From PESWiki

You are here: PES Network (http://pureenergysystems.com) > PESWiki > Directory > PaulL > Details

---

Status 

This project was commenced publicly on Feb. 28th 2005.

THIS PAGE IS LOCKED FROM EDITING. If you have a change to recommend, then please send me an email at Energy_Mover-owner@yahoogroups.co*m (remove the star). If you are doing research in this field then please add to the Research and Development Questions web page.

This page is a continuation from Thermodynamics

Please study the Foundation page before continuing. Additionally, it may help to read the short Synopsize.

The following is an outline of free energy research using classical physics to extract energy from ambient heat.

FACT #1 The amount of energy required to saturate magnetic material is dependant upon the saturation level, the dimensions and shape of the material, and the cores permeability (more specifically the hysteresis curve).

As an example, let's take two ferrite cores with the same shape and dimensions, but different permeability. Core A has a permeability of 1000 and core B has a permeability of 2000. For simplicity of clarifying the point, lets say both cores have the same hysteresis curve *shapes*. In other words, the shapes of the hysteresis curves look the same except Core B's curve is half the width as Core A's curve. Core B requires half the energy to saturate the core as compared to Core A. Please refer to the Energize page for a step-by-step example demonstrating this fact. We can illustrate this simple fact, but first we need to clarify an often very misunderstood basic fact about magnetic materials.

MAJOR MISCONCEPTION ABOUT MAGNETIC MATERIAL:

Take a magnetic core that we are energizing. We are applying a magnetic field in the core by means of electricity running through a coil around the magnetic material. Two things cause this internal magnetic field: 1. The current flowing in the wire that's wrapped around the core. 2. The Intrinsic Electron Spin from the magnetic material itself. The Intrinsic Electron Spin is not to be confused with electrons orbiting the atom. It is said that the Intrinsic Electron Spin is only properly explained by Quantum Mechanics, but to simply the topic you can visualize the electron itself as a spinning vortex of current. Although this visualization said not to be totally correct, it will give you a rough idea. For this paper, you do not need to understand Quantum Mechanics. Just understand that the Intrinsic Electron Spin generates a magnetic field as if each electron were an infitesimally small loop of current. The Intrinsic Electron Spin generates most of the magnetic field, not the current in copper wire. For example, if the permeability of the magnetic material is 1000, and if our copper coil is generating 1 Gauss in the center of a toroid core, then the Intrinsic Electron Spin in the magnetic material will generate 1000 Gauss. It is easy to prove this. Simply take hard iron, wrap wire around it and run enough current through the wire to saturate the core. Then stop the current. You will see that nearly all the magnetic field will remain even though the current is stopped. As stated, this magnetic field is generated by the Intrinsic Electron Spin, not the electricity in the wire.

Often people envision cores as some material that sucks magnetic fields inside itself. This may appear to happen, but what is really happening are magnetic fields from the wire and magnetic material canceling and adding. If you draw the magnetic field generated by the current in the copper wire and then superimpose the field generated by the magnetic material, then you can see where the fields add and subtract. Computers can generate the end result. So it appears as if the magnetic fields are being sucked inside the core. This is an improper theory since it is well proven the Intrinsic Electron Spin generates its own magnetic field. What is happening is the applied magnetic field generated by the copper wire cause the Intrinsic Electron Spin to align and thereby add to the net magnetic field. This is understood by the hysteresis curve. To prove this known fact, take an iron nail and wrap copper wire around it. Then saturate the nail by applying enough current to the wire. Then remove the current-- the speed of the current release is irrelevant. So according to the magnetic suck field theory, there should be no magnetic field left over since there's no current going through the copper wire. But indeed almost all the magnetic field still remains (hard iron has high Residual Flux as seen in the Hysteresis curve), and it will remain forever or until the iron core is fully demagnetized by heat or a degaussing method. This left over magnetic field is generated by the Intrinsic Electron Spins and is called Residual Flux. The Residual Flux is very high, even in the materials with high permeability. For example, an Amidon material H core has a permeability of 15,000. This material saturates at 4200 gauss, yet the Residual Flux is 800 gauss. This means if you saturate the core to 4200 gauss and then release the current in the coil, there will be 800 gauss left in the core. For example, hardened steel can have a saturation of about 10,000 gauss and Residual Flux of 7,000 gauss. So called permanent magnets have even higher Residual Flux.

