The Magneformer-lenzless transformer ?

[gyulasun]

....
The Atten is great,although it's maths function has me baffled???.When useing the math function,i cant find anyware that i can add channel A and B to do the math-to get the sume of voltage and current over time-nor subtract. What the manual says,and what actualy is,is two different things.

Hi Tinman,

You surely can find the Math button and pressing it you would see Math Funtion Menu appear on the display and could perform addition, substruction multiplication and division of channel A with channel B.  Personally I have not played with such a 'marvel'  like the Atten ADS1102CAL but that is what is written in its manual  ( http://micromir.ucoz.ru/Oscil/Atten/ADS1000_User_Manual.pdf Page 27, PDF page 36). 

If you find those instructions do not work in practice on the scope, then I pass this question here to others to comment.

I have a much simpler DSO (a dual channel OWON 5022S and it also has a Math Menu button with 3 choices: CH1-CH2, CH2-CH1 and CH1+CH2.  And each channel input has its own Menu too like yours and includes the Invert function should you need to flip the measured waveforms on A or B (to turn them upside down). 

One more notice: you use a wire wound 18 Ohm 11W power resistor for the load (at least I see it as a wire wound type) and in this particular case when you use it in parallel with the output tank circuit which is in resonance at the output frequency, then the wire wound resistor is not an issue.  In case there would be no resonant circuit involved with such load resistor in parallel, then its inductive loading effect would become an issue.  (At least I gather from your comments the 18 Ohm is in parallel with the tank, maybe I am wrong.)

Gyula

[Kator01]

Hello Tinman,

can you please give us the link to the original circuit of the Flynn-Website ?

Do you know this development where only the magnets are doing the work ?

http://gap-power.com/index-2.html

A permanent magnet is influenced ( switched on an of ) best with the Coil on top of the magnet.

Taking in consideration gyulas comment about the inductive reactance of the 18 Ohm resistor and assuming a sinus at the output ( which it is not, we know this ) I calculated the power out about 32 mWatt.
Input-Power calculated according to the T of the frequency and the T_on of the MOSFET about 22 mWatt not considering the recycled power of the primary collapse-spike.

It looks promising I would however change the resistor-type with no inductive properties  ( 1/4 Watt-metal-oxide-type) and tune the tank-circuit with different cap-values... I assume however you have already done that tuning.



Regards

Kator01

[tinman]

Hi Tinman,

You surely can find the Math button and pressing it you would see Math Funtion Menu appear on the display and could perform addition, substruction multiplication and division of channel A with channel B.  Personally I have not played with such a 'marvel'  like the Atten ADS1102CAL but that is what is written in its manual  ( http://micromir.ucoz.ru/Oscil/Atten/ADS1000_User_Manual.pdf Page 27, PDF page 36). 

If you find those instructions do not work in practice on the scope, then I pass this question here to others to comment.

I have a much simpler DSO (a dual channel OWON 5022S and it also has a Math Menu button with 3 choices: CH1-CH2, CH2-CH1 and CH1+CH2.  And each channel input has its own Menu too like yours and includes the Invert function should you need to flip the measured waveforms on A or B (to turn them upside down). 

One more notice: you use a wire wound 18 Ohm 11W power resistor for the load (at least I see it as a wire wound type) and in this particular case when you use it in parallel with the output tank circuit which is in resonance at the output frequency, then the wire wound resistor is not an issue.  In case there would be no resonant circuit involved with such load resistor in parallel, then its inductive loading effect would become an issue.  (At least I gather from your comments the 18 Ohm is in parallel with the tank, maybe I am wrong.)

Gyula

Hi Gyula
Yes,if i push the math button,the math trace dose pop up on the screen. But no math function menu to be found as stated in the manual???. I even had poynt have a look at it once via webcam,but still couldnt work it out.

Yes the 18 ohm resistor is in parallel to the tank circuit.

[tinman]

Hello Tinman,

can you please give us the link to the original circuit of the Flynn-Website ?

Do you know this development where only the magnets are doing the work ?

http://gap-power.com/index-2.html

A permanent magnet is influenced ( switched on an of ) best with the Coil on top of the magnet.

