PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > Smudge (Moderator: Smudge) > Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy
2024-11-26, 16:37:16
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy  (Read 11288 times)
Topic Options img
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #50 on: 2024-05-23, 16:24:29 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: broli on 2024-05-23, 16:11:26
Who is talking about a departure? As you say it is fully within newtons laws of motion. But then you DO agree that it keeps accelerating until it hits the sonic wall? If so where did that kinetic energy come from?

As I just said: wind!
What would prevent a wind turbine from using its own energy to move forward?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  broli
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #51 on: 2024-05-23, 17:02:23 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-05-23, 16:24:29
As I just said: wind!
What would prevent a wind turbine from using its own energy to move forward?

As a self proclaimed seeker of truth you sure did little homework on this to think its a wind turbine, at the very least you could have watched the video in its entirety. And here you are talking about how the greats could have missed something so obvious and you are missing what is in plain sight. But I digress, I guess some nuts can only be cracked by a hammer. I hope your nut is ready for said hammer because its going to be a big one.
   
img  partzman
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #52 on: 2024-05-23, 17:04:08 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Smudge and all,

After studying Zaev's paper "Inductive Conversion of Heat Environmental Energy to Electrical Energy" and his comments about "spontaneous magnetization", I decided to try some experiments.  I was going to attempt to replicate his 16-coil setup but decided to try a 4-coil setup instead.  After pondering the setup for awhile, I concluded that the parallel and series connections of the primaries and secondaries along with the k factors, complicated greatly the outcome calculations.  So, I conceived the following setup which seems to prove his theory IMO.

The schematic below shows the test setup.  The circuit works  in the following manner: Mosfet M1 is held on by PG1 for a period of time that allows fixed currents to stabilize In L1 and CUT (coil under test).  There will be a difference in the fixed currents between L1 and CUT depending on the on resistance of M1, the DC resistances of L1 and CUT, and the voltage of Vcc.  When M1 turns off, the currents in L1 and CUT will reach levels that create an energy balance between L1 and CUT.

L1 is an inductor wound on an EC-52 ferrite gapped core set with a 4-section bobbin to reduce the self capacitance.  It is linear to >900ma.  The CUT is 42 turns of 25ga magnet wire that is evenly wound on a 2"(51mm) OD, 1.25" (32mm) ID, .75" (19mm) H  ferrite toroid in P7070 material.

The energy drop in L1 is easily calculated but the energy gain in CUT is determined from a previously generated charging profile that shows the current and power values over time from a fixed voltage supply.  Reference trace R1 is current and R2 is power.  Granted, the actual energy recovered in CUT will probably be ~85% of the calculated charge energy but will still yield a COP>1.

The CUT can have no gaps in it's core and the efficiency will be higher if operated below the saturation knee.

So, from the L1 start and finish scope pix we see the currents are 155.0ma and 143.1ma respectively.  Therefore the loss in L1 over the cycle is (.155^2-.1431^2)*.0183/2 = 32.46uJ.

Then, we see the start and finish currents in the CUT are 130.9ma and 180.4ma respectively.  Placing vertical cursors on the R1 trace to establish the start and finish current levels, we see the mean power of R2 to be 9.801 watts.  This power level for R2 was determined during the profiling of the CUT with the average of the instantaneous products of the CUT current and the voltage supply which in this case was 64v DC.  This results in an energy level to raise the CUT from 131ma to 180ma of 9.801*6e-6 = 58.8uJ.  Based on these figures, the COP would be 58.8/32.46 = 1.81.  With the recovery of CUT at 85%, the COP = 50/32.46 = 1.54.

My conclusion of this is that Zaev is correct in that a sudden shock into a soft ferrite core material produces a shock to the aether that results in higher than normal magnetization of the CUT.

All comments welcome and appreciated.

