Hi guys
I agree with the idea that driving a coil to impede the  flux path is a
difficult task. I have worked with dc brushless motors and the motor
stator permeability is a problem for high torque with small motors.
As I see it the objective of the meg is not to totally stop the flux
path but to reduce it just prior to reaching core saturation. Any
change in flux will result in a change in secondary output.
I do believe that true over unity can be achieved with the new
materials being invented with a crystalline structure that could shift
polarity and hinder a flux path with a small current applied.

Dave

Hi,
i am italian builder of MEG (first 2002) and i have a theory of it.
The site(http://xoomer.alice.it/sandro_meg/) is in italian language
but you can translate with google.
The tests are positiv (now..but not overunity) and hope to you in an
aid to develop the idea.
Sorry for my english
Sandro

WWW.PROGETTOMEG.IT (link of site of MEG an cold fusion)
http://xoomer.alice.it/sandro_meg/ (temporary site theory of MEG)

(Note from the moderators - here is the translation link):

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fxoomer.alice.it%2Fsandro_me\
g%2F&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Hey Stan,

I'm new to the MEG itself, but I have a wide variety of electrical
experience working in various sections. I thought this information
might be of some use for you:

1. I have had experience in winding power transformers. It is best to
wind the windings reasonably well to get optimum efficiency.

2. I have previously bought magnets from www.aussiemagnets.com.au
Neodymium (rare earth) magnets are good to work with.
The fit should be reasonably tight, as mechanical movement /
vibrations of the magnets will affect performance.

3. Closing the loop is feeding the output of the MEG to charge the
battery. There could be a risk of high circulating currents causing
parts to burn out. Like if you place a microphone to a speaker and it
squeals.

4. I'm not sure why that size core is being used. Maybe to make
making the MEG easier?
As far as saturation is concerned, you may want to try Stan Meyer's
water fuel cell pulse driver (look at waveform on diagram -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Water_fuel_cell_cir
cuit.png ). The longer gate pause should help the core recover.

5. I don't think it will make any difference if it is 24 or 25 volts
to operate the MEG. When you charge 24 volts worth of batteries, you
will need to input 27.6 volts to charge them fully.

I hope this information has been of some help to you,

Andrew Gardiner
http://www.thewaterengine.com

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Stan Mayer" <StanMayer@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "source_dipole"
> <source_dipole@y...> wrote:
> >
> > 1. On building the coils does anyone know of a company that
> > will wind the coils for you?  Is this a critical construction
> > element?  Hand winding or not?
> >
> > 2. On the permanent rectangular magnet in the center.
> > Will any type of magnet work?  Can anyone suggest a
> > good company to buy from or will any electronic supplier
> > do? How tight should the fit be?
> >
> > 3. On "CLOSING THE LOOP".  Do you mean to disconnect
> > from or by-pass the battery altogether?  Is this what
> > is ment by "CLOSING THE LOOP"?
> >
> > 4. On the 320 core.  Why is this size of core being used?
> > What about a bigger core?  Would a bigger core be better
> > in terms of avoiding core saturation and producing greater
> > power output?
> >
> > 5. The Battery.  Will 24 Volts work instead of 25 volts?
> > Is there a battery type that will work better than some other?
> >
> > 6. Stan.  Where can I buy that electronic circuit simulator
> > you mentioned using in one of your responses?
>
> Dear Source_Dipole,
>
> The electronic circuit simulator that I use is MicroSim Eval. 8.0.
This program can be downloaded for free from ...
>
> http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~herniter/Software/Cadence/pspice.htm
>
> On this page find the "MicroSim Version 8.0" section and the
select "1. Click here to download version 8.0 of Schematics from
MicroSim."  Then, at the resulting next page, select "Method 1:
Click here to download PSpice in one large file (16 MB)."  The file
that you download to your PC should be named 80dlabe.exe and should
indeed be about 16 Mb in size.  I really like this program even
though it is only a demo version and won't allow you to create your
own parts and/or bring in PSpice libraries.
>
> Best,
>
> Stan Mayer
>

Hey Dan,

I'm new to the MEG, but looking at http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm
it seems like a goer!

I got in contact with the company that supplies the core as specified
on the JLN Labs site and they said the core is $107 as a set.
Their website is http://www.elnamagnetics.com and it is a MetGlas
AMCC-320 Powerlite core.

Hope this is of some help,

Andrew

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "ancient_anubis2000"
<crazy_milk_drink@...> wrote:
>
> hey everyone,
>
> i was just wondering where you all got your ferrite cores from? ive
> scoured the internet looking for a supplier, alas i can not find one
> :( i live in the U.K, so if any of you know where i can get my hands
> on some cores, woud be extremely usefull.
>
> thanx in advanced,
> Dan
>

Hi Andrew,


I have enquired to Metglas about getting sample cores.
Thank you for the update on the cost of the core from the
distributor.

I rather fancy getting one the same as JLN used and the next size up.
Or that really big one at the top of the range that weights a
whopping 7Kg (per half??) - AMCC1000.

Hi Dan,

I too am from the UK (Stafford), so like you I will be ordering from
either Germany or USA.

Regards

Rob

Hello everybody!I'm new into this MEG stuff,so I need some help..

I have finnaly acquired some parts for MEG(that would be an magnet and
an core operating on 20kHz)
Is that OK for an cca. 300W output?
Can someone send me a scheme of control board for MEG,because I found
couple of those but neither of them was good.

Thx!

@All
I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will not
work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline and
amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
presently a quick job -->

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM

You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas versions use
Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing MCE
energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories. Rather,
it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what is
happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.

Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy exchanges. For
example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that nanocrystalline
material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE as Gd
alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline material
toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to generate
internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power required to
generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such material is
but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a fraction
of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
nanocrystalline magnetic core material.

There are several problems here. The main problem being that magnetic
material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue is
in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in the
above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE energy
is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is extremely
difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to overcome
this, as detailed in my wiki.

What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one late
night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I stood
back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"

I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered Naudin
incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing the
scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I went to
his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that either
he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so many
other people at other sites have published false science regarding
Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words, if
we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal on
say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400 MHz
signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz signal
was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts of
energy.

In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.

Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely published "smoking
gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be released
with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links at the
bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more pleased
if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a great day!

Kind regards,
Paul Lowrance

Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron evenly
permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy generated
as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
<softwarelabus@...> wrote:
>
> @All
> I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
> exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will not
> work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
and
> amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> presently a quick job -->
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
>
> You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas versions
use
> Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing MCE
> energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories. Rather,
> it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what is
> happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
>
> Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy exchanges.
For
> example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that nanocrystalline
> material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE as
Gd
> alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline material
> toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to generate
> internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power required to
> generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such material
is
> but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
fraction
> of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
>
> There are several problems here. The main problem being that
magnetic
> material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue is
> in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in the
> above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
> cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
energy
> is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
extremely
> difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to overcome
> this, as detailed in my wiki.
>
> What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
late
> night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I stood
> back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
>
> I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
Naudin
> incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing the
> scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I went to
> his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
> Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
either
> he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
many
> other people at other sites have published false science regarding
> Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
> about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
> dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words, if
> we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal on
> say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400 MHz
> signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz signal
> was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
> physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts of
> energy.
>
> In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
>
> Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
published "smoking
> gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
released
> with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links at
the
> bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
pleased
> if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a great
day!
>
> Kind regards,
> Paul Lowrance
>

Hi richar18,

There are several methods. Method #1 is the easiest. Normally MCE
(magnetocaloric effect) heats up, cools down, etc. In electrical
conductors such as iron and Metglas a lot of the MCE energy goes to
micro eddy current bursts. Normally the eddy currents dissipate all
the energy in the form of heat. If you pulse the core at the correct
speed you will get a _coherent_ avalanche pulse. IOW, the avalanches
are occurring at roughly the same time. You'll get eddy currents. When
the Eddy currents reach peak then your receiving coil will attempt to
rob as much energy from the Eddy currents. You do this by placing a
load across the coil.

Picture a nano size group of atoms that flip. There are many factors
that determine the flip rate such as magnetic field strength, but free
electrons plays a huge role. The free electrons act as inductance,
resist the flipping magnetic moments. (You can see this effect by
dropping a neo magnet down a hollow Al tube.) This gives a micro eddy
burst. So you could say its like a microscopic coil around the
avalanche, which is a good thing so as to collect a high percentage of
the MCE energy.

