Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I gather that you are Matt Emery who owns and maintains leedskalnin.com. Is that correct? Do you still conduct experiments of your own, or, at least, do you still own (or have access to a lab with) technical means required to conduct various PMH related experiments?
Yes, and I do have limited access/means to conduct experiments.
It seems to me that Leedskalnin kept completely out of his books some crucial, and possibly very simple, insight. Otherwise, someone would have stumbled long time ago upon that key insight which opens all the doors in the Coral Castle .
Evidently, we cannot get that missing insight simply by replicating and worshiping Ed's PMH. This attention to the minute details of Ed's PMH specification reaches sometimes ridiculous pitch. For example, R.L.Poole - as he relates it in this video - has spent countless hours just to reproduce PMH precisely as Ed has instructed in his book.
But what do we learn new by replicating Ed's PMH to minute details? Nothing, literally nothing! Would it not be more productive to start thinking out of the box? A good start would be to ask questions, lots of questions leading to ideas for some new and meaningful experiments?
Why do we have to follow PMH dimensions given by Ed? Why do we have to have 1500 turns in each coil? Maybe 150 turns would give the same result, maybe even 15 turns would be enough if we pass through these 15 turns a large current. Why do we have to use a wire of size 16 ? Why not 18, or any other size? Why do we have to have two spools instead of one? Why do we have to have spools at all, why don't we just wrap a wire of any size in one layer, with little or no gap between the neighboring loops of wire of any size (instead of having1500 turns (!) of wire of size 16 in multiple layers) around the U-shaped bar? Wouldn't it be much, much easier to experiment with wire wrapped around the bar with no spools required? I am almost sure that we would get almost the same results as with the PMH, made precisely to Ed's specification.
Why am I so sure? Just take a look at this experiment. This guy gets the PMH effect with no spools, no loops of wire - just a straight wire. He does not need 1500 loops of wire, he does not need even one loop of wire - all he needs is just a fraction of a loop, so to speak.
Another important question: Could we draw the energy back from the PMH (as a flash of light, or any other way) without breaking the magnetic circuit?
I am sure it is possible. Here is an idea how it can be done: "Faucet" for magnetic current.
This is but a small sample of ideas I have for conducting meaningful PMH experiments that could potentially lead to some breakthroughs in our search for the Key that will unlock the mysteries of the Coral Castle.
Do you have the means, the time, the interest, the desire and the will to roll up the sleeves and get to doing experimental work along these and similar lines of thought, in the spirit of open cooperation and goodwill?
Hello, I try to answer your questions via a spreadsheet that I have prepared for the occasion.
Start by saying that the spreadsheet is set up to calculate various variables and the magnetic force of attraction of a PMH to 1.5x1.5 inches square, this to simplify the calculations.
Although the coils are considered square in order to simplify the calculations. I assure that the calculations are very close to those with round coils. In addition, some do not know, to make a elettromagnate with square core even the coils should be square to have a mating with the core perfect. Square coils are also seen in Edward's home ...
Are all calculations are performed for each type of wire of AWG table keeping always equal the size of the coil (total length and diameter) and the supply voltage (12 Vdc)
The result is what we can observe in the two pictures below.
We comment now have results:
1) As can be seen from the spreadsheet, less windings is better, because you have less losses due to the resistance and higher currents, that compensate for the loss in the number of turns. The magnetic-induction (B) and the lifting force (F) in fact, increase with the increase of the section, the decrease of the coils and the Ohmic resistance.
However this is not possible for those values of cable where the current becomes too high. In fact, currents of 100 A/mm^2 melt the cable in a few moments. Not only ... Current too high, and more than 1000 A, can not be provided by traditional lead-acid batteries, which would eventually overheat and become damaged leading to serious consequences for neighboring operators.
This Edward had to know well, in fact, its with AWG16 cable configuration is one of the first viable. As early as the cable AWG14 application it is feasible in fact ... But the gain in lifting weight is just 40 kg, because it is now close to saturation.
We now return to your other questions ...
2) Why two coils and not one? For obviously increase the suction effect. Even one coil would work well, but should be exactly in the middle of the PMH, and this is not possible. Each coil in fact tends to attract, in a manner symmetrical, the core inside. That's why Edward advised to put the two coils as close as possible to the fold.
The reason to make the spools is then simply to be facilitated in the winding of the same in multiple layers. It would be very hard to do a good job around the iron core of the PMH.
Curious is also this second identical sheet but with a supply voltage of 24 volt
From this second configuration the sheet with the AWG16 cable is the first practicable ... And with a well 425 kg lifting force against the 361 kg with a 12 volt power supply. And if Edward had used a truck battery to 24 volts? (If they exsist in U.S.A., I'm Italian and in Italy they exsist) Possible? In his home there was a lot of material about it ...
About the PMH then I want to make observations. I have also built a one in scale 1:1 following the instructions of Magnetic Current.The PMH does nothing more than what it says Edward ... Precisely, as evidenced by my personal videos.
Both the above experiments were explained by Edward literally and in fact in reality are found.
If there is really a secret antigravity not think it's hidden in PMH... Indeed keeper phenomenon that remains attached does not appear in any book of physics and electrical I've read. Even on specific texts for the construction of electromagnets. However it is a phenomenon that I have an explanation and must not create a sensation: even a framework attached to a wall retains its potential energy indefinitely until the nail is removed. The PMH does the same thing with magnetics.
Personally I think Edward has served him for his uplifting force. It is not trivial to emit 400 kg of force by simply pressing a button. Edward also had in his house a lot of lifting tools, which could certainly be made most efficient using the PMH.
This use of its equipment is explained very well by the videos posted by this member Made by one man . I have difficulty understanding them not speaking English well. It seems to be the person on the internet who has approached more to the secret of our Ed.
Mine are just opinions, ready to deny them at the first opportunity. I hope I have contributed to a fruitful confrontation between us.
Available for clarification, a greeting.
Il_Pianista80
P.S. Obviously my spreadsheet is available to everyone to be overturned, amended, supplemented, improved. For those interested in a PVT ask me by sending me your email.
MASING an iron or steel bar to produce and amp,iffy magnetic behaviour is the real secret of the PMH .
Permanent magnets were and are mysterious until the dielectric vortices are taken into account
A magnetic current is also an ignored conception, unless flux is considered to be a current, which it usually is not.
Eds point is that an electric current is no more sound a description of the phenomena than is a magnetic current. , but in his opinion and mine a magnetic current is a sounder basis to build upon than an electric current. The PMH demonstrates why: the so called electric current disappears into a magnetic current, and oly reappears when the magnetic current is switched off!
Now take a u shaped petmanent magnet and place coils on it as described. Now attach and remove a keeper.
What is the result in the coils?
As you requested here is the video.
@Jehovajah
I understand your point. However, in the example that you do with the permanent magnet nothing would happen, because the permanent magnet induction would not change and would remain constant ... No variation of magnetic induction, no current flow. But what would happen if the coil was around iron keeper when it was removed?
Thank you,. Am I right in assuming you have done the experiment?
Induction and saturation are the key factors , if the keeper is not magnetised there should be an inductive effect. The question I would like to know the answer to is if the saturated permanent magnet changes its saturation during induction of the non magnetised keeper .
Then the next question is where on the hysteresis loop does this have most effect in terms of generating a light flash?
Hello. unfortunately I could not do the experiment because I do not have a magnet of this size. Mine was a guess. According to me in fact a permanent magnet remains even after a keeper has been linked or removed. In an electromagnet instead there is a difference whether it is "armed" or not, because the flux disappears into the air and lowers the induction. Basically I'm saying that an electromagnet becomes like a permanent magnet when keeper is attached. In fact, this component is called in Italian "armor" that means also activator. I do not think this happens in a permanent magnet that has a constant induction, always... No variation in induction no current.
About the best condition, I think it improper to speak of histeresys cycle, which affects only the alternating current. PMH works in direct current. If you referring instead to the magnetization curve, I believe that the best condition is the one with the highest possible induction, so the saturation.
If you get a chance to do the experiment with any u shaped permanent magnet I would appreciate the results published here.
The permanent magnet from an electromagnet is an insight!
Of course the magnetisation of the core is effected by the saturation or relaxation time and that is hy the hysteresis curve is relevant.
Direct current may push magnetisation one way , but switching it off and on is akin to applying a varying or alternating current.
By the way I o not subscribe to these labels as you may know.
Just to clarify terms .
I do not now think in terms of a current in a pipe, or even an energy current. The current is a useful model, but I think in terms of wave guides and MASING ( general not specific to microwaves) and I conceive of trochoidally dynamic surfaces rather than sine wave like waves.
The rotational dynamic of a torsion displacement in a wire is my general rotational model for the simplest case , and that is already more complex than a sine curve .
The dynamic surface properties of materials are discounted in mainstream discussions, but theorists and researchers in materials routinely consider these modalities or system states.
Evenso, the mathematical descriptions relied upon are not well understood evn by physicists like Feynman as models of reality. They simply compare numbers
However, the magnitude of the core magnetization will be changing back and forth from the maximum value to zero (with direction of magnetization remaining the same.) So, we still may speak of a "half-hysteresis", rather than a full-fledged hysteresis.
To see the relevance of this clarification, imagine a direct current which varies as A(10 + cosωt). In this case, instead of "half-hysteresis", we would have "1/10 - hysteresis", so to speak, i.e. almost no hysteresis.
Welcome back after so long a time without comment.
Yes, so depending on the materials hysteresis switching on and off may make little difference to the magnitude of the magnetisation and hence the force it exerts on other paramagnetic material . .
However the PMH exerts a permanent, force, seemingly when " armed" , but quickly drops to a low magnitude when disarmed, indicating that it is a very low magnetisation behaviour, low in the hysteresis cycle( or early if you prefer )
This is what I want to establish before going on to compare domains to crystal forms developing in a fluid medium.