PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > On the notion of a magnetic motor
2024-11-28, 07:39:28
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: On the notion of a magnetic motor  (Read 22809 times)
Topic Options img
img  TinMan
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #50 on: 2024-05-10, 09:55:11 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-10, 04:02:51
Sucks, doesn't it.
bi

I am pretty sure that any civil conversations would not be deleted.

So, looking at the diagram below that i just threw together, we can see what the result would be if the long rod/bar magnet was passed across the cores of each 3 coils in their relative position.
How exactly can this happen if the field is the same all around the magnet, and where the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
The arrow of the B field depicts that the B field is the same along the length of the magnet, and will cut through each of the 3 cores in the same direction, and yet the left and right coils have opposite sines, and the center coil produces no emf at all.

Now, replace this single field theory with the one i believe to be correct, and what would the scope show?  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #51 on: 2024-05-10, 13:59:03 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-10, 09:55:11
I am pretty sure that any civil conversations would not be deleted.

So, looking at the diagram below that i just threw together, we can see what the result would be if the long rod/bar magnet was passed across the cores of each 3 coils in their relative position.
How exactly can this happen if the field is the same all around the magnet, and where the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
The arrow of the B field depicts that the B field is the same along the length of the magnet, and will cut through each of the 3 cores in the same direction, and yet the left and right coils have opposite sines, and the center coil produces no emf at all.

Now, replace this single field theory with the one i believe to be correct, and what would the scope show?  O0


Brad

Hi Brad,

Since you asked twice, I risk admin punishment, which contrary to your belief, has occurred.

Do not make the assumption that:
Quote
the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?

Obviously it is not or all 3 scopeshots would be the same.
The B vectors are significantly different for the 3 areas where each coil/core is located as evidenced by the curved field lines. Only in the middle is the B vector parallel to the magnetic axis. Towards either end, the B vector will have a angle and therefore B has a perpendicular component.

Attached is the mathematical expression for the induced voltage, Faraday's Law. Notice cosθ. This term takes voltage to zero when motion is parallel to B.

Simple as that.
bi
   
img  partzman
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #52 on: 2024-05-10, 14:40:46 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-09, 21:59:50
Hi Pm,

I've tried my best to explain it. Please reread. And look up some other Lorentz force tutorials. I'll say more and hope to help.

You say There is only one magnetic field in the space around the magnet due to the magnet. At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector. That B vector represents the magnitude (tesla or webers/meter2) and direction of the magnetic field at that point. If there is a moving charge at that point in the field (as in the current in the wire), a reaction occurs called Lorentz F which has a direction and magnitude (B×qv). The wire will move until it encounters an obstacle. In this case, the obstacle is the body of the magnet. The location where it comes to rest against the body of the magnet is call a stable detent. If the current carrying wire is in the bar magnet's magnetic field, it is attracted towards the magnet. That's why when you reverse the current, the wire doesn't repel away from the magnet, but moves to the magnet's opposite side to the new stable detent.

Stable detent implies that any deviation from that position will result is a force to return it to the stable detent. Whereas an unstable detent is an equilibrium point where any deviation in position results in a force separating it further. In this case, I think such unstable detent would be at a corner. Theoretically the current carrying wire could be placed there and stay there until the slightest deviation, which makes it practically impossible.

And, the stable detent, middle of the magnet side, is not a neutral point. It has a B vector, a current and a Lorentz F. That force holds the wire tight against the magnet surface. When you run the demonstration, try to pull the away from the magnet. You'll see it is stuck there requiring substantial pull to separate. Not what I would call a neutral zone.

I suggest you do the experiment yourself. I think you'd better understand what I'm talking about.
bi

Bi,

I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result.  For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM.  We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air?  To be conservative we would have to say yes.  If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.

BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine.  It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples.  These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web.  There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.

What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent.  It is the 'divergent' 'convergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM.  IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.

Edit: Just realized I had an error above with the fields!

