Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Secret to MEG's "free energy" recently discovered

Expand Messages
  • richar18
    Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a part of his work. It
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
      also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
      part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
      energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron evenly
      permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
      energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy generated
      as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
      like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
      law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
      allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
      quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.

      --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
      <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
      >
      > @All
      > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
      > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will not
      > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
      and
      > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
      > presently a quick job -->
      >
      > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
      >
      > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas versions
      use
      > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing MCE
      > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories. Rather,
      > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
      > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
      > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what is
      > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
      >
      > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy exchanges.
      For
      > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that nanocrystalline
      > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE as
      Gd
      > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline material
      > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to generate
      > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
      > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power required to
      > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such material
      is
      > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
      fraction
      > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
      > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
      >
      > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
      magnetic
      > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue is
      > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in the
      > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
      > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
      energy
      > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
      > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
      extremely
      > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to overcome
      > this, as detailed in my wiki.
      >
      > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
      late
      > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I stood
      > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
      >
      > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
      Naudin
      > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing the
      > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
      > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I went to
      > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
      > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
      either
      > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
      > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
      many
      > other people at other sites have published false science regarding
      > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
      > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
      > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
      > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words, if
      > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal on
      > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400 MHz
      > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz signal
      > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
      > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts of
      > energy.
      >
      > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
      > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
      >
      > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
      published "smoking
      > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
      released
      > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links at
      the
      > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
      > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
      pleased
      > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
      > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a great
      day!
      >
      > Kind regards,
      > Paul Lowrance
      >
    • richar18
      You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on to find out why.
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly
        calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on
        to find out why.

        According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect is
        due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in the
        presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
        (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field is
        removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
        understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
        system from an energetic point of view.

        Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
        and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
        assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
        threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
        reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE OF
        FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees of
        freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without increasing
        its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the mat'l).
        This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -
        That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than the
        energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
        not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the change
        in entropy.

        I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
        specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute temp)

        Anyone?

        --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
        > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
        > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
        > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
        evenly
        > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
        > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
        generated
        > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
        > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
        > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
        > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
        > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
        >
        > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
        > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
        > >
        > > @All
        > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
        > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will not
        > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
        > and
        > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
        > > presently a quick job -->
        > >
        > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
        > >
        > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
        versions
        > use
        > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing
        MCE
        > > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories.
        Rather,
        > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
        > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
        > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what
        is
        > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
        > >
        > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
        exchanges.
        > For
        > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
        nanocrystalline
        > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE
        as
        > Gd
        > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
        material
        > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
        generate
        > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
        > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power required
        to
        > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
        material
        > is
        > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
        > fraction
        > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
        > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
        > >
        > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
        > magnetic
        > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue
        is
        > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in
        the
        > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
        > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
        > energy
        > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
        > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
        > extremely
        > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
        overcome
        > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
        > >
        > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
        > late
        > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
        stood
        > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
        > >
        > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
        > Naudin
        > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing
        the
        > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
        > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I went
        to
        > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
        > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
        > either
        > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
        > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
        > many
        > > other people at other sites have published false science regarding
        > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
        > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
        > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
        > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words,
        if
        > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal
        on
        > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400
        MHz
        > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
        signal
        > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
        > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts
        of
        > > energy.
        > >
        > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
        > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
        > >
        > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
        > published "smoking
        > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
        > released
        > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links
        at
        > the
        > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
        > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
        > pleased
        > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
        > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
        great
        > day!
        > >
        > > Kind regards,
        > > Paul Lowrance
        > >
        >
      • softwarelabus
        Hi richar18, There are several methods. Method #1 is the easiest. Normally MCE (magnetocaloric effect) heats up, cools down, etc. In electrical conductors such
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi richar18,

          There are several methods. Method #1 is the easiest. Normally MCE
          (magnetocaloric effect) heats up, cools down, etc. In electrical
          conductors such as iron and Metglas a lot of the MCE energy goes to
          micro eddy current bursts. Normally the eddy currents dissipate all
          the energy in the form of heat. If you pulse the core at the correct
          speed you will get a _coherent_ avalanche pulse. IOW, the avalanches
          are occurring at roughly the same time. You'll get eddy currents. When
          the Eddy currents reach peak then your receiving coil will attempt to
          rob as much energy from the Eddy currents. You do this by placing a
          load across the coil.

          Picture a nano size group of atoms that flip. There are many factors
          that determine the flip rate such as magnetic field strength, but free
          electrons plays a huge role. The free electrons act as inductance,
          resist the flipping magnetic moments. (You can see this effect by
          dropping a neo magnet down a hollow Al tube.) This gives a micro eddy
          burst. So you could say its like a microscopic coil around the
          avalanche, which is a good thing so as to collect a high percentage of
          the MCE energy.

          Under normal conditions you have millions of micro eddy currents that
          are simultaneously increasing and decreasing all over the place within
          the core. In other words, the bursts are not coherent. Micro eddy
          bursts do not last very long, which is why you need to pulse the core
          fast enough and then quickly absorb some energy from the eddy
          currents. Although, when the eddy currents occur at the same time then
          the bursts decay at a much slower rate, which is a good thing.

          Where the energy comes from is fascinating. Without ambient
          temperature (vibrating atoms) magnetic material would align (saturate)
          and that's the end of the story. Even when you remove the applied
          field the core would remain magnetized. It is vibrating atoms that
          give low coercivity. So when you remove the applied field it is the
          atoms that _force_ the magnetic moments to break alignment with the
          net magnetic field. That requires energy, which is exactly why
          magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed. That
          is where MCE energy comes from. Even the NASA guy who contacted me agreed.


          Trying to compute the energy relative to the field strength is perhaps
          not the correct method. Consider two PM's each on swivels, so they can
          rotate. The PM's are rotated so they repel each other. The magnetic
          fields cancel each other, so the net magnetic field is relatively low,
          just within close proximity of each PM. Now allow the PM's to quickly
          rotate so they align. You get energy _plus_ you get a net magnetic
          field, lol. Magnetic moments also rotate as IBM's experiments
          revealed. Normally this flip/rotation rate takes a few nanoseconds,
          but in electrically conductive materials such as iron and metglas it
          takes many microseconds.

          Regards,
          Paul Lowrance


          --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
          > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
          > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
          > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron evenly
          > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
          > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy generated
          > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
          > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
          > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
          > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
          > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
          >
          > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
          > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
          > >
          > > @All
          > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
          > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will not
          > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
          > and
          > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
          > > presently a quick job -->
          > >
          > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
          > >
          > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas versions
          > use
          > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing MCE
          > > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories. Rather,
          > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
          > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
          > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what is
          > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
          > >
          > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy exchanges.
          > For
          > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that nanocrystalline
          > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE as
          > Gd
          > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline material
          > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to generate
          > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
          > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power required to
          > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such material
          > is
          > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
          > fraction
          > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
          > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
          > >
          > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
          > magnetic
          > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue is
          > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in the
          > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
          > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
          > energy
          > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
          > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
          > extremely
          > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to overcome
          > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
          > >
          > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
          > late
          > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I stood
          > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
          > >
          > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
          > Naudin
          > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing the
          > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
          > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I went to
          > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
          > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
          > either
          > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
          > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
          > many
          > > other people at other sites have published false science regarding
          > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
          > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
          > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
          > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words, if
          > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal on
          > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400 MHz
          > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz signal
          > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
          > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts of
          > > energy.
          > >
          > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
          > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
          > >
          > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
          > published "smoking
          > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
          > released
          > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links at
          > the
          > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
          > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
          > pleased
          > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
          > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a great
          > day!
          > >
          > > Kind regards,
          > > Paul Lowrance
          > >
          >
        • richar18
          Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when the field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the entropy does not change due
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when the
            field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
            entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of the
            sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the entropy
            of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat transfer
            to the environment.

            Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the molecular
            structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
            field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the molecular
            degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom reduce,
            two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces proportionately,
            due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
            entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a closed
            system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
            molecular degrees of freedom.

            You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
            molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics causes
            the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic conditions
            and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively cancels
            the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus thwarting
            the creation of energy.

            So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
            thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect to
            happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have is
            another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.


            --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
            >
            > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
            incorrectly
            > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read
            on
            > to find out why.
            >
            > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect
            is
            > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in
            the
            > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
            > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field
            is
            > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
            > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
            > system from an energetic point of view.
            >
            > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
            > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
            > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
            > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
            > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE
            OF
            > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees
            of
            > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
            increasing
            > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
            mat'l).
            > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -

            > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than
            the
            > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
            > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
            change
            > in entropy.
            >
            > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
            > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
            temp)
            >
            > Anyone?
            >
            > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
            I
            > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect
            as a
            > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
            > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
            > evenly
            > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
            the
            > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
            > generated
            > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
            Seems
            > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
            1st
            > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
            > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
            not
            > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
            > >
            > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
            > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > @All
            > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
            not
            > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will
            not
            > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
            nanocrystalline
            > > and
            > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
            > > > presently a quick job -->
            > > >
            > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
            > > >
            > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
            > versions
            > > use
            > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
            capturing
            > MCE
            > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories.
            > Rather,
            > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
            > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
            > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
            what
            > is
            > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
            > > >
            > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
            > exchanges.
            > > For
            > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
            > nanocrystalline
            > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
            MCE
            > as
            > > Gd
            > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
            > material
            > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
            > generate
            > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
            > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
            required
            > to
            > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
            > material
            > > is
            > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
            > > fraction
            > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
            > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
            > > >
            > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
            > > magnetic
            > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
            issue
            > is
            > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
            in
            > the
            > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
            iron
            > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that
            MCE
            > > energy
            > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
            > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
            > > extremely
            > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
            > overcome
            > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
            > > >
            > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
            one
            > > late
            > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
            > stood
            > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
            > > >
            > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
            > > Naudin
            > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
            analyzing
            > the
            > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
            > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I
            went
            > to
            > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
            energy."
            > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
            > > either
            > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
            > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
            so
            > > many
            > > > other people at other sites have published false science
            regarding
            > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
            private PM
            > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
            cannot
            > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
            > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
            words,
            > if
            > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
            signal
            > on
            > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
            400
            > MHz
            > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
            > signal
            > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
            knowing my
            > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
            amounts
            > of
            > > > energy.
            > > >
            > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
            > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
            > > >
            > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
            > > published "smoking
            > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
            > > released
            > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
            links
            > at
            > > the
            > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
            > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
            > > pleased
            > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
            > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
            > great
            > > day!
            > > >
            > > > Kind regards,
            > > > Paul Lowrance
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • softwarelabus
            Hi richar18, The energy contained in the magnetic field of a magnetized core is not represented by the energy consumed by the coil/circuit. For example,
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi richar18,

              The energy contained in the magnetic field of a magnetized core is not
              represented by the energy consumed by the coil/circuit. For example,
              consider material with twice the permeability & same dimensions and
              you'll see it requires half the energy to bring such material to the
              same magnetic field intensity.

