Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[partzman]

@PartzMan - Why is it that these two Output Coils Oppose?

How is it that the Sine of one of these Coils can change at Peak Magnetic Field? And change so quickly?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Chris,

The answer to your above question IMO is not a simple one.  It involves a complete analysis of Graham's device and I will give my opinions in the following which is a result of my tests and simulations and may or may not be correct.

Graham's MIT design yields poor coupling between the primary and secondaries resulting in a substantial leakage inductance in which energy can be stored and manipulated.  Events may therefore occur in the secondaries without affecting the primary depending on circuit conditions.  My analysis suggests that the secondaries are not in a bucking mode for most of the complete cycle of operation but only during a short period when the output mosfets are switching out of phase with each other producing the quick reversal in the output current.  This reversal is the result of a combination of factors including stored energy in the leakage inductance, PM flux bias in the cores, gap energy, complex power flows EXH, etc.  With the secondaries in a buck mode during this short interval, their influence on the cores is mostly not seen by the primary due to the cancelling flux flow directions with reference to the primary.

The following is taken from one of my posts on OUR.

"Below are three sim variations using different means to create a bucking condition between the secondaries L2 and L4 while using the H bridge as the front end.  The primary current I(L1) is shown reversed with a minus sign for comparison to Graham's scope trace. The secondaries are connected in parallel to the load with L2 being switched identical in all three versions and L4 controlled to produce the bucking conditions during the short "off" period pulse interval.

In the first version "A", M6 that switches L4 has zero volts on the gate and therefore acts as a diode using the substrate for conduction. Although not shown for clarity, this results in L4 conducting current to the load during the time the field in L2 is collapsing thus creating bucking mmfs between L2 and L4.  The result is seen as a reversal of current in L2 with less change seen in L1. L4 does collapse immediately following the collapse of L2.

In the next version "B", M5 and M6 alternately switch L2 and L4 respectively for each cycle. IOW, when one secondary is switched off for a brief period and allowed to collapse, the other secondary remains conducting and vice versa. This action creates the bucking mmf fields with the alternating current reversals in each secondary more pronounced with less affect on the primary.

In version "C", M5 and M6 are switched with the same timing on their gates. The collapse of L4 is delayed by the addition of C3 which effectively spreads the collapse over ~10us. IOW, L2 collapses rapidly while L4 slowly collapses which again creates bucking fields between L2 and L4. The other result of this design is that I(L2) recovers more slowly in an upward ramp which most resembles Graham's wave forms. IMO however, it is the presence of the PM bias in the cores that create Graham's output wave forms.

So, my conclusion is that Graham's device has bucking fields existing between the secondaries during the brief "off" period. Oddly enough, if the gate drive voltage to M6 is the inverse of the gate drive to M5, the results will be identical to version "A".

pm"

The sims referred to are attached and are self explanatory for the most part.  One must keep in mind that these particular sims use linear inductors with no PM bias and yet GG1_2SecC comes close to replicating Graham's waveforms.

I must say that having worked with Graham, Cyril Smith, Fred Epps, and others at MPI for a period, I have the utmost respect for the man and his accomplishments but until he releases more info, it is like shooting ducks in the dark to replicate his device. 

The problem with reactive to real OU converters like Graham's MIT and my MEI is that at some point one must be able to feed the negative energy portions of the cycle back to the dc supply feeding the sine generating means.  Otherwise they are only conceptual OU devices and not actual OU devices.  If the operating frequencies are low enough to allow efficient sine wave synthesis, then by using mosfets in both forward and reverse conduction modes, an actual OU device can be realized.  Current sine wave inverter designs that can handle reactive loads use such techniques.

pm

[EMJunkie]

Chris,

The answer to your above question IMO is not a simple one.  It involves a complete analysis of Graham's device and I will give my opinions in the following which is a result of my tests and simulations and may or may not be correct.

Graham's MIT design yields poor coupling between the primary and secondaries resulting in a substantial leakage inductance in which energy can be stored and manipulated.  Events may therefore occur in the secondaries without affecting the primary depending on circuit conditions.  My analysis suggests that the secondaries are not in a bucking mode for most of the complete cycle of operation but only during a short period when the output mosfets are switching out of phase with each other producing the quick reversal in the output current.  This reversal is the result of a combination of factors including stored energy in the leakage inductance, PM flux bias in the cores, gap energy, complex power flows EXH, etc.  With the secondaries in a buck mode during this short interval, their influence on the cores is mostly not seen by the primary due to the cancelling flux flow directions with reference to the primary.