Regards,
Pm

« Last Edit: 2024-05-10, 17:04:42 by partzman »
   
img  TinMan
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #53 on: 2024-05-10, 15:19:22 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=bistander link=topic=4661.msg112056#msg112056 date=1715345943
Hi Brad,



Quote
The B vectors are significantly different for the 3 areas where each coil/core is located as evidenced by the curved field lines.

But in reply 45, you said this-->(At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector.)
So are there significantly different B vectors through the field, or is there a single B vector at every physical point in the field?

The slightly curved field lines do not depict the actual field, nor would they play a roll in the field the cores of the coils would experience.
As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example. This would result in the same sine wave produced on each scope trace, which is not what we see. You can use magnetic viewing film to see the vectors change when a ferromagnetic rod is placed in the same position as the coil cores, and see that all 3 vectors end up the same-there is no curve in the field, but only a right angle turn right into the coil core.

Only when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.

Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.

Quote
Simple as that.

No, not so simple.
The magnetic field model that is presented is wrong, and was wrong from the start.
The fact that they( the science gurus) cannot explain, or have no idea what the magnetic field actually is, is because they are using the wrong field model.
My two field theory explains it very clearly. It explains exactly why like poles repel and unlike poles attract. It explains what the magnetic force is, which is a !yet to be named! field of energy that exists all around us, in every point of space, where a charge separation is taking place within that field of energy, around the body of the PM.
The two field theory works in every single model and device we use today, and it also explains what the magnetic force is--your model does not.
This field of energy could be this dark energy they talk of. It could be the either field they speak of, or it could be the vacuum energy field they speak of.

This of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #54 on: 2024-05-10, 16:22:08 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Quote from: partzman on 2024-05-10, 14:40:46
Bi,

I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result.  For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM.  We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air?  To be conservative we would have to say yes.  If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.

BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine.  It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples.  These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web.  There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.

What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent.  It is the 'divergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM.  IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.

Regards,
Pm

I think your pictures are a good example of how better measurement tools yield better results.

The iron filing field pattern bistander is showing is completely outdated and some scientists broke the cardinal rule of science. We cannot measure something using a tool which is biased by the thing were trying to measure. This is why more advanced non-ferromagnetic sensors show a different field pattern.

Another problem relates to the hypocrisy of some science. For example, they tell us a magnet is made of millions of smaller magnets relating to domains and electron spins. Fair enough, but then they completely ignore what they just claimed and use an amateur field model of the magnet field as a single unit. If the magnet is in fact millions of smaller magnets then it should be modeled as such. So in effect what were really being shown in textbooks is the lazy mans version of a magnetic field.

I found that my infinite element analysis tends to agree more with your pictures. Logically, because any side wall is a boundary condition made of countless smaller magnets in series the field should continually curl around into itself and the center. For example, stack many small magnets then measure the field. Each individual magnet field joins with the bulk of magnets internally but also curls externally into itself and the neighboring magnets. The field ends up looking something like the picture below.

We could also note that most FE devices like the Wesley Gary device generally always use compound magnets. Not one big magnet but many smaller magnets stacked on top of one another. Many inventors also claimed to heat parts on the magnets in effect demagnetizing a part of them. Many inventors also used non-magnetic spacers to separate some magnets. At which point we can start to understand how primitive the conventional view of the magnetic field is as one unit.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #55 on: 2024-05-10, 17:07:17 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Tinman
Quote
This of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.

Indeed, there are two kinds of people. Some who read something in a textbook and believe it hook, line and sinker. Then there are others like some here who feel compelled to actually test theories using real experiments.

Quote
Only when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.

Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.

Coincidentally, in the early 1900's when many FE devices and concepts were invented much of the present science didn't even exist. The majority of stuff which some feel is so important was non-existent yet the inventors still succeeded. In fact, many of these inventors were using language similar to yours.

