"How much energy is there in a permanent magnet"?

[BroMikey]

Hi everyone!

I am currently testing this setup, schematic included.


kEhYo

btw Art has updated his site lately with a solid state device

Hello kEhYo
Does your battery stay up longer than if you ran a straight hall?

[kEhYo77]

Hello kEhYo
Does your battery stay up longer than if you ran a straight hall?

Hard to tell, I have't done much testing on that. The goal is to have it spinning with minimal input at as high rpm as possible.

[Allen Burgess]

Art Porter's SS GAP

Here's a picture of Art Porter's solid state GAP:

[bistander]

Answer to Allen

@bistander,

See if you can find a problem with this math:

A Tesla is 10,000 Gauss. It would take 3600 Joules per second to generate a Tesla of magnetic force in an inductor with 1 Henry of inductance for 1 second; Therefore, An inductor with a Milli Henry of inductance would generate 10 Gauss with 3.6 Joules per second of input; for a second.

A refrigerator magnet has around 100 Gauss of pull force.

See if you can find a problem with this math:

Hello Allen,

The primary problem I find with your math is that it does not look like math. I really do not think what you wrote qualifies as math in normal sense. There is no specified equality ( = ). No specified operators ( +, -, ^, *, or / ).

Let's look at a previous example and how I interpreted it:

@ramset,

I have two projects on my test bench right now; Let me start with the math:

Xee2 has a series bifilar and a single wire coil of equal turns on two identical high perm cores.

The single wire coil measures 15.9 Milli-Henrys and the bifilar 16.8 Milli-Henrys of inductance.

We know that it takes 3600 Joules per second to generate 1 Tesla of magnetic force in a coil of 1 Henry of inductance, and that 1 Tesla is equal to 10,000 Gauss; Therefore:

16.8 mH divided by 10,000 equals 168 Gauss for the bifilar and 159 Gauss for the single wire at the following power input:

10,000 divided by 3600 equals 2.777. Multiplied by 168 Gauss equals 466.6 Joules per second or 466.6 Watts.

Multiplying the single wire Gauss by the same factor equals 441.5 watts.

Deducting the the 441.5 from the 466.6 gives us 25.1 watts.

So, the gain factor for the bifilar over the single wire coil with the high perm ferrite core is 25.1 watts. That's the power we would save to generate a magnetic field of identical force with the series bifilar wrap over the single wire coil of equal windings.

First, here is the source for the 2 Xee2 coils Allen mentions. I did google search briefly but could not find the true source. http://www.energeticforum.com/301121-post178.html

So we don't know a lot about the coils like size, resistance, etc.

Next let's look at Allen's first calculation:

16.8 mH divided by 10,000 equals 168 Gauss for the bifilar and 159 Gauss for the single wire at the following power input:

16.8 mH / 10000 = 0.00168 mH = 1.68 uH. But Allen's answer to this mathematical operation is 168 gauss. So I guess Allen meant multiply instead of divide. 16.8 mH * 10000 = 168 gauss.

This does coincide with what Allen claims "we" all know (I don't know who else he thinks knows this falsehood, but we'll carry on with it), that a henry = tesla. So if we convert 16.8 mH to H, we have 0.0168H. Which according to Allen is equal to 0.0168T. A unit tesla is equal to 10000 gauss units. So 0.0168T = 168G.

Proceeding to Allen's next calculation:

10,000 divided by 3600 equals 2.777. Multiplied by 168 Gauss equals 466.6 Joules per second or 466.6 Watts.

This calculation comes from his claim that:

It takes 3600 Joules per second to generate 1 Tesla or 10,000 Gauss in a coil of 1 Henry.

And looking at the line:

Multiplying the single wire Gauss by the same factor equals 441.5 watts.

you can see it is a simple factor of 2.777 watts per gauss, or 2.777W/G, or 3600 J/(T*s).

What does this imply? That coil lying on the bench has an inductance of 16.8mH. Then it has a magnetic flux density of 16.8mT (or 168G) always. No matter what. And it always has 441.5W. It always uses and or converts 441.5 watts of power no matter what.

