The Magneformer-lenzless transformer ?

[JouleSeeker]

OK, makes sense.  Now you can measure the input energy using E = 1/2 CV^2.
Same formula for output cap (seems then you would need a FWBR to feed the output cap.)

Power = energy/time interval, same time interval for Pin and Pout.

AC output can also be dumped on a simple resistor immersed in water, and determine Eout (=Qout) using calorimetry.  This is quite easy to do actually, IMO.
... AS LONG AS your measurement techniques do not alter/diminish the effect you are trying to measure!

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

Your interpretation of your scope shots is spot on.  In the second scope shot where you see the increasing energizing current for the coil it looks to me to be about one-half of a time constant before the transistor switches off.

The issue of why you have a "magneformer" where you use a magnet as the core of your transformer remains.  I didn't see you explain at the beginng of the thread why you chose to use a magnet.  People can describe specific examples about the use of magnets in certain applications but they have nothing to do with your setup.  Is it for better performance?  If yes, what does that mean?  Now that you have done the build what kind of tests are you going to do to confirm (presumably) that the magnet in the core is doing what it is supposed to be doing?

The point here is that if you made a design decision to use a magnet, there is supposed to be a valid reason for it.  If the "valid reason" is that "'people know' that using a magnet does something special," but you have no specifics, then simply state that.

You know there is a peer pressure on the forums to always agree and almost never question your builder friends.  Like I have pointed out in the past, that just leads to stagnation.  People don't learn and next year and the year after the pattern repeats itself and they repeat the same mistakes over and over and no progress is made.

In the real world of electronics design you have to have valid reasons for your design choices that you can explain to your peers.  So you can address this issue or sweep it under the rug, it's your choice.  In the best-case scenario you would really think about this and do testing and arrive at the correct conclusion for your setup.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Tinman:

Your interpretation of your scope shots is spot on.  In the second scope shot where you see the increasing energizing current for the coil it looks to me to be about one-half of a time constant before the transistor switches off.

The issue of why you have a "magneformer" where you use a magnet as the core of your transformer remains.  I didn't see you explain at the beginng of the thread why you chose to use a magnet.  People can describe specific examples about the use of magnets in certain applications but they have nothing to do with your setup.  Is it for better performance?  If yes, what does that mean?  Now that you have done the build what kind of tests are you going to do to confirm (presumably) that the magnet in the core is doing what it is supposed to be doing?

The point here is that if you made a design decision to use a magnet, there is supposed to be a valid reason for it.  If the "valid reason" is that "'people know' that using a magnet does something special," but you have no specifics, then simply state that.

You know there is a peer pressure on the forums to always agree and almost never question your builder friends.  Like I have pointed out in the past, that just leads to stagnation.  People don't learn and next year and the year after the pattern repeats itself and they repeat the same mistakes over and over and no progress is made.

In the real world of electronics design you have to have valid reasons for your design choices that you can explain to your peers.  So you can address this issue or sweep it under the rug, it's your choice.  In the best-case scenario you would really think about this and do testing and arrive at the correct conclusion for your setup.

MileHigh

Your answers starts at post 19 MH,and guyla hit the nail on the head on post 24.
My idea is to make a transformer that is as efficient as it can be made here at home,and to show that PMs improve efficiency.
What im trying to do now,is to make sure all my meters are reading accuratly,and this is tricky,as my scope shares a common ground with my SG,and power supply. My home made SG dosnt have pulse width adjustment,only frequency adjustment. I am trying to make up a transformer based around the same priciples,but where i can remove the magnet,and replace it with a ferrite core of same dimentions-while the system is running. All these things take time,and i am working on them
My biggest problem is getting around this common ground between my three needed devices(scope,SG and PS)

Please remember-no one is shouting OU here,but the P/in and P/out so far,seem a little to close when we look at how roughly the device is made.

But a quick summery as to what i hope i have achieved.
The driven coil is to neutralise the PMs field in the tank coil.
When the driven coil is switched of,two things happen.
1-we collect the inductive kickback,and charge a battery with it.
2-the PMs field once again is induced into the tank coil. The lenz force is now between the PM and the tank coil. To me this is the PM doing the work,and is the reason we get a continual current flowing through the 18 ohm resistor-even when the driven coils energy has been depleeted.This can be clearly seen in the first scope shot i posted.
How is it that the primary coil is no longer pumping current into the charge battery,but the tank coil is still producing a current across the 18 ohm resistor? A bifilar coil would not do this,as i checked that today. A standard bifilar coil with an iron core reacts compleetly different. The bottom half of the tank circuit wave is flat.

[gyulasun]

...
I am trying to make up a transformer based around the same priciples, but where i can remove the magnet,and replace it with a ferrite core of same dimentions-while the system is running.
...

Hi Brad,

Please remember that the permeability of a permanent magnet is very close to that of the air (a PM is almost a 100% saturated piece of material) this means that you should not replace the magnet with a ferrite core because by doing so your coil would have a much higher self inductance than with the magnet inside. The best approach would be not to insert any core into the same coil when you remove the permanent magnet. Permeability figures for ceramic (i.e. ferrit) magnets is around 1.1 to 1.3 and for Neo magnets it is around  1.05 to 1.1 or so.  If you have an L meter and some air core coils around (or you can remove the core from a multiturn coil), you could see how small the inductance changes (increases a few percent) with a permanent magnet inserted into an air cored coil.

On your Atten scope: perhaps the best would be to contact the Atten service people to have the software in the scope check and reload once the Measure Menu does not have any content in it to choose from. 

Gyula

[Magluvin]

Hi Brad,

Please remember that the permeability of a permanent magnet is very close to that of the air (a PM is almost a 100% saturated piece of material) this means that you should not replace the magnet with a ferrite core because by doing so your coil would have a much higher self inductance than with the magnet inside. The best approach would be not to insert any core into the same coil when you remove the permanent magnet. Permeability figures for ceramic (i.e. ferrit) magnets is around 1.1 to 1.3 and for Neo magnets it is around  1.05 to 1.1 or so.  If you have an L meter and some air core coils around (or you can remove the core from a multiturn coil), you could see how small the inductance changes (increases a few percent) with a permanent magnet inserted into an air cored coil.

On your Atten scope: perhaps the best would be to contact the Atten service people to have the software in the scope check and reload once the Measure Menu does not have any content in it to choose from. 

Gyula

Hey Gyula

If the pulsed primary input field is opposing the permanent magnet, the core wont be saturated till the field of the magnet is flipped/reversed and then pushed further into saturation, if the input can deliver that much opposition to the cores permanent field. A ferrite mag can be demagnetized, or even reversed eventually, that is again if the input is enough. Brad isnt putting that much power in so saturation shouldnt be an issue and the magnets should last for quite some time.

Mags