The Wesley Gary patent in 1879 is a good example, http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #56 on: 2024-05-10, 17:13:08 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: partzman on 2024-05-10, 14:40:46
Bi,

I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result.  For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM.  We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air?  To be conservative we would have to say yes.  If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.

BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine.  It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples.  These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web.  There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.

What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent.  It is the 'divergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM.  IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Pm,

Quote
you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM. 

Why do so? I accept the body of work done over the several centuries by science including recently where they are able to actually image down to the molecule level. All this supports the domains. And besides, we cannot access the interior of the magnet without altering it.

Quote
We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air?

No. If we enclose the magnet in a gaussian surface theory tells us the net flux (not flux density) crossing that surface is zero. So the flux out of the magnet is equal to the flux into the magnet. Flux, not flux density.

If you choose to believe what crackpot Ken Wheeler teaches, I have no help for you, just sympathy. Please reconsider.
bi
« Last Edit: 2024-05-10, 18:51:53 by bistander »
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #57 on: 2024-05-10, 17:29:37 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-10, 15:19:22


But in reply 45, you said this-->(At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector.)
So are there significantly different B vectors through the field, or is there a single B vector at every physical point in the field?

The slightly curved field lines do not depict the actual field, nor would they play a roll in the field the cores of the coils would experience.
As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example. This would result in the same sine wave produced on each scope trace, which is not what we see. You can use magnetic viewing film to see the vectors change when a ferromagnetic rod is placed in the same position as the coil cores, and see that all 3 vectors end up the same-there is no curve in the field, but only a right angle turn right into the coil core.

Only when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.

Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.

No, not so simple.
The magnetic field model that is presented is wrong, and was wrong from the start.
The fact that they( the science gurus) cannot explain, or have no idea what the magnetic field actually is, is because they are using the wrong field model.
My two field theory explains it very clearly. It explains exactly why like poles repel and unlike poles attract. It explains what the magnetic force is, which is a !yet to be named! field of energy that exists all around us, in every point of space, where a charge separation is taking place within that field of energy, around the body of the PM.
The two field theory works in every single model and device we use today, and it also explains what the magnetic force is--your model does not.
This field of energy could be this dark energy they talk of. It could be the either field they speak of, or it could be the vacuum energy field they speak of.

This of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Yes, your opinion.
Note the image attached. Simulated vs actual measurements at various locations in the magnet's field of the B vectors. They are all different, in direction, obviously, and most likely in magnitude. I think that addresses your question.
bi
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #58 on: 2024-05-10, 19:15:21 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Regarding field of stacked magnets.

Below are two images, one from reply #54 and one from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Magnetic-force-vs-distance-between-magnets-and-plate_fig5_284285242

FYI.
bi
   
img  partzman
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #59 on: 2024-05-10, 20:38:01 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-10, 17:13:08
Hi Pm,

No. If we enclose the magnet in a gaussian surface theory tells us the net flux (not flux density) crossing that surface is zero. So the flux out of the magnet is equal to the flux into the magnet. Flux, not flux density.

Exactly!  So we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet?  If so, the flux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered IMO.  Based on the flux fields your graphics depict, the flux density inside the magnet must be greater than the flux density for the same given area outside the magnet because of the obvious gradients seen in the flux field on the outside!  This in itself must have an influence on the wire's position verses polarity.

Quote
If you choose to believe what crackpot Ken Wheeler teaches, I have no help for you, just sympathy. Please reconsider.
bi

I do not adhere to all that Ken proposes however, we must not through out the baby with the bathwater as they say!  The images shown in my post are not Ken's but are from other researchers.  So, I assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results?  I would like to hear what your explanation of what the views are showing if this is the case.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #60 on: 2024-05-10, 22:10:47 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: partzman on 2024-05-10, 20:38:01
Exactly!  So we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet?  If so, the flux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered IMO.  Based on the flux fields your graphics depict, the flux density inside the magnet must be greater than the flux density for the same given area outside the magnet because of the obvious gradients seen in the flux field on the outside!  This in itself must have an influence on the wire's position verses polarity.

