Lenz free generator + a different pulse motor!

[gyulasun]

....
Would you please be kind and let me know what you think about this one? And forgive me if I keep repeating the same mistakes, it must be because of my lake of knowledge in the filed of magnetism and electricity
In this design, on the right side of the picture I tried to show that the core must be rotated 90 degrees towards us so that the shunt would be positioned at 90 degrees compared to the plate that magnets are rotating at.
....

Hi Sam,

Well, it is XMAS time, right.   

I think that the setup you show in your drawing Lenzfree.jpg might be a bit better Lenz-wise than the generator setup shown in your shorted video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY )

From the input flux excitation point of view, there is no closed magnetic path, while there is a closed path for the counter flux created by the load in the generator coil. This may mean  that induction efficiency is less (I would say about 50% less) than in your above video setup where both poles of the rotor magnets participate in induction.

BUT the 50% less induction efficiency (my gut feeling estimation) with respect to the gen setup of the video is not neccessarily a drawback of course. Especially, when you consider that the counter flux (due to Lenz law) of the generator coil is able to create a closed magnetic path of low reluctance via the C core on the right hand side,  so chances are better that the counter flux should not readily leave the closed C-I core shape to work against the moving rotor magnets. This assumes the core never gets into saturation either from the rotor magnets flux or from the counter flux created by the load current. 
However, there is a chance also for the counter flux to prevent some rotor magnet flux entry to the core as per its own flux value that depends mainly on the value of load and the usual losses.  So I cannot say for certain this is a 'heureka' moment....

Whether my gut feeling estimation is correct or not, a practical cogging-free setup is needed to build to explore how Lenz law affects your setup.  Of course, you can play with different permeability cores or differing cross section cores,  to make a trade -off between parameters, all this need testing.

Gyula

[broli]

Hi Broli as a matter of fact I am building one too!
I think that in your design the flux going through all the 3 legs of the core on rotation will inhibit performance.
But I guess we will see about that.
In mine, the attraction forces from magnet to the cores are distributed on 3 phases. So there are 3 points
of attraction at a time in the form of a triangle. 9/12 ratio gives nice reduction of cogging as well!

kEhYo

It's true that flux will be distributed over the three legs but it was important to get as much surface area covered under the magnet as possible. In ideal cases I would have liked to have one continuous ring to leave no gaps, see attached stator example. This would reduce cogging and any back torque effect (See Lafonte's minimal air gap demonstrations). But this turned out to be not very economical financial wise so I turned to cheaper alternatives.

[kEhYo77]

This ring type of stator would introduce low reluctance path from magnet to magnet and I doubt that any significant flux would go through the coil's core part to the opposite side. Basicaly it would short out the flux.

[broli]

This ring type of stator would introduce low reluctance path from magnet to magnet and I doubt that any significant flux would go through the coil's core part to the opposite side. Basicaly it would short out the flux.

Correct... if you do not limit the amount of magnets on your rotor. At least that's what the simulation shows. However when you limit the amount of magnets to 2 (180°) or 4 (90°) the flux will mostly choose the shorter bridge rather than traveling 1 half or 1 quarter around the ring. That's why in the designs I focus more on the amount of bridge pieces than the amount of magnets. It's a small sacrifice to get zero cogging for free and potentially zero back torque.

[NoBull]

How do you explain the behavior of flux switching in Flynn device then? Like in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4PWiyN1G7I

That's different than passive flux splitting between two paths, that was being discussed, because the system shown in this video  has 2 MMF sources (magnet & coil) which add or subtract from each other.

That would be like comparing two parallel resistors to two parallel batteries, in a purely electronic system.  See Hopkinson's law here:

Clearly there one can make flux to go through one side or the other and the opposite side is unaffected there.

With bucking MMF sources - yes
With parallel reluctances - no

In the latter case the flux distribution is inversely proportional to these reluctances, which might only seem like a total flux switch if one reluctance is much greater than the other (a 0.5mm air gap can increase a reluctance 100x).

Saturation decreases the differential permeability only.  It does not decrease static permeability (increase reluctance) to constant flux sources.
In other words: modulation of differential permeability by saturation makes a magnetic "AC switch" not a "DC switch'.