The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

[twinbeard]

It might be worth considering for those in the U.S. to look at Metglas.com to see if they have an equivalent for the M-416.  Metglas is a quality manufacturer of high permeability toroid cores as well as other related things and have been used by numerous energy researchers.  It would likely save a lot on shipping as well as possible cost savings due to dollar conversion.  And keep the $$ in the U.S.

One could likely cut and stack these as well:  ultraperm 80, permeability 400K
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G16600A

Cheers,
Twinbeard

[Mavendex]

Hi Mavendex and all,

sorry if this has been mentioned already but it seems very crucial to me. About the primary donut, I've heard iron and steel, that's a BIG difference. Is this primary core magnetic material or not?

thanks,
Mario

Its cold rolled steel, I'm trying to get L&S to find CRGO steel to increase the tesla rating in the primary, I wish we could make it out of that graphene stuff but thats a long long way off..

mav

[Feynman]

@all

I noticed that these Nanoperm guys are rating their magnetic permeability u, as "18.000" for the M-416 core.  Some of their cores have claimed permeability up to "u = 100.000"

Magnetec Nanoperm Specs
http://www.magnetec.de/eng/universal-kerne1.htm

Shouldn't that decimal be a comma?!  I think that means relative permeability u_r=100,000 in American, right?      Because I saw a site that claims Nanoperm is up to 5 times as permeable as T38 ferrite, and T38 ferrite has a permeability u_i of around 10,000.

http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/ProductCatalog/Ferrites/Materials/PDF/PDF__T38,property=Data__en.pdf;/PDF_T38.pdf


Material / Relative Permeability (u/u0)

NanoPerm / 10,000-100,000  (?)
Mu-metal / 20,000-50,000
Ferrite (T38) / 10,000
Permalloy / 8,000
Electrical steel / 4,000
Ferrite (nickel zinc) / 16-640
Ferrite (magnanese zinc) / >640
Steel / 100
Concrete / 1
Air / 1.000000037
Vacuum / 1
Water / 0.999992
Superconductors / 0.000

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability

----

The other question I have is the resistivity of this Nanoperm stuff vs the cold-rolled steel. David, did you ever test the electrical resistance of the Nanoperm core material?

Nanoperm supposedly has a resistivity of 115 microOhm x cm, which is equivalent to 1.15 x 10^-6 Ohm x meters.

http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-conversion/convert-
alpha/convert.php?cat=resistivity

Let's compare Nanoperm's resistivity to other materials, for example the outer cold-rolled steel shell....

Nanoperm is 10x to 100x less conductive than conductors such as silver and copper, and probably 10x less conductive than cold-rolled steel shell.  However, if this is correct, this means Nanoperm is ~10,000x more electrically conductive than ferrite, even though it has higher magnetic permeability than ferrite.  This may be an important property should this experiment be replicated.


Material vs Resistivity
Silver    1.59×10âˆ'8 Ohm Meters
Copper    1.68×10âˆ'8 Ohm Meters
Aluminium 2.82×10âˆ'8 Ohm Meters
Steel (cast) 1.61x10-7 Ohm Meters
Iron    1.0×10âˆ'7 Ohm Meters
Nanoperm 1.15x10-6 Ohm Meters
Carbon (graphite) 3.0×10âˆ'3
Sea water       2×10âˆ'1
Ferrite (T38) 1.0x10-1 Ohm Meters
Silicon              6.40×10^2
Rubber              1x10^13
Teflon               1x10^22

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistivity
http://www.feryster.pl/polski/nanoperm.php?lang=en
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/UmranUgur.shtml
http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/ProductCatalog/Ferrites/Materials/PDF/PDF__T38,property=Data__en.pdf;/PDF_T38.pdf

---

The saturation inductance between the cold-rolled steel and the NanoPerm core seem similar (around 2 Tesla).

[mscoffman]

If this is real and you decide to instrument correctly then it is important.

If you don’t instrument it correctly then it's no good and most likely
you guys are just fooling yourselves by relying on readings caused by
instrumentation that can't handle the signals. Don't forget that according
the EU licensing authority, a high power electronic device can't have
a PF power factor that differs from 1.0. due to the availability of power
factor correction circuits.

A raw transformer and Schottky diode 110volt to 12Volt dc power supply
makes it easy to measure filtered power with two DVM’s simultaneously
and the 12volt to 110volt inverter will put any PF power factor and signal
anomalies into the loss column so you can show that you still have energy
gain.

(Also moving clip leads is all that it takes to loop the device).

Using the time delay derived from the DC filter capacitor and two 110
variacs variable autotransformers you can efficiently split the power out
of the inverter up between power going to a dummy load and the power
going to the input of your circuit. This stops any voltage overloading. 
Instead of variacs you can also use incandescent light dimmers except
that these add there own harmonic signal hash anomalies to the situation
but they will still factor the average power. The toaster would make an
excellent dummy load since it is purely resistive.

Light dimmers need a transformer that has a load, because pure
inductance doesn't work. And a 1:1 110V transformer can filter the
pulse power draw from your circuit.

Look I have criticized your instrumentation and methods â€" why can’t
you either do it this way or criticize what I am describing. I mean I can
understand…As soon as you do it correctly your instrumentation errors
are going to disappear.

The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
...

Closed-loop: Not attempted, can fry the windings without input current control circuitry.  (i.e. inverter, battery charger , and battery)

...

Feynman

The output power splitting is a manual setting of the
two variacs or two lamp dimmers which assume that
the gain of the device remains relatively constant.

This is how the input current control circuitry would actually
work except in automatic mode rather than manual mode.

See, what we do at each stage is we move in the direction
that we are going and want to go to build a product. Just wait
to design the regulating circuitry for a demand (user variable)
load.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[Mavendex]

Sorry I did not test the resistivity of the nanoperm material only the wire I wrapped around it, I have a fluke clamp meter/voltage meter no real fancy equipment how would one go about testing that mine is currently wrapped up awaiting the shell if you want me to test something I surely can.

Honestly Im half tempted to wrap the old shell around this rewired secondary it won't be form fitting but we can at least test somethings out.

Although I did cut a huge chunk out of the center to fit more wire thru so the results may not be the same as last time and its not form fitting.

My only problem with doing that is getting it back out again...

I like the dimmer switch Idea how many amps will go thru it? Its a great way to measure amps but still returning power to the source without consuming it in the toaster.