Regards,
Pm



 
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #53 on: 2024-05-23, 18:59:35 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 274
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-05-23, 13:51:55
so we'll have to raise the voltage to maintain the same current during the transition,  i.e. provide a work W=∫(L*i).di where L is current or time depending.
Yes,I was mistaken.On the spreading coil necessary increase voltage and not current.
But "rubber" coil will be doing mechanic work for us by its dilatation.
And besides, this coil will increase its magnetic energy at the same time.
I have the idea,where we could take extra voltage. But that is another theme.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #54 on: 2024-05-24, 07:32:54 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: broli on 2024-05-23, 17:02:23
As a self proclaimed seeker of truth you sure did little homework on this to think its a wind turbine, at the very least you could have watched the video in its entirety. And here you are talking about how the greats could have missed something so obvious and you are missing what is in plain sight. But I digress, I guess some nuts can only be cracked by a hammer. I hope your nut is ready for said hammer because its going to be a big one.

The propeller is connected to the wheels, so any rotation of the propeller causes the machine to move forwards or backwards, with only the forces of friction to overcome, since movement only requires energy to overcome friction or to accelerate.

What is friction? There are two significant points to consider: the friction of the wheels on the ground, which is absolutely essential otherwise the machine would slide with the slightest wind.
The friction of the wind on the blades, which translates into an overall force in the direction of the wind, and through the deflection of the wind by the inclination of the blades, into a transverse force that turns the propeller.

When the machine is stationary, it is locked to the ground by the friction of the wheels. The transverse force tends to turn the propeller, which tends to turn the wheels, which tend to move the machine. For the machine to move forward, this force must be greater than the force exerted by the wind on the machine as a whole. Since the gear ratio between the propeller and the wheels can be arbitrarily set by a set of gears or pulleys, the force that can be exerted to turn the wheels in order to move can be arbitrarily large.

The larger the ratio (many propeller revolutions for few wheel revolutions), the greater the force but the slower the machine will move. The smaller the ratio (few propeller revolutions for many wheel revolutions), the faster the machine will move, but the force will be weak, and if it's too weak, it won't surpass the overall force exerted by the wind on the whole machine.
The efficiency of the machine is therefore determined by this ratio and the reduction of all other sources of loss, such as axle friction.

An arbitrarily large force can be obtained from a small force, but their work will be the same. As for the question of wind speed and machine speed, they are not linked in any way as long as there is a difference, i.e. a non-zero relative speed of the wind in relation to the machine, which makes it possible to draw energy.

Finally, the direction of motion can be forward or backward, depending on the technical realization, but this doesn't change the question as long as the relative wind speed is not zero.

Once again, if you don't understand all this, it's because, like many others, you haven't yet grasped the difference between force and energy/work, and that relative speed is mainly related to energy, not force.
Contrary to your answer, the comparison with a wind turbine is perfectly relevant to the video if you understand the general principles involved, and answers your previous question "where did that kinetic energy come from?". It's only you who doesn't see the connection and isn't trying to understand, prefering to look anywhere for anomalies in physics when it's ignorance of its laws that generates the illusion. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  broli
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #55 on: 2024-05-24, 13:21:35 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-05-24, 07:32:54
The propeller is connected to the wheels, so any rotation of the propeller causes the machine to move forwards or backwards, with only the forces of friction to overcome, since movement only requires energy to overcome friction or to accelerate.

What is friction? There are two significant points to consider: the friction of the wheels on the ground, which is absolutely essential otherwise the machine would slide with the slightest wind.
The friction of the wind on the blades, which translates into an overall force in the direction of the wind, and through the deflection of the wind by the inclination of the blades, into a transverse force that turns the propeller.

When the machine is stationary, it is locked to the ground by the friction of the wheels. The transverse force tends to turn the propeller, which tends to turn the wheels, which tend to move the machine. For the machine to move forward, this force must be greater than the force exerted by the wind on the machine as a whole. Since the gear ratio between the propeller and the wheels can be arbitrarily set by a set of gears or pulleys, the force that can be exerted to turn the wheels in order to move can be arbitrarily large.

The larger the ratio (many propeller revolutions for few wheel revolutions), the greater the force but the slower the machine will move. The smaller the ratio (few propeller revolutions for many wheel revolutions), the faster the machine will move, but the force will be weak, and if it's too weak, it won't surpass the overall force exerted by the wind on the whole machine.
The efficiency of the machine is therefore determined by this ratio and the reduction of all other sources of loss, such as axle friction.