              Yes there is a change in specific heat due to MCE, but it is known
              this can increase as well as decrease depending on the material and
              conditions.

              You cannot discount the fact there is energy release when the magnetic
              moments align.

              I'll add further comments below :

              --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
              > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly
              > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on
              > to find out why.
              >
              > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect is
              > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in the
              > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
              > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field is
              > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
              > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
              > system from an energetic point of view.

              The guy from NASA disagrees with the above theory and agreed with my
              theory as to why it cools. He clarified that the vibrating atoms knock
              the magnetic moments out of alignment, which requires energy and cools
              the material.

              Furthermore, your above theory does not work on nanocrystalline
              magnetic materials, which indeed are saturated on the domain level,
              but still exhibit strong MCE roughly 10,000 to 100,000 times stronger
              than ferrites, iron, and other magnetic materials, and only 1/4th of
              the best Gd alloys, which my theory all predicts.

              If I am in error then please point out the error.

              Regards,
              Paul Lowrance
            • richar18
              This reply is only geared towards the comment regarding the energy it takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I will respond to the excess MCE energy
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                This reply is only geared towards the comment regarding the energy it
                takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I will respond to
                the excess MCE energy later:

                It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to generate the same
                magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the permeability. Lets first
                use a coil/core as an example. The greater the permeability of the
                core, the higher the inductance of the system. The higher the
                inductance, the more voltage is required to generate the same
                magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less current. The energy
                consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the core permeability.

                Another way to look at it is to identify the force it takes to detach
                a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy inside the
                magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal to the energy it
                will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over a distance until
                the force of attraction equals zero. This energy rises with
                permeability, because the force vs distance increases in proportion
                to the permeability.

                I would like to stress that if permeability increases, it takes the
                SAME amount of energy to generate the same field within a mat'l of
                the same dimensions.

                Now regarding specific heat, what mat'ls show a rise in Cp under
                influence of a magnetic field? Because I would be inclined to think
                that they cool, instead of heat.

                --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi richar18,
                >
                > There are several methods. Method #1 is the easiest. Normally MCE
                > (magnetocaloric effect) heats up, cools down, etc. In electrical
                > conductors such as iron and Metglas a lot of the MCE energy goes to
                > micro eddy current bursts. Normally the eddy currents dissipate all
                > the energy in the form of heat. If you pulse the core at the correct
                > speed you will get a _coherent_ avalanche pulse. IOW, the avalanches
                > are occurring at roughly the same time. You'll get eddy currents.
                When
                > the Eddy currents reach peak then your receiving coil will attempt
                to
                > rob as much energy from the Eddy currents. You do this by placing a
                > load across the coil.
                >
                > Picture a nano size group of atoms that flip. There are many factors
                > that determine the flip rate such as magnetic field strength, but
                free
                > electrons plays a huge role. The free electrons act as inductance,
                > resist the flipping magnetic moments. (You can see this effect by
                > dropping a neo magnet down a hollow Al tube.) This gives a micro
                eddy
                > burst. So you could say its like a microscopic coil around the
                > avalanche, which is a good thing so as to collect a high percentage
                of
                > the MCE energy.
                >
                > Under normal conditions you have millions of micro eddy currents
                that
                > are simultaneously increasing and decreasing all over the place
                within
                > the core. In other words, the bursts are not coherent. Micro eddy
                > bursts do not last very long, which is why you need to pulse the
                core
                > fast enough and then quickly absorb some energy from the eddy
                > currents. Although, when the eddy currents occur at the same time
                then
                > the bursts decay at a much slower rate, which is a good thing.
                >
                > Where the energy comes from is fascinating. Without ambient
                > temperature (vibrating atoms) magnetic material would align
                (saturate)
                > and that's the end of the story. Even when you remove the applied
                > field the core would remain magnetized. It is vibrating atoms that
                > give low coercivity. So when you remove the applied field it is the
                > atoms that _force_ the magnetic moments to break alignment with the
                > net magnetic field. That requires energy, which is exactly why
                > magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed. That
                > is where MCE energy comes from. Even the NASA guy who contacted me
                agreed.
                >
                >
                > Trying to compute the energy relative to the field strength is
                perhaps
                > not the correct method. Consider two PM's each on swivels, so they
                can
                > rotate. The PM's are rotated so they repel each other. The magnetic
                > fields cancel each other, so the net magnetic field is relatively
                low,
                > just within close proximity of each PM. Now allow the PM's to
                quickly
                > rotate so they align. You get energy _plus_ you get a net magnetic
                > field, lol. Magnetic moments also rotate as IBM's experiments
                > revealed. Normally this flip/rotation rate takes a few nanoseconds,
                > but in electrically conductive materials such as iron and metglas it
                > takes many microseconds.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Paul Lowrance
                >
                >
                > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
                I
                > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as
                a
                > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
                > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
                evenly
                > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
                the
                > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
                generated
                > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
                Seems
                > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
                1st
                > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
                > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
                not
                > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
                > >
                > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > @All
                > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
                not
                > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will
                not
                > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
                nanocrystalline
                > > and
                > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
                > > > presently a quick job -->
                > > >
                > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
                > > >
                > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
                versions
                > > use
                > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing
                MCE
                > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories.
                Rather,
                > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
                > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
                > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
                what is
                > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
                > > >
                > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
                exchanges.
                > > For
                > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
                nanocrystalline
                > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
                MCE as
                > > Gd
                > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
                material
                > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
                generate
                > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
                > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
                required to
                > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
                material
                > > is
                > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
                > > fraction
                > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
                > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
                > > >
                > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
                > > magnetic
                > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
                issue is
                > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
                in the
                > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
                iron
                > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
                > > energy
                > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
                > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
                > > extremely
                > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
                overcome
                > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
                > > >
                > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
                one
                > > late
                > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
                stood
                > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
                > > >
                > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
                > > Naudin
                > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
                analyzing the
                > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
                > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I
                went to
                > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
                energy."
                > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
                > > either
                > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
                > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
                so
                > > many
                > > > other people at other sites have published false science
                regarding
                > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private
                PM
                > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
                > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
                > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
                words, if
                > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
                signal on
                > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
                400 MHz
                > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
                signal
                > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing
                my
                > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
                amounts of
                > > > energy.
                > > >
                > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
                > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
                > > >
                > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
                > > published "smoking
                > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
                > > released
                > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links
                at
                > > the
                > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
                > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
                > > pleased
                > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
                > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
                great
                > > day!
                > > >
                > > > Kind regards,
                > > > Paul Lowrance
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • softwarelabus
                Hi richar18, You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the energy in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0) B is in Tesla s, V=cubic meters, u0 is
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi richar18,

                  You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the energy
                  in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0) B is in Tesla's, V=cubic meters, u0
                  is permeability of free space.

                  If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from then
                  you need to ask a few questions.

                  1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few 0 K.
                  The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy does it
                  require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
                  temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
                  material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
                  2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
                  aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy. Well,
                  maybe they could. :-)
                  3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
                  little change in temperature when a certain temperature is reached.
                  4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you were to
                  apply a 60 T field.
                  5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the domain
                  level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
                  saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were you
                  aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
                  domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
                  6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as deep
                  freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change in
                  temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly 1/500th
                  (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature. You
                  calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of that
                  material by 1 K. :-) How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59 Joules.
                  I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K. Repeat,
                  the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
                  7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol. Just
                  kidding ... I think. ;-)

                  richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to ignore
                  me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You asked me a
                  lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)

                  God bless you,
                  Paul Lowrance



                  --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                  > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when the
                  > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
                  > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of the
                  > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the entropy
                  > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat transfer
                  > to the environment.
                  >
                  > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the molecular
                  > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
                  > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the molecular
                  > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom reduce,
                  > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces proportionately,
                  > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
                  > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a closed
                  > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
                  > molecular degrees of freedom.
                  >
                  > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
                  > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics causes
                  > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic conditions
                  > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively cancels
                  > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus thwarting
                  > the creation of energy.
                  >
                  > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
                  > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect to
                  > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have is
                  > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
                  > incorrectly
                  > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read
                  > on
                  > > to find out why.
                  > >
                  > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect
                  > is
                  > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in
                  > the
                  > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
                  > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field
                  > is
                  > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
                  > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
                  > > system from an energetic point of view.
                  > >
                  > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
                  > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
                  > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
                  > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
                  > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE
                  > OF
                  > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees
                  > of
                  > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
                  > increasing
                  > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
                  > mat'l).
                  > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -
                  >
                  > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than
                  > the
                  > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
                  > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
                  > change
                  > > in entropy.
                  > >
                  > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
                  > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
                  > temp)
                  > >
                  > > Anyone?
                  > >
                  > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
                  > I
                  > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect
                  > as a
                  > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
                  > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
                  > > evenly
                  > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
                  > the
                  > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
                  > > generated
                  > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
                  > Seems
                  > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
                  > 1st
                  > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
                  > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
                  > not
                  > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                  > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > @All
                  > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
                  > not
                  > > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores will
                  > not
                  > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
                  > nanocrystalline
                  > > > and
                  > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
                  > > > > presently a quick job -->
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
                  > > versions
                  > > > use
                  > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
                  > capturing
                  > > MCE
                  > > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven theories.
                  > > Rather,
                  > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
                  > > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go through
                  > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
                  > what
                  > > is
                  > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
                  > > exchanges.
                  > > > For
                  > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
                  > > nanocrystalline
                  > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
                  > MCE
                  > > as
                  > > > Gd
                  > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
                  > > material
                  > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
                  > > generate
                  > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
                  > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
                  > required
                  > > to
                  > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
                  > > material
                  > > > is
                  > > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but a
                  > > > fraction
                  > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
                  > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
                  > > > magnetic
                  > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
                  > issue
                  > > is
                  > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
                  > in
                  > > the
                  > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
                  > iron
                  > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that
                  > MCE
                  > > > energy
                  > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
                  > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
                  > > > extremely
                  > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
                  > > overcome
                  > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
                  > one
                  > > > late
                  > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
                  > > stood
                  > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
                  > > > Naudin
                  > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
                  > analyzing
                  > > the
                  > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
                  > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then I
                  > went
                  > > to
                  > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
                  > energy."
                  > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
                  > > > either
                  > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
                  > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
                  > so
                  > > > many
                  > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
                  > regarding
                  > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
                  > private PM
                  > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
                  > cannot
                  > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
                  > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
                  > words,
                  > > if
                  > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
                  > signal
                  > > on
                  > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
                  > 400
                  > > MHz
                  > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
                  > > signal
                  > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
                  > knowing my
                  > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
                  > amounts
                  > > of
                  > > > > energy.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
                  > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
                  > > > published "smoking
                  > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
                  > > > released
                  > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
                  > links
                  > > at
                  > > > the
                  > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
                  > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
                  > > > pleased
                  > > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not about
                  > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
                  > > great
                  > > > day!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Kind regards,
                  > > > > Paul Lowrance
                • richar18
                  Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you, anonymity has become a habit when posting on these groups. I need to keep this short I am at work.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you, anonymity
                    has become a habit when posting on these groups.