That is an incredible claim.

Would you please attempt to address those points. And put your math into recognizable format of equations including units and operators so it looks like a normal mathematical formula.

And then:

Why do you think electric charge is equivalent to magnetic flux density?

Your reply:

You have ridiculously argued with me about the electrical power equivalency of flux density along with Citfta the entire time, falsely claiming that the Tesla, Henry and Watt hour are incongruous values such as apples and eggs?

So you claim electrical power = magnetic flux density, right?

And also claim that magnetic flux density (in units of tesla), inductance, and energy (in units of watt hours) are congruous (meaning of congruous is "to be in agreement or harmony". Please use more typical (exact) mathematical language like = or proportional (showing the proportionality as factors or constants)).

While I'm at it, please explain or show why you think this or where you got this information.

@bistander,

That's electrons.

I explained the Coulomb to Gauss is equivalent to Energy times the speed of light squared.

A refrigerator magnet has around 100 Gauss of pull force.

Using your math, this refrigerator magnet consumes or converts or somehow uses 36 watts.

Thanks in advance,

bi

[Allen Burgess]

Equivilencies.

@bistander,

Here's where I get my information:

Click on the attached thumbnail:

where:

Wb = weber,
T = tesla,
J = joule,
m = meter,
s = second,
A = ampere,
V = volt,
C = coulomb,
F = farad,
Hz = hertz,
Ω = ohm

[Allen Burgess]

Magnet consumption of electricity.

@bistander,

I find this comment of yours below, attributing an utterly ridiculous assertion to me, as deeply insulting. I'm angry at your continuing impudence and scoffing attitude. I'm considering asking BroMikey to delete your stupid wise cracks from this thread entirely.

"Using your math, this refrigerator magnet consumes or converts or somehow uses 36 watts".

[bistander]

more Allen math

@bistander,

Here's where I get my information:

Click on the attached thumbnail:

where:

Wb = weber,
T = tesla,
J = joule,
m = meter,
s = second,
A = ampere,
V = volt,
C = coulomb,
F = farad,
Hz = hertz,
Ω = ohm

Yes Allen, that is correct. It is the same as you'll find of the chart which posted.

So you claim electrical power = magnetic flux density, right?

Electric power carries units of watts. Magnetic flux density carries units of tesla. Show me where the above inserts state W = T or watts = teslas. There is no such equality as you continue to assert.

@bistander,

I find this comment of yours below, attributing an utterly ridiculous assertion to me, as deeply insulting. I'm angry at your continuing impudence and scoffing attitude. I'm considering asking BroMikey to delete your stupid wise cracks from this thread entirely.

"Using your math, this refrigerator magnet consumes or converts or somehow uses 36 watts".

You made the claim right here:

You have ridiculously argued with me about the electrical power equivalency of flux density ..;

"Electrical power = magnetic flux density"

You quantify it here:

It would take 3600 Joules per second to generate a Tesla ...

Also this:

... The magnets consume heat and generate electric power when they re gauge. ...

According to the way you construct your theory, there is no difference between the magnetic flux between an permanent magnet and an electromagnet, since you claim magnetic flux is power.

You used to claim ampere per second = gauss.

That's right! Bistander can't understand that. That power would consolidate into high volt high amp pulse that would sustain the Tesla field for perhaps a second and need to be repeated serially to maintain it. A second look at the equations will reveal a proportion of WH/Sec.

Ampere's force law is Ampere per second to gauss

Show me where Ampere's law states this.

bi

[BroMikey]

Under The Radar

I watched BI (FLIP FLOP) go back and forth like this for a year
on other threads repeating the same talking points.

The talking points are as follows:

#1 You can not do 5 th grade math

In this talking point Bi and or others come right on and say those
words but as time goes on because of obvious repeats the admin
will look at that as unfavorable so BI having already established
his main frame of attacks will say the same thing another way.

Day after day.