I do not adhere to all that Ken proposes however, we must not through out the baby with the bathwater as they say!  The images shown in my post are not Ken's but are from other researchers.  So, I assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results?  I would like to hear what your explanation of what the views are showing if this is the case.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Pm,
Quote
So we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet?

I am unwilling to agree. I stick by my statement, not yours which compares flux, a 2 deminisional quantity, to volume, 3 deminisional.

Quote
flux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered

For the Lorentz force, I don't think so.
Notice, when I described the external field I qualified by saying the field was due to the magnet. In reality the current in the wire will make a magnetic field around the wire. This distorts the magnetic field of the magnet. In motors and generators, this effect is called armature distortion. Here it is likely small and reasonably neglected. I mention it because when the current carrying wire is pressed against the magnet surface, that field from the current will distort the field inside the magnet body. Here again, I suspect the magnitude of B in the magnet vs the wire's field makes the effect negligible.

Quote
I assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results?


I wouldn't say no value. But I certainly disagree with Wheeler's interpretations. I do not see magnetic flux or field patterns in the ferrocell images. I spent much time discussing the subject on another forum. I even constructed a primitive ferrocell. I'm not sure what, if any, value they process.

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13672-enlightened-magnetism-the-full-proof-of-ken-wheeler-s-theories/page75#post512504

Start with the last post #1116.
bi
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #61 on: 2024-05-11, 01:37:26 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
bistander
Quote
Notice, when I described the external field I qualified by saying the field was due to the magnet. In reality the current in the wire will make a magnetic field around the wire. This distorts the magnetic field of the magnet. In motors and generators, this effect is called armature distortion. Here it is likely small and reasonably neglected. I mention it because when the current carrying wire is pressed against the magnet surface, that field from the current will distort the field inside the magnet body. Here again, I suspect the magnitude of B in the magnet vs the wire's field makes the effect negligible.

Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.

So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.

The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.

I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.

Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  TinMan
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #62 on: 2024-05-11, 03:06:32 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-10, 17:29:37
Hi Brad,

Yes, your opinion.
Note the image attached. Simulated vs actual measurements at various locations in the magnet's field of the B vectors. They are all different, in direction, obviously, and most likely in magnitude. I think that addresses your question.
bi

I said (As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example.)

Reading what you said at EF, from the link you posted-Quote:
Quote
In my opinion, you are altering the magnetic flux pattern when you introduce the iron cylinder into the magnet circuit. This action changes the flux lines cutting the coil

So you would agree that in the diagram below, the depicted flux line vectors would change as the field got closer to the coil cores.
Thus, the B field vectors as depicted mean very little when in the presence of the coil cores, and would not represent the actual B field vectors.
You would also agree that the field that is cutting the loops of the coil, is that of the induced field into the core of the coils, and not that of the field around the magnet.
So, if the field that is being induced into the cores of all 3 coils is the same field, then how is it that we get totally opposite EMFs induced in each end coils, and nothing induced into the middle coil?

Looking at my second scribble below, would you not agree that the B field would look much the same for all 3 coils in the first pic?, where the slight curve in the B field vector along the length of the magnet becomes null and void when in the presence of the coil cores.

In that case, where all 3 cores are induced by the same field, then all 3 scope traces should show the same sine, but where the emf produced at the center coil maybe slightly lower in potential.
Knowing that it is the induced field into the core that is generating the emf across the coils, and not the field around the PM it self, and knowing that it is the same field induced into the coils cores, then we should see the same sine for each channel of the scope, but where as the emf value across the center coil may be a lower value, due to a less dense field at that point.
But we do not see that. We see an opposite sine for the two end coils, and no emf at all in the center coil. Even if we removed the two outer coils, so as the B field flux line vectors are not distorted by them, and the center coil core is induced with the total flux at the center of the magnets body, no emf is induced into the center coil when the magnet is passed over it.

