Permanent Magnets

[Dean2]

Question(s) et al...

The following are some typical statements accepted as fact within science or engineering in reference to permanent magnets. What are the forum’s thoughts on any of these “rules”?

“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.”

”The Permanent Magnet overall net force sums to a Vector Zero. Hence, no work can be performed.”

“The EMF induced in an electric circuit always acts in such a direction that the current it drives around a closed circuit produces a magnetic field, which opposes the change in magnetic flux. There will always exist an excessive “drag” or “lock” on a rotor or a back-EMF in all permanent magnet attraction designs of force.”

“Permanent magnets cannot perform work, that would violate the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics. It's not a matter of looking for one special arrangement that works among millions that don't. There are exactly zero arrangements that work.”

“You cannot break the symmetry in your circuit or system, and thus violate the present Electrical Engineering Model, you will not and cannot produce COP>1.0 via excess free EM energy extracted from the vacuum.”
Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

Additional forward torque - breaking symmetry?

Is it accepted that a magnetic field is the relativistic part of an electric field? The force due to the magnetic field is different in different frames—moving magnetic field transforms partially or fully back into electric fields under Lorentz transformations.

If the magnet is electrically conductive and happens to perform double-duty as both the source of the magnetic field and as part of the electrical circuit, won’t it experience a torque due to its current-carrying function?

A rotating conductive magnet is detectable by the electric field produced when its free charges separate radially, due to the force produced by rotation of the conductor within its own magnetic field.
Video & theory: Green Energy 211

[gravityblock]

Hi Barry,

I think Alnico magnets could fairly be used instead of Neos for the rotor magnets, they are also metallic and not much stronger than ceramic magnets (when ceramic magnets would be used for the stators), hence Alnico seems a good candidate.

Of course I suggest this for those wishing to experiment with this setup but would not wish to spend too much money on this initially. And later when a "proof of concept" has evolved in front of them, the much stronger Neos could come.

Now is the time to buy the neos, not later. China clamps down on rare earth exports. If China continues on their current policy, then most won't be able to afford the neos in the near future.

GB

[broli]

Now is the time to buy the neos, not later. China clamps down on rare earth exports. If China continues on their current policy, then most won't be able to afford the neos in the near future.

GB

But we can always count on our overlord dr joe champion to transmute copper into neodymium for us DRC Home.

[Dean2]

gold or neo

Perhaps I’m naïve, when it comes to alchemy, and remain a bit skeptical. On the other hand, if this is possible, it will simply make the value of gold equal to or less than copper. Other than conducting qualities, and obvious uses, the intrinsic value is due to rarity and whims. I’ll put my money on the magnets and Neo.

[Dean2]

Energy?

It has been identified as a photon, electromagnetic radiation, cosmic rays, radio waves, infrared radiation, microwaves, ultra-violet radiation, and light. They all refer to the same thing. The genuine difference is related only to the frequency of the radiation. All of these forms, and more, refer to the very same parcel of energy.

There exists only one single fundamental phenomenon. A magnetic field produced by an accelerated charge, processing all the characteristics of energy; polarization, amplitude, frequency; all represent electromagnetic radiation.

It makes no sense for us to assume that the nature of light changes due to a change in the method used to identify its existence. Any thoughts? Video & Theory at:
Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

A Fundamental Explanation

Those that have never worked with permanent magnets may think it simple to harness this power. Those of you that have worked with PMs, may have come to think that it is impossible to harness this power. I have lived in both camps.

Early thoughts were, after 1200 years of fool’s attempts, why would one bother (says right here, it can’t be done). So as I read the countless, “laws” and “theories” of why something is “impossible”, I wonder if we have not overlooked the obvious. Yes, it kept nagging at me, that we’re sitting on a giant rock that is “levitated”, “spinning”, moving, and all with no apparent outside power…that does seem impossible, when you try to get your brain around it. Yet, here we are.

If you take a quick look at the image, I’ve detailed some key points for you. Think of the track as very basic magnetic “gates”. Those of you that have worked with PMs and understand this term, also know the severe issues associated with gates. The problem being after getting through one, NOT getting “stuck” at he very next one. With motors we simply turn off gates or reverse polarities allowing passage with “electro magnets” (that conveniently have an on-off switch).

Forget all the complex theory for a moment. The rotor is simply pulled (attracted) from gate-to-gate. Under conventional rules, this is not going to happen. As you see in the video, the rotor is stuck dead when static. It’s what happens between these points when the rotor “moves” that changes all of that.

When the rotor (axle) arrives at a gate, it brings with it an electromagnetic force that “turns off” the attraction. It also brings with it, a forward torque (and just enough momentum) to get it into the next zone. That next very strong attraction than takes over again, and it’s pulled through the next field. Of course when it arrives at the next gate, it has gone through that transformation again, and is passed on like the baton in a relay race. Take a look at the image again, see what I mean?

Detailed theory exists through out the thread, the 3 Articles, and video.
PMbasic.jpgGreen Energy 211

[Dean2]

it's the application, of the known...

Performing “work” with magnets or having a COP>1 does not imply an assumption, that it’s against the Law of Conservation of Energy. Simply the currently incorrect hypothesis of an empty space has been violated. If we accept the fact of the existence of an active space, which has been proven, then we need only to convert the environmental energy into useful forms. In eliminating the subjective Lorentz condition imposed on Maxwell’s equations, provides systems having additional energy currents from the electromagnetic waves, existing throughout the universe.

