Iron Core Free Energy
Iron Rod
A few days ago I commented on another thread on this site, but it seems my opinion was
too commonplace and already well-known, so I'm revisiting my old thread.
For me,
understanding magnetic field multiplication was never simple:
The magnetic
field is not the same if the coil has a core or not. If a core of ferromagnetic
material (like iron or steel) is introduced, the magnetic field multiplies
exponentially, potentially becoming hundreds or thousands of times stronger.
As we can see, the matter is quite simple once you understand certain aspects that
are widely known today. This wasn't the case in my student days; we were never
taught about it, and the most we understood was that the iron core gathered or
concentrated the magnetic lines of force coming from the coil. It was never clear
that the core is an active element that, when excited, multiplies the intensity of
the magnetic field on its own, without any further energy expenditure. However, a
few years ago I reread old treatises on electrical engineering, and there it was
clearly explained. I thought I was looking at the physical and chemical basis on
which a very deep analysis could be done and a prototype of free energy could be
obtained, such as Figuera.
Escumo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox3Xc465ZkA
AI is on the lookout for the ideas we put forward and share online. I'm sending
this very interesting, though somewhat simplistic, video about the extraordinary
advances in electromagnetic induction made by Faraday in 1830. It explains the
crucial role of iron, which they call "Wrought Iron," capable of amplifying and
concentrating the magnetic field produced in a coil carrying an electric current.
Both the video and this very topic were discussed here at the same time. Is this
a coincidence, or are they lying in wait? Figuera used Faraday's concepts in a
different way, and he wasn't a fraud; on the contrary, he was a visionary compared
to Faraday himself. After all, how and where did Faraday get the copper wires he
used in his experiments?
Escumo
Thanks Lasco…
The main point is to understand, in a simple and practical way (not going into
classical or quantum theories of the reality of the physical phenomenon based on
useless mathematical rules for what you can find in a private garage of any house
in this world; on the contrary, being in a laboratory of a large university or
large company equipped with all the resources currently available and trying to
create a problem to see what and how bright minds without formal training in
analyzing results come up with),
a physical phenomenon caused by an
electrochemical interaction between two materials with the same origin (they are
metals, iron and copper) and different chemical configurations subjected to the
passage of an electric current. Understanding this scheme is key to being able
to develop new ideas with which we can approach the method that Figuera used in
his electric generator. The mechanism is easy to understand if someone explains
why.
For example, for a sponge to absorb water, it needs to be immersed
in water. Once soaked, the sponge retains the water. If you then pass a stream
of water through it, the sponge itself increases the flow, releasing the retained
water. This example is very simple to illustrate how magnetic permeability works.
The sponge is iron, and the key difference is that it doesn't need to be
impregnated with magnetism.
Iron is already imbued with this extra magnetism,
the magnitude of which can be thousands of times the excitation magnetism produced
by the electric current passing through the coil. This is where the advantage of
iron lies: the amplifying effect, without added energy expenditure, to create a
magnetic field intensity that is the sum of the excitation field plus the iron's
own inherent magnetism.
We are facing a phenomenon that is difficult to
find; the system created is capable of producing much more magnetic intensity
than the excitation magnetic intensity. A gain mechanism is established without
further energy expenditure, and it is logical to think that it can become
self-sustaining. My experiences in my own prototypes made with very few resources
and common materials show the viability of this way of understanding the mechanism
of action where the Figuera system may be based in order to be self-excited.
Escumo
Hi Simon,
Your answer will be
published on:
http://gratisenergi.se/ironcore.htm
Is it possible to influence the
magnetism of an iron core by exposing it to a different frequency? very low
voltage and high current? An iron core probably has a very low resistance. Or
expose the iron core to high voltage, very low current?
Best Wishes, Hermes
P.S how close to the forest fires do you live? Saw
that it would be more than +40C in both France and Spain.
Hi Hermes,
The nearest fires are around Bordeaux, which is a couple of
hours drive away. No problem here.
Probably no chance of OU exposing an
iron core to high voltage, though of course if you apply enough electric field
to any atom and strip enough electrons away you can induce nuclear fission.
That idea hasn't been explored that much.
There doesn't seem to be any
path using frequency, either. Problem there is that though logically you can
use the speed of light to introduce an asymmetry, for normal sizes you're
going to need to be somewhere in the GHz region and the skin depth shrinks
the higher the frequency. If you make the device large enough that lower
frequencies work, the drop-off of the EM field with distance reduces the field
strength you can apply and the power you can get (in theory) reduces too -
basically once the available power in theory drops below the threshold of
measurement you can't be sure anyway. If you're using solid Iron cores, you'll
get eddy currents too with any AC power, and so you'd need powdered Iron
bonded with some insulating binder. The permeability drops rapidly as the
air-gaps increase, which is why magnetic systems (motors, generators,
solenoids) generally try to reduce the air-gaps as much as possible, but
then that also pushes up the frequency at which any speed-of-light asymmetry
will be significant.