                    I need to keep this short I am at work.

                    Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
                    forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula well,
                    I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the answer
                    is not right :).

                    What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
                    but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
                    not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
                    spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
                    prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
                    real as much as anyone.

                    I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
                    only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
                    hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
                    energy claim. How do you know this is the case?

                    I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than myself
                    to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
                    change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
                    energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
                    undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
                    one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
                    would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.

                    Regards,
                    Brandon

                    --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                    <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi richar18,
                    >
                    > You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
                    energy
                    > in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0) B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
                    meters, u0
                    > is permeability of free space.
                    >
                    > If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
                    then
                    > you need to ask a few questions.
                    >
                    > 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few 0
                    K.
                    > The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy does
                    it
                    > require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
                    > temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
                    > material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
                    > 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
                    > aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy. Well,
                    > maybe they could. :-)
                    > 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
                    > little change in temperature when a certain temperature is reached.
                    > 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you were
                    to
                    > apply a 60 T field.
                    > 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
                    domain
                    > level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
                    > saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were you
                    > aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
                    > domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
                    > 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
                    deep
                    > freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change in
                    > temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly 1/500th
                    > (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
                    You
                    > calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
                    that
                    > material by 1 K. :-) How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
                    Joules.
                    > I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
                    Repeat,
                    > the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
                    > 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
                    Just
                    > kidding ... I think. ;-)
                    >
                    > richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
                    ignore
                    > me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You asked
                    me a
                    > lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
                    >
                    > God bless you,
                    > Paul Lowrance
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
                    > > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when
                    the
                    > > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
                    > > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
                    the
                    > > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
                    entropy
                    > > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
                    transfer
                    > > to the environment.
                    > >
                    > > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
                    molecular
                    > > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
                    > > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
                    molecular
                    > > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
                    reduce,
                    > > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
                    proportionately,
                    > > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
                    > > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
                    closed
                    > > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
                    > > molecular degrees of freedom.
                    > >
                    > > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
                    > > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
                    causes
                    > > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
                    conditions
                    > > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
                    cancels
                    > > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
                    thwarting
                    > > the creation of energy.
                    > >
                    > > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
                    > > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect
                    to
                    > > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have
                    is
                    > > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                    wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
                    > > incorrectly
                    > > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
                    Read
                    > > on
                    > > > to find out why.
                    > > >
                    > > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
                    effect
                    > > is
                    > > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules
                    in
                    > > the
                    > > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
                    entropy
                    > > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
                    field
                    > > is
                    > > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
                    > > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in
                    the
                    > > > system from an energetic point of view.
                    > > >
                    > > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
                    before
                    > > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
                    if we
                    > > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
                    > > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
                    The
                    > > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
                    DEGREE
                    > > OF
                    > > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
                    degrees
                    > > of
                    > > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
                    > > increasing
                    > > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
                    > > mat'l).
                    > > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
                    next -
                    > >
                    > > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
                    than
                    > > the
                    > > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
                    actually
                    > > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
                    > > change
                    > > > in entropy.
                    > > >
                    > > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy
                    to
                    > > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
                    > > temp)
                    > > >
                    > > > Anyone?
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                    wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
                    further,
                    > > I
                    > > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
                    effect
                    > > as a
                    > > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated
                    the
                    > > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
                    iron
                    > > > evenly
                    > > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
                    with
                    > > the
                    > > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
                    > > > generated
                    > > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
                    > > Seems
                    > > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
                    the
                    > > 1st
                    > > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
                    that
                    > > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
                    did
                    > > not
                    > > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                    > > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > @All
                    > > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores
                    will
                    > > not
                    > > > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores
                    will
                    > > not
                    > > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
                    > > nanocrystalline
                    > > > > and
                    > > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit
                    it is
                    > > > > > presently a quick job -->
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
                    > > > versions
                    > > > > use
                    > > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
                    > > capturing
                    > > > MCE
                    > > > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven
                    theories.
                    > > > Rather,
                    > > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
                    conventional
                    > > > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go
                    through
                    > > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
                    exactly
                    > > what
                    > > > is
                    > > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
                    > > > exchanges.
                    > > > > For
                    > > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
                    > > > nanocrystalline
                    > > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
                    fourth
                    > > MCE
                    > > > as
                    > > > > Gd
                    > > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
                    nanocrystalline
                    > > > material
                    > > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
                    to
                    > > > generate
                    > > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
                    in one
                    > > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
                    > > required
                    > > > to
                    > > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
                    > > > material
                    > > > > is
                    > > > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires but
                    a
                    > > > > fraction
                    > > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
                    the
                    > > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
                    that
                    > > > > magnetic
                    > > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
                    Another
                    > > issue
                    > > > is
                    > > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts
                    as
                    > > in
                    > > > the
                    > > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
                    typicall
                    > > iron
                    > > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
                    that
                    > > MCE
                    > > > > energy
                    > > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore
                    such
                    > > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron
                    is
                    > > > > extremely
                    > > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
                    to
                    > > > overcome
                    > > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
                    backyard
                    > > one
                    > > > > late
                    > > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
                    theory. I
                    > > > stood
                    > > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
                    MEG!!!"
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
                    discovered
                    > > > > Naudin
                    > > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
                    > > analyzing
                    > > > the
                    > > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
                    pixel I
                    > > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy." Then
                    I
                    > > went
                    > > > to
                    > > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
                    > > energy."
                    > > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude
                    that
                    > > > > either
                    > > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
                    > > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
                    unfortunate
                    > > so
                    > > > > many
                    > > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
                    > > regarding
                    > > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
                    > > private PM
                    > > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
                    > > cannot
                    > > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
                    > > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
                    > > words,
                    > > > if
                    > > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
                    > > signal
                    > > > on
                    > > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
                    the
                    > > 400
                    > > > MHz
                    > > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400
                    MHz
                    > > > signal
                    > > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
                    > > knowing my
                    > > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
                    > > amounts
                    > > > of
                    > > > > > energy.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
                    did not
                    > > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
                    > > > > published "smoking
                    > > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will
                    be
                    > > > > released
                    > > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
                    > > links
                    > > > at
                    > > > > the
                    > > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
                    release
                    > > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be
                    more
                    > > > > pleased
                    > > > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not
                    about
                    > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be
                    a
                    > > > great
                    > > > > day!
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Kind regards,
                    > > > > > Paul Lowrance
                    >
                  • richar18
                    Paul, take a look at this link: http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the Ames
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Paul, take a look at this link:

                      http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html

                      It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the Ames
                      laboratory at the Iowa State Unv. I found these statements
                      particulary interesting:

                      "Precise heat capacity data collected as a function of temperature
                      in various magnetic fields is one of the most accurate indirect
                      techniques available for the characterization of magnetothermal
                      properties of magnetic materials"

                      and

                      "The use of heat capacity data to calculate the magnetocaloric
                      properties of magnetic solids along with a detailed analysis of
                      resulting errors and comparison with other indirect and direct
                      magnetocaloric measurements techniques will be given."

                      Looks like maybe I could be right about the relationship between the
                      MCE and specific heat?

                      Note one of the presenting scientists is Karl Gschneider, a pioneer
                      in the field of Magnetocaloric mat'ls.

                      I wish I could get some of the data presented, to see how the
                      specific heat actually varies for the mat'ls tested. It is a
                      scientific fact that Cp varies proportionally to the change in
                      entropy of the mat'l due to the applied field, but I dont know what
                      the scaling is. My basic physics background tells me the specific
                      heat varies in a way that gives further credence to the 1st law of
                      thermodynamics.

                      BTW, if the guy from NASA doesnt agree with the entropy/molecular
                      degree of freedom based description of the MCE, then he is
                      disagreeing with research findings by many scientists who have
                      studied the subject. This is the only scientific way I have seen the
                      effect described. Couple this with the fact that Cp is also linked
                      directly to the entropy/molecular D.O.F of the mat'l, and I think
                      you have a pretty logical framework for understanding the true
                      nature of the effect.