Another major misconception about magnetic materials pertains to permanent magnets. The truth is that all ferromagnetic materials are permanent magnets. The only difference is the level of Residual Flux. Materials with high Residual Flux make better magnets. It is possible to demagnetize any magnetic material, including magnets. How you make a magnet is to saturate the material then release the applied magnetic field. If you saturate any magnetic material and then release the applied field, there will always be a residual magnetic field.

Going back to our illustration to demonstrate that it requires half the energy to saturate a core that has twice the permeability. Again, for the sake of clarifying the point, the hysteresis curves are the same shape but Core B's hysteresis curve is half the width as Core A's hysteresis curve. So we have two tests-- Core A and B. Let's increase the current in both tests so that the internal magnetic field of both cores increase at the same rate. The induced voltage will remain the same for both tests since the magnetic field of both cores are increasing at the same rate. Although, since the permeability of Core B is twice as high as Core A, the di/dt for Core B is half as Core A. This means at any given time, the current in the wire around Core B is half the current than Core A. The reason for this is because Core B has twice the permeability. So if there are 2 amps in Core A's windings and we'll say 2 amps generates 20 oersteds of applied field, then there only needs to be half the applied field in Core B to generate the same internal field; i.e., there will be 10 oersteds in Core B. Half the applied magnetic fields, yet both cores have the same internal magnetic fields due to different material permeability. So the magnetic fields generated by the cores are the same. Since both materials have the same saturation values, this means both cores will saturate at the same time. The end result is the current around Core A is twice as high as the current around Core B. So it takes half the energy to saturate Core B.

Now, nature isn't that simple. Yes, it is possible to make two magnetic materials with nearly exact same properties except different permeability. But there is usually a change in the hysteresis curve shapes that occurs from say permeability 20,000 to 200,000. That is, the hysteresis curves become square. Therefore, when comparing common materials within this permeability range, it usually take more than twice the permeability to lower the consumed energy for saturation by half. Beyond that range, from say permeability 200,000 to 400,000, it usually takes half the energy to saturate the material. Also, note there's no theoretically limit to permeability. Permeability is a limit to present technology. So, once the permeability begins to reach a certain level, the hysteresis curve shapes are mostly square. The Coercivity continues to decrease, but the curves shape remains square. Therefore, after this point, we can say that by doubling the permeability we generally reduce the amount energy for core saturate by half. With present technology material permeability's are up to 1,000,000 and higher. The amount of energy to saturate such material is incredibly low.

FREE ENERGY MACHINE EXAMPLE:

Front View:

We can examine a simple free energy machine example now that we understand a basic fact that the amount of energy required to saturate a core is dependant upon present material technology and the shape of the material. I drew a very basic animation of a modified toroid. The above image is a new version that replaced a more complex design example. The old design was replaced because most viewers found it too complex. The new design example is a toroid with a section removed. The black area is magnetic material. Two wire coils are rapped around the toroid-- see the green lines. Notice how thin the toroid material is compared to the over size. This demonstrates the necessity of increasing the effective permeability. Please see the Rod Length/Rod Diameter graph. The graph demonstrates a basic fact that effective permeability increases as the rod length to rod diameter increases. A section of rod is cut out of the toroid. In frame 1 the cut out section is away from the toroid. You can see in the frames that the cut out section is moving closer to the toroid. In frame 2 the cut out section is closer. In frame 3 it is very close to the toroid and in frame 4 it is inside the toroid. At frames 1 through 4 current is going through the wires. Enough current is applied so as to saturate the magnetic material. The current generates a magnetic field inside the toroid. The toroid then amplifies the magnetic field. The amplification depends on the effective permeability. This in turn attracts the cut out section to the toroid. Kinetic energy is gained as the cut out section is pulled toward the toroid. This is a motor action. Please note that after frame 4 the current is turned off, energy is gained from the collapsing magnetic field, the toroid is then demagnetized, and then the cut out section is rotated back away from the toroid to its original location and the cycle repeats. The amount of energy to demagnetize the material is dependent upon the magnetic material. Less demagnetizing energy is required as the permeability of the material increases. The demagnetizing energy is dependent upon magnetic material technology. The amount of energy gained from the magnetic attraction between the cut out section and the toroid depends on the magnetic materials permeability and saturation.