Knowing all this can only mean 1 thing--the two field theory is correct.


Brad.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #63 on: 2024-05-11, 04:12:29 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-05-11, 01:37:26
bistander
Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.

So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.

The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.

I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.

Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/

AC

No AC, I can't explain that. Can you tell me where the neutral line is in the magnetic field from the current in the wire? See attached.
bi
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #64 on: 2024-05-11, 04:26:53 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-11, 03:06:32
I said (As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example.)

Reading what you said at EF, from the link you posted-Quote:
So you would agree that in the diagram below, the depicted flux line vectors would change as the field got closer to the coil cores.
Thus, the B field vectors as depicted mean very little when in the presence of the coil cores, and would not represent the actual B field vectors.
You would also agree that the field that is cutting the loops of the coil, is that of the induced field into the core of the coils, and not that of the field around the magnet.
So, if the field that is being induced into the cores of all 3 coils is the same field, then how is it that we get totally opposite EMFs induced in each end coils, and nothing induced into the middle coil?

Looking at my second scribble below, would you not agree that the B field would look much the same for all 3 coils in the first pic?, where the slight curve in the B field vector along the length of the magnet becomes null and void when in the presence of the coil cores.

In that case, where all 3 cores are induced by the same field, then all 3 scope traces should show the same sine, but where the emf produced at the center coil maybe slightly lower in potential.
Knowing that it is the induced field into the core that is generating the emf across the coils, and not the field around the PM it self, and knowing that it is the same field induced into the coils cores, then we should see the same sine for each channel of the scope, but where as the emf value across the center coil may be a lower value, due to a less dense field at that point.
But we do not see that. We see an opposite sine for the two end coils, and no emf at all in the center coil. Even if we removed the two outer coils, so as the B field flux line vectors are not distorted by them, and the center coil core is induced with the total flux at the center of the magnets body, no emf is induced into the center coil when the magnet is passed over it.

Knowing all this can only mean 1 thing--the two field theory is correct.


Brad.

Brad,
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
bi

ps. It'd be nice of you to give a link for context when quoting me. Thanks.
   
img  TinMan
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #65 on: 2024-05-11, 07:15:25 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-11, 04:26:53
Brad,
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
bi

ps. It'd be nice of you to give a link for context when quoting me. Thanks.

I was using your words from the link to the thread you posted.

page 1, reply 4
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13672-enlightened-magnetism-the-full-proof-of-ken-wheeler-s-theories#post512504


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
img  TinMan
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #66 on: 2024-05-11, 07:29:25 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024-05-11, 01:37:26
bistander
Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.

So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.

The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.

I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.

Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/

AC

I believe the below would be more accurate.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
img  verpies
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #67 on: 2024-05-11, 08:48:58 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
Quote from: TinMan on 2024-05-11, 07:29:25
I believe the below would be more accurate.
It is.

In this entire discussion I see imprecise definitions of the Neutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.

Since the force of magnetic attraction depends in the gradient of magnetic flux density (B) and not on the magnitude of B itself, it is possible to have a very strong B at the Neutral Zone and zero net force in one dimension.

It seems to me that TinMan knows all this.
   
img  verpies
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #68 on: 2024-05-11, 08:53:27 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-11, 04:26:53
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
I don't think there is an admin's rule against scientific discourse here,... only against non-scientific discourse.
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #69 on: 2024-05-11, 14:21:53 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: verpies on 2024-05-11, 08:53:27
I don't think there is an admin's rule against scientific discourse here,... only against non-scientific discourse.

Talk with Chet about his directive to me.
bi
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #70 on: 2024-05-11, 14:47:34 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: verpies on 2024-05-11, 08:48:58
It is.

In this entire discussion I see imprecise definitions of the Neutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.

Since the force of magnetic attraction depends in the gradient of magnetic flux density (B) and not on the magnitude of B itself, it is possible to have a very strong B at the Neutral Zone and zero net force in one dimension.