So the talking point has evolved from one liners such as

#2 you are stupid to YOU DON"T USE OPERATORS.

Everyone knows an OPERATOR is part of all math so BI claims your
abilities are below normal, a more intellectual way of reinforcing his
message.

BI is very sneaky. BI thinks he is not being detected and his way of
repeating the same narrative will slip through the radar as the ADMIN
does not have all day to sift through the hours of planned distraction.

So when the Admin is notified BI appears to be under the radar.

This is called STEALTH MODE coming back around reinforcing already
planted ideas meant to damage the opponent.

I call it evasive and sneaky.

BI will never stop unless his plan is addressed and opposed. BI is easy
to pick out now as he has done this for over a year on others threads.

BI poses himself as in innocent bistander who is a beginner trying to
understand when in fact other motives are in play. The inability to come
up with one project or one experiment in many years shows BI is here
to do other things other than contribute to the work.









-----------------------------------------------------

[Allen Burgess]

Plug in magnet

I watched BI (FLIP FLOP) go back and forth like this for a year
on other threads repeating the same talking points.

The talking points are as follows:

#1 You can not do 5 th grade math

In this talking point Bi and or others come right on and say those
words but as time goes on because of obvious repeats the admin
will look at that as unfavorable so BI having already established
his main frame of attacks will say the same thing another way.

Day after day.

So the talking point has evolved from one liners such as

#2 you are stupid to YOU DON"T USE OPERATORS.

Everyone knows an OPERATOR is part of all math so BI claims your
abilities are below normal, a more intellectual way of reinforcing his
message.

BI is very sneaky. BI thinks he is not being detected and his way of
repeating the same narrative will slip through the radar as the ADMIN
does not have all day to sift through the hours of planned distraction.

So when the Admin is notified BI appears to be under the radar.

This is called STEALTH MODE coming back around reinforcing already
planted ideas meant to damage the opponent.

I call it evasive and sneaky.

BI will never stop unless his plan is addressed and opposed. BI is easy
to pick out now as he has done this for over a year on others threads.

BI poses himself as in innocent bistander who is a beginner trying to
understand when in fact other motives are in play. The inability to come
up with one project or one experiment in many years shows BI is here
to do other things other than contribute to the work.









-----------------------------------------------------

@BroMikey,

Where does the magnet pulg in? Can we bake it in the microwave?

[bistander]

Allen's answer

Where does the magnet pulg in? Can we bake it in the microwave?

You tell me. You're the one making these ridiculous statements. You can't back it up with evidence, reference or logic. All I do is point out how wrong those statements are.

And you been warned about insults so resort to bad humour.

You just had to do this on BM's thread. Why didn't you use your own reverse current thread? Basically same theme: Your refusal to accept fact and truth in science.

[BroMikey]

@BroMikey,

Where does the magnet pulg in? Can we bake it in the microwave?

Yes that is the nuttiest response imaginable. On the fray, pure trouble.


On another note this video shows and amp draw of 370 ma

Is there a way to determine if his GAP neutralization is beneficial?

In other words how might a builder use gap principles but still end
up with the same amp draw as other motors and never recover any
energy to show for?

He claims he has it working but sees no OU

So what can he do to better tune his project?

Also what was ART talking about when he pointed out that his
switching on the wheel kicked out at 155 degrees?

So is timing the issue on so many replications that seem to offer no
extra?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxrJoGZy1to

-----------------------------------------------------

[BroMikey]

You tell me. You're the one making these ridiculous statements. You can't back it up with evidence, reference or logic. All I do is point out how wrong those statements are.

And you been warned about insults so resort to bad humour.

You just had to do this on BM's thread. Why didn't you use your own reverse current thread? Basically same theme: Your refusal to accept fact and truth in science.

Get off my thread.

[BroMikey]

Here's a picture of Art Porter's solid state GAP:

Here is ART all 12 video's and measurements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-npePaqwHI



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji7SybrjoSA&list=PLXbSi5Hxg7TeEgGT7dmWEZfv 7WBkcjOC-