Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

[marathonman]

Hello all,
So what you are saying Bajac is that in figure 12 of your PDF that the output coil on the stator is wound on a non metallic bobbin as most are but that the bobbin is on  top of the stator not around it so that there is a gap between the rotor and the stator and that's where the output coil resides on the non metallic bobbin. (yes/No)
and thank you for the Flynn information to.

[bajac]

Marathonman,
The center of the bobbin shall also be non-magnetic/non-metallic. I thought it was clear but it seems that it will need to be revised to indicate that the iron core does not penetrate the center of the bobbins.

Thanks.

[marathonman]

I got that and thank you VERY, VERY much Bajac and we (the forum) are forever grateful for you contributions.

[Cadman]

Bajac,

Just some thoughts...

Have you taken into account the dramatic increase in reluctance and therefore the field coil ampere turns required for your designs?

For instance by my calculations, a field pole with a face surface of 44.61 cm^2 and an air gap in the magnetic circuit of 0.0254 cm (0.010") will require about 176 ampere turns for a gap flux density of 7900 lines per cm^2 in my generator. The same surface with a gap in the magnetic circuit of 1.27 cm (0.50") will require more than 8800 ampere turns on the field coil to produce the same flux density in the gap.

The reduced flux density cut by the induced may be part of the reason for the decrease in power consumed to rotate the induced, but since the E.M.F. generated in one conductor moving through a magnetic field is equal to the total number of lines cut per second, divided by 10^8, it seems like a poor trade.

I'm not trying to discredit your work, just curious about how you dealt with this. Or perhaps you already said in your paper and I am too dense to see it?

Regards

[bajac]

Cadman,


I am not sure if I understood your question or concern. However, you need to compare apples with apples.


How come an issue related to the design and the construction details of the permanent magnets or electromagnets can invalidate or discredit the proposed concept for decreasing torque when using non-magnetic cores in the induced coil? The examples provided in the document do not explicitly take into account the power required to operate the magnets but the tolerance provided when the relative permeability was decreased by a factor of ten should be a good conservative contingency to account for any power consumed by the electromagnets. Anyway, it is a point well taken and I will include it in my next revision of the document.


On the other hand, I have the impression that you are giving up before trying. I really do not think that it will be that bad with the electromagnets. There are others important parameters that you are not taking into account. For instance, it is difficult to estimate how the cancellation effect of the Lenz's law will be present. As you already know, the induced field reacts to cancel the applied magnetic field which forces the applied magnetic field to be made larger. Because the induced magnetic field is substantially reduced when not using iron cores, then the cancellation of the fields should be smaller. The latter might allow operation with smaller magnets.


I am just speculating here but the final saying will be made by the results from the testing of a prototype. Remember that we do not really know this device that has been out of sight for more than a century. That is what makes it a challenge and exciting!


Thanks for your comments.