Can someone try this experiment?

Are magnets and batteries just two sides of the same 'coin'? Suppose instead of a copper wire coil around a ferrite core, hooked up to a battery that would generate a magnetic field, you had a steel wire coil around a copper core(or tube?) with both end of the wire touching the north and south poles of a magnet. Would the magnetic flux, that was flowing around the copper core, generate an electric current in the copper core?

I'm not able to try this experiment myself even though it sounds simple and I'm putting this on ATS in case someone would like to try it themselves.

I'm no electrical engineer, but the way to induce a current in a conductor with magnets is to move the conductor through the magnetic field. In your scenario, there is no moving through the field. It's static.

No movement, no potential difference, no current.

Yes hes right you need energy to make energy.
Otherwise you have over unity which really has never been achieved.
They burn the coal, to get steam, to move the conductor to generate the current.
There was one device, that used audio, and generated a current.
Any sound would trigger some movement to move the conductor.
But I can never find any more info on it.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit

No movement, no potential difference, no current.

Dream killer...




I tried to find an answer to it and it seems that Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism may have that answer...

But I ran into trouble trying to figure it out - something to do with a lack of understanding..

If I am way off base, please correct me!

I do n't know much about the physics behind this but I know that the big magnet I use to pick up sewing pins appears to transfer its magnatism into pins or ocassionalyl my scissors if I leave them together. When I pull the pins off they will stick together, even pick up another pin on the floor.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit


I know that's what the conventional wisdom says about electromagnetism but it's always bothered me that you can generate a stationary magnetic field from a current going thru a copper wire but you supposed can't generate a current from a stationary magnetic field.

I just think my suggestion would be in interesting thing to try out. I wish I had the space and materials to try it myself but I don't.

Two problems with this idea:

1) As has already been mentioned, you cannot get electrical current induced from a static magnetic flux field. the magnetism must be changing in order to induce an electric current.

2) Due to the geometry of what you are proposing (as I understand it; sort of an electromagnetic coil in reverse?), the induced electrical current, should you apply a changing magnetic field to the apparatus, would be generated radially around the copper wire 'core' instead of axially to give a current flow from opposite ends of the wire.

But don't let this discourage you. You are onto something, although I won't state here exactly what. I might get time and money to work on that some more later on. Some things you'll just have to figure out for yourself.

TheRedneck

While this in not quite the same thing, it did get me into quite a bit of trouble many years ago.

This operates on a collapsing magnetic field.

Apply a very small DC voltage(1 1/2v) to a coil on a core momentarily. If someone is touching the leads when you remove the potential they will get a very nasty shock.
Depending on the coil and core used..upwards of thousands of volts.

While you are amplifying the voltage via a stored static magnetic field, it is still nothing more than a "one shot" step up DC transformer.

thats as close as I've ever gotten

TheWelder

reply to post by TheRedneck

Thanks for your response. Here's the thing that intrigues me. The left-handed rule of electro-magnetism states that if a current flows thru a straight copper wire in the direction of your left thumb, then the magnetic flux will circle the wire in the direction that your left hand's fingers are pointing. So I'm asking myself if the steel wire coil reproduces the same kind of circulating magnetic flux, then why wouldn't the left handed rule come into play and generate a current the direction of which is 90 degrees to the magnetic flux?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
So I'm asking myself if the steel wire coil reproduces the same kind of circulating magnetic flux...

You've said it. Circulating magnetic flux. What you would need to make your current is the motion. The magnet does not provide any induced voltage. Only the movement does.

Yes, you're right. I just looked it up in a textbook. It's called counter emf. Now here's the interesting thing about this. When you send a DC current thru a coil, you get the same amount of current out the other side as you put in. When you stop the current flow, the counter EMF kicks in and you get the same amount of current flowing in the opposite direction. When you talked about very high voltages, I'm thinking that's because the power is all in one short burst.

