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

[MeggerMan]

Hi Nali,
Yes point taken, OK that just leaves putting two holes either side of the magnet, to pick up on that "sweet spot".
The input coils would need to be wound as many layers in a smaller area too, as drawn in the simulation.

Hi Marcel,
One more point, are you doing a push-pull on each pair of coils, so at any one time, one coil is energized and one is not?

I am not sure if it mentions how to pulse the input windings in the patent but this would seem the logical way of switching the flux.
You can use a TL494 IC and a couple of mosfets to perform this, and if you really want to get a nice clean square pulse use a power mosfet driver IC between the TL494 and mosfets like the UCC37324:
UCC37324P

it's hip to be square ;o)

Regards
Rob

[neptune]

Hello again. Whilst I respect other peoples opinions, I disagree with Kingrs, About filling the holes with iron filings, or using iron wire. The patent states that the flux flows around the holes like the thread flowing around a bolt. Overtone says this device will not be overunity with a ferrite core. This is puzzling because the patent is for a GENERATOR. If it is not overunity, it becomes an inverter, converter, or transformer. Yet the patent actually calls for a ferite core!
         Also, why use a square wave input. If you apply a square wave to a tuned or resonant circuit, the net result is a sine wave . Sometimes I feel that patents are not worth the paper they are written on. The patent has little or nothing to say about input /output ratios. If this device has any merit , we are now reduced to "wait and see " just like the 10 million other ideas. Sadly, wishing doesnt make it so. Sorry, feeling cynical tonight, neptune.

[MeggerMan]

Hi Neptune,
The iron filings was just an idea to try. I saw on page 2 another replication that look promising using a linear example. Good proof of concept.
I think generator windings are an odd thing, the flux does not really cut through them as such, its almost as if it has its own inverse field that reaches out into core and pulls in electrical energy.
But I stand by my square pulses, I have seen what odd shaped traces you get as output without a clean drive into the mosfet.
You need to start off with square waves and then allow the inductor to turn it into a nice curve.
If you think you can get a sine wave out of a mosfet then be my guest.
Its not efficient,i.e.wasted volts drop across the device to get the curve and serves no purpose.

Regards
Rob

[Nali2001]

The core material is highly likely a crystalline type core material like metglass suitable for high frequency and high permeability. Laminates have a permeability that might be suitable, but don't handle high frequencies (above 300hz or so) very well. So ferrite is good for the high frequencies but than again the permeability is lowww. Metglass takes the bests from both. High permeability and (very)high frequency. But you guessed it, very expensive. Maybe soma alloy is suitable. But expensive also because they probably have to custom make it for you.

Patents when fully open are actually quite handy. They are a worldwide free to get instruction Manuel. Unless they hide stuff.... But still patents give us many ideas to work on.

Power conversion and generation is a curious thing if you think of it. Lots of time magnetism does not really 'cut' any wire and still it generates of transforms good power. Look at the attached picture. Here you see a toroid transformer and a 3phase transformer.  These are proven devices. And keep in mind that the flux will stay 99% inside the core material, never comes out to cut the wires of the secondary (?output?) coil. And of course the works like 80% efficient. How?  The flux never ?comes out? of the core material. So there are many devices where the flux does not really 'cut' the coils and yet work?

[MeggerMan]

Hi Nali,
Metglas you say, expensive you say, do you mean like this:
AMCC-320?



or this



Sorry, permission to look smug sir....?

Regards
Rob