For Figuera's device, it would have been pretty
rugged and permanent. If it had really worked, it would have continued to
work and if someone stole it it would have continued to work for that person
too. Not exactly complex or fragile. Yet it disappeared. There's nothing to
test, no-one else tested it - all you've got is claims and some reports from
people who saw it but didn't do what would be standard checks for a debunker
today (check carefully for hidden sources of power).
Look around the
net, and you'll find people still believing that John Worral Keely's theories
are valid and that he achieved OU in front of the top scientists of the day
(yep, they were fooled), even when (after he died) the air-tubes that had
provided the hidden power were discovered. Sometimes claims for OU are a
failure in measurement, sometimes they are simply fraud, and very
occasionally they were true though the process was mis-described (Papp is
the only one of these I know about, where his stuff worked but not the way
he claimed). Still, of all the claims around there's nothing you can test
and prove it works. Sometimes there's stuff around you can test and prove
it doesn't work, though, or that it was definitely fraud.
An
important idea to note is that energy isn't a thing itself, but instead
it's a property of some other thing (particle or wave). If you change your
reference frame, the amount of energy you measure becomes different. If
you manage to "create" energy, nothing is actually created, and you've
simply changed the magnitude of a property of some thing. Same with
momentum, for interest, also not a thing. Thus the only reason that
energy (or momentum) is conserved is the normal symmetry of interaction
of things. To alter that, and end up with more (or less) energy than you
started with, you need to identify what symmetries are actually
conserving your energy and how to break one or more of them enough to
make a difference and not to conserve energy. That generally isn't an easy
task, and even identifying the symmetries isn't easy. One that's fairly
simple is that single electrons are bound by the Pauli Exclusion Principle,
so have a certain set of energy levels available, but that when bound into
a pair (Cooper pair) they aren't and have a different set of energy levels
available. Thus flipping between the two states results in different
measurable kinetic energy states, and the apparent creation of energy
going to the paired state since the energy is just there with no source.
Another interesting point is that moving a neutral atom into an electric
field creates (scalar) potential energy dependent on the field strength
and the number of charges. This is so blatantly against CoE that the
textbooks add a sign to the potential energy of electrons and protons such
that the sum of the potential energy is zero, but of course this is an
invalid thing to do and that really is potential energy that can be turned
into kinetic energy by ionising the atom and thus allowing the electrons
and protons (or ions, more like) go in opposite directions in the field.
The symmetry being broken here is that the force the field exerts on the
neutral atom nets to zero when the charges remain bound to each other,
but once you break the binding of the charges then they can and will move
depending on the force from the field. If you aren't careful with the
design, though, the symmetry becomes unbroken again when you neutralise
the ions and electrons on the electrodes producing the field, and the
energy you thought you'd gained disappears again.
Still, that
technique (or idea) of using a field that acts on your working particles
(fluid or electrons in a material) and being able to switch the amount of
force the field exerts on your working particles is a useful thing to work
from. Providing the energy needed to switch the effect of the field on the
working particles is less than the energy you can generate during the cycle,
the cycle will be OU. This will work because potential energy is actually
imaginary, and can only be calculated but not measured. You can only
measure kinetic energy. You calculate potential energy from the force the
field exerts on the particle and the distance it will travel with that
force (use an integral if the force changes over the path). Thus if you
change the force the field exerts on the particle, you change the potential
energy you calculate, and that in turn changes the amount of kinetic energy
you can produce. It's actually pretty simple when you can find the right
particles and fields where the force on the particle can be changed.
With momentum, transferring it from one particle to another involves stress
in the field between them, and this field acts with the same force and for
the same time on each particle, thus the same momentum-change on each
particle. The particles do not touch, all each sees is the field strength
for some time. Thus you don't need the second particle to produce a change
in momentum, all you need is the field acting for a time. One way to get
the field is a wave, but you'll also need to be changing the reaction to
the field (pushing or pulling) at the same frequency as the incident wave
such that the net push is in a single direction. Of course, there will be
other ways to produce a net force without needing a reaction acting on
something else, and this little explanation simply shows you it isn't
logically impossible in the first place. Again, this method breaks the
symmetry by changing the magnitude or direction of the force a field exerts
on a particle. Useful to know about if you want OU of some sort.
Apply these ideas to Figuera and you see there's no such messing around with
the effect of a specific strength field on the working particles (electrons).
The force on the electrons from a specific strength field remains stubbornly
constant during the whole cycle. Thus it won't be OU. Waste of time trying
to make it work, because it won't.
Best regards, Simon
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook