FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 7

RESPONSE TO JOHN WINTERFLOOD


Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2001


On January 18 2001 John Winterflood ([email protected]) sent me a message making reference to a Web posting of mine, an amended version of which is now posted as FEEDBACK NOTE No. 5.

The message was constructive and polite and I thank John Winterflood for sending it. It has relevance to an experimental motor project in which I am involved and so, in spite of this delay in responding, which is due to other factors, I see this as now having priority.

The background to this problem arises from my exposure to claims of other researchers investigating the anomalous energy behaviour of magnetic reluctance motors using permanent magnets which have hinted at or claimed what has come to be termed 'over-unity' performance. It has been my own conviction for several years now that the aether, in storing magnetic inductance energy, can act via the quantum motion of the 3d orbital electrons in iron to deliver energy which taps the energy resourse of the quantum underworld. I see that in certain experiments I have performed, but, hovering over the problem, there is a thermodynamic factor which gets into the act, as if heat produced by magnetization loss is regenerated as gap energy in the magnetic core, and also the problem that the aether has a way of reclaiming the energy it sheds before the machine cycle is complete.

In the light of that background I now see that I was rather too enthusiastic when I wrote the above-referenced Web item which has attracted the John Winterflood's comments.

The offending passage has now been deleted but for the record I have tranferred it here to give basis for the comments which follow:

I pose a challenge by inviting any academic electrical engineer or physicist to find a flaw in the following argument. Take a strong magnet and allow this to produce a magnetic field across an air gap between two pieces of iron. Now apply an electric current (d.c.) to a coil wound on that iron core, enough to double the strength of the magnetic field in that air gap. Since our teachings tell us that the energy in that air gap is now four times what it was before we switched on that current, electrical field energy increasing as the square of field intensity, now tell me where that added energy came from.

The use of standard physical theory says that the energy supplied by that current is no different from what it would be if the magnet were not present. So the magnet must account for three quarters of the energy in that air gap. Now let the gap close, making sure that the current is reduced progressively during gap closure so as to keep that field intensity in the gap constant. This means that no voltage effect is induced in the winding so that no energy goes in or out, meaning that all the energy in the gap is deployed into the mechanical work done by the iron pieces being pulled together to close the gap.

So you have four units of mechanical work as output for an input of one unit of electrical energy. Then, once the air gap has closed, switch off that current to allow the gap to be reopened by supplying just enough mechanical energy to overcome the attraction forces set up by the magnet. That energy input will be 1 unit, the amount of field energy in the air gap. Overall, therefore, one inputs in each cycle of operation one unit of electrical power and gets a net output of three units of mechanical power. Here you have what you need to design a motor that can operate with an overall efficiency of 300%.

Now the magnets which I have incorporated in my test machine are of the neodymium-iron-boron type and their B-H magnetization characteristics can best be replicated by an equivalent circuit in which a solenoid having a magnetic moment produced by a steady d.c. current excitation sits in an air gap of commensurate size, the solenoid having no resistance loss.

John Winterflood, quite correctly, draws attention to the role of that air gap in depleting the magnetizing effect of motor excitation in the operative pole gaps of the motor.

I have, therefore, in my own style of presentation, worked through the energy analysis of the problem I posed, now allowing for this equivalence of the magnet in the magnetic core circuit. I have considered two cases, one in which the motor pole gap, when fully open, is the same in length as the length of the magnet and one for which the magnet has a length that is double the pole gap spacing. The latter represents more closely the specification applicable to my test machine. In neither case, treating the problem as an ideal situation, is there any net imbalance of energy, a result in full accord with John Winterflood's remarks.

I have qualified this by the use of the word 'ideal', because my experiments are still incomplete and certain doubts prevail. These doubts arise from a consideration of the lateral movement of a magnet across the pole gap and from magnetic circuit configurations which exploit flux leakage and intrinsic core demagnetization factors owing to open-ended core configuration. These are too complicated to be dealt with by theory, thereby leaving it to experiment to settle the question. However, the problem I posed in setting the above challenge is one that can be answered by theory and so I must correct the situation.

Case I
This applies where we consider an air gap length g in a high permeability magnetic core of uniform unit cross-sectional area with a permanent magnet of equal cross-section and length equal to that pole gap spacing g sitting in that core. A magnetizing winding is mounted on the core at some point removed from the pole gap.

With no current input to the magnetizing winding and the pole gap fully open the magnetic flux density in the circuit and so across the pole gap is denoted B. The magnetic field energy in the pole gap is then proportional to B2g. There is, however, a corresponding equal amount of magnetic field energy in the space occupied by the magnet, given that it is effectively a region of magnetic permeability the same as that of air, albeit with a virtual highly-energized solenoid sitting around it.

Now suppose there is current input to the magnetizing winding with the pole gap still fully open, enough to double the magnetic flux density. The magnetic field energy in the pole gap is now proportional to 4B2g and, of course, an equal amount of energy sits in the field within the magnet.

We now let the pole gap close, keeping the magnetizing current at such a level that the flux density in the pole gap is constant during pole closure. No EMF is induced in the magnetizing winding and so there is no energy input or output via the magnetizing winding during this stage of operation. Accordingly, all of that energy 4B2g in the pole gap is converted into mechanical work, as motor output.