Under normal conditions you have millions of micro eddy currents that
are simultaneously increasing and decreasing all over the place within
the core. In other words, the bursts are not coherent. Micro eddy
bursts do not last very long, which is why you need to pulse the core
fast enough and then quickly absorb some energy from the eddy
currents. Although, when the eddy currents occur at the same time then
the bursts decay at a much slower rate, which is a good thing.

Where the energy comes from is fascinating. Without ambient
temperature (vibrating atoms) magnetic material would align (saturate)
and that's the end of the story. Even when you remove the applied
field the core would remain magnetized. It is vibrating atoms that
give low coercivity. So when you remove the applied field it is the
atoms that _force_ the magnetic moments to break alignment with the
net magnetic field. That requires energy, which is exactly why
magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed. That
is where MCE energy comes from. Even the NASA guy who contacted me agreed.


Trying to compute the energy relative to the field strength is perhaps
not the correct method. Consider two PM's each on swivels, so they can
rotate. The PM's are rotated so they repel each other. The magnetic
fields cancel each other, so the net magnetic field is relatively low,
just within close proximity of each PM. Now allow the PM's to quickly
rotate so they align. You get energy _plus_ you get a net magnetic
field, lol. Magnetic moments also rotate as IBM's experiments
revealed. Normally this flip/rotation rate takes a few nanoseconds,
but in electrically conductive materials such as iron and metglas it
takes many microseconds.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
> also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
> part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
> energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron evenly
> permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
> energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy generated
> as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
> like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
> law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
> allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
> quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> >
> > @All
> > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
> > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will not
> > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
> and
> > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> > presently a quick job -->
> >
> > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> >
> > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas versions
> use
> > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing MCE
> > energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories. Rather,
> > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what is
> > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> >
> > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy exchanges.
> For
> > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that nanocrystalline
> > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE as
> Gd
> > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline material
> > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to generate
> > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power required to
> > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such material
> is
> > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
> fraction
> > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> >
> > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
> magnetic
> > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue is
> > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in the
> > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
> > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
> energy
> > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
> extremely
> > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to overcome
> > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> >
> > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
> late
> > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I stood
> > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
> >
> > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
> Naudin
> > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing the
> > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I went to
> > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
> > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
> either
> > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
> many
> > other people at other sites have published false science regarding
> > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
> > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
> > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words, if
> > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal on
> > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400 MHz
> > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz signal
> > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
> > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts of
> > energy.
> >
> > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> >
> > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> published "smoking
> > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
> released
> > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links at
> the
> > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
> pleased
> > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a great
> day!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Paul Lowrance
> >
>

You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly
calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on
to find out why.

According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect is
due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in the
presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
(and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field is
removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
system from an energetic point of view.

Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE OF
FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees of
freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without increasing
its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the mat'l).
This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -
That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than the
energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the change
in entropy.

I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute temp)

Anyone?

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further, I
> also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as a
> part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
> energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
evenly
> permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with the
> energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
generated
> as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field. Seems
> like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the 1st
> law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
> allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did not
> quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> >
> > @All
> > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will not
> > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will not
> > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want nanocrystalline
> and
> > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> > presently a quick job -->
> >
> > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> >
> > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
versions
> use
> > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing
MCE
> > energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories.
Rather,
> > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly what
is
> > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> >
> > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
exchanges.
> For
> > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
nanocrystalline
> > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth MCE
as
> Gd
> > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
material
> > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
generate
> > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power required
to
> > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
material
> is
> > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
> fraction
> > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> >
> > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
> magnetic
> > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another issue
is
> > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as in
the
> > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall iron
> > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
> energy
> > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
> extremely
> > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
overcome
> > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> >
> > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard one
> late
> > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
stood
> > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
> >
> > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
> Naudin
> > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly analyzing
the
> > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I went
to
> > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free energy."
> > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
> either
> > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate so
> many
> > other people at other sites have published false science regarding
> > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private PM
> > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
> > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other words,
if
> > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz signal
on
> > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the 400
MHz
> > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
signal
> > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing my
> > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous amounts
of
> > energy.
> >
> > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> >
> > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> published "smoking
> > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
> released
> > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links
at
> the
> > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
> pleased
> > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
great
> day!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Paul Lowrance
> >
>

Hi richar18,

The energy contained in the magnetic field of a magnetized core is not
represented by the energy consumed by the coil/circuit. For example,
consider material with twice the permeability & same dimensions and
you'll see it requires half the energy to bring such material to the
same magnetic field intensity.

Yes there is a change in specific heat due to MCE, but it is known
this can increase as well as decrease depending on the material and
conditions.

You cannot discount the fact there is energy release when the magnetic
moments align.

I'll add further comments below :

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
> You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into incorrectly
> calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read on
> to find out why.
>
> According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect is
> due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in the
> presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
> (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field is
> removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
> understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
> system from an energetic point of view.

The guy from NASA disagrees with the above theory and agreed with my
theory as to why it cools. He clarified that the vibrating atoms knock
the magnetic moments out of alignment, which requires energy and cools
the material.

Furthermore, your above theory does not work on nanocrystalline
magnetic materials, which indeed are saturated on the domain level,
but still exhibit strong MCE roughly 10,000 to 100,000 times stronger
than ferrites, iron, and other magnetic materials, and only 1/4th of
the best Gd alloys, which my theory all predicts.

If I am in error then please point out the error.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when the
field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of the
sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the entropy
of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat transfer
to the environment.

Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the molecular
structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the molecular
degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom reduce,
two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces proportionately,
due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a closed
system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
molecular degrees of freedom.

You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics causes
the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic conditions
and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively cancels
the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus thwarting
the creation of energy.

So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect to
happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have is
another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
>
> You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
incorrectly
> calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read
on
> to find out why.
>
> According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect
is
> due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in
the
> presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
> (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field
is
> removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
> understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
> system from an energetic point of view.
>
> Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
> and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
> assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
> threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
> reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE
OF
> FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees
of
> freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
increasing
> its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
mat'l).
> This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -

> That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than
the
> energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
> not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
change
> in entropy.
>
> I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
> specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
temp)
>
> Anyone?
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
I
> > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect
as a
> > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
> > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
> evenly
> > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
the
> > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
> generated
> > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
Seems
> > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
1st
> > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
> > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
not
> > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > @All
> > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
not
> > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will
not
> > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
nanocrystalline
> > and
> > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> > > presently a quick job -->
> > >
> > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > >
> > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
> versions
> > use
> > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
capturing
> MCE
> > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories.
> Rather,
> > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
what
> is
> > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> > >
> > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
> exchanges.
> > For
> > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
> nanocrystalline
> > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
MCE
> as
> > Gd
> > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
> material
> > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
> generate
> > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
required
> to
> > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
> material
> > is
> > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
> > fraction
> > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > >
> > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
> > magnetic
> > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
issue
> is
> > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
in
> the
> > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
iron
> > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that
MCE
> > energy
> > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
> > extremely
> > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
> overcome
> > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > >
> > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
one
> > late
> > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
> stood
> > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
> > >
> > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
> > Naudin
> > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
analyzing
> the
> > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I
went
> to
> > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
energy."
> > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
> > either
> > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
so
> > many
> > > other people at other sites have published false science
regarding
> > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
private PM
> > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
cannot
> > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
words,
> if
> > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
signal
> on
> > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
400
> MHz
> > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
> signal
> > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
knowing my
> > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
amounts
> of
> > > energy.
> > >
> > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > >
> > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > published "smoking
> > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
> > released
> > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
links
> at
> > the
> > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
> > pleased
> > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
> great
> > day!
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Paul Lowrance
> > >
> >
>

Hi richar18,

You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the energy
in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0)  B is in Tesla's, V=cubic meters, u0
is permeability of free space.

If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from then
you need to ask a few questions.