In Einstein’s Special Relativity, the magnetic potential joins with the electric potential into the electromagnetic potential, or visa versa. Either way, the final result must have four dimensions - three spatial dimensions, plus time. The standard which electromagnetic motors operate is there’s a mechanical force on any current-carrying wire contained within a magnetic field. The rotor rotates because the wires and magnetic field are arranged so that a torque is developed about the rotor's axis.

The Lorentz force is the force exerted on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field. The particle will experience a force due to electric field and due to the magnetic field. Thus a positively charged particle will be accelerated in the same linear orientation as the electric field, but will curve perpendicularly to the magnetic field. In this case the force can also act on a current carrying conductor, by the interaction of the conduction electrons with the atoms of the conductor material.
Additional theory and video at: Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

MonoPoles, Flux control... many possibilities!

A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle that may be generally described as "a magnet with only one pole”. In more correct terms, it would have net magnetic charge. Interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably Grand Unified Theories that predict either the existence, or the possibility of magnetic monopoles.

Since all known forms of magnetic phenomena involve the motion of electrically charged particles, and since no theory suggests that "pole" is, in that context, a thing rather than a convenient fiction, it may well be that nothing that could be called a magnetic monopole exists or ever did or could.

Magnetic fields cannot be blocked. That is, there is no such thing as a magnetic insulator. A solid wall of lead would no more stop a magnetic flux field than a wall of air. A major reason for this has to do with one of Maxwell's Equations.

Which implies that there are no magnetic monopoles. That is, where as you can separate electric monopoles (positive and negative charges) such that an E-field never has to terminate on the opposite charge, you can’t do this with magnetic poles. There does not exist any magnetic monopoles. There is no such thing as "magnetic charge." All magnetic field lines must terminate on the opposite pole. Because of this, there is no way to stop them.
flux normal2.JPG

flux controlled2.JPG
YOU can make it ACT like a MonoPole! … and more. Here is an example of “controlling” flux - with the use of high permeability material and diamagnetic elements as well. The one image shows normal flux patterns of a group of permanent magnets. The second one shows what happens when the right elements are added. Almost total control over flux patterns. Including a near “monopole” performance. Comments?

[Dean2]

The Elements

No, not MuMetal. The purest Fe you can get your hands on. Lab-pure 99.9999% Fe. The permeability is off the charts. It won’t “block” flux, but it will suck it wherever you want it. The other is the diamagnetic (the other end of the scale) Bismuth in this case (or the manmade graphite).

I have several of these modified PMs lying around I made some time ago, different variations. This quick (poor) video shows two pure-Fe encased PMs with Bismuth inserts as well. Two “monopoles” both North poles are exposed and of course repel one another. The other ends do not repel or attract each other. The different sizes is not important, just the first two I found. I‘ll look for others to show if you have an interest.

The point is, you can do a lot to control where you put the flux, what polarity, and how strong it is as well. Just another tool. No “real” monopoles, but it would seem we can fool Mother Nature, just the same. (having some difficulty uploading the vid, may have to put it somewhere else).

[Dean2]

MonoPole Effect Video

YouTube - Single Pole Magnet Effect

Here's the video I previously commented on. Demonstrating flux control, or monoPole effect.

[Joit]

You can upload it here, if it dont works on your other Account.
Home - EnergeticTube.com*-* Where technology goes LIVE!
uncensored Space for your Videos.

[Dean2]

Thanks Joit

I just stuck it on YouTube. I'm a little slow on all this hightech stuff.

[gyula]

...
The point is, you can do a lot to control where you put the flux, what polarity, and how strong it is as well. Just another tool. No “real” monopoles, but it would seem we can fool Mother Nature, just the same.
...

Hi Barry,

A little side question if you do not mind: have you considered wrapping up half of the area of a magnet pole only? I mean say I have cylinder magnets with poles lengthwise and I cover up not the total area but only the half of say the North pole area at the ends on two cylinder magnets. This way when I move such half covered endings like on a rotor and stator setup with the covered areas approaching to each other, then there would be but a minimal resistance against rotation and when they are just facing (or slightly further) they will repel each other. I think there will be a sticky point in the fully facing (or slightly further) position but rotor body mass and inertia could toss it over the sticky point provided I position the half covered magnets close enough to each other so that the repel force remaining could still push the rotor over those sticky points.

So I wonder what is your opinion on such half covered poles?

(To understand half covered poles better, just imagine I fully wrap up a cylinder magnet like you show in the video, then I remove it and cut it lengthwise into half to get two half-cylinders. Then I put one half of it onto one cylinder magnet, say, from one end to the other, and I put the other half of it onto a 2nd cylinder magnet.)

Thanks, Gyula

[Dean2]

flux control

Gyula, Yes. Cover part, cover all, thicker, thinner. There are so many ways to control the path or the strength of flux. The density of the material (pure Fe) can also be varied, allowing select areas to have more or less magnetic activity. I have found spending time with a simulation program and how flux patterns react to permeability is a good starting point. Then begin to physically test the ideas.

Using the two elements pure Fe and Bismuth offer great control. I have some magnets I've made that have two North poles, and no South, for example. Machining the "shape" (before magnetizing) of the PM is effective too, along with assemblies to strengthen, or weaken flux patterns. I've considered "doping" but have not done that yet.