So let's say you had two coils connected in series. If you send a DC current thru coil A(but not coil B) and then shut off that current, the counter EMF will flow into Coil B(and out the other side where it can be captured by capacitors or recharge a battery maybe) and as soon as that sudden counter EMF surge stops, coil B will have it's own counter EMF surge flowing back into coil A(and out the other side, etc.) and the whole process would continue back and forth.

I'm not stating this as a fact but rather as a hypothesis. Does it make sense. It almost sounds to me like a current moving thru a coil compresses some kind of elecrtromagnetic 'spring' which pushes back when the current is turned off. So in theory, two coils could be used to oscillate the counter emf, right?

reply to post by Studenofhistory

There is actually a common oscillator circuit (although I can't remember the name right off) that works on that very principle. What you are forgetting however is that there is a voltage loss in each coil due to the resistance.

Electricity is easily compared to water flow. Voltage is pressure behind the water, amperage is the rate of flow of the water, and resistance is the size of the ho9se it is flowing through. If you add two hoses together, you will have a greater resistance to water flow than if you only had one hose, thus you will not get as much water flowing (amperage) from the same pressure (voltage).

For the magnetic field, think of the water as being used to wind up a spring. When the flow stops, the spring snaps back, sending water in the opposite direction. That's the counter EMF.

TheRedneck

Okay I understand that there's voltage losses so my oscillating coils idea would eventually wind down but am I missing something when I think that the amount of current flowing in both directions is greater than the original input current? In other words, if an initial dc current goes in (and comes out the other side of the first coil so it's not really lost) and then you get at least one counter emf surge (but more then one with two coils) even if those surges are at lower and lower voltages, that's still usable current that is in excess of the original input current flow, right? And if you 'topped up' the voltage each time the coils kicked back the emf, wouldn't you still get more usable power out than what you put in?

reply to post by Studenofhistory

Where you're missing it is that the current does not actually go in one end and out the other. Instead it is a closed loop (a circuit) that allows electrical current to flow throughout the circuit simultaneously. If you place a restriction in front of the coil, that restriction will not just use whatever is left after electricity flows through the coil, it becomes rather a part of the entire circuit and affects the entire electrical flow.

To illustrate, let's say you have a 10 volt source of electricity. You place a coil in line with it to create a circuit. Let's assume that coil has a resistance of 100 ohms, which means you have a current that is 10/100, or 0.1 amperes of current.

(Ohms Law: E=IR. or Voltage = Current * Resistance)

Now, if you want to use that 0.1 amperes of current after it 'comes out of' the coil to, say charge a battery... if you are charging a 5 volt battery, that means that you just dropped the voltage through the coil by half, to 10-5 or 5 volts. The resistance is still 100 ohms. so now you have 5/100 or 0.05 amperes of current through the coil, giving you half as much current as without the battery charger.

As you can see, anything you try to do with the current 'after' it leaves the coil actually decreases the amount of current that will go through the coil, either by decreasing the effective voltage (and thus the current) across the coil or by increasing the resistance of the circuit and decreasing the current through the coil that way.

TheRedneck

Thanks for that detailed explanation, Redneck. Obviously my understanding of basic electricity is not as good as I'd like it to be. So how about this situation?

You have two capacitors with a coil in between. Let's assume that Capacitor A is already charged but B isn't. If A is allowed to release it's built up charge, that would pass thru the coil, which affects the amount of current passing thru as you described above, wouldn't the remaining current accumulate in capacitor B? Once A reaches an uncharged state, the coil would generate a counter emf of some kind that would recharge A, right? So would you not have two charged capacitors at that point and how would the combined charge compare with the original charge?

By the way, in the 1900 page ebook that's downloadable from a site linked from another recent thread 'Free energy handbook', there is a very interesting description of Joseph Newman's theory of using really huge counter emfs from very large coils that seems to give COP>1.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

I have to admit, you are imaginative! That's a good thing, since it is by imagination that a solution to our energy problems will be found. So keep it up!