1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few 0 K.
The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy does it
require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy. Well,
maybe they could. :-)
3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
little change in temperature when a certain temperature is reached.
4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you were to
apply a 60 T field.
5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the domain
level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were you
aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as deep
freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change in
temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly 1/500th
(0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature. You
calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of that
material by 1 K. :-)  How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59 Joules.
  I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K. Repeat,
the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.  Just
kidding ... I think. ;-)

richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to ignore
me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You asked me a
lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)

God bless you,
Paul Lowrance



--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
> Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when the
> field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
> entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of the
> sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the entropy
> of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat transfer
> to the environment.
>
> Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the molecular
> structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
> field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the molecular
> degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom reduce,
> two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces proportionately,
> due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
> entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a closed
> system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
> molecular degrees of freedom.
>
> You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
> molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics causes
> the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic conditions
> and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively cancels
> the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus thwarting
> the creation of energy.
>
> So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
> thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect to
> happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have is
> another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.
>
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
> >
> > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
> incorrectly
> > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization. Read
> on
> > to find out why.
> >
> > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric effect
> is
> > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules in
> the
> > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in entropy
> > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the field
> is
> > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
> > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in the
> > system from an energetic point of view.
> >
> > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron, before
> > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated if we
> > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
> > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so! The
> > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE DEGREE
> OF
> > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less degrees
> of
> > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
> increasing
> > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
> mat'l).
> > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say next -
>
> > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater than
> the
> > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is actually
> > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
> change
> > in entropy.
> >
> > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy to
> > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
> temp)
> >
> > Anyone?
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
> I
> > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect
> as a
> > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
> > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
> > evenly
> > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
> the
> > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
> > generated
> > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
> Seems
> > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
> 1st
> > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
> > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
> not
> > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> > >
> > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @All
> > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
> not
> > > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will
> not
> > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
> nanocrystalline
> > > and
> > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> > > > presently a quick job -->
> > > >
> > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > > >
> > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
> > versions
> > > use
> > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
> capturing
> > MCE
> > > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories.
> > Rather,
> > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> > > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
> what
> > is
> > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> > > >
> > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
> > exchanges.
> > > For
> > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
> > nanocrystalline
> > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
> MCE
> > as
> > > Gd
> > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
> > material
> > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
> > generate
> > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
> required
> > to
> > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
> > material
> > > is
> > > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
> > > fraction
> > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > > >
> > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
> > > magnetic
> > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
> issue
> > is
> > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
> in
> > the
> > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
> iron
> > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that
> MCE
> > > energy
> > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
> > > extremely
> > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
> > overcome
> > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > > >
> > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
> one
> > > late
> > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
> > stood
> > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
> > > >
> > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
> > > Naudin
> > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
> analyzing
> > the
> > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I
> went
> > to
> > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
> energy."
> > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
> > > either
> > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
> so
> > > many
> > > > other people at other sites have published false science
> regarding
> > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
> private PM
> > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
> cannot
> > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
> words,
> > if
> > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
> signal
> > on
> > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
> 400
> > MHz
> > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
> > signal
> > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
> knowing my
> > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
> amounts
> > of
> > > > energy.
> > > >
> > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > > published "smoking
> > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
> > > released
> > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
> links
> > at
> > > the
> > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
> > > pleased
> > > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
> > great
> > > day!
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Paul Lowrance

This reply is only geared towards the comment regarding the energy it
takes to magnetize with respect to permeability. I will respond to
the excess MCE energy later:

It is a misnomer that it takes half the energy to generate the same
magnetic field within a mat'l of twice the permeability. Lets first
use a coil/core as an example. The greater the permeability of the
core, the higher the inductance of the system. The higher the
inductance, the more voltage is required to generate the same
magnetic field, albeit with proportionally less current. The energy
consumed by the coil is the same regardless of the core permeability.

Another way to look at it is to identify the force it takes to detach
a magnet from a piece of magnetic mat'l. The energy inside the
magnetic mat'l due to the magnetizing field is equal to the energy it
will take to seperate the magnet from the mat'l over a distance until
the force of attraction equals zero. This energy rises with
permeability, because the force vs distance increases in proportion
to the permeability.

I would like to stress that if permeability increases, it takes the
SAME amount of energy to generate the same field within a mat'l of
the same dimensions.

Now regarding specific heat, what mat'ls show a rise in Cp under
influence of a magnetic field? Because I would be inclined to think
that they cool, instead of heat.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
<softwarelabus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi richar18,
>
> There are several methods. Method #1 is the easiest. Normally MCE
> (magnetocaloric effect) heats up, cools down, etc. In electrical
> conductors such as iron and Metglas a lot of the MCE energy goes to
> micro eddy current bursts. Normally the eddy currents dissipate all
> the energy in the form of heat. If you pulse the core at the correct
> speed you will get a _coherent_ avalanche pulse. IOW, the avalanches
> are occurring at roughly the same time. You'll get eddy currents.
When
> the Eddy currents reach peak then your receiving coil will attempt
to
> rob as much energy from the Eddy currents. You do this by placing a
> load across the coil.
>
> Picture a nano size group of atoms that flip. There are many factors
> that determine the flip rate such as magnetic field strength, but
free
> electrons plays a huge role. The free electrons act as inductance,
> resist the flipping magnetic moments. (You can see this effect by
> dropping a neo magnet down a hollow Al tube.) This gives a micro
eddy
> burst. So you could say its like a microscopic coil around the
> avalanche, which is a good thing so as to collect a high percentage
of
> the MCE energy.
>
> Under normal conditions you have millions of micro eddy currents
that
> are simultaneously increasing and decreasing all over the place
within
> the core. In other words, the bursts are not coherent. Micro eddy
> bursts do not last very long, which is why you need to pulse the
core
> fast enough and then quickly absorb some energy from the eddy
> currents. Although, when the eddy currents occur at the same time
then
> the bursts decay at a much slower rate, which is a good thing.
>
> Where the energy comes from is fascinating. Without ambient
> temperature (vibrating atoms) magnetic material would align
(saturate)
> and that's the end of the story. Even when you remove the applied
> field the core would remain magnetized. It is vibrating atoms that
> give low coercivity. So when you remove the applied field it is the
> atoms that _force_ the magnetic moments to break alignment with the
> net magnetic field. That requires energy, which is exactly why
> magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed. That
> is where MCE energy comes from. Even the NASA guy who contacted me
agreed.
>
>
> Trying to compute the energy relative to the field strength is
perhaps
> not the correct method. Consider two PM's each on swivels, so they
can
> rotate. The PM's are rotated so they repel each other. The magnetic
> fields cancel each other, so the net magnetic field is relatively
low,
> just within close proximity of each PM. Now allow the PM's to
quickly
> rotate so they align. You get energy _plus_ you get a net magnetic
> field, lol. Magnetic moments also rotate as IBM's experiments
> revealed. Normally this flip/rotation rate takes a few nanoseconds,
> but in electrically conductive materials such as iron and metglas it
> takes many microseconds.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Lowrance
>
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little further,
I
> > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric effect as
a
> > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated the
> > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of iron
evenly
> > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that with
the
> > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
generated
> > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
Seems
> > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate the
1st
> > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism that
> > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I did
not
> > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > @All
> > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores will
not
> > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores will
not
> > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
nanocrystalline
> > and
> > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit it is
> > > presently a quick job -->
> > >
> > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > >
> > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
versions
> > use
> > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of capturing
MCE
> > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven theories.
Rather,
> > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known conventional
> > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go through
> > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining exactly
what is
> > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> > >
> > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
exchanges.
> > For
> > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
nanocrystalline
> > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one fourth
MCE as
> > Gd
> > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good nanocrystalline
material
> > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field to
generate
> > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules in one
> > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
required to
> > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
material
> > is
> > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but a
> > fraction
> > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within the
> > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > >
> > > There are several problems here. The main problem being that
> > magnetic
> > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy. Another
issue is
> > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts as
in the
> > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in typicall
iron
> > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of that MCE
> > energy
> > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore such
> > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron is
> > extremely
> > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques to
overcome
> > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > >
> > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the backyard
one
> > late
> > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE theory. I
stood
> > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the MEG!!!"
> > >
> > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and discovered
> > Naudin
> > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
analyzing the
> > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by pixel I
> > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then I
went to
> > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
energy."
> > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude that
> > either
> > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is unfortunate
so
> > many
> > > other people at other sites have published false science
regarding
> > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in private
PM
> > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you cannot
> > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
words, if
> > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
signal on
> > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out the
400 MHz
> > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400 MHz
signal
> > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then knowing
my
> > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
amounts of
> > > energy.
> > >
> > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed did not
> > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > >
> > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > published "smoking
> > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will be
> > released
> > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com links
at
> > the
> > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the release
> > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be more
> > pleased
> > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not about
> > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be a
great
> > day!
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Paul Lowrance
> > >
> >
>

Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you, anonymity
has become a habit when posting on these groups.

I need to keep this short I am at work.

Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula well,
I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the answer
is not right :).