                      Regards,
                      -Brandon



                      --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you,
                      anonymity
                      > has become a habit when posting on these groups.
                      >
                      > I need to keep this short I am at work.
                      >
                      > Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
                      > forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula
                      well,
                      > I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the
                      answer
                      > is not right :).
                      >
                      > What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
                      > but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
                      > not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
                      > spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
                      > prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
                      > real as much as anyone.
                      >
                      > I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
                      > only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
                      > hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
                      > energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
                      >
                      > I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than
                      myself
                      > to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
                      > change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
                      > energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
                      > undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
                      > one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
                      > would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Brandon
                      >
                      > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                      > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi richar18,
                      > >
                      > > You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
                      > energy
                      > > in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0) B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
                      > meters, u0
                      > > is permeability of free space.
                      > >
                      > > If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
                      > then
                      > > you need to ask a few questions.
                      > >
                      > > 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few
                      0
                      > K.
                      > > The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy
                      does
                      > it
                      > > require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
                      > > temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
                      > > material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
                      > > 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
                      > > aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy.
                      Well,
                      > > maybe they could. :-)
                      > > 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
                      > > little change in temperature when a certain temperature is
                      reached.
                      > > 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you
                      were
                      > to
                      > > apply a 60 T field.
                      > > 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
                      > domain
                      > > level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
                      > > saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were
                      you
                      > > aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
                      > > domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
                      > > 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
                      > deep
                      > > freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change
                      in
                      > > temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly
                      1/500th
                      > > (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
                      > You
                      > > calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
                      > that
                      > > material by 1 K. :-) How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
                      > Joules.
                      > > I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
                      > Repeat,
                      > > the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
                      > > 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
                      > Just
                      > > kidding ... I think. ;-)
                      > >
                      > > richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
                      > ignore
                      > > me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You
                      asked
                      > me a
                      > > lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
                      > >
                      > > God bless you,
                      > > Paul Lowrance
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                      wrote:
                      > > > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE
                      when
                      > the
                      > > > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
                      > > > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
                      > the
                      > > > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
                      > entropy
                      > > > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
                      > transfer
                      > > > to the environment.
                      > > >
                      > > > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
                      > molecular
                      > > > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a
                      magnetic
                      > > > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
                      > molecular
                      > > > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
                      > reduce,
                      > > > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
                      > proportionately,
                      > > > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2)
                      The
                      > > > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
                      > closed
                      > > > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
                      > > > molecular degrees of freedom.
                      > > >
                      > > > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
                      > > > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
                      > causes
                      > > > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
                      > conditions
                      > > > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
                      > cancels
                      > > > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
                      > thwarting
                      > > > the creation of energy.
                      > > >
                      > > > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
                      > > > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric
                      effect
                      > to
                      > > > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you
                      have
                      > is
                      > > > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into
                      heat.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
                      > > > incorrectly
                      > > > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
                      > Read
                      > > > on
                      > > > > to find out why.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
                      > effect
                      > > > is
                      > > > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron
                      molecules
                      > in
                      > > > the
                      > > > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
                      > entropy
                      > > > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
                      > field
                      > > > is
                      > > > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important
                      to
                      > > > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on
                      in
                      > the
                      > > > > system from an energetic point of view.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
                      > before
                      > > > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
                      > if we
                      > > > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
                      > > > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
                      > The
                      > > > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
                      > DEGREE
                      > > > OF
                      > > > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
                      > degrees
                      > > > of
                      > > > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
                      > > > increasing
                      > > > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
                      > > > mat'l).
                      > > > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
                      > next -
                      > > >
                      > > > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
                      > than
                      > > > the
                      > > > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
                      > actually
                      > > > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to
                      the
                      > > > change
                      > > > > in entropy.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular
                      entropy
                      > to
                      > > > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T =
                      absolute
                      > > > temp)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Anyone?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
                      > further,
                      > > > I
                      > > > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
                      > effect
                      > > > as a
                      > > > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I
                      calculated
                      > the
                      > > > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
                      > iron
                      > > > > evenly
                      > > > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
                      > with
                      > > > the
                      > > > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
                      > > > > generated
                      > > > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic
                      field.
                      > > > Seems
                      > > > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
                      > the
                      > > > 1st
                      > > > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
                      > that
                      > > > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
                      > did
                      > > > not
                      > > > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                      > > > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > @All
                      > > > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic
                      cores
                      > will
                      > > > not
                      > > > > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores
                      > will
                      > > > not
                      > > > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
                      > > > nanocrystalline
                      > > > > > and
                      > > > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki,
                      albeit
                      > it is
                      > > > > > > presently a quick job -->
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and
                      Metglas
                      > > > > versions
                      > > > > > use
                      > > > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
                      > > > capturing
                      > > > > MCE
                      > > > > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven
                      > theories.
                      > > > > Rather,
                      > > > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
                      > conventional
                      > > > > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go
                      > through
                      > > > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
                      > exactly
                      > > > what
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic
                      scale.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
                      > > > > exchanges.
                      > > > > > For
                      > > > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
                      > > > > nanocrystalline
                      > > > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
                      > fourth
                      > > > MCE
                      > > > > as
                      > > > > > Gd
                      > > > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
                      > nanocrystalline
                      > > > > material
                      > > > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
                      > to
                      > > > > generate
                      > > > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
                      > in one
                      > > > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
                      > > > required
                      > > > > to
                      > > > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within
                      such
                      > > > > material
                      > > > > > is
                      > > > > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires
                      but
                      > a
                      > > > > > fraction
                      > > > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
                      > the
                      > > > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
                      > that
                      > > > > > magnetic
                      > > > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
                      > Another
                      > > > issue
                      > > > > is
                      > > > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit
                      megawatts
                      > as
                      > > > in
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
                      > typicall
                      > > > iron
                      > > > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
                      > that
                      > > > MCE
                      > > > > > energy
                      > > > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material.
                      Therefore
                      > such
                      > > > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical
                      iron
                      > is
                      > > > > > extremely
                      > > > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
                      > to
                      > > > > overcome
                      > > > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
                      > backyard
                      > > > one
                      > > > > > late
                      > > > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
                      > theory. I
                      > > > > stood
                      > > > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
                      > MEG!!!"
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
                      > discovered
                      > > > > > Naudin
                      > > > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
                      > > > analyzing
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
                      > pixel I
                      > > > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."
                      Then
                      > I
                      > > > went
                      > > > > to
                      > > > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
                      > > > energy."
                      > > > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily
                      conclude
                      > that
                      > > > > > either
                      > > > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
                      > > > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
                      > unfortunate
                      > > > so
                      > > > > > many
                      > > > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
                      > > > regarding
                      > > > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
                      > > > private PM
                      > > > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e.,
                      you
                      > > > cannot
                      > > > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
                      > > > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In
                      other
                      > > > words,
                      > > > > if
                      > > > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400
                      MHz
                      > > > signal
                      > > > > on
                      > > > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
                      > the
                      > > > 400
                      > > > > MHz
                      > > > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the
                      400
                      > MHz
                      > > > > signal
                      > > > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
                      > > > knowing my
                      > > > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates
                      outrageous
                      > > > amounts
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > > energy.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
                      > did not
                      > > > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
                      > > > > > published "smoking
                      > > > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine
                      will
                      > be
                      > > > > > released
                      > > > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the
                      overunity.com
                      > > > links
                      > > > > at
                      > > > > > the
                      > > > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
                      > release
                      > > > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not
                      be
                      > more
                      > > > > > pleased
                      > > > > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not
                      > about
                      > > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
                      be
                      > a
                      > > > > great
                      > > > > > day!
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Kind regards,
                      > > > > > > Paul Lowrance
                      > >
                      >
                    • richar18
                      I found further evidence to help my argument regarding the reduction in specific heat cancelling any possible excess energy gains due to MCE. Read the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I found further evidence to help my argument regarding the reduction
                        in specific heat cancelling any possible excess energy gains due to
                        MCE. Read the following paper:

                        http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/result/respro/90/ord903-3.pdf

                        Note that with the application of a 200 Oe magnetization field at
                        ~25C, the specific heat (of the fluid) decreases about 40%! I feel
                        that this alone is almost enough info to disprove the 1/500th
                        decrease you quoted earlier. Granted this is a magnetic fluid and
                        not a solid, but the mechanism is the same.

                        Also note that the conclusion states almost verbatim what I am using
                        as the basis for my argument.

                        Regards,
                        -Brandon
                        P.S. - its obviously my lunch time!