To make this example simple, we will not extract the energy from the collapsing field when the coil turns off at Frame 4 and we'll also ignore the energy required to demagnetize the toroid. With high permeable materials, the energy obtained from the collapsing core is usually greater than the energy required to demagnetize the toroid. Even though we could get more energy from the collapsing magnetic field then demagnetizing, we will ignore this process for the sake of demonstrating a point.

Now here's where the interesting part really begins. In the above example, lets say the permeability of the core was 9,800, which is high. Let's add up the amount of energy gained and lost:

Let's say it took 2mJ (2 thousandth of a joule) to saturate the core and we gain 1.7mJ from kinetic energy.

So our net result is 1.7mJ - 2mJ equals a loss of 0.3mJ's per cycle. Now lets replace the machine with a core that has a higher permeability of 140,000. Both cores have the same saturation level. Now let's assess the energy:

If the hysteresis curves were identical in *shape* then it would take 0.07 (9,800 / 140,000) times less energy to saturate the core. But since the hysteresis curves in the area of 10,000 are usually not square and at 140,000 they tend to be more square, then we'll say it takes 0.14 times the energy instead 0.07 times. That's twice the energy from a typical hysteresis curve to a square curve, which is a reasonable and realistic factor. So 0.14 * 1.7mJ is 0.28mJ. So it takes 0.28mJ to saturate the core, but we gain the same exact amount of kinetic energy as with the first test with the 9,800 permeability material. The reason we gain the same amount of kinetic energy is because both materials have the same saturation level. Let's say the saturation level in the first core material was 5000 gauss. Gauss is the strength of the magnetic field. This is what's pulling the cut out section toward the toroid. So the gauss levels are the same at saturation. We gain 1.7mJ from kinetic energy.

So our net results for the new material is 1.7mJ - 0.28mJ which equals a net *gain* of 1.42mJ per cycle. That's free energy. We can improve this nearly 10 fold again by using material of 1,400,000 permeability. Our only limit is the present technology of magnetic materials. The higher the permeability, the less energy it takes to saturate the core. The core is saturated, and the magnetic attraction between the blue and gray material is the same.

There is no lower limit to how much energy is requires to saturate core material. Technology in this field is increasing.

This is very basic classical physics. Anyone who questions the fact that permeability and saturation energy go hand in hand can try a simple clear test. Take two toroid cores and wrap sufficient amount of copper wire. Toroid A has a permeability of 300 and toroid B has a permeability of 200,000. Place a small current resister of say 0.1 ohms in series with the toroid. Hook an oscilloscope across the resister. Place a switch, preferably a low resistance MOSFET switch, in series with the resister. Then complete the circuit with a battery. It will help if your oscilloscope has trace memory. The trace will make it easier to see the results. Turn on the switch, and of course you'll want to turn it off when you see the signal. What you'll see on your oscilloscope is a current curve. Now I know this sounds simple, but you really should know what you're doing here. For an equal comparison of the two cores, you will need to be certain that the core reaches saturation. If this is done properly, then there will be a huge difference between the two materials. The amount of energy will be the segmented volume as represented by the current graph times the battery voltage. As an example, if the current curve were square for 1 second at 1A and at 10V, which it will not be, then the total energy would be 1s * 1A * 10V = 10 Joules. If the current curve were sloped (triangle) then the power would be 5 Joules. Your curve will be more complex so you'll either need to have a scope that automatically calculates power or you'll need to do it manually for each tiny segment in time-- a tedious task. Please see the Energize page to analyze a step by step process of the energies involved in magnetizing magnetic material.

WHERE IS THE FREE ENERGY IS COMING FROM:

This is the trillion-dollar question and here you will find the answer if you study and read this paper several times. First we need to understand another basic fact about magnetic material. That is, why is it that when you saturate magnetic material, at room temperature, and then release the applied field, does a typical core partially demagnetize? For example, take an Amidon H material toroid. Saturate the material to just over 4000 gauss. Then release the applied current field. The core will have 800 gauss left. If you are applying a meager 1 oersted and the core itself is generating 4000 gauss / oersteds, then why wouldn't the core self sustain itself like magnets do? This answer has to do with ambient heat, and of course the material of the core. So what I am saying is that it's the vibrating particles in the material that are responsible for flipping the magnetic alignments to random directions which result in domains pointing in different directions.

