If the cooling effect is real then could also be indicative of an unfamiliar form of energy storage.
Harry On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > @Vibrator, > > > > As you imply, some form of negative hysteresis would be the Holy Gail for > alternative energy – better than LENR. I am not sure that it is > fundamentally contrary to ferromagnetism, so much as requiring a core which > has both antiferromagnetic domains or zones which are juxtaposed to > ferromagnetic zones. Thus the “automatic flipping” is possible but only in > the antiferromagnetic regions. > > > > The closest anyone has come to demonstrating this which I know about is the > Manelas device, tested by Brian Ahern – slides here: > > https://ecatsite.wordpress.com/manelas-device/ > > > > The best evidence for negative hysteresis in this device is that under load > of about 50 watts, the ferrite billet (which severs as the core of an odd > transformer with x,y, and z windings) was measured to have dropped in > temperature over ambient. The expectation is that like any core, it should > have been heated substantially by the rapidly alternating fields (~135 KHz) > but instead - it dropped in temperature. > > > > To me it seems a violation of CoE on several levels. > > > > > > From: Vibrator ! > > > > Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in > systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses > would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically > changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating (time-varying) > field is a free energy gradient. The automatic flipping of the remanant > flux against its own coercivity would provide hefty gains per cycle. > > It is clear however that negative hysteresis appears to be fundamentally > contrary to the nature of ferromagnetism and remanance / retentivity, so > further speculation on the matter seems of little value in the present > context. > > It does however throw a quick spotlight on the relationship between > time-varying forces and the conservation of energy, and this area is right > up our street.. > > Noether's theorem is often rather crassly summarised as demonstrating that > the conservation laws are time-invariant. But of course this is a perfectly > trite statement - the CoE laws are the same today as yesterday, big whoop... > and entirely missing the real lesson, which is not so trivial.. > > The more salient point becomes apparent in applying the concept to an > interaction, comprising discrete input vs output (ie. inbound vs outbound) > force times displacement integrals (classical work); if the force in > question is time-variant, then the balance of energy between our two > integrals is a function of our applied displacement velocities in relation > to the field's own finite rates of change. > > In symmetrical / non-time varying interactions, force variations can be > treated as propogating at C, effectively instantaneously, thus ensuring > energy symmetry regardless of any variation in input vs output velocities > (ie. mass & gravity are mediated at C so asymmetric gravitational > interactions are impossible). However in material or aggregagte systems, > effective field propogation rates can be finite (per "slow light" > phenomena), opening up this arena of passively time-varying systems, with > time-dependent net energies... > > In other words, any passively time-varying system is an open thermodynamic > system - it may or may not have constant energy, but cannot be > thermodynamically closed. > > Hysteresis losses are an example of extra work that must be performed > against the field - an excess of input work for a corresponding output > integral. > > In other words, hysteresis losses are inherently non-dissipative - the > additional input work required, by definition, is a function of ordinary > force and displacement - the extra workload is principally magnetic. > Non-dissipative loss mechanisms are the corollary, inverse phenomena of > thermodynamic gains - it's exactly the same form of asymmetry, with the > direction reversed. But the same animal nonetheless. > > However hysteresis losses are normally only encountered, and hence their > implications considered, in terms of their effects on conventional EM > systems such as motors and transformers, in which case they result in an > additional load upon the power supply - more current is needed to produce a > stronger applied field, incurring higher resistance losses from the coils > and net circuit, and thus a dissipative loss mechanism. > > And at this juncture, something with profound implications has been cast by > the wayside.. > > But suppose for a moment that we had passively-superconducting circuits (not > in itself prohibited) - we'd still have to perform more input work to raise > the current and flux density, but we could then recoup that investment > coming back down the other side, when the domains are aligning in their > preferential direction, and we'll have incurred no such incidental heating > costs. The net sum's still zero, but we haven't lost anything either. > > Another example would be entropy viscosity (Sv) as investigated by > Rutherford in his first paper (c. 1886) - normally an engineering obstacle, > since a motor or transformer pulsed faster than the response frequency of > its magnetic cores cannot induce any more flux with rising current, hence > the only remaining workload beyond an Sv-restricted max speed would again be > resistance losses. As such, Sv is usually dismissed as dissipative when it, > too, is not - resistance losses are surely dissipative, but incidental to > the nature of Sv losses which are intrinsically time-variant. > > As an example, suppose a magnet is allowed to attract itself across some > small distance, to a lump of rough iron. Due to the diversity of the iron's > internal domain structures, different regions have varying remanance and > coercivities, some domains are pinned harder than others and so its > magnetisation curve is non-linear and laggy - holdout domains are still > popping into alignment, even some time after the magnets have joined > together and stopped moving. > > So the induced field is increasing, ambiently, of its own accord. If we then > separate the magnet from the core, we'll have to input more mechanical > effort to prise them apart, than they originally exerted when attracting > together. > > Again, the actual "form" of the additional input work required is > conventional F*d. We've simply input more energy to the field, than it has > output into our mechanical (thermodynamic) realm - the crucial point being > that we haven't incurred any additional heating mechanism... ie. our loss > here is non-dissipative. They attract together against a low force. Then > the force rises of its own accord. Then we have to separate them agasint > this higher force, inputting more F over a given d - a closed-loop > mechanical loss. > > To really drive home the implications of this, we could, in principle, dump > ANY amount of energy into such an interaction, over any number of cycles, > without raising the temperature of the closed system (ie. calorimetry shows > total loss of energy). > > The energy has thus, to all intents and purposes, disappeared from the > classical, thermodynamic, domain. This energy isn't really "lost" - we know > it was input against magnetic force, in an asymmetric exchange of mechanical > to magnetic work (negatively-signed ambient momentum transfered by virtual > photon flux)... yet as far as classical concepts are concerned, this energy > has been destroyed..! > > > So excuse the sermon, but this seemed an apposite opportunity to expound on > this often under-appreciated issue. > > > > TL;DR: > ______ > > Noether's theorem and the classical conservations laws are as much > prescriptive as proscriptive - telling us what IS possible, as much as what > isn't.... The "X" marking the treasure is surely the fact that wherever > force is a passive function of time over a given displacement, so, > potentially, is net energy.. and we already know of such examples, that > effectively violate the classical first law. Strictly, the only remaining > controversy concerns the direction of the asymmetry.. but the fate of such > "destroyed" energy is precisely the same conversation as the provenance of > any prospective gains - ask me where it comes from, and i'll ask you where > it goes..