It seems to me that TinMan knows all this.

Hi verpies,

Quote
It is.

Can you tell me what the red and blue arrows represent?

Quote
Neutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.

Does this apply to a point in space?

I've been discussing a moving charge or current here, not a ferromagnetic test object. Does talk of a neutral zone make any sense?

Does a bar magnet alone in space have a neutral zone?

Thanks.
bi
   
img  partzman
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #71 on: 2024-05-11, 15:04:44 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Bi,

Here is quick setup and test of Brad's proposal of a bar magnet's induction into three coils that has been reduced to a single coil as he also proposed.  The sweep of the stacked bar magnet was done by hand across the polyurethane spacer/slider that was attached to a coil with a 1/4" square ferrite core to guarantee the distance from the PM to coil was constant.  Care was then taken to ensure as constant a sweep speed as possible and the current samples in the coil were stored.  IMO, the results show what we have both been saying in that there is a reduction in the magnetic field in the center of the bar magnet.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  picowatt
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #72 on: 2024-05-11, 15:24:54 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
I'll chime in...

Regarding Tinman's posted image "FIELD DISTORTION.JPG", if the image is drawn with the core moved one core width to the left and then one core width to the right, you will see that the field conditions (vectors and strength) in those two positions are very similar.  As it requires varying field conditions to induce current in the coil, very little coil output is observed as the coil is moved left and right between field conditions that remain, for the most part, unchanged.  This is particularly moreso in the area of maximum parallelism of the field vectors.  However, given enough gain on a scope, the left right motion will be detectable because the vectors are not perfectly parallel.

Regarding the idea of having two separate poles of opposite polarity at opposite ends of a magnet with some sort of null in the middle, this idea appears to be disproved when the field is probed with a Hall effect probe.  Place the tip of a Hall probe (gaussmeter) against the north face of a cylindrical magnet with the north face of the magnet pointing toward you and the probe's measurement axis also pointing toward you.  Put a red dot on the side of the probe facing you.  The probe is then used to follow the vectors and path of a given "line of force" as is typically depicted.  As the probe is lifted off the face of the magnet it must simultaneously be rotated in order to follow the vectors that draw out the hairpin curve of the field line as it makes its curve toward the opposite end of the magnet.  As the probe is moved away from you down the side of the magnet, the red dot is now facing away from you.  As we reach the opposite end of the magnet, we must again rotate the probe to follow the field line's vectors as they curl around and point towards the south pole.  The red dot on the probe tip is now against the south face of the magnet.

During the entire time the probe is used to follow this imaginary field line, the indicated polarity and field strength remain constant.  Although it is difficult to follow a single "line", particularly in the area near the magnetic poles where the vectors are changing significantly, once the probe is a few probe widths away from the magnetic pole ends, the field vectors/lines become more parallel to the magnetic axis and little change in field strength is observed as the probe is slid along side the magnet to the opposing pole.  There is no detected null in the middle of the magnet and the polarity of the field indicated by the probe remains constant throughout.

The hall effect probe measures the direction (CW or CCW) and to what degree an electron is deflected in a conductor.  What the above experiment tells us is that if we could see through the magnet, and could also see electrons, we would see that electrons are being deflected counterclockwise at the north pole of the magnet and that the electrons are also being deflected counterclockwise at the south pole, as we look through the magnet's north face to the opposing pole.  Of course, if we flip the magnet so that the south pole is facing us, it will appear that the electrons are being deflected clockwise at the south pole and as we look through the magnet we also see the electrons deflected clockwise at the north pole.  Imagine a solid bar rotating on its long axis, from the perspective of either end or the other, both ends are rotating the same direction, though from one end or the other, it would appear both are CW or CCW.

Regarding viewing film and ferrocells, we are dealing with optical phenomena.  Both of these are somewhat like iron filings on steroids in that due to the particle size involved, we have the additional handicap of optical effects due to the wavelengths of light coming into play.  I use the color changing film and it readily produces an image that would seem to support the "two opposite poles with some sort of null in the middle" idea.  However, when the hall effect probe, with its measurement axis parallel to the magnetic axis, is slid through the region that appears as some sort of field null, no such null is detected.  As above, the field remains relatively constant down the length of the magnet.  In fact, more often than not, the hall probe will indicate a peak in field strength in the region of the supposed null, as that is where the field lines achieve maximum parallelism and are more so in alignment with the measurement axis.

Just my 2 cents...
PW
   
img  bistander
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #73 on: 2024-05-11, 16:00:03 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Quote from: partzman on 2024-05-11, 15:04:44
Bi,

Here is quick setup and test of Brad's proposal of a bar magnet's induction into three coils that has been reduced to a single coil as he also proposed.  The sweep of the stacked bar magnet was done by hand across the polyurethane spacer/slider that was attached to a coil with a 1/4" square ferrite core to guarantee the distance from the PM to coil was constant.  Care was then taken to ensure as constant a sweep speed as possible and the current samples in the coil were stored.  IMO, the results show what we have both been saying in that there is a reduction in the magnetic field in the center of the bar magnet.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Pm,

Remember
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-09, 21:51:29
I am talking about this:
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=HRzgcA1K0LYBxUD9


These coils (with cores) are a different situation. You're looking at Faraday's Law instead of Lorentz.

But still, I contend at the middle of side of the magnet, the external field is strong and parallel to the magnetic axis. Motion of a conductor parallel to the B vector causes cosθ to equal zero so induced voltage is zero per Faraday's Law. Displacement from the midpoint, either way, introduces a perpendicular component to the B field and will increase cosθ so induced voltage appears in a conductor moving parallel to the axis.

You don't see generators using the sides of magnets.

In the experiment to which I've been using, the current carrying wire, once having moved and positioned midway along the side, comes to rest and continues to experience a strong force against the body of the magnet. This demonstrates a strong presence of magnetic field parallel to the axis.

bi
   
img  partzman
Re: On the notion of a magnetic motor « Reply #74 on: 2024-05-11, 16:35:09 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: bistander on 2024-05-11, 16:00:03
Hi Pm,

Remember 

These coils (with cores) are a different situation. You're looking at Faraday's Law instead of Lorentz.

But still, I contend at the middle of side of the magnet, the external field is strong and parallel to the magnetic axis. Motion of a conductor parallel to the B vector causes cosθ to equal zero so induced voltage is zero per Faraday's Law. Displacement from the midpoint, either way, introduces a perpendicular component to the B field and will increase cosθ so induced voltage appears in a conductor moving parallel to the axis.

You don't see generators using the sides of magnets.

Not at present however, tangential induction does use the sides of PMs to induce a coil.  The mmf is mostly uni-polar in this case and useful for potential OU which is what my research has focused on for quite some time.

Quote
In the experiment to which I've been using, the current carrying wire, once having moved and positioned midway along the side, comes to rest and continues to experience a strong force against the body of the magnet. This demonstrated a strong presence of magnetic field parallel to the axis.

bi

I understand and agree however, the position of the PM is this particular test was such that I tried to eliminate this rotated vector.  IOW, the end of each N and S pole did not protrude beyond the outside of the coil bobbin.  To be clear, the coil assembly was held inside each pole. Referencing your vector diagram in your post #57, the high aspect ratio PM (width verses thickness) indicates the parallel vectors to be rather uniformly straight.  In my test I purposely used a low aspect ratio PM assembly and with the positional limit mentioned above, we could assume the horizontal vectors should be only slightly rotated or not at all in the field of induction.

In ref to the wire position on the center of the PM and it's attraction force, it could also be caused by the action seen in my crude drawing below from the converging flux from each pole.

Regards,
Pm


Edit: Added italicized.
 
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 07:39:28