Permanent Magnets

[Dean2]

causing imbalance...

In the tracks shown in the video, a magnetic rotor moves through multiple magnetic fields. Specific multiple induced currents can prevent magnetic lockup and eliminate the magnetic back-drag when correctly applied. When this occurs there are virtually equal and opposite forces, multiple electric fields that coexist in space.

Conventional thinking says they combine to eliminate each other. The presence of the magnetic field suggests that the fact the electric fields of individual charges in fact coexist. When the charge moves, the electric field moves with it. When an electric current flows in a conductor, there is an imbalance in the random thermal velocities of the conduction band electrons.

This is felt in the region beyond the conductor in the relative movement of the coexisting electric fields of the conduction band electrons and of the other charges of the crystal lattice of the conductor. It is this relative movement of the electric fields, which generates the magnetic field.

The static electromagnetic field even of permanent magnets is thermodynamically a non-equilibrium steady-state system. The two dipoles, one electric and one magnetic, tell us clearly that something previously virtual has become observable, because of the proven broken symmetry of the opposite charges.

[Dean2]

fields within...

The relative motion is quite a significant factor. A time varying magnetic field creates an electric field, and the induced current within the electric field creates a magnetic field. This electromagnetic field interacts with the permanent just as another PM would. The moving magnet assemblies create a virtual electromagnet, when it moves within the correct proximity of a conductor.

[Dean2]

On the ElectroDynamics of Moving Bodies

(When reading this statement by A. Einstein, keep in mind in our case, we have magnets in a conductor, moving through changing magnetic fields, on a conductor) …“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics, as usually understood at the present time, when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.

The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion.

For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.

In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

[Dean2]

Electric & Magnetic

The magnetic field and electric field are inseparable. I would go so far as to say they are virtually the same entity, yet they do coexist. It's another dichotomy that stretches the limitations of the human mind (at least my limitations). Duality of energetic matter allows formations to simultaneously occupy two different realms.

Two mutually exclusive characteristics. Using Special Relativity, the electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same thing. A changing magnetic field is mathematically the same as a moving magnetic field. So part of it is manifested as an electric field component. It's apparent this multiple existence is not limited to two only fields of energy, but many fields simultaneously.

[Dave45]

Very interesting experiments.
The magnetic field seeks order and if left alone it will find that order, but if we oscillate that field we can collect it or use it to do work.
There are three fields north field, south field and the electric field. I think some over complicate things, you just have to look at the way their moving and interaction with each other and their surroundings.

[Dean2]

another torque assisting

Consider a linear rotor that is a conductor and produces permanent magnetic fields. Its initial rotation is induced by the attraction of multiple opposite polarity fields. It’s a basic concept; as moving to the right at an adequate speed begins the electron current will begin to flow clockwise. In the rest frame there is no net charge density at any point.

As movement commences and the rotor rotates (and moves forward), the electrons will move faster to the right at the top, while the positive charge will be moving faster to the right at the bottom. In our frame the length of the electron group on top and of the positive group on the bottom will be “relativistically” shortened. This will lead to a negative charge density on the top and a equal positive charge on the bottom. Current will now flow through the rotor while establishing a new traveling electromagnetic field that will coexist with the permenant magnetic field also now moving.
RestFrame.jpg

[Dean2]

Hi Dave45

Good insight - very well said. It takes some of us longer to “look” at what cannot be “seen”. A large imagination is useful.

[Dean2]

to elaborate on magnets and energy...

It only requires a short burst of external electromagnetic energy to line up the spin or electron pattern of the unpaired electrons in the ferromagnetic material. A permanent magnet is not “charged”, and energy isn’t added to the Ferro elements. The process simply makes the electrons spin in the same direction by passing another magnetic field through it to create the new field.

To assume otherwise would in itself violate many basic principals of physics. It would imply we are “creating” energy, and capable of extracting more out than we have “put” in. Does one create the wind simply by making the angle of the propeller blades more efficient?

The magnetic force of unpaired electrons in magnets can be used to interact with forces of other magnets to produce motive force. Motive forces that can perform useful work. It’s just the harnessing of the spin of unpaired electrons. In physics, spin is an intrinsic angular momentum associated with microscopic particles. It’s a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon with no real analogy in classical mechanics.

