top

Overconfident's Theory about the Steorn Effect

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Theories about the Steorn Effect    Page 1 of 1

Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:29 pm PostPost subject: Overconfident's Theory about the Steorn Effect
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Eventually, I plan to copy all the technical discussion from the thread on Steorn.com. But in the meantime, here's a pointer to it over there:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=58463

Parts of the discussion from Steorn.com will be added here periodically. It may take a while before I have the entire content copied.

Enjoy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:21 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

I started an email discussion with drmike a few days ago. Several of you have expressed an interest in it.

So I converted my crude "paint" graphics to ASCII and transcribed our emails. I'm pretty happy with the ASCII graphics. It looks as good, maybe better than the GIFs I drew.
If the graphics don't look right, refresh the page.

It's posted below. There are 3 parts:

1) Graphics showing magnet motion and orientation.

2) Email discussion where I tried to communicate my thoughts to drmike.

3) Email discussion about how my concept fits well with statements Sean has made.

The first 2 will be posted tonight. The third will most likely get posted tomorrow ... keep watching.

(If this thread vanishes, we'll know we are close.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:23 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Code:

Magnets approach in attraction, no external forces required.
Gain of kinetic energy on the way in must be conserved
somehow for later use.

     (1)                 (2)                 (3)
 _____               _____               _____
 | | |               | | |               | | |
 | | |               | | |               | | |
 |S|N|               |S|N|               |S|N|
 | | |               | | |               | | |  ^
 |_|_|               |_|_|               |_|_|  |
                                              _____
                                              | | |
                                              | | |
                                              |S|N|
                            ^                 | | |
                            |                 |_|_|
                          _____
                          | | |
                          | | |
                          |S|N|
        ^                 | | |
        |                 |_|_|
      _____
      | | |
      | | |
      |S|N|
      | | |
      |_|_|

============================================================

Magnets pause in attraction for a while, pushing B up higher
than Br.

SUDDENLY flip one magnet so they are in repulsion. This flip
event requires the use of energy we have previously stored.
(How to do the flip is left as an exercise for the reader.)

Magnets separate in repulsion, no external forces required.

     (4), (5), (6)           (7)                 (8)
 __________             _____  _____        _____
 | | || | |             | | |  | | |        | | |
 | | || | |             | | |  | | |        | | |      _____
 |S|N||S|N| ...,  ...,  |S|N|->|N|S|        |S|N|      | | |
 | | || | |             | | |  | | |        | | |   -> | | |
 |_|_||_|_|             |_|_|  |_|_|        |_|_|      |N|S|
                                                       | | |
                                                       |_|_|

=============================================================

Repulsion and stored kinetic energy is used to return the
magnets to their original positions through a complex, 3D
path and flip back to their original orientation in
preparation for the next cycle. Any surplus energy can be
stored or used for other purposes.

        (9)                          (10)
 _____                          _____
 | | |                          | | |
 | | |                          | | |
 |S|N|                          |S|N|
 | | |                          | | |
 |_|_|        _____             |_|_|
              | | |
              | | |
              |N|S|
              | | |
              |_|_|
                                       _____
                                       | | |
                                       | | |
                                       |S|N|
                                       | | |
                                       |_|_|

==============================================================
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:26 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Overconfident's theories

OC:
I'm emailing this to you because of the attached graphics files. I don't have a website where I can post them. Also, the values are arbitrary. The information here is just for illustration. I'm afraid I don't have access to equipment that could determine accurate values. Sorry this is so crude, I'm not an artist and I usually avoid graphics like the plague.

Mike:
Yeah, me too. If I can't write a program to draw the picture, forget it!

OC:
I have attempted to describe this in Steorn's forum on several occasions. But apparently I haven't been able to communicate my thoughts very well. I finally broke down and decided to create some training aids to better illustrate my thoughts on "how to gain energy from a time-variant magnetic transaction".

Mike:
One of the main reasons I don't want to try to teach. It's hard work!

OC:
You are welcome to post this publicly if you like, but I would be less embarrassed if the graphics were more professionally done. It would be even better if some real data was used instead of the arbitrary stuff I have here ... but what kind of hardware do we use to get the data?

Mike:
First I think we need to talk about what you think you mean vs what reality is doing. I think you misunderstand B-H curves, but it could be you are using it too crudely just to make a point. Once the physics makes sense, then we can look at hardware.

If it works in theory, then I can find a way to build it!

> OC:
I admit I perverted the BH curve and used it to try and illustrate my thoughts. I attempted to show how the H actually leads the B. The instantaneous H is shown at the bottom of the chart. The plotted B field is shown as lagging. The 2 significant things I am trying to show:

-- When the 2 magnets are sitting statically, in attraction, the magnetism will creep up above the remanent value.

> Mike:
In physics we tend to choose a starting point with things "far away" or "stable after a long time". Since this is supposed to be a cyclic system, I think you start with things "far away". Bringing the two (already stable) magnets near each other will cause them to interact. That interaction can be modeled with normal physics. We should be able to compute how things change and see if this really does happen.

> OC:
-- When flipped into repulsion and the magnets quickly separate, the B field does not change instantly. If the H field is rapidly reduced as the cube root of the distance while magnets are flying apart, the B field may remain above the knee, possibly above the normal remanent level.

> Mike:
But the flipping takes a huge amount of energy. I think modeling this is really important. I looked at the Steorn forum and a couple of the programs. This one http://www.vizimag.com/ seems interesting. Here's the full list:

http://www.ansoft.com/maxwellsv/
http://www.infolytica.com/en/products/trial/>
http://www.fieldp.com/educa.html>
http://femm.foster-miller.net/>
http://www.quickfield.com/

> OC:
Maybe I should try and do it with a 3D graph so it doesn't look so bogus. That'll be a real challenge for someone as graphically challenged as I am.

> Mike:
Those programs include graphical plotting ability. If you use them, they'll give your graphics a great display.

>> OC:
If you look at the list of software in the references section, take note of who posted it.

>> Mike:
:-)

>> OC:
I have already tried FEMM and Visimag and have been very disappointed with both. They are both 2D programs which limits the modeling of the 3 D interactions. Neither one has provisions to account for magnetic viscosity (at first I thought FEMM did, but it doesn't).

>> Mike:
Sometimes 2D is good enough, but it does force some assumptions.

>> OC:
FEMM comes with source code. I have looked at it, but since I don't understand all the mathematical interactions, I'm not sure what I need to modify to account for Sv. I even wrote the author of FEMM. He gave me several paragraphs of explanation that is summed up in his last words:

"The program doesn't yet combine eddy currents and hysteresis effect with motion in time-transient simulations."

>> Mike:
Normally it is considered a second order effect. You build stuff to work, then dive into the details of optimizing. So I can see why they would leave that stuff out for most applications.

>>> OC:
I may have missed the charting portion of Visimag. When I tried it out, I was so intent on modeling the objects, motions, and fields that I neglected to even look for any charting functions.

>>> Mike:
I have not tried any of them. Sounds like you have so you know which ones are at least worth looking at.

>> OC:
Sean claims they use flux3d (very expensive) and that it does not support Sv. I have heard a rumor (inadvertently leaked from SPDC) that someone there had written a program that was capable of modeling Sv, but when I asked for more details, they clammed up. Must be covered by the NDA.

>> Mike:
I'm not supprised. Sv is a small effect and induces losses you would rather not have. That's what makes this whole thing so insane - there is no way a loss mechanism can be turned into a gain!

>>> OC:
Unless we can figure out how to flip the magnet into repulsion without consuming more kinetic energy than we gain "on the way in (attraction) AND on the way out (repulsion)".

>>> Mike:
:-)

I claim that's impossible because of CoE. We can prove it eventually.

>> Mike:
But you can do pseudo motion modeling. If FEMM seems to work ok, then do a static system which saves the output state, then change the PM's according to some model and re-run the program. this is a high level way to change the code to do what you want without re-writing anything. The main trick is to come up with a reasonable model for Sv. There are many too choose from! To make it mesh with FEMM easily is another chore.

I think just flipping a magnet in one point will be hard to do, but even 10 steps in a half circle will help.

OC:
The "Mag1" - "MagA" gif files are the individual images used to create the "WalkBR" animated gif.

In the attached animated GIF file there are 10 steps comprising 1 complete cycle with complex motion. Shown in the approximated BH chart on the right are the relative B & H values over time.

1) Initial start position, both magnets' B sitting close to Br.

2) Apply initial force to start movement. Magnets approaching in attraction, H increases, B increases but lags H.

Mike:
So here's where I have problem. Magnetic fields are vectors, and when you have two PM's you have a fairly complex magnetic field surrounding it. The B field is fundamental, the H field is derived. They are usually (but not always) related by the form B = uH. For PM's, H is usually the applied field and B is the derived field. But the applied H comes from some other external B. The B - H curve is not self consistent. The material responds to external forces and that's what causes it to change.

If you have two PM's, then they operate on each other. The B field of one is similar to the B field of the other. Their internal characteristics will change similarly. So their B-H curves will be identical.

In a relativistic sense, both magnets see the other as the one that is moving. It doesn't matter how you move them around, they both see the same thing. So if one has a lag, so does the other - the H field must be matched as well. Unless you have some kind of other external field generation, this won't do what you expect. It is perfectly symmetric.

OC:
3) Approaching closer, H increases, B increases but lags H.

4) Closest approach, H increases, B increases but lags H.

5) Pause in proximity, B starts catching up to H but still lags, H increases slightly as B gets stronger.

6) Continue pausing in proximity, B increases more, H increases slightly also but is almost at maximum.

7) Continue pausing in proximity, B increases more, H reaches maximum value.

8) Apply mechanical force to flip magnets into repulsion (method of flipping not covered here), H intantly goes negative, magnets quickly separate due to repulsive forces. But the B decreases at a slower rate due to magnetic viscosity.

9) Magnets continue to separate and return towards initial position (guided back via mechanical configuration and flipped back to original orientation, which is easy when the magnets are distant from each other. The negative H decreases as the magnets are separated even further and B decreases even more.

10) Magnets arrive back in initial start position, H is almost back to the starting value, but B is lagging and won't arrive back at Br for a short period of time due to magnetic viscosity. The B field at this time is greater than it was in the initial state but is continuing to decrease towards Br.

In state #10, the B fields in our magnets are decreasing towards Br but are currently at a higher potential. For a short period of time, we have a dynamically changing magnetic potential. Is there some way to utilize this transient potential before it returns to a static state?

>>> Mike:
My initial gut reaction is no. However, I think there's some interesting physics going on. Sonoboy has found he can replicate Steorn's graph from degaussed magnets. Ferrite cores are essentially degaussed magnets. So it should be possible to test for Sv type reactions with plain ferrite and either PM's or coils. An understanding of how B-H is derived along with some kind of time scale associated with it should clear most of this up.

