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

Expand Messages
• 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.