[Dean2]

Track Layout

A simple static look at the PM and Flux layout of a small section of a trackStaticView.jpg

[Dean2]

Breaking Symmetry

“Present science says it’s not possible, the acceleration of an object via Permanent Magnets without lock-up, demonstrating the net gain of energy with no apparent input of energy.”YouTube - Is Magnet Transportation Possible?

[broli]

In that design where the roller goes over and below the track, is there a reason why it comes to a full stop at the middle of the bottom of the track?

[Dean2]

Rotor, abrubt stop.

Hi Broli, Yes, it’s simply because it runs into the base holding up the track. If I may quote an earlier post of mine. In regard to the closed loop aspect. “I don’t know if you noticed when viewing the video. The shorter aluminum track, the rotor is stopped and locked at the end of the rail. However, the copper track and the 3-meter tracks it is not. An aspect I was always trying to improve on was speed and torque. Improvements came from many places, including reaching much higher magnetic levels by concentrating flux fields.

During one breakthrough with speed (you have to understand that early attempts induced a very slow moving rotor) the rotor went right off the end of the track and dented a hollow core door. I then came up with a way to stop and lock the rotor at the end with opposing magnetic fields. Further speed improvements caused this solution to be insufficient.

One day (quite unexpectedly) the rotor just went right pass the stop and around to the underside of the track several centimeters. With this bizarre discovery (at least to me), I realized the track underside was a complete mirror of the topside and the rotor performed the same. With that knowledge I modified the end of the rail, rounding the metal corners, and removing all magnetic stops. Further modification so the framework suspending the track was removed to a degree as well.

If you notice in the video, the rotor continues on these two modified tracks off the end, and around the underside and back as far as it is allowed. I found this realization simply amazing at the time! I did eventually change the base of one three-meter track, allowing the rotor to make a 3-meter journey down and 3 meters back. At the time, I did not know how to modify the linear track allowing the rotor to travel “up” at a 90 degree to overcome the gravity, and complete the loop the last few cm. I did experiments with the track at about 30 degrees upward angles as well, demonstrating the ability for the rotor to over come a degree of gravity.

Understanding what is occurring, I see no reason why the loop could not be completed. That said, a linear motor certainly has it’s own possibilities. As you saw in the video, there is no problem of multiple rotors working side by side. When I demonstrate about 6 of them moving in tandem. Perhaps, because one is simply looking at a “video” the effect is lost. Most of us know that moving a handful of attracting and opposing magnets over a bed of the same are not going to perform as these do. My point is, I see the wheeled rotor as an “axel”, and simply adding a second one with a “train” car to it, does not seem to far fetched to me at all.” Your thoughts?

[Dean2]

self-sustaining

The structures of electron, proton and atoms are a perpetually rotating system at the very basic level of the universe. The universal vacuum is the most fundamental dynamic entity. Therefore, achieving self-sustaining motive force through magnetic methods seems totally possible, since the ratio of energy-output versus energy- input has already exceeded unity. A principle that could be tapped if better understood. IMO YouTube - Is Magnet Transportation Possible?

[broli]

Your thoughts?

The circular version would be useful on so many levels besides proving overunity without a doubt. It would be a practical model to harness usable energy. I think you'll become very popular once you show one, so be prepared from good and bad.

[Dean2]

Thoughts on energy and magnetics...

Accepting the premise that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It certainly can be reused over and over again. Energy is often not thought of in this fashion, it's never consumed or "used up". When you use energy to perform work, you either diverge or spread it out, change its form, or a combination of both.

You still have all the energy remaining, after the work has been accomplished. So by simply capturing and recycling that energy, you can re-use it again, it does re-converge. The Law of Entropy and classical Thermodynamics without reservation assume single-pass energy collection. This activity then would not violate the law; it would just violate an assumption. It would not apply to the collecting and reusing process.

A magnetic system can quite naturally collect energy from the same space simultaneously and over and over again. The emitted energy from the multi-collection process can be of a higher density than the operator is inputting. A coefficient-of-performance then would obviously be greater than one (COP>1) as measured by conventional means. The COP method of energy measurement is often confused with efficiency, which is inappropriate, and fails to correctly identify the performance.

We continue to use terms like "apparent" input of energy, which now should be reconsidered. Does a wind turbine or solar panel have no apparent input of energy?
Green Energy 211 (Reference for magnetic track theory & video)