If unaligned domains form an alignment, the system has lowered its entropy. That takes work. It also stores energy for later use. If aligned domains become unaligned, that gives up energy, increases entropy and does work. There has to be frctional loss in there but at best it can be very small. So there may be a way to build a magnetic pump or motor which is very efficient. But there's no free lunch in there.

Let's keep working on it - I want to understand what you are thinking. I may not have a whole lot of time to discuss things for the next few weeks, but I don't mind taking the time to make sure we all understand the details. Magnetic fields and materials all lead to quantum theory eventually!!


Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:29 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Transcript - part2
How my concept matches up with Sean's statements

OC:
I'm trying to think about how I can improve my presentation. That may take a while.

Mike:
That's why I hate writing papers. Takes too long to look good!

OC:
In the meantime, I'd like to point out that my concept corresponds with many of Sean's statements.

1) Stop/start movement

Mike:
Check!

OC:
2) Slow in, fast out (opposite of the energy loss scenario Sean described for Fast in Slow out).

Mike:
check!

OC:
3) Energy loss if you reverse the direction and speed (Fast in Slow out).

Mike:
check!

OC:
4) Complex, 3D movement

Mike:
so far the explanation has been 2D, and I can see how this would be the hardest part to try to explain.

> OC: (rewrite #4 in response to Mike's comment)
4) Complex, 3D movement - movement up to proximity, then rotational flip of the magnet into repulsion, movement out and away (to the right and then back to original position and orientation via a hyperbolic arc. I picture the moving magnet as mounted on a disc that is attached to a gimballed bearing so it is free to flop (left and right) as well as rotate in towards the fixed magnet. Hope this makes sense.

> Mike:
Yes, but I think we need to do some simple calculations to figure out how much energy it takes to move all the masses around. Total energy does not require that complex a calculation, at least for order of magnitude estimates.

> OC:
If you start from a position where the magnetic field is strong enough to overcome inertia, the magnets provides all the energy required to start things moving. As they get closer, more kinetic energy will be available which can be stored in some mechanism like a pendulum or flywheel on the way in.

> Mike:
I'll buy that.

> OC:
When one of the magnets is flipped into repulsion, the only energy required to get the magnets moving away from each other is the magnetic repulsion. Again, no external energy needs to be provided.

> Mike:
The flipping part takes energy though. You are changing both position and field, and the process takes effort. Just rotating the magnet takes energy, but rotating it against the field of another one takes even more effort. To me, this is a big hole that needs more investigation.

>OC:
The only external energy requirements are for flipping the magnet into repulsion. If we managed to conserve enough kinetic energy in our flywheel or pendulum on the way in, we can use that energy to flip the magnet.

> Mike:
Maybe. I bet not though - the fields don't like to change, just like mass does not like to change. This needs some serious measurement to get a good idea of just how much is involved.

OC:
5) Self starting if started from one position (where there is enough magnetic attraction to overcome inertia and start things moving), requires externally supplied energy to start from some other position (closest point in attraction).

Mike:
OK, I'm not sure it will really continue once started though.

> OC:
I didn't say anything in this section about it continuing, only that it will start its cycle without externally applied force if started from the one position, but in another position it will tend to resist any attempts to start things moving. Whether or not it continues to cycle once started is dependent on whether there is, in fact a gain of energy ... something Steorn claims and I envision a mechanism like I describe that might be capable of of producing such an effect.

> Mike:
That's why it's so important to figure out the energy required just to move the sub components around. Then we can figure out if that amount of energy is actually available in the system.

>> OC:
The magnets will provide all the necessary energy to move into proximity through attraction, and to move apart via repulsion ... provided we can figure out how to flip from attraction into repulsion.

>> Mike:
Right! That's why I think it's so important to study that tiny little section of the problem. There are many assumptions burried in there that may be wrong.

A very simple experiment could use a low cost turn table, and some toy magnets. Use a servo or stepper motor from an old printer and measure the current used in the motor to turn the table with and without magnets. The voltage and current give power, and total time gives energy. Subtracting off the friction of a base system from the magnet system then gives an idea of how much energy it really takes to do the flipping.

OC:
6) Walks up and down the BH curve as it cycles.

Mike:
This we need to talk about. I see what you mean, but I don't think it describes the actual physics.

> OC:
OK. Can you agree that while paused in proximity the magnetization (B field) of the magnets will increase over a viscous period of time?

> Mike:
Nope. Not without some kind of external field being applied. The magnets lose B field from viscous effects, and they do work on each other. It's that work on each other that is the problem. One magnet can not be a boost to the other, if it did, we'd have had "free energy" a long time ago.

>> OC:
OK. Are you familiar with pole pieces and the shaped and concentrated fields they can provide?

>> Mike:
Yup, I've built quadrapoles for particle beam accelerators.

>> OC:
Take a couple cylindrical magnets, one 1/4", the other 1/2" diameter and add a high-permeability conical pole piece, 1/4" on one end and 1/2" on the other, between them to concentrate the field from the larger magnet into the smaller one. Will the concentrated flux from the larger magnet induce any changes in the magnetization of the smaller one? Will the magnetization of the larger magnet be diminished?

>> Mike:
Depends on how saturated things get. Normally you think that nothing changes - at zeroth order it is just addition of fields. The small magnet adds it's field to the large magnet and the total field is the sum of both. If the pole piece saturates, some flux will leak out the sides.

If the materials are nonlinear, all bets are off. Anything can happen.

OC:
7) Stays "above the knee" on the BH curve (Sean thinks this area of the curve is "interesting")

Mike:
check!

OC:
8) Since it stays above the knee, there should not be any deterioration in magnet strength over time.

Mike:
I'm not so sure. If it's really magnetic viscosity, the atoms are changing position and it has to wear out eventually.

> OC: (rewrite #8 in response to Mike's comment)
8) Since it stays above the knee, there should not be any deterioration in magnet strength over time for highly anisotropic and coercive magnetic materials. If too much coercive force was applied, we would wind up with unrecoverable losses. As long as we stay above the knee, I believe we can avoid this.

OC:
9) Very difficult to manufacture a continuous-motion device.

Mike:
If the physics is right, then I don't buy that either. There's no reason an electronic circuit can't replace one magnet and make the system continuous.

OC: (rewrite #9 in response to Mike's comment)
9) Since the 2 magnets must remain in proximity long enough to experience a time-dependent increase in magnetization, it would be very difficult to manufacture a continuous-motion device.

Replacing a permanent magnet with an electronic circuit and/or electromagnet will introduce additional complexity and energy requirements. Not saying it can't be done, just significantly more difficult. If we have such a hard time just figuring out how to get the magnetics and mechanics working, think about adding some additional electronics complexities.

Mike:
For me electronics is easier than mechanics! So it's a question of perspective. But I think a real energy calculation can't hurt.

OC:
10) After a complete cycle, more energy available than what was initially provided.

Mike:
No way! Reality simply doesn't work that way. If it did, nature would be taking advantage of it already, somewhere in the universe.

> OC:
IF MY MODEL ACTUALLY WORKS!

> Mike:
:-)

OC:
In addition, I see some other aspects that were hinted at in some of the discussions.

- A flywheel could be used to translate the start/stop into continuous motion and to conserve kinetic energy in-between the start/stop.

Mike:
check!

OC:
- "Specially constructed fields" could be used to enhance the effect (using specially shaped pole pieces, possibly some layered materials).

Mike:
check!

OC:
- A generator could be simply constructed by adding some strategically placed coils to leverage the moving magnetic fields of the magnets as they pass by.

Mike:
No shit!! Why hasn't Steorn already done this????

>>> OC:
You seem to agree with my contention that we should focus on the magnet flipping. If we can figure out that part, we might actually have something.

I'd like to call your attention to the Kinetica animation made from the snapshots crank took from the video. Watch the array closely when the first pendulum falls ... see it jump? Does this jump change its magnetic relationship with the little disc magnet? Where did the energy come from to move the array? How is the array constructed?

>>> Mike:
We have no idea how it was constructed. I have not followed that video much. I do agree it is a core place that needs to be explained. When I get back from London I can work with you on it, either by setting up a simulation or something like a real thing in my lab.

I may have some good clues by observing their demo!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:13 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

blueletter:

This approach is making me think about the other thread regarding whether or not pulling magnets apart took more energy than sliding them apart. It seems that the sliding into attraction motion is where you are describing some Sv interaction. So I'll ask, if they were pulled together in direct attraction instead of slid together, do you predict the same Sv effect?

I'm picturing your setup but more like a piston with some mechanics forcing the physical rotation of the magnet at the proper attraction and repulsion zones (maybe due to its own momentum?).

Also, to be clear on where you're seeing the additional energy. Is the output via restricting the attraction (forcing a slow in) or on harnessing the repulsion?

OC:
I visualize the pause time and the fast out as being the points where we:

A) gain some energy by pushing the magnetization above normal remanence

B) separate the magnets in repulsion faster than the opposing fields can reduce the magnetization to the knee. As long as we don't go below the knee, the magnets should not deteriorate.

I see 4 major energy conversion events:

1) as the magnets approach in attraction, kinetic energy can be gained and stored.

2) as the magnets sit in proximity, in attraction, they will tend to enhance each other's total magnetization in a viscous fashion, increasing the potential and the forces available once they are flipped into repulsion.

3) flipping the magnet will require a short but powerful surge to overcome the attraction and rotate the magnet into repulsion.

4) as the magnets fly apart in repulsion, kinetic energy will be gained and can be used to return the magnets to their initial positions and orientation. Excess energy can be stored.

The big question: Is the sum of the kinetic energy gained in the attraction phase and the repulsion phase sufficient to flip the magnet? And possibly have some left over to perform some useful work?

Your piston ideas would fit right in. I don't think the motion I tried to illustrate is important (unless there is something to the EDEN project's claims). The important parts are: enter in attraction, pause, exit quickly in repulsion. The transition from attraction into repulsion is the hard part.

Do you think you can do a decent job of illustrating your ideas? (Better than me, I hope.)

edit: link to EDEN project thread
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=58441&page=1

===============================

OC:
The important parts are: enter in attraction, pause, exit quickly in repulsion. The transition from attraction into repulsion is the hard part.

blueletter:
What if the stator mag were actually only semi-stator, you flip the semi-stator instead of flipping the rotor? It might take some of those complex motions out of the equation.

Illustrations? No, I'm just a laymen trying to sort out my own thoughts.

OC:
No problem I can see. Flipping the stator magnet should have the same effect. I hadn't thought much about that because I envisioned a pole piece attached to the stator magnet. Now that I think about it though, if we need a pole piece, it can just as easily be attached to the rotor, or piston, or whatever.