                        --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you,
                        anonymity
                        > has become a habit when posting on these groups.
                        >
                        > I need to keep this short I am at work.
                        >
                        > Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
                        > forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula
                        well,
                        > I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the
                        answer
                        > is not right :).
                        >
                        > What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
                        > but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
                        > not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
                        > spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
                        > prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
                        > real as much as anyone.
                        >
                        > I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
                        > only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
                        > hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
                        > energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
                        >
                        > I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than
                        myself
                        > to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
                        > change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
                        > energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
                        > undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
                        > one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
                        > would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Brandon
                        >
                        > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                        > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hi richar18,
                        > >
                        > > You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
                        > energy
                        > > in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0) B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
                        > meters, u0
                        > > is permeability of free space.
                        > >
                        > > If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
                        > then
                        > > you need to ask a few questions.
                        > >
                        > > 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few
                        0
                        > K.
                        > > The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy
                        does
                        > it
                        > > require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
                        > > temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
                        > > material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
                        > > 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
                        > > aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy.
                        Well,
                        > > maybe they could. :-)
                        > > 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
                        > > little change in temperature when a certain temperature is
                        reached.
                        > > 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you
                        were
                        > to
                        > > apply a 60 T field.
                        > > 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
                        > domain
                        > > level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
                        > > saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were
                        you
                        > > aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
                        > > domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
                        > > 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
                        > deep
                        > > freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change
                        in
                        > > temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly
                        1/500th
                        > > (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
                        > You
                        > > calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
                        > that
                        > > material by 1 K. :-) How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
                        > Joules.
                        > > I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
                        > Repeat,
                        > > the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
                        > > 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
                        > Just
                        > > kidding ... I think. ;-)
                        > >
                        > > richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
                        > ignore
                        > > me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You
                        asked
                        > me a
                        > > lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
                        > >
                        > > God bless you,
                        > > Paul Lowrance
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                        wrote:
                        > > > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE
                        when
                        > the
                        > > > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
                        > > > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
                        > the
                        > > > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
                        > entropy
                        > > > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
                        > transfer
                        > > > to the environment.
                        > > >
                        > > > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
                        > molecular
                        > > > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a
                        magnetic
                        > > > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
                        > molecular
                        > > > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
                        > reduce,
                        > > > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
                        > proportionately,
                        > > > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2)
                        The
                        > > > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
                        > closed
                        > > > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
                        > > > molecular degrees of freedom.
                        > > >
                        > > > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
                        > > > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
                        > causes
                        > > > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
                        > conditions
                        > > > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
                        > cancels
                        > > > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
                        > thwarting
                        > > > the creation of energy.
                        > > >
                        > > > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
                        > > > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric
                        effect
                        > to
                        > > > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you
                        have
                        > is
                        > > > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into
                        heat.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                        > wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
                        > > > incorrectly
                        > > > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
                        > Read
                        > > > on
                        > > > > to find out why.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
                        > effect
                        > > > is
                        > > > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron
                        molecules
                        > in
                        > > > the
                        > > > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
                        > entropy
                        > > > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
                        > field
                        > > > is
                        > > > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important
                        to
                        > > > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on
                        in
                        > the
                        > > > > system from an energetic point of view.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
                        > before
                        > > > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
                        > if we
                        > > > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
                        > > > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
                        > The
                        > > > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
                        > DEGREE
                        > > > OF
                        > > > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
                        > degrees
                        > > > of
                        > > > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
                        > > > increasing
                        > > > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
                        > > > mat'l).
                        > > > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
                        > next -
                        > > >
                        > > > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
                        > than
                        > > > the
                        > > > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
                        > actually
                        > > > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to
                        the
                        > > > change
                        > > > > in entropy.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular
                        entropy
                        > to
                        > > > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T =
                        absolute
                        > > > temp)
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Anyone?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
                        > wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
                        > further,
                        > > > I
                        > > > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
                        > effect
                        > > > as a
                        > > > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I
                        calculated
                        > the
                        > > > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
                        > iron
                        > > > > evenly
                        > > > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
                        > with
                        > > > the
                        > > > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
                        > > > > generated
                        > > > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic
                        field.
                        > > > Seems
                        > > > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
                        > the
                        > > > 1st
                        > > > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
                        > that
                        > > > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
                        > did
                        > > > not
                        > > > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                        > > > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > @All
                        > > > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic
                        cores
                        > will
                        > > > not
                        > > > > > > exhibit the "free energy." Therefore most ferrite cores
                        > will
                        > > > not
                        > > > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
                        > > > nanocrystalline
                        > > > > > and
                        > > > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki,
                        albeit
                        > it is
                        > > > > > > presently a quick job -->
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and
                        Metglas
                        > > > > versions
                        > > > > > use
                        > > > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
                        > > > capturing
                        > > > > MCE
                        > > > > > > energy. This information is not based on unproven
                        > theories.
                        > > > > Rather,
                        > > > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
                        > conventional
                        > > > > > > physics. In the above wiki there two examples which go
                        > through
                        > > > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
                        > exactly
                        > > > what
                        > > > > is
                        > > > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic
                        scale.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
                        > > > > exchanges.
                        > > > > > For
                        > > > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
                        > > > > nanocrystalline
                        > > > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
                        > fourth
                        > > > MCE
                        > > > > as
                        > > > > > Gd
                        > > > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
                        > nanocrystalline
                        > > > > material
                        > > > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
                        > to
                        > > > > generate
                        > > > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
                        > in one
                        > > > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts! The amount of power
                        > > > required
                        > > > > to
                        > > > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within
                        such
                        > > > > material
                        > > > > > is
                        > > > > > > but a fraction of a watt. In other words, it requires
                        but
                        > a
                        > > > > > fraction
                        > > > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
                        > the
                        > > > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
                        > that
                        > > > > > magnetic
                        > > > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
                        > Another
                        > > > issue
                        > > > > is
                        > > > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit
                        megawatts
                        > as
                        > > > in
                        > > > > the
                        > > > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
                        > typicall
                        > > > iron
                        > > > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
                        > that
                        > > > MCE
                        > > > > > energy
                        > > > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material.
                        Therefore
                        > such
                        > > > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical
                        iron
                        > is
                        > > > > > extremely
                        > > > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
                        > to
                        > > > > overcome
                        > > > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
                        > backyard
                        > > > one
                        > > > > > late
                        > > > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
                        > theory. I
                        > > > > stood
                        > > > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
                        > MEG!!!"
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
                        > discovered
                        > > > > > Naudin
                        > > > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
                        > > > analyzing
                        > > > > the
                        > > > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
                        > pixel I
                        > > > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."
                        Then
                        > I
                        > > > went
                        > > > > to
                        > > > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
                        > > > energy."
                        > > > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily
                        conclude
                        > that
                        > > > > > either
                        > > > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
                        > > > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
                        > unfortunate
                        > > > so
                        > > > > > many
                        > > > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
                        > > > regarding
                        > > > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
                        > > > private PM
                        > > > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e.,
                        you
                        > > > cannot
                        > > > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
                        > > > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In
                        other
                        > > > words,
                        > > > > if
                        > > > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400
                        MHz
                        > > > signal
                        > > > > on
                        > > > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
                        > the
                        > > > 400
                        > > > > MHz
                        > > > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the
                        400
                        > MHz
                        > > > > signal
                        > > > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
                        > > > knowing my
                        > > > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates
                        outrageous
                        > > > amounts
                        > > > > of
                        > > > > > > energy.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
                        > did not
                        > > > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
                        > > > > > published "smoking
                        > > > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine
                        will
                        > be
                        > > > > > released
                        > > > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the
                        overunity.com
                        > > > links
                        > > > > at
                        > > > > > the
                        > > > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
                        > release
                        > > > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not
                        be
                        > more
                        > > > > > pleased
                        > > > > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not
                        > about
                        > > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
                        be
                        > a
                        > > > > great
                        > > > > > day!
                        > > > > > >
                        > > > > > > Kind regards,
                        > > > > > > Paul Lowrance
                        > >
                        >
                      • softwarelabus
                        richar18, You made another math error. I meticulously proved this last year. Any circuit simulation program will show you. If you double the permeability of
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          richar18,

                          You made another math error. I meticulously proved this last year. Any
                          circuit simulation program will show you. If you double the
                          permeability of material then it requires half the applied field to
                          equal the same net field. The di/dt increases at half the rate, but
                          takes the same time to reach half the current. Again, note that half
                          the current results in the same net field in double permeability. Same
                          voltage, half current = half power. Check it out yourself ->

                          http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:PaulL:Energize

                          Regards,
                          Paul Lowrance


                          --- richar18 <richar18@...> wrote:
                          > This reply is only geared towards the comment
                          > regarding the energy it
                          > takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I
                          > will respond to
                          > the excess MCE energy later:
                          >
                          > It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to
                          > generate the same
                          > magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the
                          > permeability. Lets first
                          > use a coil/core as an example. The greater the
                          > permeability of the
                          > core, the higher the inductance of the system. The
                          > higher the
                          > inductance, the more voltage is required to generate
                          > the same
                          > magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less
                          > current. The energy
                          > consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the
                          > core permeability.
                          >
                          > Another way to look at it is to identify the force
                          > it takes to detach
                          > a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy
                          > inside the
                          > magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal
                          > to the energy it
                          > will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over
                          > a distance until
                          > the force of attraction equals zero. This energy
                          > rises with
                          > permeability, because the force vs distance
                          > increases in proportion
                          > to the permeability.
                          >
                          > I would like to stress that if permeability
                          > increases, it takes the
                          > SAME amount of energy to generate the same field
                          > within a mat'l of
                          > the same dimensions.
                          >
                          > Now regarding specific heat, what mat'ls show a rise
                          > in Cp under
                          > influence of a magnetic field? Because I would be
                          > inclined to think
                          > that they cool, instead of heat.

                          [snip]
                        • softwarelabus
                          Hi Brandon, ... Thanks! It took, what 4 replies to get your attention, lol. No problem! [snip] ... Understood. I think you ll find that you forgot the 1/2
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Brandon,


                            --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                            > Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you, anonymity
                            > has become a habit when posting on these groups.

                            Thanks! It took, what 4 replies to get your attention, lol. No problem!



                            [snip]
                            > Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
                            > forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula well,
                            > I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the answer
                            > is not right :).

                            Understood. I think you'll find that you forgot the 1/2 factor in your
                            math. I got ~1/18, not 1/9th, but we both know that's an inaccurate
                            method (possibly highly inaccurate) due to complex internal fields.
                            It's kind humorous, take my missing ^2 and add it in your missing 1/2
                            and we have a fully non-mistyped equation, lol.


                            > What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
                            > but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
                            > not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
                            > spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
                            > prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
                            > real as much as anyone.

                            I'm not certain of that. Here what a NASA employee who worked on MCE
                            recently emailed me :

                            "Then we remove the magnetic field when the materials temperature is
                            still above Tc. Now as the spins relax back to a random state it take
                            the energy to rotate from the lattice and cools the crystal."

                            We know that it requires real energy to break (flip) the alignment of
                            many aligned magnetic moments. You acknowledge that, correct?


                            > I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
                            > only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
                            > hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
                            > energy claim. How do you know this is the case?

                            That was for a nanocrystalline material, Finemet, since that's the
                            wonder material of interest. :-) -->
                            http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/cjop/2004/00000054/A00100s4/00000061;jsessionid=21mb18ken30yi.alice

                            An entropy change for the Finemet is 0.72 J/KgK. Using a specific heat
                            of iron ~ 460 J/KgK, that's a mere 1/639th change in entropy. We both
                            know that the heat is real; i.e., it actually heats up things, lol. So
                            how much energy would it require to heat up such material even if the
                            heat capacity was (460 - 0.72)? BTW, are you sure the heat capacity
                            increases for most materials? It seems the NASA guy wrote that in his
                            case it actually increased, meaning that it requires more energy to
                            heat it up. Note that Finemet (Fe80.5Nb7B12.5) in the abstract is
                            1/4th MCE as Gd alloys, which is significant, roughly 1 K change in
                            temperature per Tesla. That's a lot of energy for just one energy
                            exchange.




                            > Paul, take a look at this link:
                            >
                            > http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html
                            >
                            > It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the Ames
                            > laboratory at the Iowa State Unv. I found these statements
                            > particulary interesting:
                            >
                            > "Precise heat capacity data collected as a function of temperature
                            > in various magnetic fields is one of the most accurate indirect
                            > techniques available for the characterization of magnetothermal
                            > properties of magnetic materials"
                            >
                            > and
                            >
                            > "The use of heat capacity data to calculate the magnetocaloric
                            > properties of magnetic solids along with a detailed analysis of
                            > resulting errors and comparison with other indirect and direct
                            > magnetocaloric measurements techniques will be given."
                            >
                            > Looks like maybe I could be right about the relationship between the
                            > MCE and specific heat?
                            >
                            > Note one of the presenting scientists is Karl Gschneider, a pioneer
                            > in the field of Magnetocaloric mat'ls.