What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
real as much as anyone.

I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
energy claim. How do you know this is the case?

I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than myself
to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.

Regards,
Brandon

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
<softwarelabus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi richar18,
>
> You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
energy
> in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0)  B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
meters, u0
> is permeability of free space.
>
> If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
then
> you need to ask a few questions.
>
> 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few 0
K.
> The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy does
it
> require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
> temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
> material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
> 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
> aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy. Well,
> maybe they could. :-)
> 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
> little change in temperature when a certain temperature is reached.
> 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you were
to
> apply a 60 T field.
> 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
domain
> level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
> saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were you
> aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
> domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
> 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
deep
> freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change in
> temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly 1/500th
> (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
You
> calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
that
> material by 1 K. :-)  How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
Joules.
>  I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
Repeat,
> the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
> 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
Just
> kidding ... I think. ;-)
>
> richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
ignore
> me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You asked
me a
> lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
>
> God bless you,
> Paul Lowrance
>
>
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@> wrote:
> > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE when
the
> > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
> > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
the
> > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
entropy
> > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
transfer
> > to the environment.
> >
> > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
molecular
> > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a magnetic
> > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
molecular
> > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
reduce,
> > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
proportionately,
> > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2) The
> > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
closed
> > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
> > molecular degrees of freedom.
> >
> > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
> > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
causes
> > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
conditions
> > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
cancels
> > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
thwarting
> > the creation of energy.
> >
> > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
> > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric effect
to
> > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you have
is
> > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into heat.
> >
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
> > incorrectly
> > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
Read
> > on
> > > to find out why.
> > >
> > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
effect
> > is
> > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron molecules
in
> > the
> > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
entropy
> > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
field
> > is
> > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important to
> > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on in
the
> > > system from an energetic point of view.
> > >
> > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
before
> > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
if we
> > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
> > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
The
> > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
DEGREE
> > OF
> > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
degrees
> > of
> > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
> > increasing
> > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
> > mat'l).
> > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
next -
> >
> > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
than
> > the
> > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
actually
> > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to the
> > change
> > > in entropy.
> > >
> > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular entropy
to
> > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T = absolute
> > temp)
> > >
> > > Anyone?
> > >
> > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
further,
> > I
> > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
effect
> > as a
> > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I calculated
the
> > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
iron
> > > evenly
> > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
with
> > the
> > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
> > > generated
> > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic field.
> > Seems
> > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
the
> > 1st
> > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
that
> > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
did
> > not
> > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> > > >
> > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > @All
> > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic cores
will
> > not
> > > > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores
will
> > not
> > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
> > nanocrystalline
> > > > and
> > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki, albeit
it is
> > > > > presently a quick job -->
> > > > >
> > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > > > >
> > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and Metglas
> > > versions
> > > > use
> > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
> > capturing
> > > MCE
> > > > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven
theories.
> > > Rather,
> > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
conventional
> > > > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go
through
> > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
exactly
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
> > > exchanges.
> > > > For
> > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
> > > nanocrystalline
> > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
fourth
> > MCE
> > > as
> > > > Gd
> > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
nanocrystalline
> > > material
> > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
to
> > > generate
> > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
in one
> > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
> > required
> > > to
> > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within such
> > > material
> > > > is
> > > > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires but
a
> > > > fraction
> > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
the
> > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
that
> > > > magnetic
> > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
Another
> > issue
> > > is
> > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit megawatts
as
> > in
> > > the
> > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
typicall
> > iron
> > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
that
> > MCE
> > > > energy
> > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material. Therefore
such
> > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical iron
is
> > > > extremely
> > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
to
> > > overcome
> > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
backyard
> > one
> > > > late
> > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
theory. I
> > > stood
> > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
MEG!!!"
> > > > >
> > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
discovered
> > > > Naudin
> > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
> > analyzing
> > > the
> > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
pixel I
> > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."  Then
I
> > went
> > > to
> > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
> > energy."
> > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily conclude
that
> > > > either
> > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
unfortunate
> > so
> > > > many
> > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
> > regarding
> > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
> > private PM
> > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e., you
> > cannot
> > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In other
> > words,
> > > if
> > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400 MHz
> > signal
> > > on
> > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
the
> > 400
> > > MHz
> > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the 400
MHz
> > > signal
> > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
> > knowing my
> > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates outrageous
> > amounts
> > > of
> > > > > energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
did not
> > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > > > published "smoking
> > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine will
be
> > > > released
> > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the overunity.com
> > links
> > > at
> > > > the
> > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
release
> > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not be
more
> > > > pleased
> > > > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not
about
> > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will be
a
> > > great
> > > > day!
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Paul Lowrance
>

Paul, take a look at this link:

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/MAR00/abs/S5910006.html

It is the abstract of a meeting of scientists representing the Ames
laboratory at the Iowa State Unv. I found these statements
particulary interesting:

"Precise heat capacity data collected as a function of temperature
in various magnetic fields is one of the most accurate indirect
techniques available for the characterization of magnetothermal
properties of magnetic materials"

and

"The use of heat capacity data to calculate the magnetocaloric
properties of magnetic solids along with a detailed analysis of
resulting errors and comparison with other indirect and direct
magnetocaloric measurements techniques will be given."

Looks like maybe I could be right about the relationship between the
MCE and specific heat?

Note one of the presenting scientists is Karl Gschneider, a pioneer
in the field of Magnetocaloric mat'ls.

I wish I could get some of the data presented, to see how the
specific heat actually varies for the mat'ls tested. It is a
scientific fact that Cp varies proportionally to the change in
entropy of the mat'l due to the applied field, but I dont know what
the scaling is. My basic physics background tells me the specific
heat varies in a way that gives further credence to the 1st law of
thermodynamics.

BTW, if the guy from NASA doesnt agree with the entropy/molecular
degree of freedom based description of the MCE, then he is
disagreeing with research findings by many scientists who have
studied the subject. This is the only scientific way I have seen the
effect described. Couple this with the fact that Cp is also linked
directly to the entropy/molecular D.O.F of the mat'l, and I think
you have a pretty logical framework for understanding the true
nature of the effect.