[ Layman? Me too ... and I think there are a large number of them here.
Please, please don't let this thread degenerate into a discussion about lay issues. Let's try to stay on topic for a change ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:26 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Toiz
OC, I have a quick thought experiment for you.

Remove magnetic viscosity from your theory. What would the result be?

1) Energy gain as magnets attract together (T1)
2) Energy loss to flip the magnet (T2)
3) Energy gain as magnet repel apart (T3)

If we're assuming the energy gain is coming from magnetic viscosity in your theory, then without it, we should have conservation of energy, right? Therefore,

T1 + T2 + T3 = 0

or

-T2 = T1 + T3

This tells us the energy to flip the magnet is the same magnitude of the gain from attraction and repulsion combined.

Sound reasonable?


OC:

Sounds reasonable but I'm not convinced. Do you have any evidence or references?

Note:
IF the total magnetization can be increased through magnetic attraction over a viscous period of time THEN when switched into repulsion there will be a greater repellant force applied to accelerate the 2 magnets apart at a rate greater than would happen at their normal remanent level of magnetization.

ALSO IF the magnetization has been increased as stated above, THEN the chances of the repulsive fields causing any deterioration are reduced.

Your statement logically leads to the conclusion that we are already defeated. If we gain some total magnetization, then flipping into repulsion will take an even greater amount of energy and there is no way to gain anything. All I have been trying to say is: let's try it and see. Here is an approach no one has yet proved not to work ... at least to my knowledge.


OC:
A simple experiment. Take 2 cube magnets as illustrated below and keeping them 1/4" apart in position #1, then rotate them around to position #2. Does that consume more energy than the sum of what can be gained by bringing them together in attraction and letting them fly apart in repulsion?

Code:


       (1)                       (2)
 ______  ______            ______  ______
 |  N |  |  S |            |  N |  |  N |
 |    |  |    |            |    |  |    |
 |__S_|  |__N_|            |__S_|  |__S_|


Toiz

Before we add the viscous component, I want to make sure we agree on the transaction without magnetic viscosity.

In your last post, my position is that the energy required to flip the magnet is equal to the energy from the magnets moving together in attraction and apart in repulsion. I don't have references showing this is indeed true, but according to the conservation of energy, it has to. In order for this not to be true, magnetic interactions would be non-conservative and to my knowledge, this has never been proven.

Can you agree on that point? (We may have another argument once we introduce magnetic viscosity because it's not a well studied area of magnetics ... but as I said, let's leave that out for now).

OC:

I am not claiming that COE does not hold true. I am merely claiming that there might, possibly be a loophole somewhere. And I don't think we should write off that possibility without a thorough investigation. It might take a bit of time and effort but at leat we would satisfy ourselves. There is very little to be lost and an awful lot that might be gained.

There have been a lot of people, a lot smarter than me that have considered COE to be violable. No one to my knowledge has been able to prove it. That doesn't necessarily mean it is unprovable.

I agree what you say makes sense. I do not agree we should assume that just because it makes sense, we should stop trying.

Toiz
I'm only claiming that without magnetic viscosity COE holds true. That's the only agreement I'm asking for at this time. There has been enough study of magnetic interactions, without magnetic viscosity, that I feel comfortable with that conclusion.

I'm not one to say that COE will hold in all instances, I'm humble enough to admit that we probably know very little about how the universe really works.

My question to you is, do you think magnetic interactions excluding magnetic viscosity are non-conservative?

OC:

I am claiming that COE seems to hold true. However, there have been many claims over the past century and a half of devices which would violate COE. Some of them have been shown to be frauds. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to reproduce many devices. Others were secrets that died with the inventor. There have been numerous witnesses of some of these devices. Were they ALL fooled?

I am not willing to discount all their claims. There may be more than 1 way to skin a cat. For example, do you have detailed experimental results that disprove the EDEN Project's claims? They claim a non-viscous way to gain energy from magnetic interactions (see my earlier response to blueletter above for a link).

All my personal experiences so far indicate that COE holds true. I haven't yet experienced anything to contradict that. But I try to stay open to the possibility of doing the "impossible".

I have had a few experiences in my life that were completely unexplainable and unreproducible. We don't know everything yet and probably never will.


Toiz

Fine, I respect that stance. So you're saying that you believe magnetic interactions might not be conservative?

I've read the Eden Project. I think the guy is a con. The presentation was fairly well done, but everything else about the guy seems 'off'. If he's right, many people will be building free energy devices in no time. I don't think so.

Back to your theory. I thought you were trying to come up with an explanation for Steorn's claim, that magnetic viscocity allows for a violation of COE. If not, my points aren't valid.

OC:

I do believe it is possible magnetic viscosity could be used to produce energy. My concept currently depends on the ability to flip or rotate a magnet from attraction into repulsion in order to leverage the energy gain.

Can you continue with your thoughts?

edit: Have you joined the SPDC too? If so, there may not be many left here for me to butt heads with. Just be me and DocMike?

Toiz

Yes, I have signed up for the SPDC.

Back to your theory. I'm with you ... I don't think people understand magnetic viscosity very well and I'm open to the possibility that an energy gain could be obtained. How is not clear to me though.

So with that being said, let's continue to look at your theory without magnetic viscosity. I think it extremely important to understand your system with known science before you add the unknown piece.

Now, back to my question. I don't think you've clearly answered it yet. Do you think magnetic interactions, excluding magnetic viscocity are non-conservative?

OC:

For the sake of this exercise, I have to say, "Yes. I believe there are some dynamic magnetic interactions that are non-conservative."

(Actually, I'm a fence-sitter, leaning back and forth, and trying hard not to fall to either side.)

Toiz

Dynamic interactions involving magnetic viscosity only, or also without magnetic viscosity?

blueletter

I wanted to chime in to see if I can clarify Toiz's point because I was thinking about the same issues yesterday.

Basically, if the device could be built to be self contained, where the movement, flipping, linkage, etc required no external source of energy (execpt maybe for the initial push) and could eliminate losses to do heat, friction, etc., we should have a 100% efficient machine. Not OU, but a self-runner. Neither the speeds in and out nor the pause time would matter as the energies required to move the magnets into position, flip, then out and back again would be the same every time.

I think that is to what he is trying to get you to agree.

blueletter

Actually, in order to become a self-runner or perpetual motion machine, it would have to be OU. There are friction, heat, and eddy currents to consider. The object here is to find a way to overcome all those things.

Magnetic viscosity just happens to be the mechanism we are discussing here. If we wanted to investigate some other approaches, we could look at the EDEN project, or Howard Johnson's magnetic gates and motor, or John Searl's SEG. There are a number of other magnetic motors that claim overunity.


OC:

With magnetic viscosity.

(although I haven't completely discounted other non-conservative dynamic effects.)


Toiz

Ok. I'm with you so far. I won't say I believe anything is non-conservative, but I'm open minded about it.

Next question, in your theory, are you trying to prove that a gain is possible only due to the effects of magnetic viscosity, or do you think there is a gain coming from somewhere else? From what you have described, you appear to be trying to extract energy through magnetic viscosity.


OC:

The only usable gain I see in the scenario I described is due to magnetic viscosity, the quicker than normal separation of the magnets due to a higher than normal magnetization.


Toiz

Ok, I'm still with you.

What I'm trying to do here is analyze the system to figure out if what you're proposing would actually (or theoretically) produce a gain.

Let's slow down the transactions, just for arguments sake at this point. We'll speed it up again later once we can agree on the result without magnetic viscosity.

So, if we slow down the transaction to eliminate magnetic viscosity, and you're proposing that the gain in your theory comes from magnetic viscosity, can we assume that we will have COE?


OC:

Slowing down the transaction actually allows the magnetic viscosity effect to take full effect. To completely eliminate the effects of magnetic viscosity, the transactions would have to be executed at lightspeed.

In this exercise, we could consider that in the absence of effects due to magnetic viscosity COE would prevail. There would still be concerns about friction, heat, eddy currents, etc., so overall we have a loser.


Toiz

I disagree completely with you here. Moving very slowly will completely eliminate magnetic viscocity. The domains will completely align with the magnetic fields at each step along the path the magnet travels. Magnetic viscosity is when domain alignment doesn't have time to catch up to the changing magnetic fields.

Moving faster will result in more lag (although when moving at the speed of light, the domains may not have anytime at all to change alignment).


OC:

Code:
Small magnet is attracted to the north pole piece on
the right, mechanically prevented from moving. This
is our paused position.

(1)     _______________
        | |S       N| |
        | |_________| |
        | |         | |
        |_|         |_|
                 []
                 ns


===================
If released, the small mag will accelerate towards
the right and gain momentum.

(2)     _______________
        | |S       N| |
        | |_________| |
        | |         | |
        |_|         |_|
                -> []
                   ns


================================
Without any further assistance, the small mag will
only proceed to a certain point and then repulsive
forces will cause it to stop moving.

(3)     _______________
        | |S       N| |
        | |_________| |
        | |         | |
        |_|         |_|
                  -> []
                     ns


===========================
If no external forces are applied, the mag will
move back to the left and finally stabilize in
a state of equilibrium. Is there a way to avoid
this condition?

(3a)    _______________
        | |S       N| |
        | |_________| |
        | |         | |
        |_|         |_|
                   [] <-
                   ns


===========================
HOWEVER, what if we apply some external force
to the small magnet when it is released? Could
we impart enough energy/momentum to the magnet
for it to continue beyond where it normally
would have stopped, into a state of repulsion?
If so, the repulsive forces would take over
and allow us to exploit the increased magnetic
potential.

(4)     _______________
        | |S       N| |
        | |_________| |
        | |         | |
        |_|         |_|
                      [] ->
                      ns



Toiz

In this exercise, we could consider that in the absence of effects due to magnetic viscosity COE would prevail. There would still be concerns about friction, heat, eddy currents, etc., so overall we have a loser.

Correct. Without magnetic viscosity we have a loser. But just play along with me ... we will add magnetic viscosity back into the mix in a bit and see if provides a gain under the conditions you have laid out.


OC:

OK. So we are moving too slow (or too fast) for magnetic viscosity to be a factor.

Despite the slow speed, we have managed to accumulate some kinetic energy on the way in and have stored that energy in a flywheel or something of that nature. We're stuck here and will need to introduce some sort of external forces to change the situation.


Toiz

Ok, let's assume not losses (i.e. no friction, heat, eddy currents, etc.). So we give it a little push and it continues to run forever, no losses, no gains.


OC:

Except we won't keep going forever unless we can flip into repulsion. The attraction will stop us once we get into proximity. See my last ASCII graphic above.

Or is the assumption that there is enough kinetic energy stored to get into repulsion?


Toiz

Well, by definition of COE, there has to be enough energy in a full cycle to flip the magnet. Correct?