The following is taken from one of my posts on OUR.

"Below are three sim variations using different means to create a bucking condition between the secondaries L2 and L4 while using the H bridge as the front end.  The primary current I(L1) is shown reversed with a minus sign for comparison to Graham's scope trace. The secondaries are connected in parallel to the load with L2 being switched identical in all three versions and L4 controlled to produce the bucking conditions during the short "off" period pulse interval.

In the first version "A", M6 that switches L4 has zero volts on the gate and therefore acts as a diode using the substrate for conduction. Although not shown for clarity, this results in L4 conducting current to the load during the time the field in L2 is collapsing thus creating bucking mmfs between L2 and L4.  The result is seen as a reversal of current in L2 with less change seen in L1. L4 does collapse immediately following the collapse of L2.

In the next version "B", M5 and M6 alternately switch L2 and L4 respectively for each cycle. IOW, when one secondary is switched off for a brief period and allowed to collapse, the other secondary remains conducting and vice versa. This action creates the bucking mmf fields with the alternating current reversals in each secondary more pronounced with less affect on the primary.

In version "C", M5 and M6 are switched with the same timing on their gates. The collapse of L4 is delayed by the addition of C3 which effectively spreads the collapse over ~10us. IOW, L2 collapses rapidly while L4 slowly collapses which again creates bucking fields between L2 and L4. The other result of this design is that I(L2) recovers more slowly in an upward ramp which most resembles Graham's wave forms. IMO however, it is the presence of the PM bias in the cores that create Graham's output wave forms.

So, my conclusion is that Graham's device has bucking fields existing between the secondaries during the brief "off" period. Oddly enough, if the gate drive voltage to M6 is the inverse of the gate drive to M5, the results will be identical to version "A".

pm"

The sims referred to are attached and are self explanatory for the most part.  One must keep in mind that these particular sims use linear inductors with no PM bias and yet GG1_2SecC comes close to replicating Graham's waveforms.

I must say that having worked with Graham, Cyril Smith, Fred Epps, and others at MPI for a period, I have the utmost respect for the man and his accomplishments but until he releases more info, it is like shooting ducks in the dark to replicate his device. 

The problem with reactive to real OU converters like Graham's MIT and my MEI is that at some point one must be able to feed the negative energy portions of the cycle back to the dc supply feeding the sine generating means.  Otherwise they are only conceptual OU devices and not actual OU devices.  If the operating frequencies are low enough to allow efficient sine wave synthesis, then by using mosfets in both forward and reverse conduction modes, an actual OU device can be realized.  Current sine wave inverter designs that can handle reactive loads use such techniques.

pm

Hi PartzMan - I think much of your post re-iterates what I had posted here:

Hi PartzMan - You need not defend your work, I am not criticising anyone's work, I was appealing to the lack of direction that was very apparent.

The thing is, you reported good results, and also were heading in the right direction, you either had it working or were very close to it!

You see, Graham G's scope shots tell an odd storey, there is a lot going on in there, much is not apparent because of the lack of Probes on both Output Coils - But, I can tell you this, GG's device works the same, he uses a big Spike to do what we have looked at for a long time. You have, and others have already stated this over at OUR.com:



Logically, what is a Spike in Current?

Yes, its the Time Rate of Change of Fluxes, between two Coils. This is the "Synchronous Rectification" he was talking about. The "Synchronous Rectification" holds both Coils at the same state until TDC, he then drops the state of one coil, causing the Spike, the Time Rate of Change, and we see a massive change in Current on that Coil, it completely reverses its Sine!

Induction occurs all the way through the Cycle, but the Output Coils are in Reverse, Magnetic Fields Opposing for only part of the Cycle. The Field opposition only occurs at the Spike (Black Arrow) - It is at this point where the Magnetic Fields from the Two Output Coils Oppose, is where the excess Energy "Generation" occurs. This ends at the Red Arrow See below.

Please remember, many roads lead to Rome, this is not the only way!