An arbitrarily large force can be obtained from a small force, but their work will be the same. As for the question of wind speed and machine speed, they are not linked in any way as long as there is a difference, i.e. a non-zero relative speed of the wind in relation to the machine, which makes it possible to draw energy.

Finally, the direction of motion can be forward or backward, depending on the technical realization, but this doesn't change the question as long as the relative wind speed is not zero.

Once again, if you don't understand all this, it's because, like many others, you haven't yet grasped the difference between force and energy/work, and that relative speed is mainly related to energy, not force.
Contrary to your answer, the comparison with a wind turbine is perfectly relevant to the video if you understand the general principles involved, and answers your previous question "where did that kinetic energy come from?". It's only you who doesn't see the connection and isn't trying to understand, prefering to look anywhere for anomalies in physics when it's ignorance of its laws that generates the illusion. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.

Everything you said is correct except for this:

Quote
but their work will be the same

You again missed the subtle nuance of what is truly going on with the blackbird and the implications it has.

If the work done is the same, blackbird would come to a very quick halt and not keep accelerating until it hits the limits of the medium its in. Wind speed is irrelevant as shown by the treadmill.

The work done is NOT balanced. Derek in the video gave in fact a very good mathematical explanation of this. It is not work that is conserved because you are NOT operating in a closed system. But power in and power out ARE the same.

But you are right energy cant come out of nowhere. So where did the extra energy come from? Since you are not good at hints. Here is the answer for you; take a pocket of air and then push it, what makes the previous space it occupied be replaced by fresh surrounding air? The answer is GRAVITY, this near limitless potential causes a massive density gradient in the air. The propeller pushing on this density gradient is continuously creating empty pockets of air in front of it by pushing air back and thus the density gradient pushes it forward. But the wheels at the bottom tell the proppeller to push faster now and due to the mechanical advantage the propeller can only follow orders.


In short Blackbird converts potential energy from gravity into kinetic energy from the very fact it is riding between an interface the ground and air and that said air has a potential gradient. And yes you got very close until you took a side turn. Because the "secret" force that is making this all happen is friction. The universe can sometimes look us right in the eye but if you could zoom out from that Awkard position you would see a reflection of yourself which is poetic if you ask me.

Btw dont put all people in the same boat its destructive and unproductive. You dont know me personally and my capacities. In the past I have shared quite a few ideas that you pointed the faults of, and after going back and reviewing them . I often had to admit admit fault or even better I learned something new and used it to judge the merit of an idea more accurately the next time...even if it damaged my ego. This is the very reason that got me where I am now. I am quite reasonable and open to any side but this "us vs them" narrative you keep pulling up does not allow for constructive discussion or debates and gets you nowhere. I changed my mind too, whether science managed to miss something so obvious or not doesn't bother me anymore, I let it go as it brought me nowhere and was even sabotaging me. The real question is how do we go forward from here and work together on cool applications and learn from the mistakes of the past as to not repeat them in the future.

I am willing to give my time if such discussions remain civil and dont resort to belittling and ridiculing the opposing party with statements such as "Don't blame me for your lack of understanding, it's pathetic.". Things can get heated at times and we all have an ego, but the reason humans are where we are is because we can cooperate on a scale exponentially larger than any species on earth. Conflicts and war? Any animal can do that. We can keep on fighting over ridiculous things like who has the most bananas, even start senseless wars over them, shoot and kill each other or we can set aside our egos for a minute and cooperate to shoot at the stars together while sharing said bananas.
« Last Edit: 2024-05-24, 19:55:06 by broli »
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #56 on: 2024-05-24, 15:54:30 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: broli on 2024-05-24, 13:21:35
Everything you said is correct except for this:

You again missed the subtle nuance of what is truly going on with the blackbird and the implications it has.

If the work done is the same, blackbird would come to a very quick halt ...