OC:

Yes, but since we are talking about ideal conditions here and there is no energy gain, there is actually no need to flip. The energy required to exit in attraction should be the same as the energy gained in attraction. So if we have an ideal flywheel, we can just pop back out without doing any flipping.

You made no mention of storing any gained energy, applying that energy to do something, flipping into repulsion. We were explicitly ignoring normal losses.

OK. So we are now rotating through complete cycles by storing and using energy gained on the approach to flip into repulsion and then allowing repulsion to provide the energy to continue the cycle.


Toiz

True, we don't need to flip the magnet, and the system would continue to run, but then we wouldn't be talking about the system you're proposing.

So, back to my question. According to COE, we should have enough energy to 'flip' the magnet. Correct?


OC:

According to COE the flip will consume the same amount of energy as the sum of the energy gained on the way in, in attraction, and on the way out, in repulsion. So to get things moving we would need to start at the closest point, and provide enough energy to flip into repulsion. Then, disregarding any losses, the mechanism should continue rotating forever.

You are leading me somewhere. I'm not sure where just yet. I am simply trying to visualize just what you are saying. Pardon my questions.


Toiz

I hope I'm leading you somewhere

Ok, now that we agree on that, let's put this into mathematical form and look at the individual transactions.

Energy to flip magnet = Energy from attraction + Energy from repulsion

Let's look at the energy from attraction first. To gain the maximum energy, we want to move in very slowly to allow domains to be fully aligned. Right?

OC:

"IF" Energy to flip magnet = Energy from attraction + Energy from repulsion
I don't think we have any solid evidence this formula is correct. At least I haven't seen any.

OK. To gain maximum energy, we would want the magnets to approach each other at a speed that would allow the domains to align as fully as possible, considering the effects of magnetic viscosity. Or, we could bring them together at a faster speed and pause long enough for the domains to fully align.


Toiz

Ok, let's step back again. Excluding magnetic viscosity, according to COE you agreed that formula was valid:


OC:

For the sake of this discussion, I agreed to go along with that statement. In order for COE to hold up under the situation I describe it would seem that this formula would have to be true. I am not convinced that there isn't a loophole somewhere and I have taken great pains, attempting to show where I think that loophole might be.


Toiz

Let's not worry about the loophole yet ... hopefully we can find the loophole when we anaylze the system taking magnetic viscosity into account.

On the energy gain in attraction. We agree the maximum energy gain is achieved with a slow approach so the domains fully align at each point along the approach path?


OC:

Agreed.


Toiz

Ok. So we can assume that the energy gain from attraction will be the same both my simplified case without magnetic viscosity and in you case where you are hoping to use magnetic viscocity to obtain a gain (because in both cases this transaction will be occurring very slowly to prevent the effects of magnetic viscosity). Still with me?


OC:

For the sake of discussion, I will agree. We are assuming then that the application of an H field will cause the B field to rise instantaneously to its maximum value and the B field will not creep to a higher level over a period of time (ie. there is no magnetic viscosity).


Toiz

Ok. Next let's look at the energy required to flip the magnet.

In my simplified case with no magnetic viscosity, we will be flipping the magnet at a very slow rate. The magnetic field will slowly flip and flux density of the magnet will drop.

In your theory, we need flip the magnet very quickly, so eventhough the magnetic field flips, the flux density of the magnet does not have time to change significantly, due to magnetic viscosity.

Would you agree that it takes alot more energy to flip the magnet in your theory, than in my case without magnetic viscosity?

I will be away from a computer for a few days ... I will try to post back as soon as I get back in.


OC:

I agree it takes more energy in the viscous case to flip quickly.

However, the reason I believe it is necessary is to be able to leverage the extra energy we acquired by letting our domains align and increase the total magnetization. If we allow the domains to more fully align, there is greater potential to do work and an increased buffer against causing any deterioration in the magnet.

If we rotate slowly, the domains will have time to relax and we lose the additional potential we gained by coming in slowly in attraction.

Enjoy your time off. I'll miss you. The discussion has been interesting. But I'm not sure we got to where you were going. Come back soon now, yhear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:04 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

ComposerPhysicist

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could Steorn's patent on the magnetic actuator explain part of this? My background in physics is surely not as extensive as yours or some of the others, but the ability to turn off a repulsive field (or to turn on an attractive field) seems to me like it could aid in the flipping of the magnet. I know Steorn claims that it's a wholly permanent magnet motor, but their own patent begs to differ.


OC:

Steorn has denied the effect requires anything like LEMA. If you have followed the discussions above, you will see that I agree, it's not required.

You got me all wrong if think I'm some sorta physicist. I'm just a computer programmer. The thoughts I am trying to communicate above just came from trying to visualize how magnetic viscosity could possibly provide a way to gain energy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:10 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

genesis

well, i think u are wrong about the speed....the speed discussed here is relative-slow or relative fast....two magnets in attraction can build very high speed by "coming together"- so it can be interpreted as fast in as well...at this point u can use some input speed which can be accelerated or slowed down....depends on attraction/repulsion mode if we talk about self start and stop device than it is "slow in -fast out"....but if we talk about the whole cycles before/after the "flip" than this is "fast in slow out"...


according to your theory.

if we take a pendulum with two magnets(one on the arm and one on the stator) in attraction mode,then
-if we let the arm go we will have magnets accelerating the motion, before they come to position facing each other-and after
after they pass each other there will be a slowing down the motion until compleat stop due to the domain align.

i guess everyone should understand and agree to this...now according to Overconfident theory, we should be able to do the pole flip
with less energy than we get from magnet acceleration,to make the system self-sustaining...

well-MAYBE it could take less energy if we try to do the "flip" by rotating the stator magnet at that time when "incoming"
magnet has already passed stator magnet and started "the slowing down cycle"...at this point i can see how viscosity
could "help out"...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:46 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

OC:

Overview of accepted magnetic behavior:

1) Permanent magnets with opposite poles facing attract each other.

2) Permanent magnets with like poles facing repel each other.

3) Magnetic attraction can be used to create kinetic energy (mass in motion) as the magnets approach each other.

4) Magnetic repulsion can be used to create kinetic energy (mass in motion) as the magnets separate.

5) Magnetic fields of permanent magnets can interact with and influence each other.

6) A permanent magnet's total magnetization can be influenced/changed, permanently (irrecoverable) or temporarily, through interaction with the fields of other magnets. An attractive field will tend to increase magnetization, a repulsive field will tend to decrease magnetization.

7) Magnetic viscosity delays the full effect of a change in magnetization for a period of time, depending on the magnetic material, polarity, and intensity of the externally applied field.

8) Magnetic forces change as the inverse cube of the distance (1/2 the distance = 8 times the force, double the distance = 1/8 the force).

9) Magnetic fields can be shaped, focussed, or diffused using specially designed ferromagnetic pole pieces and other magnetic materials.


This is not a comprehensive list or description of all magnetic properties, merely a list of magnetic characteristics that were considered when I developed the ideas described in this thread.

If you disagree with any of the statements above, please post your objections.

I'll cover some more controversial items later.

drmike

I think all those points are valid, but I also think vector addition is a bit more complicated. All magnetic fields can be broken down into even multipoles - dipole, quadrapole, hexapole, octapole, decapole, etc. The rules of superposition apply unless you have non-linear materials, so to zeroth order you can estimate things simply by adding up the different fields.

With non-linear interactions like viscosity, life gets really complicated. All the multipole expansions interact with each other, and sometimes it's just as easy to track the full field rather than try to break things down. With iron saturation, you definitly have non-linear actions. I would assume the same is true with fields that go all the way around a B-H curve.

A zeroth order estimate can lead to some basic understanding of what will happen with any configuration, and simple approximations that still do 3D computations can lead to good understanding of the core energy requirements. Ignoring non-linear effects for an initial estimate should show where the energy problems really are. Then introducing non-linearities at specific points can show if those problems get better or worse.

My bet is they get worse. Nature is nasty - that's what makes engineering fun!

shunyacetas

Question: why is it that
"Magnetic forces change as the inverse cube of the distance (1/2 the distance = 8 times the force, double the distance = 1/8 the force)"
as opposed to the inverse SQUARE of the distance, as applies for gravity (if I remember correctly)?

drmike

Because magnetic fields are dipoles and gravity and charge are singular sources.
The gravity field can be represented as a scalar, but relativity sets it up as a 4x4 tensor to account for speed of light being a constant for all observers. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and it also falls off as 1/r^2 as a plane wave, but the near field falls off as 1/r^(2+n) where n is the "pole" number. For plane waves, n=0, for dipoles n=1 and so on. for magnetic fields you can only have even pole numbers, so it falls off as 1/r^3, 1/r^5 and so on for dipoles, quadrapoles, etc. These are called the "near field", for normal radiation from an antenna it is the n=0 wave that propagates. (I call it a plane wave, but it's really spherical - a long ways away from the source it looks flat just like the earth looks flat when we are standing on it).

PaulLowrance

I'll try and explain this from a different POV despite my lacking human communication skills. :)

The answer is magnetic fields do indeed fall off at 1/r^2, just like gravity. The problem becomes clear when broken down fundamentally. The magnetic field from say a magnet is caused by dipole moments. Conceptually you can view a dipole moment as a current loop. Here's a great example -->

http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopcalculator.htm

Such a current loop creates a magnetic dipole moment. Now we need to segment the current loop in to fundamental parts-- small wire segments. What's interesting is the magnetic field from a wire segment falls off at 1/r^2. :-) The net magnetic field from summing each wire segment results in a magnetic dipole moment that falls of at 1/r^3.

Segmenting wires is a common method; e.g., The U.S. government funded NEC antenna analysis program. You can download a free open-source 3D GUI interface program that comes with NEC2 -->

http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/Home.htm

Such a program will allow you to view the magnetic and electric fields at any distance from near to far with any antenna design.

jcmax

The field of a dipole falls of as 1/r^3, but the force of one dipole acing upon another dipole is actually 1/r^4 because the force on a dipole depends on the magnetic field gradient, not the field magnitude.

PaulLowrance

That's very true. Although the magnetic field from a *current segment* falls off at 1/r^2, and the force between two current segments falls off at the same 1/r^2-- same like gravity.

jcmax

Yeah, there are lots of other cases. For instance, the force between two long, straight, parallel wires is like 1/r. Maybe the point is that there's no easy relationship between distance and magnetic force that is universally applicable to all configurations.

PaulLowrance

That brings up an interesting thought. Consider the gravitational field from an infinitely long wire (any diameter). I believe it falls off at 1/r, same as the B field from an infinitely long current carrying wire.

Such thoughts are not to suggest gravity and magnetism are the same, mind you. For example the field from a current loop falls off close to 1/r^3 at distance far away relatively to the dipole radius due to the fact that the B-field on both sides of current loop cancel. Gravity does not cancel.

drmike

Sure there is! The relationship is called Maxwell's equations! The geometry and approximations are important. for the parallel wires, the assumption is that they are "infinitely" long. So given wires of length L, you need to be within L/10 from the middle of the wire for that approximation to be valid. Outside that range, things begin to change, and when you are 10*L away, the B field falls off as 1/r^3.