In your proposal, we have to start thinking in terms of time as well. As you switch capacitor A on, current will start to flow into capacitor B through the coil. This will create a magnetic field in the coil itself, and in doing so the coil will exhibit impedance (time-specific resistance) to the flow of current. As the current is slowed by the impedance, the impedance will actually decrease, so what we have is a self-regulating current flow.

Also, however, as the current flows into capacitor B, the voltage on it will increase, while the voltage on capacitor A decreases. This will also tend to slow the flow of current through the coil.

The end result will be that both capacitors will end up with 1/2 of the original voltage on capacitor A (assuming they are the same value), but only after a specific length of time determined by the size of the capacitors (amount of electrical energy stored), the size and impedance of the coil, and the initial voltages. The counter EMF will exhibit itself, but it will be immediately bucked by the application of the voltages on the capacitor. In other words, it will not provide more energy to the system, but instead will simply slow the electrical flow between capacitors.

I have a copy of that ebook you mentioned, and it contains some very interesting designs. I have actually built or researched many of the ideas in it myself. Most simply will not work, due to either a misunderstanding of the forces involved or a flaw in the design. A few are questionable. A few more appear to have great promise.

Bear in mind when you are looking at a book such as this that anything printed in it is by definition not patentable; it is either patented already or is public domain due to it being published prior to patenting. So while it is a great idea to build something for yourself, it is also a poor idea to think you can make anything profitable commercially from what is in the book.

Now if you can find a design in there that doesn't work, but has a sound principle behind it given a slightly different configuration....

Oh, and if you have it, could you provide the link to that book in this thread? I haven't been able to find it and I know several; members have expressed interest in getting a copy.

TheRedneck

Thanks for the explanation, Redneck. Here is the link to that really useful ebook.
www.free-energy-info.co.uk...

Did you try to duplicate the device where three coils are used to extract energy from an iron rod? I don't recall the name offhand but it sounded pretty cool.

There's one concept that I keep trying to think of ways to exploit and that is the force square law for combining two or more magnets in parallel. It's used in Flynn's device which is in the ebook. If the combined magnetic flux of two identical magnets in parallel is 4 times as strong as each magnet by itself, surely there must be some way to convert that extra free magnetic force into useful electricity, wouldn't you think?

reply to post by Studenofhistory
\
Thanks for that link! A lot of people will no doubt be glad to find that book.

As to the three-coil project, not that I know of. I am working on a revised form of a principle in the book concerning magnetics, but obviously cannot elucidate at this time. It doesn't actually draw anything out of an iron rod, however, so it's probably not the same idea.

Hmmm... try googling someone named John R. R. Searle. You might find some information on his magnetics work that you would find interesting. He invented a 'perpetual' motor that was base on a chemical understanding of what he referred to as 'the Law of Squares', which may be what you are referring to. I won't go into further detail here, but suffice it to say you may find some very interesting stories...

There used to be a book out called "How to Build a Flying Saucer" (or something close to that). I believe that was where I discovered Professor Searle's work. Despite the title, it had a pretty scientific basis.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Studenofhistory


if you have a series circuit involving one or more capacitors and inductors, you have a second order linear circuit, whose operating parameters can be easily derived using a second order differential equation.

it will take the form of (di^2/(dt)^2)+(R/L)(di/dt)+(1/LC)(i)

the 1/LC term is the resonant frequency of the circuit squared.

Basically, it'll oscillate back and forth between the energy of the circuit being stored in the capacitors and in the inductors, until it dissipates all it's power into heat. This will take a while, since there's no resistor, just the resistance of the wires. if it had more resistance, it would either only oscillate once, or simply discharge once and be done with it.

Remember: the voltage across a capacitor cannot change suddenly, nor can the current through an inductor.

iC=C(dv/dt) and vL=L(di/dt)

reply to post by WickettheRabbit

Sound could be used as a catalyst, and the tone of vibration needed for such a device could be powered by solar power. the trouble would come from the tone to use.