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

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

Expand Messages
  • softwarelabus
    (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off) Hi Brandon, I would appreciate it if you could please just acknowledge
    Message 1 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
    • richar18
      (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off) Your explanation of the effect does not point to anything excess. I am
      Message 2 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
        answer
        > > is not right :).
        >
        > Understood. I think you'll find that you forgot the 1/2 factor in
        your
        > math. I got ~1/18, not 1/9th, but we both know that's an inaccurate
        > method (possibly highly inaccurate) due to complex internal fields.
        > It's kind humorous, take my missing ^2 and add it in your missing
        1/2
        > and we have a fully non-mistyped equation, lol.
        >
        >
        > > What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my
        idea,
        > > but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I
        did
        > > not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
        > > spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
        > > prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
        > > real as much as anyone.
        >
        > I'm not certain of that. Here what a NASA employee who worked on
        MCE
        > recently emailed me :
        >
        > "Then we remove the magnetic field when the materials temperature
        is
        > still above Tc. Now as the spins relax back to a random state it
        take
        > the energy to rotate from the lattice and cools the crystal."
        >
        > We know that it requires real energy to break (flip) the alignment
        of
        > many aligned magnetic moments. You acknowledge that, correct?
        >
        >
        > > I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
        > > only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a
        very
        > > hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
        > > energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
        >
        > That was for a nanocrystalline material, Finemet, since that's the
        > wonder material of interest. :-) -->
        >
        http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/cjop/2004/00000054/A00100s4
        /00000061;jsessionid=21mb18ken30yi.alice
        >
        > An entropy change for the Finemet is 0.72 J/KgK. Using a specific
        heat
        > of iron ~ 460 J/KgK, that's a mere 1/639th change in entropy. We
        both
        > know that the heat is real; i.e., it actually heats up things,
        lol. So
        > how much energy would it require to heat up such material even if
        the
        > heat capacity was (460 - 0.72)? BTW, are you sure the heat capacity
        > increases for most materials? It seems the NASA guy wrote that in
        his
        > case it actually increased, meaning that it requires more energy to
        > heat it up. Note that Finemet (Fe80.5Nb7B12.5) in the abstract is
        > 1/4th MCE as Gd alloys, which is significant, roughly 1 K change in
        > temperature per Tesla. That's a lot of energy for just one energy
        > exchange.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > Paul, take a look at this link:
        > >
        > > http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html
        > >
        > > It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the
        Ames
        > > laboratory at the Iowa State Unv. I found these statements
        > > particulary interesting:
        > >
        > > "Precise heat capacity data collected as a function of
        temperature
        > > in various magnetic fields is one of the most accurate indirect
        > > techniques available for the characterization of magnetothermal
        > > properties of magnetic materials"
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > "The use of heat capacity data to calculate the magnetocaloric
        > > properties of magnetic solids along with a detailed analysis of
        > > resulting errors and comparison with other indirect and direct
        > > magnetocaloric measurements techniques will be given."
        > >
        > > Looks like maybe I could be right about the relationship between
        the
        > > MCE and specific heat?
        > >
        > > Note one of the presenting scientists is Karl Gschneider, a
        pioneer
        > > in the field of Magnetocaloric mat'ls.
        >
        > But I never stated the energy came from nothing. :-) Although the
        > above quotes don't claim as to _how_ the material heats up. It just
        > states that entropy and temperature go hand in hand, but even that
        I
        > question. For example I seriously doubt they studied
        nanocrystalline
        > materials, the wonder material. I believe your description
        describes
        > Magnetostriction where magnetic field strain causes change in size,
        > which in itself would cause temperature changes. We know from pure
        > physics that by moving aligned magnetic moments closer to each
        other
        > requires energy and viscera. Although note the Magnetostriction in
        > nanocrystalline materials is nearly zero. Magnetostriction for
        Metglas
        > 2714AF is <<1 ppm! That in itself could indicate the large MCE in
        such
        > materials is not caused by magnetic strains, at least for
        > nanocrystalline materials.
        >
        > I don't think the above quotes describe how MCE takes place. Lets
        try
        > to analyze in further detail what's happening. We know for fact
        that a
        > magnetic moment that is allowed to align will rotate, thereby
        adding
        > radiation energy. That being the case my MCE theory is true. You
        might
        > suggest that it does not generate as much energy as I thought. If
        it
        > does or does not remains to be seen. According to your math such
        > alignment would add 1/9th the reported MCE energy. I calculated
        > 1/18th. Regardless, even 1/18th of 15 megawatts is not so shabby
        for
        > one cubic inch of nanocrystalline material. :-) Anyhow, the
        aligning
        > moments adds energy, but lets not confuse that effect with magnetic
        > strain. We need to view the atoms as not aligned, and then
        instantly
        > aligned to not focus on the radiated energy associated with flip.
        We
        > then see magnet strain on the material. So the iron atoms move at
        the
        > same velocity, but the vibration rate is faster. The air atoms will
        > strike the iron atoms at the same rate. So in order to add more
        energy
        > to the air atoms the iron atoms need to increase in velocity, not
        > vibration rate. Remember, the air atoms will still strike the iron
        > atom the same amount of collisions per second.
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        > > I wish I could get some of the data presented, to see how the
        > > specific heat actually varies for the mat'ls tested. It is a
        > > scientific fact that Cp varies proportionally to the change in
        > > entropy of the mat'l due to the applied field, but I dont know
        what
        > > the scaling is. My basic physics background tells me the
        specific
        > > heat varies in a way that gives further credence to the 1st law
        of
        > > thermodynamics.
        >
        > Relatively speaking there's not an enormous amount of data
        regarding
        > MCE, and all that data as far as I can find (with exception of the
        > NASA guy) does not form any specific details on the atomic scale
        > what's happening. Only that there's a change in entropy, which is
        fine
        > with me. :-) Understandably the energy is coming from some place,
        and
        > the result is a change in entropy. I'm happy with that.
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        > Paul Lowrance
        >
      • softwarelabus
        ... took the weekend off) No problem moderator. Brandon and I have been exchanging emails. I wanted to limit the conversation because it s taking far too much
        Message 3 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.