So the statement "it depends" really applies in a big way, but the exact answer is computable from the Maxwell equations. Usually it's messy

PaulLowrance

Of course, indeed. If one is going to segment then of course accuracy is relative to distance, segment radius, and segment length.

Getting back to a current loop. The *external* B-field falls off at 1/r^3 due to field cancellations on opposite dipole sides, but the internal B-field directly inside the current loop changes by the same amount as gravitational field of a wire loop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:23 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

OC:

In my post above about "accepted magnetic behavior", I listed some ways to convert the forces from magnetic fields into kinetic energy.

3) Magnetic attraction can be used to create kinetic energy (mass in motion) as the magnets approach each other.

4) Magnetic repulsion can be used to create kinetic energy (mass in motion) as the magnets separate.

I also listed a way that the magnetization of a permanent magnet can be increased beyond its normal, isolated level.

6) A permanent magnet's total magnetization can be influenced/changed, permanently (irrecoverable) or temporarily, through interaction with the fields of other magnets. An attractive field will tend to increase magnetization, a repulsive field will tend to decrease magnetization.

So if we are able to increase the magnetization, the fields will become stronger, up to a certain limit, right? Now how can we leverage all these interesting interactions.

=====

a) If we bring 2 magnets together in attraction, we can gain some kinetic energy.

b) If we immediately separate the magnets, we need to apply just as much kinetic energy to separate them as we gained when bringing them together. More if we count the increase of magnetization due to magnetic viscosity. And then there's friction, eddy currents, etc. to consider as well.

One interesting thing about this transaction is that we managed to temporarily increase the total magnetization. But all in all, this transaction results in a loss.


OC:

a) If we bring 2 magnets together in repulsion, we need to apply kinetic energy to overcome the repulsive forces.

b) If we immediately allow the magnets to separate due to repulsion, we will recover most of the kinetic energy we used to bring them together. There will still be losses if we count the decrease of magnetization due to magnetic viscosity. And then there's friction, eddy currents, etc. to consider as well.

An interesting thing about this transaction is that we managed to decrease the total magnetization. This transaction also results in a loss.

Any arguments so far?


shunyacetas

Seems like a no-win situation.


OC:

In both the cases above, I pointed out an interesting item. The magnetization will increase over time when the magnets are in attraction and decrease in repulsion. As the magnetization increases, the attractive or repulsive forces will also increase and provide an opportunity to produce more kinetic energy than would otherwise have been possible.

In attraction the magnetic forces will pull the 2 magnets towards each other even tighter. Not much to gain here. It just means we need even more effort to separate them.

But what if we could somehow quickly flip one of the magnets so the like poles were facing. We would have a higher than normal force of repulsion, at least for a short period of time while the repulsive forces viscously push the magnetization back down towards the normal remanent level (and possibly below it). For that brief period of time, the repulsive forces will tend to more strongly force the magnets apart at a faster rate than normal.

1) Magnets approach in attraction allowing us to gain kinetic energy.
2) Magnets pause in proximity, allowing magnetization to increase.
3) **** One magnet rotates into repulsion ****
4) Magnets separate in repulsion allowing us to gain kinetic energy.

In 2 of the stages above, the magnetic energy is converted into kinetic energy for an increase of kinetic energy.

In one of the stages above, the total magnetization is increased which increases the potential of the magnets.

**** And now comes the hard part. We need to consume kinetic energy in order to flip the magnets into repulsion. How much does it take and where does that energy come from? Is there any way to cheat?

Basically, what I'm saying is that it all boils down to "flipping into repulsion". Can this be done with less energy than we gained in the other stages?


noncents

No.
Why?
COE said so, baby!


OC:

We know we can overcome the magnetic resistance of rotation. We can use an externally applied force to do it. Is it possible that the gain we get through the increase of magnetization due to magnetic viscosity might be enough to replenish the energy of an externally applied mechanical force?

Start off by providing a mechanical force sufficient (swing a pendulum or manually spin a flywheel). Use this energy in conjunction with the energy gained through magnetic attraction to flip the magnet.

Now, the only thing we need to do is gain back the initial, externally applied energy. Is the gain of magnetism due to viscosity enough to restore the mechanical energy to its original level?


drmike

Nope. Magnetic viscosity is a second order effect. Mechanical motion is a zeroth order effect. The scales are totally different and you can't hope to regain anything.

Besides, viscosity is a loss - so you lose if it's there. The less viscosity you have, the more frictionless your system and the longer it will run. But without some outside energy source, it will eventually come to a stop.


OC:

In the scenario I described, there is NO loss due to magnetic viscosity. The only energy lost is due to friction, heat, etc. and a significant energy expenditure is required to rotate the magnets into repulsion. The magnetic potential is increased while the magnets are in proximity, in attraction. The additional magnetization gained through the viscous effect will cause the magnets to separate at a faster rate in repusion, imparting more kinetic energy to the system than it would have otherwise. The higher level of magnetization will also buffer the magnet against damage, irreversible losses.


drmike

Check out Energy Fluctuation on Magnetization Reversal Dynamics
http://cnsm.kaist.ac.kr/e_journal/jkps%2039_359.pdf
for some math on magnetic viscosity. The basic formula is given in equation (3). It's a function of temperature,
and of the anisotropy energy of the material.

I think viscosity is always irreversible, so you can't possible gain energy. At least, not without destroying a magnet!


tewkatz

So then, if Steorn has OU, which means nothing is being consumed, they are doing it without flipping permanent magnets?

Which leads me to a "Stupid Question": Can't you flip an electromagnet by reversing current flow?


OC:

Sounds a lot like an AC motor to me.

@drmike,
Check out this document, especially Figure 2.10 on page 9 that illustrates irreversible losses.
http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-SUSA-31102004-111401/public/02whole.pdf

If we can stay above the knee, we can avoid irreversible loss. How do we stay above the knee? Maybe through viscous interactions?


drmike

I read that graph differently. The reversable boundary is in the middle - just above Bc and below it. The irreversible boundary is section 2, which goes from 1 up to the knee. The third section is "rotation", what ever that means. We'll have to find the reference:
[4] R. M. Bozorth, "Ferromagnetism", IEEE Press, 1978, pp. 476-481, 769, 778.
to figure that out. That's the saturation region.

The saturation region must also be irreversable, and totally non-linear. That whole paper is about modeling hysterisis, and it looks hard to do. The reversable section is around Bc, the point where the magnet has no field - like a ferrite core. But it is in a strong field that is opposite to it's natural state - as you remove the field it goes back to Br.

It's the minor loops that change things - if you don't go all the way around the B-H curve, you get into different regions of reaction. That's the point of the modeling - you want to know where it goes. And you have to make some kind of assumptions about the material - so that's were reality bites you the hardest.

If you just got to Bc, then reverse the field and go back towards zero, you'll not get back to Br - but to a lower point. If you then reverse again at Br, you'll go to a new Bc which is less than the previous one - it's the degaussing curve basicly. Once past the Bc, you lose. If you don't keep going out to saturation, you can't follow the whole curve.

I'm not quite sure where Sv fits in here - I'll have to read some more and see if I can remember.


tewkatz

Right, but if you have a current going one direction before the PM enters it's field, to cause opposite-pole attraction up until the PM reaches the knee, then flip the electro-magnet instantly to repulse the PM as it speeds away...

I'm just trying to think of how to apply flipping without destroying a magnet...if you are draining away a PM's magnetism each physical flip, you would not be OU...you would just be draining potential energy until the PM is exhausted?


drmike

Don't know - I expect you'll be on different curves every time and eventually you would degauss the magnet.


OC:

It's my belief that IF you stay above the knee, the magnet will not degrade. The closer you are to saturation the higher the flux and the more potential you have. If you can manage to operate between the knee and full saturation by pushing the magnetization up as far as possible through an attractive, viscous magnetic transaction, then momentarily introduce a brief pulse of repulsion, you will be able to leverage short bursts of energy without damaging the magnets.

Take a look at the small loop in that diagram that is shown above the Br (W=0.02Ws) to see what I mean. If we operate up in this region, the magnet should be just fine.


meta

I think I understand what you are saying, but look where you are at on the curve. You are in the region of increasing diminishing returns! Are you saying that because you are staying above the boundary of irreversability there will be no loss?

Also, it is not like some ideal PM,immune from Sv interations and other losses, is moving relative to a "real" PM in which does show lag, etc. Both PM's flux's affect each others, AND both their loss mechanisims, Sv etc. are both in full swing (no pun intended).

I imagine operating in the region you suggest would generate significant heat. (easily tested, just use a strong air coil to cycle a PM from Br to saturation and measure temps.)

As far as flipping poles, I am pretty sure your major direct losses are already in the bank by the time your reach the point of the flip. That would be near the point at which you have maxed out the available suseptability. In a car, that would be the point at which no matter how hard you pushed the throttle, you can go no faster. You would have already accepted the loss it takes to just get to that point. Not to mention the energy it will take to accomplish the flip. The losses will show up as heat, degaussing or both.


meta
Quote:
drmike:I read that graph differently.....
The saturation region must also be irreversable, and totally non-linear.


Yes, even if saturation is reached, without outside energy input the magnetization will slip back to Br. Only by providing new energy can you "remagnetize" back to saturation.

Its like a line of solders, a few just can't seem to stay lined up. They will shape up under enough "input", but if you go away out of line they will surely and eventually return!

Ya know, if perminent magnets were perfect, this whole Sv flap would be a totally moot point. Not only that, but the more perfect the magnetic is, if Steorn is correct about this Sv connection, the less energy you will be able to create.


drmike

meta - I agree. I also think we have to be really careful when looking at those graphs. The main point of the B-H curve is the full swing, from + saturation to - saturation. That is the outside curve. If you turn around any where in between, you won't be on that outside curve, you be inside.

@overconfident - The area inside the hysterisis curve represents a loss in energy. Note that the going positive H arrow is below the going negative H arrow - but the assumption is that you go way out into saturation before returning. If you don't go to full saturation, then I suspect the outgoing line from Br up to 2 or 3 times Bc just leaves you on the curve - there's no change in the magnet and you can effectively model the PM as having some permiability so M(H) = u_0*Br + u*H (hmmm, units??)

I can see how it's possible to lose energy here, but if you are careful you can break even!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:53 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

OC:

Simple experiment:
Materials:
-- 2 magnets approximately the same strength (I'm using 1/4" Neo rods)
-- box of small nails or paper clips

Take 1 magnet, hang a chain of paper clips from the end until no more paper clips can be added. Do this with the other magnet as well, just make sure their magnetization is close to the same.