                            But I never stated the energy came from nothing. :-) Although the
                            above quotes don't claim as to _how_ the material heats up. It just
                            states that entropy and temperature go hand in hand, but even that I
                            question. For example I seriously doubt they studied nanocrystalline
                            materials, the wonder material. I believe your description describes
                            Magnetostriction where magnetic field strain causes change in size,
                            which in itself would cause temperature changes. We know from pure
                            physics that by moving aligned magnetic moments closer to each other
                            requires energy and viscera. Although note the Magnetostriction in
                            nanocrystalline materials is nearly zero. Magnetostriction for Metglas
                            2714AF is <<1 ppm! That in itself could indicate the large MCE in such
                            materials is not caused by magnetic strains, at least for
                            nanocrystalline materials.

                            I don't think the above quotes describe how MCE takes place. Lets try
                            to analyze in further detail what's happening. We know for fact that a
                            magnetic moment that is allowed to align will rotate, thereby adding
                            radiation energy. That being the case my MCE theory is true. You might
                            suggest that it does not generate as much energy as I thought. If it
                            does or does not remains to be seen. According to your math such
                            alignment would add 1/9th the reported MCE energy. I calculated
                            1/18th. Regardless, even 1/18th of 15 megawatts is not so shabby for
                            one cubic inch of nanocrystalline material. :-) Anyhow, the aligning
                            moments adds energy, but lets not confuse that effect with magnetic
                            strain. We need to view the atoms as not aligned, and then instantly
                            aligned to not focus on the radiated energy associated with flip. We
                            then see magnet strain on the material. So the iron atoms move at the
                            same velocity, but the vibration rate is faster. The air atoms will
                            strike the iron atoms at the same rate. So in order to add more energy
                            to the air atoms the iron atoms need to increase in velocity, not
                            vibration rate. Remember, the air atoms will still strike the iron
                            atom the same amount of collisions per second.



                            >
                            > I wish I could get some of the data presented, to see how the
                            > specific heat actually varies for the mat'ls tested. It is a
                            > scientific fact that Cp varies proportionally to the change in
                            > entropy of the mat'l due to the applied field, but I dont know what
                            > the scaling is. My basic physics background tells me the specific
                            > heat varies in a way that gives further credence to the 1st law of
                            > thermodynamics.

                            Relatively speaking there's not an enormous amount of data regarding
                            MCE, and all that data as far as I can find (with exception of the
                            NASA guy) does not form any specific details on the atomic scale
                            what's happening. Only that there's a change in entropy, which is fine
                            with me. :-) Understandably the energy is coming from some place, and
                            the result is a change in entropy. I'm happy with that.


                            Regards,
                            Paul Lowrance
                          • richar18
                            Yes, you are correct with respect to an internal field. However, I was under the impression that it is not the internal field that the MCE is reliant upo, but
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Yes, you are correct with respect to an internal field. However, I
                              was under the impression that it is not the internal field that the
                              MCE is reliant upo, but the magnetizing field, "H". My energy
                              calculations dont work when you consider the internal field, you are
                              correct. But THERE IS NO ENERGY STORED IN THE INTERNAL FIELD OF AN
                              INDUCTOR. The energy is stored in the "H" field. I can prove this if
                              you like.


                              --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                              <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > richar18,
                              >
                              > You made another math error. I meticulously proved this last year.
                              Any
                              > circuit simulation program will show you. If you double the
                              > permeability of material then it requires half the applied field to
                              > equal the same net field. The di/dt increases at half the rate, but
                              > takes the same time to reach half the current. Again, note that
                              half
                              > the current results in the same net field in double permeability.
                              Same
                              > voltage, half current = half power. Check it out yourself ->
                              >
                              > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:PaulL:Energize
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              > Paul Lowrance
                              >
                              >
                              > --- richar18 <richar18@...> wrote:
                              > > This reply is only geared towards the comment
                              > > regarding the energy it
                              > > takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I
                              > > will respond to
                              > > the excess MCE energy later:
                              > >
                              > > It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to
                              > > generate the same
                              > > magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the
                              > > permeability. Lets first
                              > > use a coil/core as an example. The greater the
                              > > permeability of the
                              > > core, the higher the inductance of the system. The
                              > > higher the
                              > > inductance, the more voltage is required to generate
                              > > the same
                              > > magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less
                              > > current. The energy
                              > > consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the
                              > > core permeability.
                              > >
                              > > Another way to look at it is to identify the force
                              > > it takes to detach
                              > > a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy
                              > > inside the
                              > > magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal
                              > > to the energy it
                              > > will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over
                              > > a distance until
                              > > the force of attraction equals zero. This energy
                              > > rises with
                              > > permeability, because the force vs distance
                              > > increases in proportion
                              > > to the permeability.
                              > >
                              > > I would like to stress that if permeability
                              > > increases, it takes the
                              > > SAME amount of energy to generate the same field
                              > > within a mat'l of
                              > > the same dimensions.
                              > >
                              > > Now regarding specific heat, what mat'ls show a rise
                              > > in Cp under
                              > > influence of a magnetic field? Because I would be
                              > > inclined to think
                              > > that they cool, instead of heat.
                              >
                              > [snip]
                              >
                            • richar18
                              An applied magnetic field forces the atoms into alignment, reducing the system s heat capacity and causing it to expel energy More proof that the decrease in
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "An applied magnetic field forces the atoms into alignment, reducing
                                the system's heat capacity and causing it to expel energy"

                                More proof that the decrease in entropy and DOF is the CAUSE of the
                                effect.

                                http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/3_28_98/fob3.htm

                                -Brandon

                                --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                                <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > richar18,
                                >
                                > You made another math error. I meticulously proved this last year.
                                Any
                                > circuit simulation program will show you. If you double the
                                > permeability of material then it requires half the applied field to
                                > equal the same net field. The di/dt increases at half the rate, but
                                > takes the same time to reach half the current. Again, note that half
                                > the current results in the same net field in double permeability.
                                Same
                                > voltage, half current = half power. Check it out yourself ->
                                >
                                > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:PaulL:Energize
                                >
                                > Regards,
                                > Paul Lowrance
                                >
                                >
                                > --- richar18 <richar18@...> wrote:
                                > > This reply is only geared towards the comment
                                > > regarding the energy it
                                > > takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I
                                > > will respond to
                                > > the excess MCE energy later:
                                > >
                                > > It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to
                                > > generate the same
                                > > magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the
                                > > permeability. Lets first
                                > > use a coil/core as an example. The greater the
                                > > permeability of the
                                > > core, the higher the inductance of the system. The
                                > > higher the
                                > > inductance, the more voltage is required to generate
                                > > the same
                                > > magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less
                                > > current. The energy
                                > > consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the
                                > > core permeability.
                                > >
                                > > Another way to look at it is to identify the force
                                > > it takes to detach
                                > > a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy
                                > > inside the
                                > > magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal
                                > > to the energy it
                                > > will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over
                                > > a distance until
                                > > the force of attraction equals zero. This energy
                                > > rises with
                                > > permeability, because the force vs distance
                                > > increases in proportion
                                > > to the permeability.
                                > >
                                > > I would like to stress that if permeability
                                > > increases, it takes the
                                > > SAME amount of energy to generate the same field
                                > > within a mat'l of
                                > > the same dimensions.
                                > >
                                > > Now regarding specific heat, what mat'ls show a rise
                                > > in Cp under
                                > > influence of a magnetic field? Because I would be
                                > > inclined to think
                                > > that they cool, instead of heat.
                                >
                                > [snip]
                                >
                              • softwarelabus
                                (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off) Hi Brandon, I would appreciate it if you could please just acknowledge
                                Message 15 of 19 , Oct 20, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off)

                                  Hi Brandon,


                                  I would appreciate it if you could please just acknowledge my
                                  questions? Here they are again mixed with some other comments -->



                                  --- richar18 <richar18@...> wrote:
                                  > Yes, you are correct with respect to an internal
                                  > field. However, I
                                  > was under the impression that it is not the internal
                                  > field that the
                                  > MCE is reliant upo, but the magnetizing field, "H".

                                  No, the unpaired electron has no way of telling "Oh, this is the field
                                  from a coil" and "Oh, this is the field from another unpaired
                                  electron spin." Nor does it care. Do you agree?



                                  > My energy calculations dont work when you consider the
                                  > internal field, you are correct.
                                  > But THERE IS NO ENERGY STORED IN THE
                                  > INTERNAL FIELD OF AN INDUCTOR.

                                  There sure is. Your math crunching was just off by 1/2. According to
                                  modern physics E = V*B^2/(2*u0). Are you suggesting this equation is
                                  incorrect? The energy is supposedly coming form the intrinsic electron
                                  spin, ***but*** you ***cannot** (as far as I know) keep that energy!
                                  I took this topic up with various QM physicists last year. I suggested
                                  that _perhaps_ the quantum foam or something is cooling down and I
                                  suggested an experiment. They really had no answer as to where the
                                  energy would come from, but encouraged my experiment.


                                  > The energy is stored in the "H" field. I can prove this if you like.

                                  You mean you can show us that there is no _known_ method of
                                  permanently keeping that energy. Nobody said the energy was
                                  permanently available unless of course you keep the core magnetized
                                  forever.

                                  I think it is important here that you please confirm there is
                                  potential energy when magnetic moments go from no alignment to
                                  alignment. Do you acknowledge that?



                                  > "An applied magnetic field forces the atoms into alignment, reducing
                                  > the system's heat capacity and causing it to expel energy"
                                  >
                                  > More proof that the decrease in entropy and DOF is the CAUSE of the
                                  > effect.
                                  >
                                  > http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/3_28_98/fob3.htm

                                  That statement definitely does not claim or provide the details what
                                  you think. Lets go over the statement -->

                                  1. "An applied magnetic field forces the atoms into alignment" Correct.
                                  2. "reducing the system's heat capacity" Not always the case. The
                                  NASA guy for example worked on MCE where the heat capacity
                                  _increased_. :-) But this is moot because I already stated that the
                                  energy must come from someplace. Stating there's a dS has no affect on
                                  my theory. What if Magnetostriction also changed with dT. Does that
                                  mean the energy comes from Magnetostriction? Of course not. That's not
                                  science. Avalanche radiation is a fact! If you study internal
                                  radiation you learn the core shorts most of the magnetic fields
                                  because it's a close loop field and most of the UHF radiation is
                                  absorbed near the avalanche burst. If the core is electrically
                                  conductive then we have Eddy currents, which absorb a lot of the
                                  energy, which again heats up the core. The energy is there. You have
                                  the equations.
                                  3. "causing it to expel energy" Correct. Just as he said it "atoms
                                  into alignment" The atom alignment causes the energy. That is exactly
                                  my theory. If anything his explanation is closer to my theory. My
                                  theory is about gaining energy from atoms aligning. There are probably
                                  dozens of effects occurring with an applied field such as dS and
                                  Magnetostriction.