I mean that the work of a force that is transformed by a gear is the same on both sides: strong force with small displacement or weak force with large displacement.
This work comes from the wind on the blades, which turns the propeller, which turns the wheels. All this is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and becomes obvious when you try to understand, not invent anything...
I don't know what else you've come up with...  C.C "subtle nuance"  ;D


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  broli
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #57 on: 2024-05-24, 17:50:37 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-05-24, 15:54:30
I mean that the work of a force that is transformed by a gear is the same on both sides: strong force with small displacement or weak force with large displacement.
This work comes from the wind on the blades, which turns the propeller, which turns the wheels. All this is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and becomes obvious when you try to understand, not invent anything...
I don't know what else you've come up with...  C.C "subtle nuance"  ;D

I am going to start a new thread as to not derail this one if you wish you can continue the discussion there.
   
img  partzman
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #58 on: 2024-05-25, 14:41:32 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
In reference to my post #52, there is an issue with my estimated recovery efficiency of the CUT at 85%.  The following scope pix show the efficiency to be much lower due to the B-H loop losses of the core material.

The first pix shows the Pin and the second Pix shows the Pout at 9.2w and 9.18w respectively.  This results in Uin an Uout energy levels of 57.4uJ and 31.9uJ respectively for an efficiency of 55.6%.  This more than cancels any gains in the charging phase of the CUT from L1.  As the the induction level or H field is reduced, the efficiencies increase and at an Ipeak=50ma, there appears to be a slight gain but the levels are too low to put any significance on the results.

I will reduce the turns on the CUT to raise the peak of the linear H field to a more reasonable level to see what the results might be.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #59 on: 2024-05-30, 16:20:13 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
The magnetic energy within the free space occupied by the magnet or core (that is actually the inter-atomic space) is not usually recognized as a usable source of energy, but it can be the source when remanent magnetism decay drives current through a coil into a load resistor.  Here are two papers I wrote some time ago on this subject.

Smudge   
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #60 on: 2024-06-23, 16:35:45 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
For those who might be interested in exploring the SEMP technology you can do this with readily available ferrite cores.  You can use a domestic oven to get your transformer within just tens of degrees C of its Curie point where it will  exhibit the wanted effect, see attached paper.  Anyone here up for this?

Smudge
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #61 on: 2024-06-23, 17:52:14 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 274
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-06-23, 16:35:45
Anyone here up for this?
Yes. I would like it.
   
img  verpies
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #62 on: 2024-06-24, 10:56:39 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024-06-23, 17:52:14
Yes. I would like it.
I'll do it, too but not now. Ask Chet why when you talk to him.
   
img  broli
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #63 on: 2024-06-24, 21:52:19 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I like where this thread is going. I would argue that Rubber and Iron are very similar in nature. How they behave and their thermodynamic nature, especially entropy wise are very similar.

When you stretch rubber, all the randomness disappears as you "align" its internals and its internal energy is released as heat back in to the environment. The most significant is how its entropy depends on the absolute temperature where higher temperatures actually make it behave more linear and thus rubber becomes "stiffer" at higher temperatures. Which can even be fine tuned with "doping" or adding other ingredients to it. The tire industry has a whole science on this. This would be similar to how the "curie temperature" is tweaked in ferromagnetic materials to amplify effects such as the "magnetocaloric " effect for instance.

Perhaps iron and "rubber" are cousins and we are barely scratching the surface of the true potential of these special materials :). If you look closely at iron you even see similar coil like "randomness" as domains but more importantly as the "walls" between them called "Bloch" and "Neels domain walls", these form circular 180° transition points and a big mess of coiled up states until you introduce an external field that "aligns" them aka lower its entropy. In rubber this would be akin to introducing a tension force, but a magnetic field will do the trick for iron or other ferromagnetic materials which would also cool the material aka Magnetic refrigeration.

I personally find this connection amazing. Aligning a system makes energy escape from it, and the environment temperature (the sun) causes it to heat back up. A true oscillating energy source. The only question is, what force is driving the alignment, and how "free" is that. Are "Permanent" magnets free enough? Makes you wonder about many other "rubbery" things. That is philosophical in itself haha.