Now bring the 2 magnets together in attraction and see how many paper clips you can hang from the end. Let it sit that way for a while? Have we incurred any losses? No, we gained kinetic energy as the magnets approached. Each magnet reinforced the other's magnetization. And there are no further consequences.

Separate the magnets. Some of the paper clips will fall off as magnetization falls to Br. The magnets are no longer reinforcing each other. But where are the losses? We wind up back where we started ... no damage done.


OC:

Another simple experiment using same materials:

Hang a chain of as many paper clips as you can from the south end of each magnet while they are well separated. Now bring the magnets together in repulsion until paper clips start falling off. Then allow the magnets to separate.

How much damage have we done to the magnets? If we did not push the magnets together with enough force to go over the knee, into the irreversible loss region, the the magnetization should recover back to the original Br and should be capable of supporting as many paperclips as in the original case. Did we suffer any losses? Why?



drmike

overconfident - do that 100,000 to a million times. Measure your Br before and after. Then you'll know if you suffered any losses.


OC:

Been done! There are permanent magnet motors and generators out there that have run successfully for over 20 years, many millions of cycles. Over that period of time, they have degraded detectably, but are still functional.

I'd be happy with an Orbo that ran for 20 years.


drmike

I'll be happy if I get to see one!


OC:

And most of those motors and generators are operating with a BH loop down below the knee. Find some BH charts and look at the losses (area inside the loop) below the knee and compare to the chart I referred to above for the loop above Br. I think you will readily see that the losses are significantly less when operating above the knee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:56 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

fatz

OC try this.
Use a degaused magnet and move in on it. your pendulem atached to a ratchet that mechanically replaces the degaused magnet with another magnet with the poles oppisite of the degaused magnet. No need to flip it! just mechanically replace it.
Think of an armature of a DC motor with a rachet to turn it via a pendulem.


OC:

Nice idea. I'll look into it. But my initial reponse is that it will cost just as much energy to mechanically replace the magnet as it does to flip or rotate it. It might simplify the mechanical design though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:03 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

enginerd

I am always interested in these kind of discussions.

Theories for over-unity concepts are fun to try to understand.

I always hate it when we get to the part that goes "if we could instantaneously flip", or "if we could flip and use less energy than..", or "if we could then drop past the sticky point".


drmike

About the same as the "impossibilium 437" needed to build fusion reactors. Fun just the same though!


OC:

Have you ever seen this particular "IF" treated in a scientific, experimental fashion? I haven't. Yes COE says it won't work ... but, hey, laws were made to be broken.


Grimer

Interesting thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:12 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

NK

have you tried to play around with a Halbach array(only 3 mags) instead of using just one simple magnet and do the same tests?


OC:

I'm afraid my capabilities for experimenting are pretty limited at the moment. I have not tried a Halbach array. I assume you are speaking of a linear Halbach array. There are a number of possible configurations, can you describe what you mean in greater detail? I do have a few magnets here and I might be able to set up a suitable array.

edit: Something like?

Code:
   S
SN N NS



NK

yes i mean a linear halbach array .there are actually just 2 configs.1 swing the degaused magnet between the fields and 2 let it swing across the fields but i do mean the second one.


OC:

Whew. I think I need some weaker magnets! And something to hold them together. Either that or I'm getting weak in my old age. Those 1/2" Neos are STRONG!

Now this looks interesting as well.

Code:
  S    N
  N NS S



NK

ok. you have 3 mags in a halbach array , let's say something like that:
N---------S
----N--S
S---------N
and now let the degaused magnet(dm) swing in front of that array right there where the field is maxed.when the dm is right in front of the array turn the middle magnet in the array(switch the poles)=>the field is at minimum, our dm is gaining energy due to the swing just like a pendulum and the question is :is the energy required to switch the poles < than the energy dm is gaining?
..can't get that right with the array so look at it from l to r, 1 mag 2 mag 3 mag


OC:

I'm not sure about that magnet array. And I don't think they are using a degaussed magnet. Linear Halbach does look interesting though. Thanx.


NK

i have also no clue how it works for steorn, but hey ,take it like some sort of a mind sport .thinking about how it could work is fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:04 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

OC:

I've had another thought on how to perform the flip which I believe will consume less energy than any other mechanism I have previously considered. I need to draw up some graphics to illustrate the idea. I'll post it here when it's presentable.


drmike

I don't think magnets with OU make any sense at all. You need an energy source to create electrcity, and with that you can build real motors and do real work.

We really need to find good energy sources. I think I'm heading off to Bussard's and Farnsworth fusors for now. There's also some basic physics I want to look at.

Magnets are really useful and understanding the details behind them is important. But they can't be used to "create energy". You might as well catch a leprecaun!

OC:

Just a little "flip" experiment here. Take 2 cube magnets and stick them together as shown below, mine are 1/2" Neos. Place something fairly rigid and slippery on top, I'm just using a slick hardback book cover.

(Refresh the page if the graphic doesn't look right)

Code:

1)Now take a third cube magnet and hold it in position, where
there is enough magnetic attraction the magnet will begin
moving when released.

                            _______
                            |     |
                            |S   N|
                            |_____|
==========================================
 |     |     |
 |S   N|S   N|
 |_____|_____|
 
 
 
2) Release the magnet, it starts moving.
                     _______
                     |     |
                     |S   N|
                     |_____|
==========================================
 |     |     |
 |S   N|S   N|
 |_____|_____|
 
 
 
3) Gets real close, where we think it's ready to stop ...

               _______
               |     |
               |S   N|
               |_____|
==========================================
 |     |     |
 |S   N|S   N|
 |_____|_____|
 
 
 
4) ... but continues past the near end [b]and does a half-flip[/b].
No additional energy has been provided and we have achieved
half a flip.

          _______
          |  N  |
          |     |
          |__S__|
==========================================
 |     |     |
 |S   N|S   N|
 |_____|_____|



Now think about this a bit. If we come in with more momentum, what will happen? Or don't think about it. Set up a track and use a rubber band to give the magnet a boost. What happens?

RunningBare

I just tried your suggested experiment, the magnet did indeed flip a quarter turn much as I expected.

But I'm a little puzzled to your rubber band suggestion, this means we first have to impart energy to the rubber band, then the rubber band impart kinetic energy to the magnet, with a strong enough rubber band the magnet will fly past the fixed magnets, but we still had to give it energy to begin with.

OC:

Just trying to provide the logical next step in the experiment. If more momentum is provided, the top magnet will actually move farther through the field of the lower magnets and will flip another 90 degrees, a complete 180 degree flip.

Where do we get more momentum? p = mv, so we either need more speed or more mass, or both. Are there ways to do this?

Also, our little experiment was far from being ideal. I was simply trying to point out that there is enough energy available for 1 part of our transaction to do 1/2 flip. That means the second part of our transaction is likely to have enough energy to do the other 1/2 flip.

And the cube-shaped magnet is not the ideal shape to flip. What if we used a cylindrical magnet that is diametrically magnetized instead (afraid I don't have one at this time so cannot verify). It would rotate farther than the cube in this experiment and would require even less energy for a complete 180 degree flip.

And I wasn't really thinking of building a linear product as in this experiment. I was thinking more along the lines of a pendulum or rotor, where the magnets on the rotor are allowed to rotate individually (flip), as well as rotate with the rotor.

Can you see yet where I'm going? This experiment was simply to illustrate that there IS enough magnetic energy from attraction AND repulsion to perform the flip.

eric.rost

and for another thing, the only way the flipping is important is if you're going for getting more energy out of the repulsion than out of the attraction, which means, you have to let it be attracted in first...

At least that's the impression I got from vibrator over in that other thread. So if you have to let the magnet be attracted in, you're going to have to do work on it (a decent amount) to flip it, thus destroying the "extra" energy.

That's my 5000 foot view anyhow. I need to read that paper and sift through it. I've got a good head for math on my shoulders and a familiarity with motors and mechanical engineering, so I should be able to grok something out of it.


OC:

Quote:


and for another thing, the only way the flipping is important is if you're going for getting more energy out of the repulsion than out of the attraction, which means, you have to let it be attracted in first...


YES
Quote:

At least that's the impression I got from vibrator over in that other thread. So if you have to let the magnet be attracted in, you're going to have to do work on it (a decent amount) to flip it, thus destroying the "extra" energy.


Magnetic attraction provides the energy to do the work. Nothing destroyed here. Thats the point of this little experiment. To show that the magnetic attraction alone can do the work of moving the magnet AND flip it at least 90 degrees.
Quote:

That's my 5000 foot view anyhow. I need to read that paper and sift through it. I've got a good head for math on my shoulders and a familiarity with motors and mechanical engineering, so I should be able to grok something out of it.


Spartane0

Rather than flip the magnet itself, why not just dynamically flip a focused magnetic field in the outer stator as per the following link:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2704.0.html

The field is focused, so moving the inner rotor at a constant speed in one direction (clockwise as per the lower diagram) yields slow-in/fast out from the magnet's perspective.

And if the rotor's magnets are small enough and close enough to the stator's magnets as they pass by, then perhaps they will saturate at 90 degrees to their default orientation and maybe make it a bit easier to escape the sticky point.

Once the rotor magnet passes by the stator magnet, it's fully saturated and ready for the next interaction.

Or not...


pinestone

Why flip it?
Just come in attraction, do a little 'jig' 90 degrees either way to escape and come back in- being pushed away from repulsion. Utilize the null zone.

Phase-shift from a non-linear path of travel.

OC:

Interesting thought. Have you tried this? I am having some difficulty visualizing how to do that little jig and avoid the full consequences of the repulsive field.

I think it's better to hit the repulsive field from the inside out by passing straight through the null zone. By performing the "flip" inside the null zone and proceeding straight through, we can actually leverage some additional attractive force to help overcome the repulsive wall we will hit at the end.


cloud camper

I have a working test rig on the bench where the stator magnet follows a micro
processor controlled motion path as it approaches a rotor magnet. The profile does approach in a slight attraction mode, changes polarity, then repels out quite energetically. I can set up different motion profiles in the controller and then operate the rig noting wattage off a meter inline with the motion controlled servo motors. The motion causes the rotor to oscillate slightly until the rotor is spun up
by hand to the resonant speed (around 200 rpm). Then it will stay "in sync" with a surprising amount of torque (not measured yet). The setup behaves for all the world similiar to the Milkovic mechanical secondary oscillator generator as discussed here:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=49861
I get a steady 3.0 watts driving the servos plus another 2.0 watts for the controller.
As I manually load up the output shaft by pinching it with my fingers, the input
wattage never changes. Instead of stalling the input servo at high load, the rotor just decouples from the input servos, exactly similiar to the videos of the
Milkovic device where they show the oscillating beam being held down forcibly,
which creates no effect on the swinging input pendulum.
I've only had the rig working for a few days, but first observations seem to indicate
a secondary oscillation effect in that the input servos are affecting the ouput rotor
but nothing you do to the ouput rotor will effect the input wattage. Next step is to scale up the rotor from 4" to 12", then add an alternator to the output shaft and compare input to output wattage.
Fun stuff!
Heres a video of the Milkovic secondary oscillator in operation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8&eurl=http://pesn.com/2007/03/18/9500462_Berrett_pendulums

OC:

Interesting stuff, but I don't see how it is related to the concepts I have been trying to describe in this thread. Can you start your own thread for it? I promise I'll read it now and then.


cloud camper

Hi OC, from my use of a motion control system where you can carefully tune and
program complex trajectories and observe/measure results, any other rig seems like shooting from the hip. Fun speculation but not much else. All the hot reactions
in permanent magnets come from the corners. Each corner has a different spin field, all entertwined into a double helix. Add dynamic/relative motion to that and the effects get fantastically complex. Thought experiments just aren't going to cut it!

OC:

Sounds a bit like what Howard Johnson described in "The Secret World of Magnets". Can you post some field maps and visualizations over in the references thread? I still think you should start your own thread.


enginerd

Sure magnetic attraction can do work.

If you start with two magnets being held apart, then release them and let them run together, you can harvest lots of energy as they use up the potential between them.

Once they have made their moves and done their flips or pushed or powered whatever and are then together, the original potential is used up. Just like if you start with a mountain lake full of water or a cuckoo clock weight lifted up next to the clock.

It is very rare for somebody to spend much time trying to make an "archemidies" pump that uses water running from an uphill position to pump water back to the uphill position. For most people their is a sort of intuitive understanding that what you got from it as it ran down hill won't be enough to push it back where it came from. When intuition is tested the principle becomes clear pretty quickly. The same is true for a bouncing ball (nobody expects it to bounce higher each time , even though that was the basis for the original "flubber" story").

Magnets are less intuitive, and therefore more mysterious. Many people believe that magnet potential energy is somehow different from gravitaional or spring or charge or temperature potential. This still surprises me.


OC:

OK. It seems nobody sees the significance of the simple little experiment I outlined above. Several people pointed out to me that if COE was to hold true, the energy required to flip a magnet 180 degrees, from an attractive orientation to a repulsive one would "have to equal the amount of energy gained through attraction + the energy gained from repulsion".

The experiment above demonstrates that the first half of that equation is not true. The energy gained from attraction is greater than the amount of energy required to flip 90 degrees. The magnet moved a significant distance, overcoming friction to do it, and then flipped 90 degrees without any additional external forces.

If we can then rotate the magnet another 90 degrees using less energy than will be gained in repulsion, the ride out will be free. I'm afraid I don't have a simple experiment for this at the moment. When I have time and materials to construct one I plan to use a pendulum-like rig to confirm my beliefs.

I have posted this information in case one of the more talented experimenters reading this forum wanted to try it. It will probably be a while before I get to it.


enginerd

This is what it looks like to me.

The energy gained from attraction has to do with how big a potential you start with.

If you start from the distance you started from, then as you close you develop enough kinetic energy to complete the rush and the flip. And here is the "sticky point". Now you have to get it loose from its place at the bottom of that magnetic potential well.

Now, if you could get the moving magnet to rush in and then deflect out to a spot that was farther than when you started, that would be very exciting.

To me it seems the same as if you slid a magnet down a ramp and when it got to the bottom it hit a "stop" and flipped.


cloud camper

The whole idea is to have the magnets approach with the spin fields alligning
(attraction) into a zone of diminishing flux, perform most of the flip with a smooth continuous motion in the area of reduced flux, then have the magnets separate with the spin fields conflicting (repulsion) into a zone of increasing flux. The required motion paths are not intuitive and can only be discovered by experimentation (unless you have a spare supercomputer laying around!).
The tricky thing is to design the system so that the majority of the minimized but unavoidable opposing reaction is kicked back into a fixed base, so that both the attraction and repulsion phase are performed against the fixed base. This way very
little actual work is required to cause the desired reaction.


OC:

Right on target! Wish I had said that. Thanks CC.

Now, to try it out?


cloud camper

The downside is that you are still using electric currents to create a changing
magnetic field, which requires energy.
The upside is if the device is designed correctly with the majority of the opposing
forces reacting against a fixed base rather than being directly opposed by the electric field as in an electric motor, the output can be leveraged. Thats what I was trying to show with the Milkovic device. Another cool thing is that the sticky spot is no longer an impediment, but becomes an integral part of the design. Think of a
space probe getting a "slingshot" effect by setting up a hyperbolic orbit very close
to a very massive planet. NASA does this all the time!


OC:

Whoa! Wait a minute. I didn't see anything in your previous post about electrical current. I'm talking about a purely mechanical device, using masses in motion to store and utilize the energy. Except for the "electrical" component, everything else you have mentioned makes sense.


cloud camper

I am using electric servo motors to establish the repetitive motion profile for the stator
magnets that have a fixed overhead of 3 watts in my rig, plus 2 watts for the computer. I have to "spend" 5 watts whether I get any output or not. This is similiar to the Milkovic device where the pendulum has to be kept swinging whether or not the beam is doing any work.


OC:

OK. As long as we keep the differences in mind.

Now, there's also 2 other factors that probably come into play here, which most people don't seem to be considering.

1) If the energy required to "flip" the magnet happens to be greater than the amount provided by attraction alone, the startup cost will be greater than the attractive magnetic field alone can support. We may need to jump-start the cycle with some additional KE in order to get things rolling (the rubber band experiment, up a few posts). Energy would be recovered from the repulsive actions afterwards to sustain further motion. The original Kinetica toy used a pendulum-type weight and gravity to start the action. I see where something of this nature might be required here as well.

2) The magnetic fields can be shaped and focussed by using specially shaped magnets and/or pole pieces to optimize the magnetic transactions. Sean has made reference on several occasions to a "magnetic configuration". The original Kinetica toy had a mysterious block of epoxy which probably served this purpose. I was hoping to see an equivalent mysterious configuration for the lastest demo device, but that part was apparently upstairs in the Kinetica lab (anybody got pictures?).


RunningBare

>Sean has made reference on several occasions to a "magnetic configuration".

The veracity of that statement is under question, the kinetica toy is/was either gathering dust or at the local municipal dump, would you do this to a device that is apparantly giving out 2 times what is going in?

You want to do this seriously and by your posts it is obvious that you do, then I would stay clear of misleading statements, its like all those fake UFO reports cluttering up serious investigation.

Ok back on subject
You can of course impart energy from the elastic band to the magnet in question, this will of course shoot the magnet pass the stationary ones flipping it physically in the process, but not enough to gain the required repulsion for it to repeat the process without the aid of the rubber band.


OC:

Point is, IF the energy gained in repulsion is >= to the energy provided by the rubber band, THEN we will be able to recover that initial pulse of energy and keep on going thereafter without any additional input. The rubber band is just used to kick-start the system.


cloud camper

Hi OC, right now I can only speak to what I am observing on my test rig. I've only
had it working for a few days and am tweaking it every day. I feel the rotor size is
too small to get the maximum effect. Even so, I am spinning a 18" model airplane
propeller at approx 200 rpm with torque to spare. There is actually a little wind
coming from it and will blow small bits of tissue around. I certainly don't want to pull a Steorn act and start claiming .5w/cc or anything unsupportable. I'm upping the rotor size to 12" which should multiply the torque keeping the same rpm. At some point, I would expect to see a measurable "kickback" on the input meters above the 3 watts I'm using now, but with my current 4" rotor, there is no measureable kickback, even with the output rotor held at stall, a really big no no on an electric motor as input wattage goes out the roof!
I don't have any measure on the output now but will be adding an alternator to the
output shaft of the 12" unit. Then I can get actual numbers.
My seat of the pants impression again with no output measurements is that the
attraction phase and the polarity change phase are roughly a wash, leaving the
repulsion phase to create output. Different motion profiles than the one I am using
could have variable results. I'm sure there are a several profiles that could work, I
have just found one of them (I think). I don't plan on showing my setup to anyone
until I can simultaneously show input and output on a meter. In physics, if you can't
read it on a meter, you ain't got squat!
I do have a buddy that's a 20 year tenured Physics professor at the Univ of Colorado. He's chomping at the bit to see what I'm doing. It's very hard to keep the brakes on until I can show simultaneous gozintas and gozoutas.
With regard to point 2 above, I don't have any experience. I'm going on the theory
that energy can/might be leveraged as possibly demonstrated in the Milkovic
device as an easier approach than what Steorn is attempting!


OC:

Thanks for the info. It's nice to know I'm not as wacko as I was beginning to think. Your experiments sound really interesting. BUT I had something in mind without any wires.


cloud camper

Hi OC, yeah I understand. I didn't want to use them either. I've spent a lot of time
trying to do it that way with no results before going electronic! Turns out it's actually
easier as you can make changes much more quickly and try multiple configurations
with the computer.


OC:

I can easily believe that environment would work better. But I'm afraid I don't have access to that type of equipment. At the moment, it is difficult enough for me to justify the few Neos I bought. If you make any interesting discoveries you think can be applied to a strictly mechanical/magnetic environment, please share as much as you can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:59 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

PaulLowrance

Do you have a web page describing your method of capturing more energy than consumed by means of magnetic material?


OC:

Yup. It's right here in this thread. About 200 messages and growing. There are a few trivial experiments outlined here, but mostly it's just a thought experiment, at least until I or someone else puts things together. Cloud Camper seems to have something going that may be able to confirm my beliefs, albeit with wires attached.

One thing I have come to believe is that significant excess energy is NOT produced through Magnetic Viscosity. The magnetic viscosity is primarily a buffer, required in order to prevent damage to the magnets when in repulsion.


cloud camper

' Fraid I can't help much either at this point. It's going to be weeks or months before I get any useful numbers and we all know the history in this field!

I don't think anybody doing actual research has time for websites and Youtube videos unless they're hard up for cash. Now I got to come up with lets see, $178 for larger magnets, $350 for two more servos, $350 for a permanent magnet alternator, $200 for delrin, $300 for machining, $200 for a new power supply, lets see, maybe I better do a Youtube video quick!


PaulLowrance

Some folks don't have time to piece 200 messages together and sum it all up. It would be nice if you could piece it all together and sum it up.

The reasons I posted the request is because I read one of your experiments, but perhaps you've changed such an experiment because according to my understanding of magnetic behavior your experiment is flawed. I would be more than happy to discuss your recent experiments and theory.

