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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Oct 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      (Note: Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the weekend off)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      -Brandon

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

        Plenty of energy.



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

        Indeed. :-)



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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


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