Regards,
-Brandon



--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you,
anonymity
> has become a habit when posting on these groups.
>
> I need to keep this short I am at work.
>
> Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
> forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula
well,
> I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the
answer
> is not right :).
>
> What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
> but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
> not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
> spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
> prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
> real as much as anyone.
>
> I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
> only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
> hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
> energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
>
> I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than
myself
> to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
> change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
> energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
> undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
> one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
> would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.
>
> Regards,
> Brandon
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi richar18,
> >
> > You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
> energy
> > in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0)  B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
> meters, u0
> > is permeability of free space.
> >
> > If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
> then
> > you need to ask a few questions.
> >
> > 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few
0
> K.
> > The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy
does
> it
> > require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
> > temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
> > material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
> > 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
> > aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy.
Well,
> > maybe they could. :-)
> > 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
> > little change in temperature when a certain temperature is
reached.
> > 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you
were
> to
> > apply a 60 T field.
> > 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
> domain
> > level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
> > saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were
you
> > aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
> > domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
> > 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
> deep
> > freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change
in
> > temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly
1/500th
> > (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
> You
> > calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
> that
> > material by 1 K. :-)  How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
> Joules.
> >  I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
> Repeat,
> > the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
> > 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
> Just
> > kidding ... I think. ;-)
> >
> > richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
> ignore
> > me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You
asked
> me a
> > lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
> >
> > God bless you,
> > Paul Lowrance
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
wrote:
> > > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE
when
> the
> > > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
> > > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
> the
> > > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
> entropy
> > > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
> transfer
> > > to the environment.
> > >
> > > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
> molecular
> > > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a
magnetic
> > > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
> molecular
> > > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
> reduce,
> > > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
> proportionately,
> > > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2)
The
> > > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
> closed
> > > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
> > > molecular degrees of freedom.
> > >
> > > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
> > > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> causes
> > > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
> conditions
> > > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
> cancels
> > > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
> thwarting
> > > the creation of energy.
> > >
> > > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
> > > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric
effect
> to
> > > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you
have
> is
> > > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into
heat.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
> > > incorrectly
> > > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
> Read
> > > on
> > > > to find out why.
> > > >
> > > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
> effect
> > > is
> > > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron
molecules
> in
> > > the
> > > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
> entropy
> > > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
> field
> > > is
> > > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important
to
> > > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on
in
> the
> > > > system from an energetic point of view.
> > > >
> > > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
> before
> > > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
> if we
> > > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
> > > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
> The
> > > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
> DEGREE
> > > OF
> > > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
> degrees
> > > of
> > > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
> > > increasing
> > > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
> > > mat'l).
> > > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
> next -
> > >
> > > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
> than
> > > the
> > > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
> actually
> > > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to
the
> > > change
> > > > in entropy.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular
entropy
> to
> > > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T =
absolute
> > > temp)
> > > >
> > > > Anyone?
> > > >
> > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
> further,
> > > I
> > > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
> effect
> > > as a
> > > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I
calculated
> the
> > > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
> iron
> > > > evenly
> > > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
> with
> > > the
> > > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
> > > > generated
> > > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic
field.
> > > Seems
> > > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
> the
> > > 1st
> > > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
> that
> > > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
> did
> > > not
> > > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @All
> > > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic
cores
> will
> > > not
> > > > > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores
> will
> > > not
> > > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
> > > nanocrystalline
> > > > > and
> > > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki,
albeit
> it is
> > > > > > presently a quick job -->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and
Metglas
> > > > versions
> > > > > use
> > > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
> > > capturing
> > > > MCE
> > > > > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven
> theories.
> > > > Rather,
> > > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
> conventional
> > > > > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go
> through
> > > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
> exactly
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic
scale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
> > > > exchanges.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
> > > > nanocrystalline
> > > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
> fourth
> > > MCE
> > > > as
> > > > > Gd
> > > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
> nanocrystalline
> > > > material
> > > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
> to
> > > > generate
> > > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
> in one
> > > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
> > > required
> > > > to
> > > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within
such
> > > > material
> > > > > is
> > > > > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires
but
> a
> > > > > fraction
> > > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
> the
> > > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
> that
> > > > > magnetic
> > > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
> Another
> > > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit
megawatts
> as
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
> typicall
> > > iron
> > > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
> that
> > > MCE
> > > > > energy
> > > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material.
Therefore
> such
> > > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical
iron
> is
> > > > > extremely
> > > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
> to
> > > > overcome
> > > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
> backyard
> > > one
> > > > > late
> > > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
> theory. I
> > > > stood
> > > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
> MEG!!!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
> discovered
> > > > > Naudin
> > > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
> > > analyzing
> > > > the
> > > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
> pixel I
> > > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."
Then
> I
> > > went
> > > > to
> > > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
> > > energy."
> > > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily
conclude
> that
> > > > > either
> > > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
> unfortunate
> > > so
> > > > > many
> > > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
> > > regarding
> > > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
> > > private PM
> > > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e.,
you
> > > cannot
> > > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In
other
> > > words,
> > > > if
> > > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400
MHz
> > > signal
> > > > on
> > > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
> the
> > > 400
> > > > MHz
> > > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the
400
> MHz
> > > > signal
> > > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
> > > knowing my
> > > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates
outrageous
> > > amounts
> > > > of
> > > > > > energy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
> did not
> > > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > > > > published "smoking
> > > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine
will
> be
> > > > > released
> > > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the
overunity.com
> > > links
> > > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
> release
> > > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not
be
> more
> > > > > pleased
> > > > > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not
> about
> > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
be
> a
> > > > great
> > > > > day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Paul Lowrance
> >
>

I found further evidence to help my argument regarding the reduction
in specific heat cancelling any possible excess energy gains due to
MCE. Read the following paper:

http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/result/respro/90/ord903-3.pdf

Note that with the application of a 200 Oe magnetization field at
~25C, the specific heat (of the fluid) decreases about 40%! I feel
that this alone is almost enough info to disprove the 1/500th
decrease you quoted earlier. Granted this is a magnetic fluid and
not a solid, but the mechanism is the same.

Also note that the conclusion states almost verbatim what I am using
as the basis for my argument.

Regards,
-Brandon
P.S. - its obviously my lunch time!