So lets test that theory. If I'm correct, then high permeability magnetic material at near zero Kelvin temperature would remain magnetized after we remove the applied current field from our wire. Guess what? That's exactly what happens. If we lower the temperature of magnetic material to such a degree then the coercivity increases and the magnetic material will remain magnetized, just like a permanent magnet. So we started with some great Amidon H material that had a great hysteresis curve and by lowering the temperature enough we ended up with material that has a square hysteresis curve and that remains magnetized / self sustaining by its own magnetic field. What happened is we lowered the disorder / heat. When we increase the materials temperature to a certain degree, then presto, the magnetic material will demagnetize and we have our great high permeability material back again. The natural state of the magnetic material without the disturbance of heat is to remain magnetized once it is saturated or magnetized. When we add the heat, the vibrating particles knock the magnetic alignments out. Have you ever tried to separate two permanent magnets that are together in magnetic alignment? It takes energy. Now instead of pulling them apart, simply rotate them around so that the South Pole in one magnet is facing the south pole of another magnet. They repel and the net result magnetic field is zero. That takes even more energy and that is exactly what is happening when magnetic materials demagnetize. The heat in matter forces the magnetic particles out of alignment. This is happening on a particle scale within the atom, but it takes energy.

If you want proof without expensive near zero temperature equipment, then magnetize a small hard steel nail. Then hold the *entire* nail in a fire. After the entire nail is glowing then turn of fire and allow the nail to cool off. If you heat the entire nail enough then you will demagnetize it considerable. What you're doing is increasing that hard nails permeability. It is the vibrating particles in the nail that forces the magnetic alignments out of alignment. This takes energy! Below you will see that indeed magnetic material gets cold when you demagnetize it.

So when you demagnetize magnetic material, it actually takes energy away from the material. When you magnetize the material, you are adding energy to the material. You say hogwash? Where's the proof? Well it just so happens that in 1881 E. Warburg discovered an effect that is now called the Magnetocaloric effect. The old and well-documented Magnetocaloric effect is as follows. If we magnetize magnetic material to say 10,000 gauss, then the material will heat up by 0.5 C (0.9 F) to over 4 C (7.2 F), depending on the material type used. Now let's allow the material to cool down to room temperature before removing the applied magnetic field. Now the material is back to room temperature and then we remove the magnetic field. The temperature of the magnetic material will drop from 0.5 C (0.9 F) to over 4 C (7.2 F). below room temperature, depending on the material type! Very efficient refrigerators are created based on the Magnetocaloric effect. Please see the following page:

Magnetocaloric Effect (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae488.cfm)

So, it turns out that the Magnetocaloric effect is in complete agreement. That is, as mentioned earlier, when the magnetic material is demagnetized, energy is taken away from the material, and opposite when magnetized. According to the Magnetocaloric effect, the material gets colder when demagnetized and hotter when magnetized. The amount of heat depends upon the material. The hysteresis curve plays the major role in determining this.

Lastly, I have been working on magnetic material computer simulations. Although not complete to my satisfaction, early versions clearly demonstrating that energy is removed from the magnetic material when it demagnetizes. This is a fact as outlined by the Magnetocaloric effect. I've performed numerous tests on the computer simulations comparing them to known results such as a typical inductor. People may initially think that if this is all true, then it should be easy to get free energy from magnetic materials. The equation is balanced under normal situations. In the case of an inductor, the simulations show that the material becomes hot during the first half of the cycle and then colder during the last half. But according to simulations, if a proper inhomogeneous field is applied, at specific timing, energy can be extracted from magnetic material by solid-state means. The first part of this paper clearly demonstrated that free energy could be extracted from magnetic materials by mechanical means. I do not know as to how high the permeability needs to be before such a machine can overcome the hysteresis losses and mechanical friction losses. My guess is that it will be at least a permeability of a few hundred thousand. The coercivity of ordinary soft iron is far too high. So this brings us to the final section of the research.

This page continues to Data

Contact

Paul Lowrance <Energy_Mover-owner@yahoogroups.co*m>