I promise you, if you stay on track, you will succeed!

P.S: Of course, Time is increasing in the X Axis and Amplitude in the Y Axis as we would expect to see in the typical Cartesian Coordinate System.

I agree with much of what you say, and again your work is very good, but I don't agree with all of it. It is true that documentation of Energy "Generating" devices such as these is poor, it will be poor for sometime to come.

Lets face it, the smartest minds on the Planet have not solved this Conundrum simply because much is still not understood! Thus the reason we do not see these devices redily available to the greater portion of the Marketplace.



MPI  and all the other companies that Mark Goldes has had, seem to have never "Produced" anything, all brilliant minds that worked for him, including Graham Gunderson, but no Visible progress.


Mark Goldes Funded Floyd Sweet, and Mark openly tells people that Floyd Sweets Device was a fraud.


There Is so much I could say but will not here, there is no need to go off topic.



Floyd Sweet was 100% Genuine!!! - The problem was, Floyd Sweet was not using Original Proprietary Technology! He had learnt this technology as I have, as many here have, this is super old Technology! It has been Re-Discovered, Learnt from age old  hand me downs...

Yes, many, many have used this same tech, 1871 Daniel McFarland Cook, EXACTLY the same schematic as Floyd Sweet!!! Some 146 Years ago.

Anyway, this is neither here nor there, the point is, today we know 90% of this tech, there is 10% guess work, which is better than ever before!

Of course, I agree, Grahams Output Coils do buck, the Fields oppose each other. I have shown where they oppose on the Image attached to the above Post, and also again below.

The Spike we see is, where the Sine of the Current flips, is indicative of the Impedance of the Coils at the time of switching, we see such a large Spike simply because the Coils are put into a VERY Low Impedance value because of the Configuration! The Magnetic Field that is at peak when this switch occurs actually reduces the Impedance Value even further.

Much of the Circuitry on GG's Output is redundant, 90% or so is not needed. I like the idea of the Magneto-Isolators (IL710's), but I think you should look up the Response Times on them, in combination with the Response Times on the Fets (not sure of the partnumber), see if that gives you any clues.

Yes the Coupling is very poor on GG's device. This is not important as the way the output Coils work, or can work, will reduce the total reflection back on the Input anyway. A Loose Coupling is a requirement, these devices are typically loosely coupled, simply because of the ideas behind them.

Like I said: 1 + -1 = 0

Partnered Output Coil One Magnetic Field = 1 = O₁
Partnered Output Coil Two Magnetic Field = -1 = O₂

Input Primary Magnetic Field = 1 = I_P

So:

   I_P - (O₁ - O₂) = 1


Which is what we started with: 1

We use Magnetic Fields, the Magnetic Fields can be used as a Pump, they Pump Electrons, Inside the Copper Wire, which inturn Pump more Electrons Inside the Wire. The Hydraulic Ram Pump works EXACTLY the same way, some 300 years old. 

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[Meta]

Electrical Energy IS the Electrons inside the Copper Conductor, the Copper Wire IS our Battery, the Source of Energy, we ONLY have to make this Energy Move Efficiently, this is our Job as Engineers, Engineering Lenz's Law, to Free Electrons and get them Flowing, Current (I), which is done by the Change of the Magnetic Field: Electromagnetic Induction.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

_____________________________________________________

You're a bit off here.

Electrical Energy IS the Electrons inside the Copper Conductor-

There are no electrons INSIDE a copper wire so no spiraling "flow", just the mass (of the wire), which is highly compressed space.


the Copper Wire IS our Battery, the Source of Energy-

The copper wire is NOT our source, it is a means to transmit negative electrons by way of the Hole Theory, from the source to the load.

The/A battery in a circuit is NOT the source. Bearden says a battery is a dipole (two poles obviously) and is merely a collector/antenna between the source and the load. He says the battery in his circuit connects his 3D symmetric system, to the open, 4D, assymmetric system of open space. Open 4D space IS the source.

[EMJunkie]

@PartzMan - Going further...

I have to admit to being completely baffled by this waveform since it is showing current outside the load connected region. Without having access to the circuit and exactly what was measured I cannot take this any further.