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Paul, My name is Brandon. Didnt mean to ignore you,
anonymity
> has become a habit when posting on these groups.
>
> I need to keep this short I am at work.
>
> Your formula for magnetic field energy is not quite correct, you
> forgot to square "B". It is (B^2*V)/(2u0). I know the formula
well,
> I will have to double check my math for simple errors if the
answer
> is not right :).
>
> What I stated regarding the Magnetocaloric effect was not my idea,
> but is based on existing scientific research on the matter. I did
> not know about the effect before you posted about it. I am not
> spreading disinformation, just stating a null hypothesis. Please
> prove it wrong (with actual testing), as I would like this to be
> real as much as anyone.
>
> I know there is a real temp change, but did NOT know that the Cp
> only changed by 1/500th. IF this is true, then I will have a very
> hard time providing any theoretical evidence against the excess
> energy claim. How do you know this is the case?
>
> I just wanted someone with more knowledge on the subject than
myself
> to look into the relationship between specific heat and MCE temp
> change. Have you done any experimentation to show this excess
> energy? I know there is a device that measures the Cp of a mat'l
> undergoing the MCE. Wonder how easily it would be to get ahold of
> one of these? proving the specific heat stays relatively constant
> would be very good ammo for the proof of the excess energy.
>
> Regards,
> Brandon
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi richar18,
> >
> > You have math errors in one of your previous posts. First, the
> energy
> > in a magnetic field is B*V/(2*u0)  B is in Tesla's, V=cubic
> meters, u0
> > is permeability of free space.
> >
> > If you would like to understand where the energy is coming from
> then
> > you need to ask a few questions.
> >
> > 1) Consider very cold magnetic material, say pure iron, at a few
0
> K.
> > The magnetic moments self align with no aid. How much energy
does
> it
> > require to break those alignments? Even NASA knows its ambient
> > temperature that breaks the magnetic alignment, which cools the
> > material. Has nothing to do with your idea.
> > 2) How much energy is given off when all the magnetic moments are
> > aligned? Even a disinformationist could not deny this energy.
Well,
> > maybe they could. :-)
> > 3) Ask yourself why it is common for MCE to suddenly produce very
> > little change in temperature when a certain temperature is
reached.
> > 4) Ask yourself why iron exhibits very little MCE even if you
were
> to
> > apply a 60 T field.
> > 5) Nearly all the magnetic moments in iron are saturated on the
> domain
> > level, but experiences hardly no MCE. Yet nanocrystalline is also
> > saturated on the domain level, but experiences large MCE. Were
you
> > aware that most of the Finemet atoms are already saturated on the
> > domain level, yet Finemet has 1/4 MCE as the best Gd alloys.
> > 6) MCE is real temperature change, not an illusion. It's used as
> deep
> > freezing. Apply 1 T field to Finemet core and you get 1 K change
in
> > temperature. Did you know the heat capacity changes roughly
1/500th
> > (0.2%)? Now you have material that's 1 K above room temperature.
> You
> > calculate how much energy it require to increase 1 cubic inch of
> that
> > material by 1 K. :-)  How about 450 J/KgK * 1.0K * 0.13Kg = 59
> Joules.
> >  I'll repeat, it requires ~59 J to heat that material by 1 K.
> Repeat,
> > the heat capacity of the magnetic only changes ~0.2%.
> > 7) How much are they paying you to spread disinformation, lol.
> Just
> > kidding ... I think. ;-)
> >
> > richar18, would you care to share your name or are you going to
> ignore
> > me for like the fourth time and converse with yourself? You
asked
> me a
> > lot of questions and then ignore me. :-)
> >
> > God bless you,
> > Paul Lowrance
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
wrote:
> > > Sorry, I meant the entropy of the sample TRIES to DECREASE
when
> the
> > > field is applied. However if the conditions are adiabatic, the
> > > entropy does not change due to the increase in temperature of
> the
> > > sample (hence the effect). Under isothermal conditions, the
> entropy
> > > of the sample DOES actually decrease, because of the heat
> transfer
> > > to the environment.
> > >
> > > Essentially what is going on is that the dynamics of the
> molecular
> > > structure of the mat'l change under the influence of a
magnetic
> > > field; this change is characterized by a reduction in the
> molecular
> > > degrees of freedom. Since the molecular degrees of freedom
> reduce,
> > > two things can happen: 1) the entropy also reduces
> proportionately,
> > > due to the presence of a heat sink and an open system, or 2)
The
> > > entropy remains unchanged due to adiabatic conditions and a
> closed
> > > system - the temperature rises to compensate for the change in
> > > molecular degrees of freedom.
> > >
> > > You see, In order to conserve energy when the entropy of the
> > > molecules tries to decrease, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> causes
> > > the temperature of the sample to rise (under adiabatic
> conditions
> > > and a closed system, as previously stated). This effectively
> cancels
> > > the effort to destroy entropy in the closed system, thus
> thwarting
> > > the creation of energy.
> > >
> > > So there is no excess energy after all, and the laws of
> > > thermodynamics are what actually cause the magnetocaloric
effect
> to
> > > happen in the first place! Kind of dissapointing... All you
have
> is
> > > another way to convert the energy of a magnetic field into
heat.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You know, it appears as if nature may have fooled us into
> > > incorrectly
> > > > calculating the heat energy of the iron after magnetization.
> Read
> > > on
> > > > to find out why.
> > > >
> > > > According to my sources on the subject, the magnetocaloric
> effect
> > > is
> > > > due to a reduction in degrees of freedom of the iron
molecules
> in
> > > the
> > > > presence of a magnetic field, which causes an increase in
> entropy
> > > > (and therefore temperature). The decrease in temp when the
> field
> > > is
> > > > removed is due to the opposite. This mechanism is important
to
> > > > understand, because it gives a hint as to what is going on
in
> the
> > > > system from an energetic point of view.
> > > >
> > > > Now, look a little closer at the specific heat of the iron,
> before
> > > > and after magnetization. Excess energy can only be generated
> if we
> > > > assume the specific heat of the sample stays above a certain
> > > > threshold. Does this happen in our case? I dont believe so!
> The
> > > > reason is that the specific heat is also DEPENDANT UPON THE
> DEGREE
> > > OF
> > > > FREEDOM OF THE MOLECULES THAT MAKE UP THE SAMPLE! The less
> degrees
> > > of
> > > > freedom, the less energy the molecule can absorb without
> > > increasing
> > > > its rate of vibration (and the resulting temperature of the
> > > mat'l).
> > > > This known, you can probably predict what I am going to say
> next -
> > >
> > > > That the energy generated as heat only APPEARS to be greater
> than
> > > the
> > > > energy of the magnetic field! My hypothesis is that it is
> actually
> > > > not, because the specific heat decreases proportionally to
the
> > > change
> > > > in entropy.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is the calculation that links molecular
entropy
> to
> > > > specific heat: Cp = T(del_S/del_T). (S = entropy, T =
absolute
> > > temp)
> > > >
> > > > Anyone?
> > > >
> > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "richar18" <richar18@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Paul, interesting stuff. In looking into it a little
> further,
> > > I
> > > > > also see that Harold Aspden mentions the magnetocaloric
> effect
> > > as a
> > > > > part of his work. It seems to have some merit; I
calculated
> the
> > > > > energy stored in a hypothetical 1 cubic meter specimen of
> iron
> > > > evenly
> > > > > permeated with a 1 tesla magnetic flux, and compared that
> with
> > > the
> > > > > energy generated as heat during a 1k temp rise. The energy
> > > > generated
> > > > > as heat is almost 9 times that stored in the magnetic
field.
> > > Seems
> > > > > like a sort of heat engine, where cop > 1 does not violate
> the
> > > 1st
> > > > > law of Thermodynamics. Can you explain again the mechanism
> that
> > > > > allows you to tap this excess heat as electrical energy? I
> did
> > > not
> > > > > quite undersatnd the Wiki article in this respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
> > > > > <softwarelabus@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @All
> > > > > > I have strong evidence that non-electrical magnetic
cores
> will
> > > not
> > > > > > exhibit the "free energy."  Therefore most ferrite cores
> will
> > > not
> > > > > > work. Iron powder core is another story. You want
> > > nanocrystalline
> > > > > and
> > > > > > amorphous magnetic material. Please study my wiki,
albeit
> it is
> > > > > > presently a quick job -->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:MEMM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You will note that both Naudin's silicon iron and
Metglas
> > > > versions
> > > > > use
> > > > > > Method #1, which relies on Eddy currents as a tool of
> > > capturing
> > > > MCE
> > > > > > energy.  This information is not based on unproven
> theories.
> > > > Rather,
> > > > > > it is a recent discovery based on very well known
> conventional
> > > > > > physics.  In the above wiki there two examples which go
> through
> > > > > > extreme details in a step-by-step process explaining
> exactly
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > happening within the magnetic material on an atomic
scale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nanocrystalline material possesses huge internal energy
> > > > exchanges.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > example, a study by Skorvánek and Kovác shows that
> > > > nanocrystalline
> > > > > > material well below Curie temperature has roughly one
> fourth
> > > MCE
> > > > as
> > > > > Gd
> > > > > > alloys. For example, one cubic inch of good
> nanocrystalline
> > > > material
> > > > > > toroid core oscillating at 100 KHz with an applied field
> to
> > > > generate
> > > > > > internal 1 T-peak fields produces over 15 million joules
> in one
> > > > > > second, which is over 15 megawatts!  The amount of power
> > > required
> > > > to
> > > > > > generate an oscillating 1 T-peak 100 KHz field within
such
> > > > material
> > > > > is
> > > > > > but a fraction of a watt.  In other words, it requires
but
> a
> > > > > fraction
> > > > > > of a watt to produce megawatts of power exchanged within
> the
> > > > > > nanocrystalline magnetic core material.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are several problems here. The main problem being
> that
> > > > > magnetic
> > > > > > material is very effective in absorbing MCE energy.
> Another
> > > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > in choosing material. Nanocrystalline may exibit
megawatts
> as
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > above example as compared to a few hundred watts in
> typicall
> > > iron
> > > > > > cores. Trying to capture but an infintesimal amount of
> that
> > > MCE
> > > > > energy
> > > > > > is difficult enough in nanocrystalline material.
Therefore
> such
> > > > > > attempts with large domain materials such as typical
iron
> is
> > > > > extremely
> > > > > > difficult. The good news is there are various techniques
> to
> > > > overcome
> > > > > > this, as detailed in my wiki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is very interesting is that while pacing in the
> backyard
> > > one
> > > > > late
> > > > > > night I designed a machine entirely based on my MCE
> theory. I
> > > > stood
> > > > > > back looking at the design and said, "Hey, that's the
> MEG!!!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I studied one of Naudin's silicon iron versions and
> discovered
> > > > > Naudin
> > > > > > incorrectly interpreted his scope. After painstakingly
> > > analyzing
> > > > the
> > > > > > scope pictures, counting the power over time pixel by
> pixel I
> > > > > > concluded that it was not generating "free energy."
Then
> I
> > > went
> > > > to
> > > > > > his Metglas version and without doubt it generates "free
> > > energy."
> > > > > > Naudin supplies sufficient information to easily
conclude
> that
> > > > > either
> > > > > > he falsified the scope pictures or his scope is terribly
> > > > > > malfunctioning or it generates free energy. It is
> unfortunate
> > > so
> > > > > many
> > > > > > other people at other sites have published false science
> > > regarding
> > > > > > Naudin's results. I debated with one such key person in
> > > private PM
> > > > > > about this and he concluded that I was correct; i.e.,
you
> > > cannot
> > > > > > dispute the scope pictures. The odds of Naudin's scope to
> > > > > > malfunctioning in such a manner is slim and none. In
other
> > > words,
> > > > if
> > > > > > we apply 50 KHz sine wave signal in addition to a 400
MHz
> > > signal
> > > > on
> > > > > > say a 20 MHz scope then the scope will simply dampen out
> the
> > > 400
> > > > MHz
> > > > > > signal without affecting the 50 KHz signal unless the
400
> MHz
> > > > signal
> > > > > > was intense enough to saturate. If that's the case then
> > > knowing my
> > > > > > physics we have a 400 MHz signal that radiates
outrageous
> > > amounts
> > > > of
> > > > > > energy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a nutshell, Naudin's silicon iron version I analyzed
> did not
> > > > > > exhibit "free energy," but the Metglas version did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully sometime soon the first fully and freely
> > > > > published "smoking
> > > > > > gun", self-running, closed loop "free energy" machine
will
> be
> > > > > released
> > > > > > with extreme building instructions. See the
overunity.com
> > > links
> > > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > bottom of my peswiki page for further details about the
> release
> > > > > > process. The goal has been early 2007, but I could not
be
> more
> > > > > pleased
> > > > > > if someone completed this before 2007.  The goal is not
> about
> > > > > > self-profiting, but about helping this world. What will
be
> a
> > > > great
> > > > > day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Paul Lowrance
> >
>

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]

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]
>

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;j\
sessionid=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

"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 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 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
>

(Note:  Apologies for this message being delayed - The moderators took the
weekend off)

@All

I think the following may help those interested in the MEG, related
devices, and further research.

