Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !

[Overtone]

We welcome improvements.

The planetary energy crisis is serious enough, that anyone who can make a contribution is helping to solve important problems.

Feel free!

If you get something to work Over Unity and it can withstand serious testing, we might even be interested in assisting.

Mark

[ckreol1]

Hi,

I came across this old post from Graham that reminds me of his patent. There is an image of a spiral transformer with a unique design that, at least to me, looks like the solid state generator patent.

http://electropub.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/spiral-transformer-related-to-grahams-patent/

George


Hi all,

I’ve got a question, referencing the attached drawing.

This is a FEMM simulation of a harebrained idea I had.

The reversing spiral is defined in the simulation as silicon core iron.

The ends of the spiral wrap around copper conductors, each carrying current in opposite directions.

The surrounding media is air.

The original idea was that the permeable reversing spiral would ferry flux from one conductor to the other â€" causing a sort of magnetic paradox. (If you consider the field between two wires carrying opposite currents, the reasoning behind the reversing spiral may be clearer)

I was not expecting any paradox but I wanted to see why it wouldn’t work, or how the flux would leak out and maintain its inherent loops.

Even though it looks like the spiral core is carrying flux from one wire to the other (the metal’s “full of flux”, the actual flux (if you follow it with your eye) leaks out the side of the “core” at right angles, and circles back. You can see, if you look closely, that not a single flux line actually makes it through the whole spiral iron â€" there’s the appearance of that, but it’s an illusion.

It begs the question, then, what happens if we load this “illusion”.

What I’m curious about is, what’s the effect on this thing if we wrap a coil around this spiral iron and then energize the copper conductors that are shown in the drawing with AC? This places varying flux in the iron â€" so we get an emf we can power a load with.

But what’s the effect of the back emf on the wires in the drawing? Does it load their mmf at all, or is this nonreciprocal?

Remember â€" this is not the same thing as a toroid, it’s a different argument than if the iron were closed loops and not a spiral.

In a toroid, the flux loops are completely surrounded by windings. Here, the flux loops are never completely surrounded by windings â€" they slip out the side of the core, going through air to complete the circle. This “slipping out” means the EM situation here is fundamentally different than that for toroids (though it may remain as energy conservative as toroids are, who knows).

We don’t have a closed path, like a toroid. The core, if it has output windings on it, is just a curvy solenoid.

I’m just having trouble seeing how back emf (from a coil around the spiral iron) could induce back into the “field conductors” in the drawing. It probably does somehow but I’d like to know how. Does anyone have some comments?

(It seems that if a coil were wound over the whole length of the iron spiral, that energizing it would show quite the same field that we see here â€" that’s a reciprocal reaction again, and nothing special. But is this really what happens?…)


Graham

[jfilmmusic]

The 2nd Patent is now published and available:

7830065
http://www.pat2pdf.org/

Anybody interested in continuing replication?

[verpies]

The 2nd Patent is now published and available:
7830065
http://www.pat2pdf.org/

Did any new information appear in this patenet compared to what was available in 2005 ?