Magnetic viscosity is caused by various effects. It's caused by what I call magnetic lag. It's caused by speed of magnetic sound, which I've often referred to as core ring resonance. Such effects cause a loss, but there's another effect due to the fact that it requires time for a magnetic avalanche to play out. That can causes a slight delay. For years I have referred to that effect as magnetic momentum. Energy can be gained from magnetic momentum.

I see no other method of capturing more energy than consumed by the coils energy source than by such magnetic viscosity (magnetic moment caused by avalanches).

Last, but not least, a degaussed PM has significant PE. The only reason energy is consumed in magnetizing a PM is because the magnetizing system is incapable of collecting the energy gain. Lets say it requires X joules to magnetize a degaussed PM. Nearly 100% of such energy, X joules, goes into heating the PM. Also the magnet will heat up even more due to the potential magnetic energy contained in a degaussed PM. That's MCE. Theoretically it's possible to capture such energy.


OC:

I'm afraid I can't collect all the messages here and summarize things for you at the moment. I am already taking more time than I should on this, if I intend to keep my job ... and it is straining my relationship with my wife as well.

If you see a flaw in one of the experiments I posted here, please identify it and start discussing it. I'll be happy to respond.


PaulLowrance

Well, lets not misunderstand the request. I am asking you to summarize *your* message. What are your trying to say? What is your method or theory?

I define magnetic viscosity as whatever causes a lag in B-field relative to H-field.

PaulLowrance

Below is your quoted:

overconfident:Simple experiment:
Materials:
-- 2 magnets approximately the same strength (I'm using 1/4" Neo rods)
-- box of small nails or paper clips

Take 1 magnet, hang a chain of paper clips from the end until no more paper clips can be added. Do this with the other magnet as well, just make sure their magnetization is close to the same.

Now bring the 2 magnets together in attraction and see how many paper clips you can hang from the end. Let it sit that way for a while? Have we incurred any losses? No, we gained kinetic energy as the magnets approached. Each magnet reinforced the other's magnetization. And there are no further consequences.

Separate the magnets. Some of the paper clips will fall off as magnetization falls to Br. The magnets are no longer reinforcing each other. But where are the losses? We wind up back where we started ... no damage done.

=========

For years I've pondered upon such ideas, publicly documented these ideas, and conclude it will not work. We can analyze this from two unique POV's -->

Analysis on a macro level:
Paper clips being attached to PM = gain in energy. Two PM's attracting and coming closer = gain in energy. Attaching more paper clips = gain in energy. Each time a paper clip is attached the PM's *effective* permeability increases. When the two PM's are brought together in alignment the PM's *effective* permeability increases. The increase in the PM's *effective* permeability requires means it will require more energy to separate the two PM's. Unfortunately for some time I have concluded there's no net gain in energy in this method.

Analysis on an atomic scale level:
I can only address known energy sources such as ambient temperature. At a fundamental level we have a ferromagnetic atom flipping as the net B-field increases, and then the ferro atom flips back when the net B-field decreases. The goal is to have to ferro atom flip in a stronger B-field (while the H-field is increasing) and then have the ferro atom flip back (while H-field is decreasing) in a weaker B-field. IOW, we want ambient temperature to do some extra work by flipping the ferro atom back. The problem with such a method is that it's not based on time. Magnetic viscosity is based on time. Since we are giving the ferro atom plenty of time, it will flip at an H-field of X and the flip back in the *same* field strength of X. There's nothing in this design that influences the ferro atoms to flip in a different field strength than when it flips back. You see, the ferro atom could care a less what's generating the magnetic field that causes it to flip and then flip back. This is a completely balanced design. As far as I know, there are just a few effects that cause the ferro atom to flip back in a different field strength, and they are --> 1. Physical pressure on the core, which could be from sound or something just physically pressing on the core. 2. Time based (magnetic viscosity), where the ferro atom flips and then H-field quickly reverses.


OC:

Paul, you seem to have missed the point of the experiment. The point was merely to illustrate that when in proximity, in attraction, each magnet will influence the other in a positive manner. The total magnetic energy of 2 magnets will be greater than the sum of the 2 magnets separately due to this influence. There may be a transient increase/decrease in total magnetic energy as the 2 magnets come together/separate and a portion of this change in magnetization will not happen instantly.

It looks like you have spent more time than I have anlyzing the whys and wherefores of the issue than I have. However, my point is simply that it occurs and that magnetic viscosity plays a part. I don't see anything in your analysis that refutes this.


PaulLowrance

Actually I understood your point that the net field from two magnets is greater than the sum of each separated magnet. Again, this is an increase in effective permeability. My point is that without magnetic viscosity there's no net gain in energy than what's required to separate the two magnets.

So IOW, you are not claiming a gain in energy?


OC:

Not with that experiment. In fact none of the experiments in this thread, so far, show a gain in usable energy. The one you cited, does show a transient gain, which is then lost when the magnets are separated. Magnetic viscosity is involved, although not obvious. You would need some fairly sophisticated equipment to even measure it in that experiment. The slight viscous effect in Neo magnets for this experiment would be measured in microseconds.

If I had a reproducible experiment here that closed the loop, there would already be hundreds of working Orbos out there. I have presented my conjectures, based on comments provided by Steorn. Nobody so far has been able to show any concrete evidence that it won't work (lots of naysaying, but no real evidence).


PaulLowrance

I agree that the viscosity in Neo's is in microseconds. It seems Steorn provided a graph showing something around 100 us. IMO most of such viscosity is due to eddy currents. Although eddy currents is loss.

As far as I'm aware, the only method capable of capturing potential energy in magnetic materials is by means of magnetic viscosity. That is, the viscosity caused by the magnetic avalanche itself. Yet again, this method requires a material that has positive MCE at the operating temperature.

...

So your proposed experiment that someones going to perform is not a COP > 1.0 attempt?


OC:

There is another person on this forum that beieves that as well. You and he are entitled to your theories. This thread is about mine.

I have proposed a vaguely described COP > 1.0 experiment here that leaves much up to the implementer. You will most likely need to read the entire thread to understand what I propose. Cloud Camper seems to have a good handle on it and is working on what I would consider to be the closest thing so far to my concept. I'd like to see someone else try what he's doing with a purely magnetomechanical setup, though. I'm hoping to share some ideas with Cloud Camper.


PaulLowrance

Hopefully Cloud Camper can explain your experiment that may be COP > 1.0. It would be interesting to see how you propose to gain more energy than consumed.


OC:

Cloud Camper has already explained how he hopes to achieve COP > 1.0. Please read his comments in this thread.

Cloud Camper's theories are HIS theories. They just happen to coincide fairly well with mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:12 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

OC:

OK. Time for a few more details on how we can gain energy through magnetic viscosity.

1) When 2 magnets come into proximity in attraction the total magnetization of both magnets is pushed up the BH curve above Br. There is an instantaeous increase and a delayed increase due to magnetic viscosity. The total amount of magnetic potential energy increase due to magnetic viscosity is small, but will increase the force of separation a bit.

2) In addition to the increase in magnetic potential. Climbing up the BH curve also increases the time it takes to reach the knee after we flip the magnets into repulsion. This means it will take more time to reach the knee, where the magnetic potential falls off at a rapid rate. The longer we have to leverage the higher magnetic field, the more kinetic energy we can gain from the repulsive field.

3) By using magnetic viscosity to climb higher on the BH curve, it is less likely the repulsive field will cause the magnetization to enter the regions of irreversible loss, below the knee of the BH curve. This will tend to protect the magnets from damage.

NOTE: These benefits will ONLY be realized if we can enter in attraction to allow the magneic fields to positively influence each other, stay in proximity long enough for magnetic viscosity to have some effect, and flip into repulsion where we can take advantage of the characteristics described above. If the flip is not done, items 1 and 2 become liabilities and losses.


Quanten

@overconfident, about your note about making the flip being important, you know this remind me of PMM of the first order, where friction has to be overcome. This is note a "note" this is the main point. You won't be able to flip for less energy than you gained *if any*.


OC:

@Quanten, You are not the first person to say this and you probably won't be the last. However, like everyone else before you, you have not offered any experimental evidence to back up what you claim. In fact, there is only one person, so far, that has offered any experimental evidence and his initial findings tend to agree with what I have been saying. His name here is Cloud Camper, please see what he has to say.

I suggest you read the ENTIRE thread, and try the simple experiments.

Oh, one more thing. If you or anyone in the SPDC can get Sean to answer this question, we may get some more insight into how Steorn thinks it works. I have asked this question several times, but Sean has never responded.

Sean, does the Orbo effect require flipping a magnet from an attractive orientation into a repulsive one?


PaulLowrance

1) When 2 magnets come into proximity in attraction the total magnetization of both magnets is pushed up the BH curve above Br. There is an instantaeous increase and a delayed increase due to magnetic viscosity. The total amount of magnetic potential energy increase due to magnetic viscosity is small, but will increase the force of separation a bit.

Actually maybe I should ask you to clarity this.


OC:

Refer to the last reference link I posted for you yesterday. Take a look at a BH curve. As the magnets come closer together in attraction, the magnetic field of each will augment the magnetization of the other, increasing the total magnetization, and causing the plot on the BH chart to move from Br towards saturation. Magnets with higher levels of magnetization will experience greater repulsive forces when placed in opposition (or will require a greater external force to separate, if in attraction).


PaulLowrance

But are you suggesting when two PM's come into proximity that the B-field increases and then decreases, and that such an increase in B-field is caused by magnetic viscosity? IOW, lets say the final B-field is 1.0 T after two PM's come closer, given sufficient time. Are you suggesting magnetic viscosity causes the B-field to momentarily go above 1.0 T?


OC:

Yes. That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And when the magnets are separated, the B fields will return to Br, but will not arrive there instantly because magnetic viscosity will influence the changing magnetization in the reverse direction as well.


PaulLowrance

That effect is real, but it could be extremely difficult to measure in most PM's unless the PM is appreciably long. As far as I know, this type of magnetic viscosity would come from magnetic wave propagation, or we could call it the speed of magnetic sound.

Here's a graph on Neo magnetic viscosity:

http://steornpower.googlepages.com/steorn1.jpg/steorn1-full.jpg
http://steornpower.googlepages.com/steorn

You can't really tell if there's any hump in the Neo due to noise.


couldbe

I thought the gurus on this forum had figured out that magnetic viscosity lasts so short a time - microseconds or even nanoseconds, that no mechanical setup could possible move the magnet fast enough to take advantage of it.


OC:

That's true for some materials, not true for others. Neodymium magnets react very quickly. Iron and some types of Alnico magnets have viscous effects measuring in seconds. But, if we insist on using Neo magnets, we should be able to increase the viscous effects by adding iron pole pieces.

Sean has mentioned a "magnetic configuration" on several occasions. Why didn't he simply call it a "magnet"? It's my belief they are adding some more viscous materials to enhance the effect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Theories about the Steorn Effect
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum