on the WhipMag. I shall therefore refrain from posting anything further in the WhipMag thread for which you and Al are moderators and post any thoughts and ideas in some other suitable thread. I prefer Fizzx to the Steorn forum since one can post images here and that isn't possible on the Steorn. Funnily enough, that was one of the best features of the SPUD which even had a blog where one could develop one's ideas in peace without idiots like BOR and Nova interrupting all the time with their irritating comments.

Frank,

.. Q: Because you created this thread "The Alsetalokin Power Cycle," shouldn't you be above censorship?

I must be missing something.

Cheers
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)

Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

Major Contributor

Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

 Frank wrote: @ OC > I'm not upset with anyone here. > I just don't think this discussion is contributing anything > worthwhile to further our understanding of WhipMag. I have no wish to rock the boat or distract anyone from the valuable experimental work they are doing on the WhipMag. I shall therefore refrain from posting anything further in the WhipMag thread for which you and Al are moderators and post any thoughts and ideas in some other suitable thread. I prefer Fizzx to the Steorn forum since one can post images here and that isn't possible on the Steorn. Funnily enough, that was one of the best features of the SPUD which even had a blog where one could develop one's ideas in peace without idiots like BOR and Nova interrupting all the time with their irritating comments.

Frank,

.. Q: Because you created this thread "The Alsetalokin Power Cycle," shouldn't you be above censorship?

I must be missing something.

Cheers