Smudge was talking directly about the Output Current Wave Form. Like I said:

You see, Graham G's scope shots tell an odd storey, there is a lot going on in there, much is not apparent because of the lack of Probes on both Output Coils - But, I can tell you this, GG's device works the same, he uses a big Spike to do what we have looked at for a long time. You have, and others have already stated this over at OUR.com:

When a Diver, Dives under a Large Volume of Water, his body takes time to adjust to the Water Pressure, this is more evident on the way back up, The Bends, or Decompression Sickness (DCS).

Magnetic Fields, when the Source is a Current Flow in a Wire, also take Time to adjust to each Other. We know this as the Impedance, the AC Resistance, the Resistance to change of the Magnetic Field. We both know all this already!

When two Magnetic Fields are in such a fashion as to Oppose like this, like I have shown for Years now, things are not as we would expect! What we might expect to see as an Impedance (Z), that can be completely different to what we would expect to see, when we have Magnetic Fields under Stress! The Coils Impedance can be nearly Zero, or even further.

So, amazingly, and no one has touched on this, even though I have bought this up many times, there can be No Resistance to the Change In Magnetic Field!!! This is massively Important!

We can see Magnetic Field Changes in a VERY much shorter Time than we would normally expect! We can see on GG's Scope Shot that the Current, which is also the Magnetic Field, changes, from one Sine to the Other, in a very short time! About 400ns if my Math is correct.

Below, the distance between the two Yellow lines, is the time it takes for the Magnetic Fields to Balance, we have next to no DCS. Simply because the Pressure between the Coils remain High all at the same time as the Magnetic Field is High.

Now, this is Super Important to see: Like in ALL "Generators" the Magnetic Field is going to Change in Time, but the Partnered Output Coils are Now the "Generator" - This means one of the Coils is still in the same state that is was a split second before the switching, this coil can not change its state, it is now the Source of the Magnetic Field in the "Generator"!

As Time increments, the Magnetic Field will slowly decrease, which we see on the scope. The Magnetic Fields between each one of the Partnered Output Coils is Opposite, one + and one -

IMPORTANT: This means One Coil is IN PHASE with the Input, meaning the Magnetic Fields are in the Same Direction, the Flow of Current is in the same direction, one Coil Assists in the Self Oscillation characteristics!!!

Of course GG switched off his input part Cycle, which he must, because the Time for the Magnetic Fields to do work in "Generating" Excess Electrical Energy would overlap on the Input other wise because of his Devices Geometry.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Electrical Energy IS the Electrons inside the Copper Conductor, the Copper Wire IS our Battery, the Source of Energy, we ONLY have to make this Energy Move Efficiently, this is our Job as Engineers, Engineering Lenz's Law, to Free Electrons and get them Flowing, Current (I), which is done by the Change of the Magnetic Field: Electromagnetic Induction.

Chris Sykes
hyiq.org

_____________________________________________________

You're a bit off here.

Electrical Energy IS the Electrons inside the Copper Conductor-

There are no electrons INSIDE a copper wire so no spiraling "flow", just the mass (of the wire), which is highly compressed space.


the Copper Wire IS our Battery, the Source of Energy-

The copper wire is NOT our source, it is a means to transmit negative electrons by way of the Hole Theory, from the source to the load.

The/A battery in a circuit is NOT the source. Bearden says a battery is a dipole (two poles obviously) and is merely a collector/antenna between the source and the load. He says the battery in his circuit connects his 3D symmetric system, to the open, 4D, assymmetric system of open space. Open 4D space IS the source.

@Meta - I am sorry, I disagree here.

To induce a Flow of Electrons in a Wire, all one needs is a Permanent Magnet and a piece of Copper Wire.

Copper Atoms consist of 29 Protons, 35 Neutrons and 29 Electrons - The Proton's Equivalent number.

Copper has 4 States of Energy Levels.

So, the Magnetic Field moving in accordance to the Lorentz Force Criteria Frees Electrons from the outer Orbitals, Electron Orbital Hopping and as a Result they move in the Wire, the insulation being the Wave Guide for the Electrons to move in.

See: https://www.myodesie.com/wiki/index/returnEntry/id/3071
http://learn.sparklelabs.com/electronics/2010/10/22/lesson-1-electrical-pressure/

So, I am sorry, I don't agree with what you wrote.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org