With the pole gap closed we now turn off the current, leaving the magnet to sustain the 2B flux density condition. It will, because the magnetomotive force of its virtual solenoid system is now effective across a effective air distance of g, rather than 2g, and B was the flux density set up by the magnet for the 2g situation with no magnetizing current applied. There is no EMF induced as the current is switched off and so no energy input or output involving the magnetizing winding.

Our task now is to do mechanical work by pulling the poles apart to recover the pole gap spacing of g. Note then that the flux density for an intermediate pole position (pole gap xg) will be 2B divided by (1+x). In the units of proportionality we are using this means that the work done in pole gap opening is the integral with respect to x of:
4B2g/(1 + x)2
over the range 0 to x=1. This, when evaluated, is 2B2g, half the value for mechanical output.

It follows that the total mechanical output of the machine per cycle is represented by 2B2g.

Now, as to energy input to the magnetizing winding, the task is to enhance the flux density from B to 2B with an effective gap distance, including the space occupied by the magnet, of 2g. The energy needed is [(2B)2-(B)2]2g in the units we are using, or 6B2g. The source of this input energy is partially the current fed to the magnetizing winding and partially the virtual current that accounts for the polarization of the magnet, the latter being constant, whereas the magnetizing winding current increases linearly in proportion to the increase of flux density from B to 2B. This means that the magnet will contribute two-thirds of this input energy. In summary, therefore, the energy books balance exactly, the electrical input to the machine being 2B2g, equal, that is, to the mechanical power output, assuming, of course, no parasitic losses owing to cyclic magnetization or circuit resistance loss.

CASE II
This applies where we consider an air gap length g in a high permeability magnetic core of uniform unit cross-sectional area with a permanent magnet of equal cross-section and length double that pole gap spacing g sitting in that core. A magnetizing winding is mounted on the core at some point removed from the pole gap.

I will use exactly the same wording as used for CASE I, but merely change the numbers involved to cater for this 2g:g gap situation.

With no current input to the magnetizing winding and the pole gap fully open the magnetic flux density in the circuit and so across the pole gap is denoted 2B. The magnetic field energy in the pole gap is then proportional to 4B2g. There is, however, a corresponding amount of magnetic field energy in the space occupied by the magnet, given that it is effectively a region of magnetic permeability the same as that of air, albeit with a virtual highly-energized solenoid sitting around it. This is double the above value because the magnet length is 2g.

Now suppose there is current input to the magnetizing winding with the pole gap still fully open, enough to raise the magnetic flux density from 2B to 3B. The magnetic field energy in the pole gap is now proportional to 9B2g and, of course, double this amount of energy sits in the field within the magnet.

We now let the pole gap close, keeping the magnetizing current at such a level that the flux density in the pole gap is constant during pole closure. No EMF is induced in the magnetizing winding and so there is no energy input or output via the magnetizing winding during this stage of operation. Accordingly, all of that energy 9B2g in the pole gap is converted into mechanical work, as motor output.

With the pole gap closed we now turn off the current, leaving the magnet to sustain the 3B flux density condition. It will, because the magnetomotive force of its virtual solenoid system is now effective across a effective air distance of 2g, rather than 3g, and 2B was the flux density set up by the magnet for the 3g situation with no magnetizing current applied. There is no EMF induced as the current is switched off and so no energy input or output involving the magnetizing winding.

Our task now is to do mechanical work by pulling the poles apart to recover the pole gap spacing of g. Note then that the flux density for an intermediate pole position (pole gap xg) will be 6B divided by (2+x). In the units of proportionality we are using this means that the work done in pole gap opening is the integral with respect to x of:
36B2g/(2 + x)2
over the range 0 to x=1. This, when evaluated, is 6B2g, two-thirds of the value for mechanical output.

It follows that the total mechanical output of the machine per cycle is represented by 3B2g.

Now, as to energy input to the magnetizing winding, the task is to enhance the flux density from 2B to 3B with an effective gap distance, including the space occupied by the magnet, of 3g. The energy needed is [(3B)2-(2B)2]3g in the units we are using, or 15B2g. The source of this input energy is partially the current fed to the magnetizing winding and partially the virtual current that accounts for the polarization of the magnet, the latter being constant, whereas the magnetizing winding current increases linearly in proportion to the increase of flux density from 2B to 3B. This means that the magnet will contribute four-fifths of this input energy. In summary, therefore, the energy books balance exactly, the electrical input to the machine being 3B2g, equal, that is, to the mechanical power output, assuming, of course, no parasitic losses owing to cyclic magnetization or circuit resistance loss.

This concludes my comments on John Winterflood's message, but I note that this is a subject that I will come back to when my experimental research is more advanced.

The problem I confront with the machine is that it incorporates eight very powerful magnets and, although I have had the machine running at a moderate speed, I have problems in taking it up to the intended running speed. There is quite a lot of vibration and there are very substantial back EMFs induced owing to those magnets. The task is one of control consistent with appropriate measurement of power input.

****************************

Harold Aspden
March 14, 2001