Ok, I know this will sound a bit off the wall, but I've been researching the Molar Magnetic Susceptibility of all the elements as part of trying a second time to fathom what Ken Wheeler is talking about when he says there's no such thing as electrons. As you may or may not know, an element's magnetic properties are determined by how full their valence shell is. Ken said in his book that electrons don't exist, and that the magnetic properties of an element are a result of the ratio between the neutron and proton of each element (he says neutrons are dielectrically dominant, whereas protons are magnetically dominant), but I calculated the P:N Ratio of each element, and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the P:N ratio and the Molar Magnetic Susceptibility of that element.

For instance:
N   Nitrogen   7:7   1   Diamagnetic   -0.0000000001401
O   Oxygen   8:8   1   Paramagnetic    0.0000000213592

Nitrogen has seven protons and seven neutrons (P:N ratio of 1) and is diamagnetic, it exhibits a very weak negative magnetic susceptibility (ie: it's weakly diamagnetic, an external magnetic field will induce an opposing magnetic field in nitrogen).

Oxygen has eight protons and eight neutrons (P:N ratio of 1) and is paramagnetic (ie: it'll have a magnetic field of its own as long as its within an external magnetic field, and its magnetic field will be the same orientation as that external magnetic field and thus will attract oxygen), it exhibits 152.456 times the magnetic susceptibility as nitrogen.

This plays out throughout the Periodic Table, elements with the same or similar P:N Ratio exhibit widely disparate magnetic properties, so I'm not sure that I buy Ken Wheeler's take on how protons and neutrons affect magnetic properties. Especially in light of the ability to predict an element's magnetic properties merely by knowing how its electron shells are filled.

Anyway, I got to looking at the Molar Magnetic Susceptibility of each element and stumbled across Terbium. which is a constituent of Terfenol-D, a magnetostrictive material. Terbium has a Molar Magnetic Susceptibility of 0.0000021613850, which is huge. The Terfenol-D alloy exhibits the highest magnetostriction of any material. In other words, it expands and contracts in a magnetic field.

Now, we've all seen the Nitinol engines, the Nitinol wires expand and contract from heating and cooling... what if we used Terfenol-D wires instead, actuated by the presence and absence of a magnetic field?

The Terfenol-D alloy, much like the Nitinol wires, can produce a huge amount of force (Nitinol can produce up to 55,000 pounds per square inch of Nitinol material). Unlike the Nitinol wires, though, which move rather slowly (they've been able to get it up to ~100 Hz), the Terfenol-D alloy is able to move quickly (~30,000 Hz). So quickly it's used in some speakers to transmit sound to a resonant surface. So a Nitinol engine made with Terfenol-D wire and magnets could really get spinning fast, and have a lot of force behind it.

Sort of like this:

except I envision it with regular springs keeping Terfenol-D wires taut. The difference in tension between the magnetostricted (lengthened) wires and the un-magnetostricted (taut) wires is what would make the wheel turn.

Unfortunately, the Terfenol-D alloy only magnetostricts (lengthens when in a magnetic field) approximately 2 mm for every meter length of the material (although it can do so with quite a lot of force), so we'd have to get creative in making the Terfenol-D wire zig-zag back and forth between the rim and hub for each section of wire, or the wheel would have to be quite large.

Terfenol-D is also brittle and breaks like glass. So perhaps a machinable alloy like Galfenol would be better, or a composite such as Metglas 2605SC.

If anyone tries this and it works, I propose we call it a Terbium Engine. :P

Yeah, I have problems with Ken Wheeler's work also. It's interesting to note that although he says electrons don't exist he uses the electron gun in a CRT display to "prove" that a magnetic field is a vortex. What the magnet is actually doing is changing the trajectory of the electrons as they approach the phosphor screen so they no longer impact the phosphor they were intended to impact. The same thing can be accomplished by changing the deflection yoke of the CRT. After I waded through the first couple of papers, I went back to the first one again and noticed that in the second paragraph he said, "Nothing is more hubristic than taking 100 pages to say something that can easily be said in 10." And then goes on for 110 pages to say "The ‘magnet’ isn’t a magnet, it’s an electrified dielectric object".

Interesting finding there with the Terbium. Here's another thought: rather than making a motor, use the expansion/contraction of the Terbium to cyclically apply a mechanical stress to a piezoelectric material that produces electricity directly. The Terbium's ability to oscillate at high frequency would be very useful. I'll have to look at Terbium more closely to understand how to actually build something.

I'm wondering if the physical effect is proportional to the magnetic field such that the nearer the magnet the greater the lengthening of the Terbium and so we could strengthen and weaken the magnetic field to cause the vibration of the Terbium which would vibrate the piezoelectric material. If Terbium has a non-linear response at some point of magnetostriction there might be the possibility of toggling the field around that point of non-linear response to get a greater output.

Things to ponder. I'll look into it some more. Any suggestions for building a device and/or web links to more info would be helpful.

Edit: Keep in mind Tesla's greatest invention, the rotating magnetic field when thinking about the Terbium/piezoelectric device.

Quote from thx1138v2 on October 25th, 2015, 06:45 AM

Yeah, I have problems with Ken Wheeler's work also. It's interesting to note that although he says electrons don't exist he uses the electron gun in a CRT display to "prove" that a magnetic field is a vortex. What the magnet is actually doing is changing the trajectory of the electrons as they approach the phosphor screen so they no longer impact the phosphor they were intended to impact. The same thing can be accomplished by changing the deflection yoke of the CRT. After I waded through the first couple of papers, I went back to the first one again and noticed that in the second paragraph he said, "Nothing is more hubristic than taking 100 pages to say something that can easily be said in 10." And then goes on for 110 pages to say "The ‘magnet’ isn’t a magnet, it’s an electrified dielectric object".

Interesting finding there with the Terbium. Here's another thought: rather than making a motor, use the expansion/contraction of the Terbium to cyclically apply a mechanical stress to a piezoelectric material that produces electricity directly. The Terbium's ability to oscillate at high frequency would be very useful. I'll have to look at Terbium more closely to understand how to actually build something.

I'm wondering if the physical effect is proportional to the magnetic field such that the nearer the magnet the greater the lengthening of the Terbium and so we could strengthen and weaken the magnetic field to cause the vibration of the Terbium which would vibrate the piezoelectric material. If Terbium has a non-linear response at some point of magnetostriction there might be the possibility of toggling the field around that point of non-linear response to get a greater output.

Things to ponder. I'll look into it some more. Any suggestions for building a device and/or web links to more info would be helpful.

Edit: Keep in mind Tesla's greatest invention, the rotating magnetic field when thinking about the Terbium/piezoelectric device.

I didn't even think about piezoelectric... that opens up interesting possibilities.