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

Expand Messages
• 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 1 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
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
>
> 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 SkorvÃ¡nek and KovÃ¡c 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
• 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 2 of 19 , Oct 18, 2006
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 SkorvÃ¡nek and KovÃ¡c 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
> 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
> > 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
> > > > 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
• 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 3 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
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
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.
> > 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 SkorvÃ¡nek and KovÃ¡c 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
> > 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
> > > 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
> > > > > if someone completed this before 2007. The goal is not
> > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be
a
> > > great
> > > > day!
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Paul Lowrance
>
• 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 4 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> > > 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 SkorvÃ¡nek and KovÃ¡c 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
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
> > > > 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
> > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
be
> a
> > > > great
> > > > > day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Paul Lowrance
> >
>
• 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 5 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
I found further evidence to help my argument regarding the reduction
in specific heat cancelling any possible excess energy gains due to

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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> > > 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 SkorvÃ¡nek and KovÃ¡c 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
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
> > > > 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
> > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
be
> a
> > > > great
> > > > > day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Paul Lowrance
> >
>
• 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 6 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
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]
• 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 7 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
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
> 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
• 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 8 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
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]
>
• 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 9 of 19 , Oct 19, 2006
"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]
>
• (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 10 of 19 , Oct 20, 2006
(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
• (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 11 of 19 , Oct 20, 2006
(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
> > 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
> > 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
> 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
>
• ... 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 12 of 19 , Oct 24, 2006
--- 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.