| Subject: RE: Non Electric
Permanent magnet motor Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:53:07 -0600
Dear Tom,
To seriously go after a totally
permanent magnet motor, one must think and act in terms other than
just that a magnet is a dipole (a separated north and south pole). The
reason is that, if you integrate the polar forces around a closed loop
(e.g., a rotation), the net force integrates to a zero vector. Ergo,
that will never get you a permanent magnet motor.
Instead, one must also turn to
magnetic materials theory. Magnetic materials are quite sophisticated
structures have a very surprising and wide range of phenomenology. One
of these (check out Feynman's three volumes of sophomore physics) is
the exchange force.
By using assemblies of magnets put
together in certain ways, in a machine with a rotor and a stator, one
can arrange it so that, at a certain point in the rotary cycle, the
exchange force is suddenly invoked (by spin flipping). In that case,
there is a sudden impulsive force or "kick" that may be even a
thousand times (momentarily) the strength of the magnetic polar
forces. In a practical device, you can get a momentary kick that is a
hundred or so times as strong, momentarily.
The trick is to have the magnet
assemblies and the geometry arranged just so the sudden "kick" is in
the correct place and in the correct direction you need. In that case,
the integration of the forces around the closed loop does not
integrate to a net zero, but to a net propulsive force. In that case,
the rotor will turn and continue to turn, if the rotor is on precision
bearings, drag is not too excessive, etc.
However, I warn you that the timing
and direction of that evoked exchange force have to be very precise.
You will find that you have to do precision measurements of the
magnetic field patterns, and also of the evocation of that force. You
will also have to have precisely machined structures, and even then
may have to "creep in" on the machining and the actual final
geometrical assembly of the magnets in order to get the force just
right in timing and direction. If not equipped to do such precision
and such painful, slow adjustment, it will almost certainly not
succeed unless you are tremendously lucky.
Another effect that can be used with
magnetic materials to get an overall "nonconservative force"
integration is to take advantage of the phenomenon of multiple-valued
potentials, which arises naturally in magnetic materials and magnetic
phenomena, but which the usual magnetic engineering goes to great
lengths to assume away with all sorts of artificial assumptions. In
the case of a successful use of multivalued potentials, there is a
point between rotor and stator magnets in the motion of the rotor,
where there is an abrupt change of the forces between them. On the
left it is weaker than it is on the right of that point, etc. Again,
by shaping the magnets correctly (and usually with much pain and
time), one can get sufficient multivalued potential so that the rotor
will turn and continue to turn.
Now either of these two effects, if
you get it just right, is sufficient to give you a net propulsive
force on a rotor, turning in a closed circle before a stator.
Further, you don't have to take my
word for it. Once you know these facts, you can research the two
effects on your own. So first, you will need to go through a real
"re-education" program, so that you no longer see magnets as just a
"bar with a north pole on one end and a south pole on the other".
In magnetic materials, there are some
200 known effects, some extraordinarily unusual. Only about half of
them are completely understood. The other 100 are understood anywhere
from "pretty well" to "not to well" to "not well at all".
If you are serious about overunity
research and self-turning or self-powering engines, you must enlarge
your knowledge beyond the standard electrical engineering degree. In
the classical EM model, the equations are already symmetrically
regauged, and what that means is that the very equations you are using
already exclude any overunity or self-powering.
So the first problem is not getting
some magnets and having at the experiments, but is re-educating
yourself so that there are additional asymmetrical regauging effects
in your repertoire.
And by the way, it is not easy, nor
is it simple.
There are other magnetic effects that
can also be evoked, which probably be engineered to yield a permanent
magnet self-turning motor. The newly emerging field of spintronics
contains several things of interest eventually in that respect.
And by the way, such a machine does
not violate thermodynamics, because any dipole is already proven in
physics to be a broken symmetry in the exchange of the vacuum flux
energy with the charges of the dipolarity. What that means in simple
terms is that the dipole continuously receives energy from the active
vacuum in virtual photon form, coherently integrates it into real,
observable energy, and re-emits it as real energy. So every dipole in
the universe is already a proven "converter" of vacuum energy into
real EM energy that is observable and usable. The prediction of that
asymmetry was strongly given by Lee and Yang in 1956 and 57, and Wu
and her colleagues experimentally proved it in early 1957. So
revolutionary a change in physics was this discovery of broken
symmetry, that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded
the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the very same year, in Dec. 1957.
Sadly, in the nearly half century
since then, the impact and implications of dipolar asymmetry has not
migrated across the university campus from the particle physics group
or department to the electrical engineering department. And so the
electrical engineering departments have not changed their classical EM
model, which a priori assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime
(both assumptions having been falsified many decades ago in physics).
The thing we strongly stress to all
who wish to experiment or start research in the overunity field, is
that there are some very strong requirements to produce a system that
has a COP>1.0. Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the
total useful energy or work output, divided by the operator's energy
input only. The efficiency of a system is a different measure, and is
defined as the total useful energy or work output, divided by the
total energy input from all sources. By the conservation of energy
law, the efficiency can never exceed 100%. However, if there is some
extra environmental energy that is input, and that is used by the
system, then the efficiency can be less than 100%, but the COP can be
COP>1.0 or even COP = infinity.
A good example of a COP>1.0 system is
the common home heat pump. It's overall efficiency in nominal
conditions may be only 50%, but it still exhibits COP = 3.0 to 4.0.
That's because an extra energy input is provided from the local
environment (the atmosphere). One pays a little to compress the air,
and from it the pump extracts heat energy. So it can put out more heat
energy than you, the operator, input via the electrical power line.
Note rigorously that (1) there must
be an extra input of energy from the environment, in addition to the
operator's input (the input from the power line, that one pays for),
and (2) the extra energy input by the environment must make up for
both the energy wasted in the system's inefficiencies and the extra
energy that is also output.
Rigorously, such a system is a system
far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from its
environment. Such a system thermodynamically is permitted to exhibit
COP>1.0, even though its efficiency is less than 100%.
To show a system that has a low
efficiency but an infinite COP, consider the common solar cell. Its
efficiency may be only 17% or so, so that it wastes 83% of all its
input energy. But the operator doesn't have to input anything at all.
So the finite output energy from the solar cell divided by zero gives
a COP = infinity. That's an EM system. Of course, the windmill, the
waterwheel, and the sailboat are other very ancient COP = infinity
systems, though their efficiencies may be much lower than 100%.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|