First, we know avalanche radiation exists. I prefer to call it
"avalanche radiation" over Barkhausen because it's more descriptive
and there's a little controversy about Barkhausen, but that's another
subject. Point being, we know about the avalanches. We know it is
typically UHF radiation for non-electrical cores and considerably
lower for conductive cores such as iron. The amount of such radiation
that escapes the core is very small. The reason it is small is because
the avalanche occurs completely incased within the core and we know
the fields have a closed loop, a magnetic short if you will. This
easily demonstrated with FEMM. Also we may study induction simulations
to learn that core radiation leakage is relative to the materials
permeability.

Now to the point. At any given time while we are pulsing a core there
are X amount of avalanches occurring that are unstoppable; i.e., if we
remove the applied field the avalanches would complete. I refer to
this as "Magnetic Momentum" (that's momentum, not moment), and not to
be confused with Magnetic Viscosity.

The amount of magnetic momentum varies with material. There are a lot
of factors, but the main factors are the materials MCE and its
electrical conductivity. I predict that nanocrystalline materials such
as Metglas and Finemet have high magnetic momentum.



---

I would like to differentiate the different between MCE energy and
common induction. Envision thousands of tiny PM's (permanent magnets)
on swivels that forms one big toroid. There is wire that wraps this
big toroid to form a standard toroid coil. Basically we have formed a
large scale magnetic toroid core with a coil. These tiny magnets are
all aligned to form a closed loop-- essentially our core is saturated.
Now at a constant rate randomly force say 100 PM's per second to flip.
This will induce a net constant voltage. We know that the net constant
voltage is not dependant on how fast _each_ PM flips. Rather the net
constant voltage depends on _how many_ PM's _per second_ are flipped.
So, the induction is relative to how many flipped PM's per second and
MCE energy is relative to how fast a PM is flipped.

In other words, if each PM is flipped in 1 ms rather than 10 ms the
net constant induced voltage will not change, but there will be more
radiation energy. MCE is that radiation energy.

Note that each time a PM is flipped we'll see a dc pulse (a dc spike)
in voltage. If the PM flips 1000 times fast, then the _net average_
voltage does not change; i.e., the voltage is 1000 times greater, but
the pulse width is 1000 times shorter. So it flips 1000 times faster.
The voltage will be 1000 times greater. If the voltage is 1000 times
greater then power is 1000000 times greater-- P=V^2/R. Therefore,
power is 1000000 times greater, the time is 1000 times less, the
resulting energy is 1000 times greater. Energy = time * Voltage^2 /
Resistance. If we were to look at this signal on a spectrum we would
see that by increasing the flip 1000 times faster results in higher
frequencies. If you flipped it fast enough you would have a
high-energy gamma photon, and you better duck. ;-)  E=hf

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Posting here instead, long live Yahoo!

Hi Paul,
I just ran your silmulation and noticed the input coils as being
round in shape, surely these will be rectangular and tighter to the
core than shown.
I do not think you will get the 100 turns in the small circle.
Also you have set the depth to 0.75 inches, this should be 50mm (2
inches).
I do not understand why the second input coil is set as air?
I would have thought it best to create a second current circuit and
assign it to this but as a coil.

Sorry for picking holes in your sim.
Next step is to create a material like the Metglass, that means
entering an BH curve.

Regards

Rob

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Rob King" <k1ngrs@...> wrote:
> Posting here instead, long live Yahoo!
>
> Hi Paul,
> I just ran your silmulation and noticed the input coils as being
> round in shape, surely these will be rectangular and tighter to the
> core than shown.
> I do not think you will get the 100 turns in the small circle.
> Also you have set the depth to 0.75 inches, this should be 50mm (2
> inches).
> I do not understand why the second input coil is set as air?
> I would have thought it best to create a second current circuit and
> assign it to this but as a coil.
>
> Sorry for picking holes in your sim.
> Next step is to create a material like the Metglass, that means
> entering an BH curve.
>
> Regards
>
> Rob

Rob, nobody has any idea what you are talking about, so lets at least
tell them. I gave Rob a FEMM simulation of Naudin's MEGv21.  Rob is
asking why I made the actuator coils so small.

Rob, it is fine to extend the coils, but it will make very little
difference. If we understand how closed loop cores react to magnetic
fields we know that the wire locations make very little difference
unless you are talking about very high frequencies. Also it is the
magnetic field from the wire that enters the core that makes nearly
all the difference. FEMM simulation is DC current on a closed loop
core, so extending the coils will only make a slight difference.

The reason I used Iron instead of creating a Metglas property is for
two reasons:

1. The permeability of Metglas is not 600000 at 30 KHz. More like ~10000.
2. It takes a lot of time and it was a quick job; i.e., I'm spending
far too much time on such things when I should be working on the
"smoking gun."

The only way you could make the FEMM more accurate than mine is if you
create a metglas property for the core and k-factor the coil current
way down to adjust for the fact that the cores permeability
drastically changes at 30 KHz. Also extending the actuator coil will
help a tiny smidgen.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

--- 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

Pascal,

I am new to the understanding of the MEG, but I am an EE living in
Florida USA.  Your work on the MEG 2004 and 2005 is excellent and
well documented.  There is only on thing I do not understand.

In your calculation of output power you measure only one of the
output coils and continually divide the results by 2.  I do not
understand this.  The MEG is applying the output to each of the
output coils equally (assuming the same output load resistance.  It
seems to me that you should be MULTIPLYING the measured output power
by 2.  In this case the best of your results is about a COP=>2.8

Please clarify your rationale for this.

