Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field

Started by bob.rennips, May 30, 2007, 12:57:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dutchy1966

Bob,

I think the field will still pretty much fluctuate in the same direction as the static field.

Why?

Because the patent tells us to put another solenoid inside the magnet to pick up the field. I t is arranged in a way normal induction takes place.....

Robert

starcruiser

Robert,

I was thinking along the same lines for the coils form. I just had an idea you could take that PVC pipe and wrap (3) 30 ~34ga coils on it, one for an electromagnet, and the other 2 for the pulse coils, then a 14ga lamp cord over them for the output. With the PVC pipe we can then insert wire at 90 degrees to the coils and test that at the same time.

How about using a neo magnet along the outside of the core? Like I said prior several things to test/try.
Regards,

Carl

starcruiser

Robert but the motor portion of the patent talks about using a coil at a 90 to the stator magnet which is not used in the generator version. So, supposedly either way may work???
Regards,

Carl

dutchy1966

Carl,

Well first of all I think the generator version is less work to build and personally I'm more after generating electric than mechanical power. so I more or less didn't pay to much attention to the motor bit.

Anyway, as you say there are still several things we want to test. But at the end of the day it all comes down to a way to proof the principle. That has to be done as the first thing and it doesn't matter who does it or with what configuration. Everyone can use whatever ever they get their hands on and complies with the principle outlined.

I mean once the principle is proven we can start thinking about what is the best way to utilize it.

As i can see now the mechanical bit is the easy part in the patent.

Have you given the control circuit some thought already?

Robert

bob.rennips

Quote from: dutchy1966 on May 30, 2007, 02:47:44 PM
...

Have you given the control circuit some thought already?

Robert

I'm going to be using IRF840 for the mosfets because these go up to 500v.
To drive these will be IRS2117PBF (edited from IRS2217 that doesn't exist!). These are high side high voltage mosfet drivers that allow 10v input to switch a mosfet with 600volts. In other words the input is floated up to the nominal output voltage. I particularly like these drivers as they don't use opto isolators and therefore can support very high pulse rate (frequency). The down side is they need 10v for logic 1.

To control the timing I'll use two CD4017 decade counters, which usefully have logic 1 at the voltage supply level. So 12volt supply to the chip gives an output pulse of 12v, which is more than sufficient for the logic pulse voltage required by the IRS2117 (edited from IRS2217 that doesn't exist!) chip.

The counter work by providing a logic one in sequence on one of 10 output pins. Each time you clock the counter the output logic one moves to the next pin. You can choose which pin resets the counter back to 0.

The first counter will determine the period between pulses. If I count from 1 to 8 and have output pins for 1 and 4 in the sequence connected to the above mosfet drivers then I can generate pulses with a certain period depending on the clocking freq. to the counter.

The second counter will determine the pulse width. If set to 10 pulses and I control the on period from only output pin 1 then this is 10% duty cycle of the on period of the first counter.

To be honest there are better ways of controlling pulses but I have a stack of CD4017s, so this is what I'm using.

Another thought I had from way back was to have both ends of the coil connected low. I'd then turn on, at the same time, both ends of the coil using two IRF840 to say 400volts. Although both mosfets would receive the turn on signal at the same time, the difference in turn on time (nanosecond level) would give a very short duration pulse. Similarly when both mosfets are turned off you'd also get a very short pulse. I know this will work as shoot through current when using high and low side mosfet drivers have to be specifically guarded against. Shoot through current being caused by different turn-on times even though the devices are the same spec.

Cheap and nasty - most certain to give you spikes of voltage!