|
I used to be very excited about patents like this, but not anymore because I learned something about the fundamental physics.
The MEG device, Gunderson, Flynn, and other such "switched flux" devices seem to suffer from the same serious deficiency that I suspect their inventors are not even aware of.
Here's the Problem:
The permanent magnet's that are usually seen placed in these circuits, and assumed or claimed to deliver energy, do not get cycled along their B-H curves. They just operate in the circuit at a constant MMF, and also see a constant reluctance. This is like having a constant Voltage and a constant resistance so a constant current flows all the time, regardless of how you direct the current here and there through various paths that all have the same resistance. So, when I see this typical device arrangement I automatically become very cautious, because I know the magnet is not generating any excess energy per cycle. In order for it to do so, it would need to have it's B-H curve cycled in some creative fashion, and I don't see any of these "inventors" realizing this fact and exploiting it. All they are focused on is this idea that switching the magnet's flux is somehow like a transistor that controls lots of current with little current, and it's not a valid comparison at all, and it does not represent energy either.
I'll give you guys a very simple example how a magnet outputs more energy from the molecular realm. We've done it hundreds of times I'm sure.
Take a magnet and approach it to a ferromagnetic material and it will attract to it. That's it! The magnet has now produced free energy! There is a force of attraction towards the ferromagnetic material and displacement in that direction, which equals positive energy delivered. This energy can either be absorbed by your hand, as it slowly opposes the force and lets the magnet approach the material, or it could go into increasing the magnets kinetic energy and it will slam into the material creating a loud sound or shattering, etc.. but the fact is the magnet has produced excess energy, or free energy.
So what happens to the magnet as it produced this energy? Well, the B-field inside of it has gone from a low value to a high value, and also the ferromagnetic material is now magnetized, so all sorts of energy was created in the materials as well. Free energy for everyone!
But there is a problem.
Sooner or later we're going to run out of magnets and ferromagnetic materials to mate together to get a boost of free energy, and we will have to start SEPARATING some of these magnets from their ferromagnetic partners, i.e. develop a CYCLE of sorts, and that's where we run into problems.
Magnetic fields are CONSERVATIVE, that's the problem.
This means that as I pull the magnet away from the ferromagnetic material that it had attracted to, I now have to "put back" the energy I took in the first place. More scientifically, no matter what path I take from a point A to a point B and than back to A, the net energy gain or loss will be zero. In other words, field potential is path independent.
However, there is a ray of hope, a loop hole that can be exploited, for example, weaken the magnets field prior to pulling it away from the ferromagnetic material. After all, if you bring it to zero there won't be any force on it, but later when we try to magnetize the magnet back up, we might find that we require the same energy input, but maybe not, it all depends on the material and the process used for this. This would than be a dynamic magnetic field, but these devices here utilize the permanent magnets in a static configuration, just biasing their magnetic circuits.
Anyway, this discussion is really to convey how these "switched flux" devices don't cycle the magnets at all, hence they can't be expected to deliver any extra energy.
EM
« Last Edit: 2011-08-07, 16:33:30 by EMdevices »
|
Author
Topic: Switched Reluctance Solid State Unit Patent (Read 42147 times)