John Hackett


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal_di_SCALA"
<pdiscala@...> wrote:
>
> Here is my analysis about the MEg principle:
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_isw
rong.jpg
>
> This analysis is not correct:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm
>
>
> The reasons are:
>
> First, I made many various experimentations with a MEG which is a
clone of Naudin's one version 3.1.
>
>
> To see my experiments:
> http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php
>
> (translate my website with: http://www.google.com/language_tools?
hl=en)
>
> All gave negative results. With or without magnet nothing was
changing in the output current and voltage.
>
> Not only teh MEG I test is not working, but it does not react at
all to magnet presence inside it. See:
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php
>
>
> But, with no magnet, the MEG is only a transformer.
>
> MEG magnet sends magnetic flux dividing in 2 equal parts in each C
core. When a primary coil is feeded with current, it should pull the
lagnetic flux of the magnet into the other C core side. Reluctance
of the primary side should change because of inductrion lines, and
so magnet magnetic's lines should go into the other C core side
because reluctance is less important.
>
> This is WRONG!!! reluctance is a fonction of length, section,
permeability, but not of other magnetic lines opposing or not the
magnetic lines you want to insert into. It depends only of material
used, ans material saturation. When saturated, no more magnetic
lines can go inside, things are different then.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctan
ce.jpg
>
> If one studies more precisely magnetic circuits theory, thes es
circuits are equivalents to electric circuits. One does not ask
wether resistance change when a current flows throw a wire! Magnetic
flux is algebraicly additive.
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce2.jpg
>
> The flux created by primary adds to the flux created by the
magnet, and we find a greater total flux one side, an a lesser total
flux on the other side. But magnet flux itself has not moved at all!
Each magnetic lines are together sharing space inside the core. When
is there noi more space to share? When we reach saturation (what we
have not, unless MEG is consuming energy, wasting this energy).
>
>
>
> Then, sayong that when you cut youy primary current, the magnet
flux comes back to its place and then does a magnetic work which
gives free energy is consequently WRONG! At best we so do have CÖP=1
(with an ideal transformer, but in reality the COP is less because
of electric frictions and various energy wastes).
>
> No overunity!
>
> If the MEG is working, it does not relay on this principle. But
exotic explanation of MEg principle by Bearden is not in accordance
with its patent, which relies on the previous explanation. What is
more, its rare experiment pictures let us see the same principle.
So I conclue that MEG is not working at all. My experiments go in
this way, and I have made theses experiments to conclue to
overunity, not to debunk the MEG, so I am not dishonest.
>
> We then understand why Bearden postpones commercialisation of MEG
since 2003, sayong that maybe it will be never commercialised, with
unclear arguments (artisanal production doesn't require so much
money).
>
> There is only yet Naudin, but its claims about MEG are not in
accordance with its results: oscilloscope datas are contradictory
with its output charges, its circuit is not correctly feeding the
MEG to fullfill whats we see on his scopes. See my website.
>
> Naudin who is french like me has never answered any of my emails
about MEG since 2 years. There is some reason... Why does he
experiment new devices so quickly, with astonishing COP, when only
one successfull device is enough for energetic independance? But he
does not developp the devices, and let it go down, to search an
other one. Does he really succeed or is he lying? Maybe could he
give us an answer, if he reads these lines... but he wills not
answering questions, what is a shame.
>
> Here you can read the same post in french (my native language) for
those who can read this language:
>
> ____________
>
>
>
> en français pour ceux qui comprennent la langue:
> Voir mon analyse sous forme d'image ici :
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_isw
rong.jpg L'analyse faite du fonctionnement du MEG qui « prouve » sa
surunité à COP=2 ne tient
pas :http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htmVoici les raisons de
ceci.Tout d'abord je tiens à dire que j'ai fait de très nombreuses
expérimentations sur un MEG qui est une réplique exacte de celui de
Naudin version 3.1.Voir mes
expériences :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.phpToutes
  se sont révélées infructueuses. En regardant de plus près, j'ai
fait le constat que toutes les mesures sur les courants et tensions
de sortie des bobinages du secondaire ne changeaient pas avec ou
sans aimant, et cela avec plusieurs types d'aimants plus ou moins
puissants.Non seulement le MEG que je teste ne marche pas, mais
surtout il révèle n'avoir aucune sensibilité à la présence ou non
d'un aimant. Voir à ce
propos :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.phpOr, sans
aimant, le MEG n'est qu'un vulgaire transformateur, donc il fallait
comprendre ce qu'il en est.L'aimant central du MEG envoie des flux
magnétiques en part égale dans chaque morceau en U du cœur.
Lorsqu'un bobinage primaire est alimenté, il est sensé repousser le
flux  magnétique de l'aimant de la branche dans laquelle il se
trouve vers l'autre branche. En effet l'explication est que lors de
l'apparition d'un champ magnétique contraire engendré par le
primaire dans le cœur magnétique, le champ magnétique de l'aimant
voit donc une résistance magnétique (appelée réluctance)de ce côté
de cœur, et va faire passer son flux magnétique par l'autre
branche.  La réluctance s'exprime en fonction de la longueur, de la
section et de la perméabilité magnétique du matériau que traverse le
champ magnétique, et pas en fonction de la présence ou non d'autres
lignes de champs magnétiques contraires. La réluctance (résistance
au passage du flux magnétique) dépend uniquement du matériau présent
et pas de ce qu'on fait passer dedans (sauf quand on arrive à
saturation du matériau, auquel cas on ne peut plus faire rentrer
d'autres lignes de champ magnétique dedans).
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctan
ce.jpg D'ailleurs si on étudie de plus près la théorie des circuits
magnétiques, dans laquelle les circuits magnétiques sont équivalents
aux circuits électriques, on ne se demande jamais si il faut changer
la résistance d'un circuit quand on y insère un courant ! La
résistance est une caractéristique physique du circuit. Les courants
s'ajoutent dans les fils électriques, quelle que soit leur
résistance. De même les flux s'ajoutent dans le cœur magnétique.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce2.jpg
>  En fait, le flux engendré par le bobinage du primaire s'ajoute
algébriquement au flux de l'aimant, et on trouve un flux total
moindre dans un côté du cœur, et supérieur de l'autre côté. Mais
cela ne veut certainement pas dire que c'est le flux de l'aimant qui
s'est déplacé. En fait le flux de l'aimant comme celui engendré par
le bobinage primaire se partagent l'espace intérieur du cœur
magnétique et se côtoient (tant qu'il y a de la place, c'est-à-dire
tant qu'on ne sature pas le cœur). Pour ce faire cela nous a coûté
de l'énergie (l'énergie consommée dans le primaire pour produire ce
flux contraire).La suite qui consiste à dire qu'en coupant le flux
du primaire, le flux de l'aimant qui était passé de l'autre côté
revient, et que ce faisant il effectue un travail dans le secondaire
ne tient donc plus. Et justement c'était ça l'énergie gratuite
récupérée de l'aimant : ce travail qui n'existe pas. Du coup le MEG
analysé selon ce principe a un COP=1 au mieux (c'est-à-dire sans les
pertes, que j'ai mis de côté pendant mon analyse). Rien de
surunitaire.Donc si le MEG fonctionne ce n'est certainement pas
selon de principe. Or, comme l'explication exotique donnée par
Bearden ne correspond pas du tout au brevet du MEG, ni à ses
publications expérimentales (c'est-à-dire les rares photos de son
MEG), mais correspondent bien à ce principe d'énergie gratuite
prélevée par le travail du flux de l'aimant, il semble bien que le
MEG ne marche donc pas du tout. En tous cas mes expériences vont
dans ce sens, et dieu sait si je les ai faites dans le but au
contraire de démontre que le MEG fonctionne.Ainsi tout ceci ne
serait qu'une vaste fumisterie.On comprend alors pourquoi Bearden a
repousse depuis 2003 la sortie commerciale du MEG, finissant par
dire qu'elle ne se ferait probablement jamais, tout en ne donnant
toujours pas de plan détaillé de réalisation, et en invoquant des
prétextes fumeux d'argent, alors que la production artisanale ne
nécessite pas les sommes sont il parle.Il reste Naudin, seul au
monde à proclamer avoir réussi un MEG et dont les résultats donnés
sur ses captures d'oscillo sont incohérents avec son montage, et qui
ne répond pas aux questions sur le MEG.Je penche donc pour la thèse
de la vaste fumisterie, soutenue par Naudin qui soit se trompe, soit
est incompétent, soit les deux, soit désinforme volontairement  sur
les sujets des énergies libres. D'ailleurs on constate à quel point
il est productif : ses inventions marchent à tous les coups, et dès
qu'une d'entre elle marche, il l'abandonne complètement pour passer
à une autre, sans jamais rien développer, alors qu'une seule
invention fonctionnelle suffit à donner l'autonomie énergétique au
monde. Puisque mon expérience du MEG me montre qu'il y a erreur
(pour ne pas supposer triche volontaire) sur le MEG, que dire de
TOUT le RESTE ?Quant en plus on ne répond pas aux questions, cela
veut tout dire il me semble, non ?Bref, l'aventure MEG je la termine
ici ; preuve étant faite que la théorie ne fonctionne pas, et que
l'expérience ne fonctionne pas. Evidemment, je peux avoir fait des
erreurs expérimentales, mais alors que ceux qui les pointent pour
dire : voilà ce qu'il aurait fallu faire le fassent et viennent me
le dire après.
>

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "YoTango" <yotango@...> wrote:
>
> --- Monsieur Bonheur <dude_buggy@...> wrote:
> > The current doesn't have anything to do with the
> > force of the field.
> >
> > It's the voltage and the number of turns that gives
> > you strength of the field. Experiment a little bit,
> > so you'll be able to understand.
>
> Magnetic field is generated by current, not voltage.  Current is
> generated by voltage potentials.  The voltage itself has does not
> create the magnetic field and is not a factor.  You can have 10
volts
> or 1,000,000 volts and still end up with the same magnetic field.
It
> is current, not voltage.  Check out some basic physics books and
> perhaps the following web page will help you.
> http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopcalculator.htm
>
> The Electric fields in a transformer are generated by di/dt.  "di"
is
> a change in current.  "dt" is a change in time.  Let me know if you
> need help learning about this and I'll try to find you a web page
for
> educational purposes.
>
In the same instance you can have hundreds of amps and a neglible
magnetic field. Take an air cored coil, say it generated a field
value of 0.1 for the sake of simplicity , say 1 Amp flowing then add
a metal core say pig iron, now we have a field of say 0.5 but still 1
amp flowing, change the core to super permalloy now we might have a
field of 1 but still only 1 amp flowing, move to nano crystaline etc,
The point is, the core material , the number of windings, the guage
of wire,the coil dimensions and the voltage applied hence current
flowing, all these factors dictate the field strength, the current
flowing is way low down in priority of field strength, the core
material and number of windings being the factors which dictate the
most.

Hi all!

I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG - also
unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller I
can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without load,
I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and amplitudes
around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage decreases
significantly to a few volts.

It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how it
should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the current
in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?

The question arised because the primary current he described has
extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise and
fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B. Also I
tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even with
most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot provide
such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage on
a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such measurement
can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
itself.