Some interesting material on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPMF59f8KU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudAzFZdLls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBRBB6D8SdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovVO8NDdon4

Maybe the iron age has barely started as we discover its "rubber" like properties.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #64 on: 2024-06-24, 22:01:22 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-05-30, 16:20:13
The magnetic energy within the free space occupied by the magnet or core (that is actually the inter-atomic space) is not usually recognized as a usable source of energy

because it is not usable as it is.

Quote
, but it can be the source when remanent magnetism decay drives current through a coil into a load resistor.  Here are two papers I wrote some time ago on this subject.

Smudge

Even if this magnetic decay was fast enough for a significant dPhi/dt and, what is doubtful, represented a significant part compared to the energy that magnetized the magnet, how do you remagnetize the magnet at a lower cost than the energy supplied, to obtain a cycle?




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #65 on: 2024-06-25, 10:59:20 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024-06-24, 22:01:22
because it is not usable as it is.
Please tell me why it is not usable, what is the logic that tells you it is not usable?

Quote
Even if this magnetic decay was fast enough for a significant dPhi/dt
What do you consider to be a significant dPhi/dt?  Have you looked at the Neel formula to see what it predicts?

Quote
and, what is doubtful, represented a significant part compared to the energy that magnetized the magnet,
What do you mean by a decay time representing a significant part of an energy?  You are talking in riddles here.

Quote
how do you remagnetize the magnet at a lower cost than the energy supplied, to obtain a cycle?
The electrical input energy needed to remagnetize a permanent (we are not dealing with soft materials here) magnet is not directly related to the electrical energy obtainable when something non-electrical causes the demagnetization.  It is related to that "something" that is supplying non-electrical energy.

Smudge 
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #66 on: 2024-06-25, 16:31:41 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Following on from the previous message the energy required to magnetize is easily determined from the B v. H loop (area is an energy density that must be multiplied by the core volume to get energy in joules) or the Phi v. i loop (gives energy directly).  During the build up from zero field the incremental permeability (dB/dH) plays its part.  The initial relative permeability μ is low but then this rises to a very high value before reducing over the saturation knee.  It is really the susceptibility χ that is changing in value where χ = μ-1.  The non-zero susceptibility at any point during the rise is due to the changing alignment of the dipoles creating an H field of value χH adding to that put into “the air space occupied by the core” directly from the current.  B = μ0(1+χ)H tells us this, we can write this B = μ0H +μ0χH where the first term is the B field from the current driving an air cored coil and the second term is the contribution from the magnetization M (=χH) of the partially aligned dipoles.  The dipole alignment is acting somewhat like positive feedback in reducing the amount of current needed to drive current into the air-cored coil.  We have the time history of that dipole alignment working to our advantage.  So we need tiny amounts of H from the current to create enormous amount of M, (like H = 50 A/m creates BR = 0.5 Tesla that is MR = 39,789 A/m as in my previous papers).

We are dealing with square-loop material where the MH loop has a flat top.  When we look at some external “force” making MR decay, if this drives current through a loaded coil we do not have any initial χ as it is zero, the B v. H slope is μ0.  We do not have any time history giving an advantage.  So we have effectively an air-cored coil where the current is attempting to stop or slow the M decay.  It needs a lot of current to have any effect, the H from that current can far exceed the 50 A/m maximum value used for the magnetization.  So immediately we have the start of a B v load-current H loop that is way outside the magnetizing loop.  All my attempts to then complete the output BH loop yield over-unity that reaches significant values.  To make this acceptable to the scientific community I reason that this is temperature driven and there is the source of the anomalous energy, it takes heat from the environment.  But I rather think that this could be more fundamental than that, like taking magnetic energy from the inter-atomic space since the external “force” is doing just that.

