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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.