                                  Furthermore, I merely have to show you just one example to disprove
                                  your theory. You are failing to acknowledge nearly all MCE data
                                  contradicts what you are saying. You even acknowledged it yourself
                                  that if the heat capacity changed by a small % that it would kill your
                                  theory. I showed you one of many examples, Finemet, which dS changed
                                  by less than 1/600. Again, do you acknowledge that?

                                  Look at nearly all MCE data. It is scattered all over the net showing
                                  small entropy changes for big MCE on solids containing metals. One
                                  would have to filter out nearly all MCE data on the net to find what
                                  you found, which was a fluid.

                                  Regards,
                                  Paul Lowrance
                                • richar18
                                  (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off) Your explanation of the effect does not point to anything excess. I am
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Oct 20, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off)

                                    Your explanation of the effect does not point to anything excess. I
                                    am in agreement that the heating is caused by the alignment of the
                                    moments. I am also in agreement that the ambient environment
                                    destroys the alignment of the domains. But I do not see any extra
                                    energy in this interaction.

                                    As for rates of vibration, you are right this does not really factor
                                    in. The decrease in molecular of degrees of freedom by the alignment
                                    of the moments cause an increase in AMPLITUDE (therefore heat) of
                                    the molecule. Imagine a string vibrating in 3 dimensions. If you
                                    then force it to vibrate in only 2 dimensions (reduce DOF) its
                                    amplitude increases. Its as simple as that. When you give back the
                                    third dimension, its amplitude decreases. Simple stuff, no excess
                                    energy.

                                    Regarding the paper you posted, the scaling of the specific heat vs
                                    the entropy change is what matters in this case, not the entropy
                                    alone. Just because the entropy changes by only 0.72 J/Kg*K (which
                                    may not even be the case, due to misunderstanding, since I am
                                    assuming neither one of us has paid the $40 to read the full paper),
                                    does not mean the specific heat can not change by more than this. It
                                    is actually a fact that Cp will change SIGNIFICANTLY with respect to
                                    its baseline value for finemet, at the temps used in the paper. This
                                    is because the specific heat of a magnetic mat'l changes
                                    exponentially as you approach the Curie temp (the slope rises almost
                                    vertically as you increase temp toward Tc, and drops even steeper as
                                    you continue increasing temp away from Tc), which is related to why
                                    the MCE is greatest at the Curie temp. Take a look at the graph on
                                    pg 8 of the following writeup:

                                    http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/mphil/MP4-1.pdf

                                    As the temp of the core increases from the Curie temp to some value
                                    above, the Cp drops off an extreme amount.

                                    The abstract of the paper you sent me doesnt prove anything. Do you
                                    have any substantial evidence of your theory? All I can seem to find
                                    is info pointing to the significant decrease of Cp in proportion to
                                    the temp increase by the MCE, thereby removing any mysticism behind
                                    the effect.

                                    One more thing - I am not confusing anything with magnetostriction.
                                    I have seen many specific definitions for MCE, and the causal
                                    mechanism (aligning domains cause reduction in DOF, thereby
                                    decreasing entropy and increasing temp). Its all very simple in
                                    those terms. regarding the "1/9th or 1/18th energy" that is only if
                                    Cp stays constant (which from the above paper we know it drops
                                    DRASTICALLY as you go above the Curie temp). Since it does not stay
                                    constant, or even close to it, my hypothesis remains that the Cp
                                    reduction accounts for the (incorrectly assumed?) "excess" heat
                                    energy.

                                    And yes, from EVERYTHING I have read so far the Cp drops with MCE.

                                    -Brandon

                                    --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
                                    <softwarelabus@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hi Brandon,
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
                                    > > Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you,
                                    anonymity
                                    > > has become a habit when posting on these groups.
                                    >
                                    > Thanks! It took, what 4 replies to get your attention, lol. No
                                    problem!
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [snip]
                                    > > Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
                                    > > forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula
                                    well,
                                    > > I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the
                                    answer
                                    > > is not right :).
                                    >
                                    > Understood. I think you'll find that you forgot the 1/2 factor in
                                    your
                                    > math. I got ~1/18, not 1/9th, but we both know that's an inaccurate
                                    > method (possibly highly inaccurate) due to complex internal fields.
                                    > It's kind humorous, take my missing ^2 and add it in your missing
                                    1/2
                                    > and we have a fully non-mistyped equation, lol.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my
                                    idea,
                                    > > but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I
                                    did
                                    > > not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
                                    > > spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
                                    > > prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
                                    > > real as much as anyone.
                                    >
                                    > I'm not certain of that. Here what a NASA employee who worked on
                                    MCE
                                    > recently emailed me :
                                    >
                                    > "Then we remove the magnetic field when the materials temperature
                                    is
                                    > still above Tc. Now as the spins relax back to a random state it
                                    take
                                    > the energy to rotate from the lattice and cools the crystal."
                                    >
                                    > We know that it requires real energy to break (flip) the alignment
                                    of
                                    > many aligned magnetic moments. You acknowledge that, correct?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
                                    > > only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a
                                    very
                                    > > hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
                                    > > energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
                                    >
                                    > That was for a nanocrystalline material, Finemet, since that's the
                                    > wonder material of interest. :-) -->
                                    >
                                    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/cjop/2004/00000054/A00100s4
                                    /00000061;jsessionid=21mb18ken30yi.alice
                                    >
                                    > An entropy change for the Finemet is 0.72 J/KgK. Using a specific
                                    heat
                                    > of iron ~ 460 J/KgK, that's a mere 1/639th change in entropy. We
                                    both
                                    > know that the heat is real; i.e., it actually heats up things,
                                    lol. So
                                    > how much energy would it require to heat up such material even if
                                    the
                                    > heat capacity was (460 - 0.72)? BTW, are you sure the heat capacity
                                    > increases for most materials? It seems the NASA guy wrote that in
                                    his
                                    > case it actually increased, meaning that it requires more energy to
                                    > heat it up. Note that Finemet (Fe80.5Nb7B12.5) in the abstract is
                                    > 1/4th MCE as Gd alloys, which is significant, roughly 1 K change in
                                    > temperature per Tesla. That's a lot of energy for just one energy
                                    > exchange.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Paul, take a look at this link:
                                    > >
                                    > > http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html
                                    > >
                                    > > It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the
                                    Ames
                                    > > laboratory at the Iowa State Unv. I found these statements
                                    > > particulary interesting:
                                    > >
                                    > > "Precise heat capacity data collected as a function of
                                    temperature
                                    > > in various magnetic fields is one of the most accurate indirect
                                    > > techniques available for the characterization of magnetothermal
                                    > > properties of magnetic materials"
                                    > >
                                    > > and
                                    > >
                                    > > "The use of heat capacity data to calculate the magnetocaloric
                                    > > properties of magnetic solids along with a detailed analysis of
                                    > > resulting errors and comparison with other indirect and direct
                                    > > magnetocaloric measurements techniques will be given."
                                    > >
                                    > > Looks like maybe I could be right about the relationship between
                                    the
                                    > > MCE and specific heat?
                                    > >
                                    > > Note one of the presenting scientists is Karl Gschneider, a
                                    pioneer
                                    > > in the field of Magnetocaloric mat'ls.
                                    >
                                    > But I never stated the energy came from nothing. :-) Although the
                                    > above quotes don't claim as to _how_ the material heats up. It just
                                    > states that entropy and temperature go hand in hand, but even that
                                    I
                                    > question. For example I seriously doubt they studied
                                    nanocrystalline
                                    > materials, the wonder material. I believe your description
                                    describes
                                    > Magnetostriction where magnetic field strain causes change in size,
                                    > which in itself would cause temperature changes. We know from pure
                                    > physics that by moving aligned magnetic moments closer to each
                                    other
                                    > requires energy and viscera. Although note the Magnetostriction in
                                    > nanocrystalline materials is nearly zero. Magnetostriction for
                                    Metglas
                                    > 2714AF is <<1 ppm! That in itself could indicate the large MCE in
                                    such
                                    > materials is not caused by magnetic strains, at least for
                                    > nanocrystalline materials.
                                    >
                                    > I don't think the above quotes describe how MCE takes place. Lets
                                    try
                                    > to analyze in further detail what's happening. We know for fact
                                    that a
                                    > magnetic moment that is allowed to align will rotate, thereby
                                    adding
                                    > radiation energy. That being the case my MCE theory is true. You
                                    might
                                    > suggest that it does not generate as much energy as I thought. If
                                    it
                                    > does or does not remains to be seen. According to your math such
                                    > alignment would add 1/9th the reported MCE energy. I calculated
                                    > 1/18th. Regardless, even 1/18th of 15 megawatts is not so shabby
                                    for
                                    > one cubic inch of nanocrystalline material. :-) Anyhow, the
                                    aligning
                                    > moments adds energy, but lets not confuse that effect with magnetic
                                    > strain. We need to view the atoms as not aligned, and then
                                    instantly
                                    > aligned to not focus on the radiated energy associated with flip.
                                    We
                                    > then see magnet strain on the material. So the iron atoms move at
                                    the
                                    > same velocity, but the vibration rate is faster. The air atoms will
                                    > strike the iron atoms at the same rate. So in order to add more
                                    energy
                                    > to the air atoms the iron atoms need to increase in velocity, not
                                    > vibration rate. Remember, the air atoms will still strike the iron
                                    > atom the same amount of collisions per second.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > > I wish I could get some of the data presented, to see how the
                                    > > specific heat actually varies for the mat'ls tested. It is a
                                    > > scientific fact that Cp varies proportionally to the change in
                                    > > entropy of the mat'l due to the applied field, but I dont know
                                    what
                                    > > the scaling is. My basic physics background tells me the
                                    specific
                                    > > heat varies in a way that gives further credence to the 1st law
                                    of
                                    > > thermodynamics.
                                    >
                                    > Relatively speaking there's not an enormous amount of data
                                    regarding
                                    > MCE, and all that data as far as I can find (with exception of the
                                    > NASA guy) does not form any specific details on the atomic scale
                                    > what's happening. Only that there's a change in entropy, which is
                                    fine
                                    > with me. :-) Understandably the energy is coming from some place,
                                    and
                                    > the result is a change in entropy. I'm happy with that.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Regards,
                                    > Paul Lowrance
                                    >
                                  • softwarelabus
                                    ... took the weekend off) No problem moderator. Brandon and I have been exchanging emails. I wanted to limit the conversation because it s taking far too much
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Oct 24, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                                      > (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators
                                      took the weekend off)

                                      No problem moderator. Brandon and I have been exchanging emails. I
                                      wanted to limit the conversation because it's taking far too much
                                      time, but I'll briefly reply below :


                                      > Your explanation of the effect does not point to anything excess. I
                                      > am in agreement that the heating is caused by the alignment of the
                                      > moments. I am also in agreement that the ambient environment
                                      > destroys the alignment of the domains. But I do not see any extra
                                      > energy in this interaction.