Smudge
   
img  partzman
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #67 on: 2024-06-25, 17:34:25 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-06-25, 16:31:41
Following on from the previous message the energy required to magnetize is easily determined from the B v. H loop (area is an energy density that must be multiplied by the core volume to get energy in joules) or the Phi v. i loop (gives energy directly).  During the build up from zero field the incremental permeability (dB/dH) plays its part.  The initial relative permeability μ is low but then this rises to a very high value before reducing over the saturation knee.  It is really the susceptibility χ that is changing in value where χ = μ-1.  The non-zero susceptibility at any point during the rise is due to the changing alignment of the dipoles creating an H field of value χH adding to that put into “the air space occupied by the core” directly from the current.  B = μ0(1+χ)H tells us this, we can write this B = μ0H +μ0χH where the first term is the B field from the current driving an air cored coil and the second term is the contribution from the magnetization M (=χH) of the partially aligned dipoles.  The dipole alignment is acting somewhat like positive feedback in reducing the amount of current needed to drive current into the air-cored coil.  We have the time history of that dipole alignment working to our advantage.  So we need tiny amounts of H from the current to create enormous amount of M, (like H = 50 A/m creates BR = 0.5 Tesla that is MR = 39,789 A/m as in my previous papers).

We are dealing with square-loop material where the MH loop has a flat top.  When we look at some external “force” making MR decay, if this drives current through a loaded coil we do not have any initial χ as it is zero, the B v. H slope is μ0.  We do not have any time history giving an advantage.  So we have effectively an air-cored coil where the current is attempting to stop or slow the M decay.  It needs a lot of current to have any effect, the H from that current can far exceed the 50 A/m maximum value used for the magnetization.  So immediately we have the start of a B v load-current H loop that is way outside the magnetizing loop.  All my attempts to then complete the output BH loop yield over-unity that reaches significant values.  To make this acceptable to the scientific community I reason that this is temperature driven and there is the source of the anomalous energy, it takes heat from the environment.  But I rather think that this could be more fundamental than that, like taking magnetic energy from the inter-atomic space since the external “force” is doing just that.

Smudge

Smudge,

Interesting!  I tried a quick and dirty version of your device using Magnetics "P" material that has a Curie temp >210 degrees C but the BH curve is not square.  I heated the core to ~90 degrees C using a PSO (Pulsed Saturating Oscillator) and then converted the circuit quickly to my assumed equivalent of your suggested constant current drive.  I did not see any gain in the recovery phase but I was not close enough to the Curie temp IMO so the results are not conclusive by any means for many reasons.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #68 on: 2024-06-26, 16:06:15 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Quote from: partzman on 2024-06-25, 17:34:25
Smudge,

Interesting!  I tried a quick and dirty version of your device using Magnetics "P" material that has a Curie temp >210 degrees C but the BH curve is not square.  I heated the core to ~90 degrees C using a PSO (Pulsed Saturating Oscillator) and then converted the circuit quickly to my assumed equivalent of your suggested constant current drive.  I did not see any gain in the recovery phase but I was not close enough to the Curie temp IMO so the results are not conclusive by any means for many reasons.

Yes you need to be closer to the Curie temp.  Look for a secondary voltage after the primary current has switched off that should indicate the remanence is decaying without any electrical help.

I found the attached documents on square-loop material useful.

Smudge
   
img  partzman
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #69 on: 2024-06-26, 17:13:01 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-06-26, 16:06:15
Yes you need to be closer to the Curie temp.  Look for a secondary voltage after the primary current has switched off that should indicate the remanence is decaying without any electrical help.

I found the attached documents on square-loop material useful.

Smudge

Smudge,

Thanks for the links!  I found that I have on hand Ferroxcube toroids that are in 3R1 material.  These are designed for magnetic amplifiers and have a square loop with a Curie temp of >230deg C.

If I may also suggest that there are perhaps options to your current driven bifilar coil/core arrangement.  The tightly wound bifilar primary and secondary windings can be thought of as equivalent to a single winding less the IW capacitance and could be used if isolation isn't required.  In this case, the input source could be a constant voltage source providing the input current ramp to the single winding.  The collapse or 2nd phase would then place the falling current through a diode to the load resistance that is connected to the power supply to capture the decay energy.