Taking in consideration gyulas comment about the inductive reactance of the 18 Ohm resistor and assuming a sinus at the output ( which it is not, we know this ) I calculated the power out about 32 mWatt.
Input-Power calculated according to the T of the frequency and the T_on of the MOSFET about 22 mWatt not considering the recycled power of the primary collapse-spike.

It looks promising I would however change the resistor-type with no inductive properties  ( 1/4 Watt-metal-oxide-type) and tune the tank-circuit with different cap-values... I assume however you have already done that tuning.



Regards

Kator01

I dont have the original flynn circuit,as my setup was only based around an electromagnet canceling out the PMs magnetic field-same as the flynn type setup.However mine is solid state,while most of the flynn devices are mechanical devices-like that gap power site you posted.
My setup is probably more like the MEG,but differs in that i neutralize an already existing field around the coil,where the MEG diverts the field into the coil.

I am also lost with this comment-Quote:Input-Power calculated according to the T of the frequency and the T_on of the MOSFET about 22 mWatt not considering the recycled power of the primary collapse-spike.
P/in when dealing with pure DC is simply volts x amps. 12 volts x 11mA give us 132 mW.
How did you get 22mW?.

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

There are issues with your experiment and I am going to make some comments.  Don't let my comments knock the wind from your sails.  Keep in mind that we are all better off getting input from all viewpoints, even when it is stuff that we might not like to hear.

You posted this in the other thread:

Well two days ago,i found one answer to that puzzle-after many failed attemps. Through a combination of another fellows video,and some of my own changes,we now have a transformer that has 0 lenz effect when we draw of the secondary-even the tank coil outputs more power when we draw from the secondary-with 0 reflection on the power input-all thanks to the permanent magnet.

So you are just starting out testing this setup and you make a posting that states that you have done it and you have zero "Lenz effect."  That's a classic mistake and one you should learn to avoid.  You can't just jump on your first set of measurements and pronounce them as being fact.  I would not be surprised if, based on your statements, that you already have people that want to replicate what you are doing.  The truth is that you have barely even scratched the surface and you simply can't make any definitive statements.  For example, before you made the posting above, did you double check your measurements or try to make measurements in a completely different way to confirm your findings?  I am willing to bet that you didn't.

You are claiming that you are drawing power from the secondary with no load reflected on the primary.  Transformers don't work like that, if you draw power from the secondary then you have to put power into the primary.  Just that fact should have stopped you in your tacks and make you say to yourself, "I am seeing something that doesn't seem to make sense, so I will have to really investigate and check and double-check and make measurements in alternate ways before I am sure enough to announce this."  That is what the scientific method is all about.

Another big issue is using permanent magnets in any kind of transformer configuration.  I probably have posted to you and for sure I have posted many times that using permanent magnets in transformer configurations is nonsensical.  To put it harshly, it's junk.  I take some liberty in being harsh here because it's so fundamental and I have repeated it many times to no avail.  Transformers work with AC signals and a magnet is essentially a "DC" source of magnetic flux.  The magnet is not even "seen" by the AC circuit.  The magnet does absolutely nothing to improve the performance of the device and in fact can easily degrade the performance of the device.  If you don't believe me then the challenge to you would be to build another transformer setup but with a normal non-magnetized ferromagnetic core, and then compare the two.  I also looked at the "Flynn" page with all sorts of transformer configurations that include permanent magnets and it's pure junk.

This "permanent magnets in transformers" business is frustrating for someone like me.  I will give you an analogy off the top of my head.  Suppose you own a car body shop.  When you paint a car it requires primer, then several coats of the right grade of paint, and then possibly a protective clear-coat on top of that.  It's a serious business and paint jobs can be very precise work to get right look on an expensive sports car.  Then you hire somebody for your shop, and he says, "I am going to the hardware store to get some latex paint on special."  What?  Latex house paint on a car, is the guy nuts?  You tell him no, that doesn't make sense, but the guy doesn't believe you and he does the same thing two weeks later.  A week after that he does it again.  He seemingly can't understand how latex house paint can't be used to paint a $150,000 sports car. 

This business of using permanent magnets when you are building a transformer is a good analogy to the paint story.  It's nonsensical and ridiculous.  It's just based on a blind belief and there is no evidence at all that it does anything.  Anybody disagree with me?  Then do an A-B comparison like I stated above.

MileHigh