                                      I'm glad that you're now in agreement with both the NASA guy and me at
                                      least on the ambient cooling. ;-) I'll copy & paste a section from my
                                      previous email ->

                                      ---
                                      Just wanted to quickly explain why it's not accurate
                                      (not complete) to say the amount of energy is
                                      associated with the net field E=V*B^2/(2U0). We
                                      calculated that if we merely consider the energy in
                                      the field we get 1/18th. We know there is a net mean
                                      field of 1 T. That is a given, but lets analyze more
                                      details. To understand the energies involved so we
                                      don't create something from nothing lets analyze this
                                      with current carrying tiny coils. Take 1000's of tiny
                                      coils that have no current that are near each other to
                                      form a one body. This body is in the form of a toroid.
                                      Increase the currents till a net field of 1 T forms.
                                      So a field strength of 1 Tesla just entered all the
                                      coil loops. So we have a net energy change from the
                                      entire magnetic field, E=V*B^2/(2U0). Note that no
                                      parts were moved, so we have no mechanical energy. The
                                      only energy gained was in the magnetic field, but this
                                      took energy from the coils-- back emf (magnetic line
                                      breaking). Note that the coil currents increased and
                                      were not DC like permanent magnets (intrinsic electron
                                      spin).

                                      So lets do another experiment and say all the coils
                                      are separated distance wise, miles away from each
                                      other. Each coil will now have DC current. All the
                                      coils now move toward each other so they form the body
                                      again with 1 T net field. Note that this time the
                                      induced voltage is the same, but we gained both
                                      magnetic field energy and mechanical energy because
                                      all the DC current coils are magnetically attracted
                                      toward each other. This requires more energy because
                                      we have DC current rather than an increasing current.
                                      If we graph this we see it takes twice as much energy
                                      from the coils. So the gained mechanic energy equals
                                      the gain field energy.

                                      Now lets take this one step further. Instead of the DC
                                      current coils being separated, lets just place them
                                      all next to each other (again one big toroid), but
                                      force them to all cancel each others fields out. That
                                      means one coil will be north, the next south, the next
                                      north, etc. This has even more potential energy
                                      because the fields from neighboring coils go the
                                      opposite direction inside the coil and the DC current
                                      coils all repel each other. So now the amount of
                                      energy really depends how close the coils are too each
                                      other. In this case the amount of mechanical energy
                                      gained could be trillions of times higher than
                                      E=V*B^2/(2U0). Can you see why? If not then allow me
                                      to explain. Consider the magnetic moment of an
                                      electron in free space. So far we do not know the size
                                      of the electron and as far as we can tell so far it is
                                      a point. So the field increases exponentially as we
                                      approach the electron. Anyhow, if it's a point or not
                                      is moot. The point is that we have a certain amount of
                                      field energy from the electrons magnetic moment. Now,
                                      lets move another electron near our first electron so
                                      their magnetic moments cancel and repel just as in our
                                      DC current coil experiment. In this case we see the
                                      net magnetic field from the two electrons has vastly
                                      decreased because they are canceling a great deal of
                                      each others fields out. So we have lost energy from
                                      the net field, but we just gained PE (Potential
                                      Energy) because it requires energy to force to
                                      magnetic moments facing each other. The close the
                                      magnetic moments are to each other to more they cancel
                                      each other out, which requires more work/energy.

                                      We know that the intrinsic electron spins always have
                                      a magnetic field. When the material is demagnetized
                                      the domains cancel each other out. So the smaller the
                                      domains the more potential energy we have relative to
                                      the entire core being magnetized. We can clearly see
                                      how the amount of potential energy could be magnitudes
                                      higher than just E=V*B^2/(2U0). The domains in the
                                      high-end nanocrystalline and amorphous magnetic
                                      materials is very small. Sure, not as small as
                                      magnetic material that is in Curie temperature. We
                                      know the magnetic moments at Tc are for the most part
                                      randomized. If they are 100% randomized then that
                                      essentially constitutes the smallest domain size as
                                      possible; i.e., the magnetic moments are all repelling
                                      each other at close distances. Such a close proximity
                                      results in a appreciable amount of the electrons
                                      magnetic moments canceling each other out, which
                                      equates to a lot of PE.
                                      ---

                                      Plenty of energy.



                                      > As for rates of vibration, you are right this does not really factor in.

                                      Indeed. :-)



                                      > The decrease in molecular of degrees of freedom by the alignment
                                      > of the moments cause an increase in AMPLITUDE (therefore heat) of
                                      > the molecule. Imagine a string vibrating in 3 dimensions. If you
                                      > then force it to vibrate in only 2 dimensions (reduce DOF) its
                                      > amplitude increases. Its as simple as that. When you give back the
                                      > third dimension, its amplitude decreases. Simple stuff, no excess
                                      > energy.

                                      The effect of strings as you mention is true, which is caused by a
                                      small displacement (the stretching) equates to a large displacement in
                                      the other dimension (widthwise). This is the same effect as
                                      compressing a gas. The vibrating string applies a pulling force
                                      lengthwise on the string. When you pull and tighten the vibrating
                                      strings it requires a small change lengthwise to result in a large
                                      change in the distance the vibrating string reaches. Essentially you
                                      are compressing the vibrating material, which results in energy. This
                                      theory of magnetic strain on magnetic materials cannot be correct for
                                      many reasons. 1) Magnetostriction can be negative or positive in
                                      magnetic materials. 2) Magnetostriction in most nanocrystalline &
                                      amorphous materials is practically zero. It is so small for Metglas
                                      2714AF that it's listed as <<1 ppm. For Hitachi's Finemet it is listed
                                      as 0 (zero).

                                      Having written dozens of computer simulations I just can't see how
                                      magnetic strain could even remotely enter the picture as change of
                                      entropy when there's no change in size, zero Magnetostriction.



                                      > Regarding the paper you posted, the scaling of the specific heat vs
                                      > the entropy change is what matters in this case, not the entropy
                                      > alone. Just because the entropy changes by only 0.72 J/Kg*K (which
                                      > may not even be the case, due to misunderstanding, since I am
                                      > assuming neither one of us has paid the $40 to read the full paper),
                                      > does not mean the specific heat can not change by more than this. It
                                      > is actually a fact that Cp will change SIGNIFICANTLY with respect to
                                      > its baseline value for finemet, at the temps used in the paper. This
                                      > is because the specific heat of a magnetic mat'l changes
                                      > exponentially as you approach the Curie temp (the slope rises almost
                                      > vertically as you increase temp toward Tc, and drops even steeper as
                                      > you continue increasing temp away from Tc), which is related to why
                                      > the MCE is greatest at the Curie temp. Take a look at the graph on
                                      > pg 8 of the following writeup:
                                      >
                                      > http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/mphil/MP4-1.pdf
                                      >
                                      > As the temp of the core increases from the Curie temp to some value
                                      > above, the Cp drops off an extreme amount.
                                      >
                                      > The abstract of the paper you sent me doesnt prove anything. Do you
                                      > have any substantial evidence of your theory? All I can seem to find
                                      > is info pointing to the significant decrease of Cp in proportion to
                                      > the temp increase by the MCE, thereby removing any mysticism behind
                                      > the effect.

                                      First off you make error in assuming such magnetic materials are in
                                      Curie temperature, which is not true. Of course MCE is max around Tc,
                                      which is what I have been saying since the theory predicts that
                                      because domains decrease in size as temperature increases. I've seen
                                      many MCE graphs of different Finemet materials and they all have
                                      appreciable MCE far below Curie temperature.

                                      It is true that Cp does not have to be linear, but to suggest that Cp
                                      drops by magnitudes from simply magnetizing such a core to 1 T sounds
                                      like science fiction. I have two Metglas cores. A human could be
                                      trained to detect small Cp changes, but not the average person, but
                                      don't you think an average human would be able to detect Cp change
                                      from 450 to nearly zero just by touch? At such low Cp the metal
                                      temperature would almost instantly increase from room temperature to
                                      body temperature from touch. Metal is cold to the touch and remains
                                      cold for an appreciable time while the metal heats up.



                                      > And yes, from EVERYTHING I have read so far the Cp drops with MCE.

                                      No, I firmly believe the NASA employee was telling the truth when he
                                      stated the heat capacity increased in the material he studied.



                                      Also you stated that I was incorrect in that it requires the same
                                      energy to magnetize a core to the same field strength if the
                                      permeability doubles. It is important that people do not hold such an
                                      incorrect idea about magnetic materials as this could easily hinder
                                      and misguide such research.

                                      Therefore it is important that people here know that in private email
                                      you acknowledged your error. Here is a quote on your original *claim* -->

                                      --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > This reply is only geared towards the comment regarding the energy it
                                      > takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I will respond to
                                      > the excess MCE energy later:
                                      >
                                      > It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to GENERATE the same
                                      > magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the permeability. Lets first
                                      > use a coil/core as an example. The greater the permeability of the
                                      > core, the higher the inductance of the system. The higher the
                                      > inductance, the more voltage is required to GENERATE the same
                                      > magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less current. The energy
                                      > consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the core permeability.
                                      >
                                      > Another way to look at it is to identify the force it takes to detach
                                      > a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy inside the
                                      > magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal to the energy it
                                      > will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over a distance until
                                      > the force of attraction equals zero. This energy rises with
                                      > permeability, because the force vs distance increases in proportion
                                      > to the permeability.
                                      >
                                      > I would like to stress that if permeability increases, it takes the
                                      > SAME amount of energy to GENERATE the same field within a mat'l of
                                      > the same dimensions.


                                      Regards,
                                      Paul Lowrance
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.