Regards,
Pm 
   
img  Smudge
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #70 on: 2024-06-26, 19:57:52 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
@PM,

Do not confuse falling current with falling remanence.  The input voltage you propose must be a pulse that gives rising current up to that required to reach saturation Bsat, but then the current must fall back to zero to reach the remanence point Brem.  With a gap before the next pulse comes along there will normally be zero voltage as Brem remains constant.  It is there that you must look for a voltage due to Brem decay, there will be a fast rising voltage (and current if a load is across the coil) spike followed by an exponential fall.  I would be inclined to initially look for the voltage spike with the coil unloaded at that time.  Note that the current polarity for both the drive current and the load current is in the same direction, so separating them using a diode is not possible IMO.  It has to be done with active semi-conductor switches.

Smudge   
   
img  broli
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #71 on: 2024-06-27, 19:13:06 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-06-26, 19:57:52
@PM,

Do not confuse falling current with falling remanence.  The input voltage you propose must be a pulse that gives rising current up to that required to reach saturation Bsat, but then the current must fall back to zero to reach the remanence point Brem.  With a gap before the next pulse comes along there will normally be zero voltage as Brem remains constant.  It is there that you must look for a voltage due to Brem decay, there will be a fast rising voltage (and current if a load is across the coil) spike followed by an exponential fall.  I would be inclined to initially look for the voltage spike with the coil unloaded at that time.  Note that the current polarity for both the drive current and the load current is in the same direction, so separating them using a diode is not possible IMO.  It has to be done with active semi-conductor switches.

Smudge

You need "EVIDENCE" Smudge, not hyperbolic theories which are hard to replicate and which the local sceptics will never accept :). I have been thinking about this for a while now, what would be the nail in the coffin experiment. The electromagnetic domain would only spark more debates, it needs to be something very simple, something mechanical, something a kid with a 3d printer and some basic materials kan replicate at home so that debates quickly become a waste of time. If evidence is undeniable then all domains can be much easily explored, especially the magnetic one that you are focusing on right now. But there is need for a kid friendly version first.
   
img  gyula
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #72 on: 2024-06-28, 13:51:13 »
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1194
This paper is not strickly on the present topic but deals with ferromagnetic ring cores dimensional resonance which may be useful for some members here:

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/

Gyula
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #73 on: 2024-06-28, 15:41:26 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-06-25, 10:59:20
Please tell me why it is not usable, what is the logic that tells you it is not usable?
What do you consider to be a significant dPhi/dt?  Have you looked at the Neel formula to see what it predicts?
What do you mean by a decay time representing a significant part of an energy?  You are talking in riddles here.

By "significant", I mean "sufficient to see it without ambiguity in the measurements".
If the suppositions I made don't suit you, forget them, they didn't condition my final question.

Quote
The electrical input energy needed to remagnetize a permanent (we are not dealing with soft materials here) magnet is not directly related to the electrical energy obtainable when something non-electrical causes the demagnetization.  It is related to that "something" that is supplying non-electrical energy.

Whatever the means of obtaining magnetization, the magnetic energy density is W=B²/2.µ. This energy will have to be supplied for magnetization (plus losses) and it doesn't matter which means is used, be it electrical, mechanical by influence, or anything else.
It's therefore essential that you define the "something" you're talking about, and not from the formalism of the laws of physics, since they guarantee the conservation of energy through their internal mathematical consistency.




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Using natural (thermally driven) remanence decay to deliver overunity energy « Reply #74 on: 2024-06-28, 16:15:12 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: gyula on 2024-06-28, 13:51:13
This paper is not strickly on the present topic but deals with ferromagnetic ring cores dimensional resonance which may be useful for some members here:

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/understanding-dimensional-resonance-in-high-frequency-magnetic-cores/

Gyula

A ferrite could be used as a waveguide or as a resonant antenna. It's perfectly possible in theory. In practice, we don't have materials with both giant permeability and permittivity for practical use. If they are too large, the losses become too large. If we try to increase the working frequency for a smaller wavelength compatible with the size of the ferrite, we increase losses or enter zones of lower permittivity and permeability, which are generally frequency-dependent. This is Murphy's Law. I've already searched in vain for such materials, which would be ideal for small radio antennas. Materials technology is still far from the optimum we need. There's only the beginning of use in the GHz range with dielectric antennas, and it's only a question of dielectric, not permeability. We were born too early  :(


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 16:37:16