The Magneformer-lenzless transformer ?

[TinselKoala]

One more time:

The presence of an external magnetic field, like that provided by a permanent magnet, effectively changes the permeability of the core material. This is a "nonlinear" effect. Take a look at the B-H curve of some core materials. The field from the PM can move the core closer or further away from being completely saturated and this can have a _strong effect_ on the inductor's (transformer's, whatever) behaviour depending on frequency, polarity, offset, etc of the signal applied to the inductor.

If there were no effect from a PM on an inductor's behaviour, then Please Tell Me why there are so many inductors and transformers manufactured with Permanent Magnets as part of the structure? Why does my 6-NE2 JT _require_ such a magnet-biased inductor to work? Why do core-effect pulse motors benefit so greatly from biasing the core to near-saturation using permanent magnets? It is because the PM can effectively increase or decrease the permeability of the core. One can even make a sort of inductive diode, where one polarity of the applied signal sees a core of low permeability (thus low inductance)  and the other polarity of the applied signal sees a high permeability core resulting in correspondingly high inductance. It simply is not true that a permanent magnet has no effect on the AC behaviour of inductors and transformers!

[MileHigh]

Tinman, TK:

Let me address this issue in the context of Tinman's actual clip, and in a generic context.

For starters, let's just use some arbitrary abstract units to make the discussion simpler.  Let's assume that we have a transformer with an unmagnetized core.  Let's say that the core can be magnetized by the windings to the "left" by -5 flux units before it saturates and to the "right" by +5 flux units before it saturates.  Let's not discuss the BH curve and the hysteresis loop and all that stuff to keep things simple.  Is that fair enough?

Now, lets assume that we drive the primary of the coil with an AC excitation that will polarize the core between +3 and -3 flux units.

Case 1:

If the core of the coil is not magnetized then there is no issue, and you never see saturation.  The secondary only responds to the AC excitation, and the secondary sees two events:  a)  a positive slope in magnetic flux spanning 6 units, and b) a negative slope in magnetic spanning 6 units.  I hope so far this makes sense to both of you.   The point being that the secondary only responds to AC excitation.

Case 2:

Now let's suppose the core is partially magnetized to +2.

In this case the AC excitation will result in the core varying between -1 and +5 flux units.  In other words, the permanent flux from the +2 magnetization is added to the external flux coming from the excitation of the primary.

In this case, from the perspective of the secondary, it sees exactly the same thing as in Case 1:  a)  a positive slope in magnetic flux spanning 6 units, and b) a negative slope in magnetic spanning 6 units.

Therefore the output from the secondary in Case 2 will be identical to Case 1.  Do you guys get this?

I will very briefly discuss a Case 4 where the core is magnetized to +4 flux units.   Then the AC excitation will quickly saturate the core in the positive direction, the apparent inductance will drop drastically, and you will be "clipping the core" which will result in the transformer not working properly.

The most important thing to grasp is that the output in Case 1 and Case 2 will be identical.

The issue is that experimenters what to believe that the magnet gives some "extra kick-back" and therefore you get more energy.  It's total crap, just another myth that leads to bad design decisions, poor practices, and it's simply electronics voodoo bullshit that pollutes people's conception of how a transformer works.  "Add a biasing magnet to the side of your transformer for more output" is TOTAL CRAP.

Look at Tinman's experiment.  We know that he is pumping quite low power into his transformer.  Relative to my simplified example above, perhaps his core is biased to +3.  But his excitation range is perhaps only -0.2 to +0.2.   In other words, with the setup he has in his clip he is far far away from saturating his core.  Therefore, the secondary output from his transformer will be the SAME if his core is a normal unbiased core at zero, or if is core is biased at -4, -3.....0.... +3, +4.

Again, for emphasis, in the context of Tinman's experiment and in a general sense, magnetizing a transformer core is nonsensical and does nothing.  Tinman is NOT playing with skirting at the edge of saturation of his core in search of some kind of non-linear response from his transformer.

This is basic electronics, and it's worth it to understand the basics.  What most people should be thinking is "Why the hell would I ever want to magnetize the core of my transformer?"  If you are going to magnetize the core of your transformer then you need a legitimate reason to do it.  Blindly believing that you will get "extra kick" because you "stress the magnet" and then the "magnet pushes back" is complete and total nonsense.  The secondary in the transformer never even sees the permanent magnetization in the core.  The secondary in the transformer only responds to the changes in core flux caused by the primary.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

In your first clip, you clearly state the myth or whatever you want to call it when you say this:

"So we are basically rocking this magnetic field backwards and forwards and causing our tank coil (to be excited)."

You clearly believe that you are "rocking" or modulating the magnetic field of the magnetized core and the effect of this "rocking" is supplying power to your LCR circuit.  I would not be surprised if all of your buddies on your forum believe it also.

The problem is that it's not true, at all.  On the other hand, I am simply telling you the truth.  It's a good thing to bust electronics myths.  When it comes to electronics and free energy forum experimenters, there are myths abound everywhere.

MileHigh

[Magluvin]

The magnetized core transformer is not an AC transformer as MH keeps suggesting.

Neither is Tinmans input to his primary, in case some didnt look at his scope shot.

When pulsing a primary of a magnetically biased core, the field of the coil should be opposing the cores field, not adding to it to make it stronger and saturate/over saturate the core. Building a field from the coil, working in opposition to the core magnet, gives the field of the coil a lot further to go before saturation than a non magnetized core of the same specs. So the amount of energy of the coil/magcore can be substantially more, up around twice the V/A capability compared to a non biased core.

So talking AC as an input is senseless.

Tinmans project is a special case, as he is using a magnetically biased core.

Mags

[Magluvin]

One more time:

The presence of an external magnetic field, like that provided by a permanent magnet, effectively changes the permeability of the core material. This is a "nonlinear" effect. Take a look at the B-H curve of some core materials. The field from the PM can move the core closer or further away from being completely saturated and this can have a _strong effect_ on the inductor's (transformer's, whatever) behaviour depending on frequency, polarity, offset, etc of the signal applied to the inductor.

If there were no effect from a PM on an inductor's behaviour, then Please Tell Me why there are so many inductors and transformers manufactured with Permanent Magnets as part of the structure? Why does my 6-NE2 JT _require_ such a magnet-biased inductor to work? Why do core-effect pulse motors benefit so greatly from biasing the core to near-saturation using permanent magnets? It is because the PM can effectively increase or decrease the permeability of the core. One can even make a sort of inductive diode, where one polarity of the applied signal sees a core of low permeability (thus low inductance)  and the other polarity of the applied signal sees a high permeability core resulting in correspondingly high inductance. It simply is not true that a permanent magnet has no effect on the AC behaviour of inductors and transformers!

Mags