Interesting experiment with an transformer, 2 lamps, diodes and an magnet

[PaulLowrance]

Hi Markus,

Last night I came up with what I think could be breakthrough in how to extract energy
from the magnetic material. OK, I give my idea perhaps 30% chance of being error free,
but since your device and various others successful magnetic devices seem so similar
to my method I was excited to study your device.

Would you talk about your idea? Mybe we (or better all readers) could learn from each
other and enlarge our knowledge - unless you want to handle it as secret yet.

It's only small chance it's a correct theory/hypothesis, but I'll describe it some more and hopefully not bore everyone.  There's yet another coincidence. Last mentioned, the trick was in trying to extract the energy that is distributed by realigning magnetic moments. I just recently found the trick, which it seems you have already been using, lol. The problem was that the extra energy occurs while the coils current is increasing. But if we place a permanent magnet polarized in the correct direction so that it opposes the coils field then we can extract the extra energy during the opposite cycle. In other words, we can extract the energy during the collapsing field, not on the rise. So what is really happening is that the field is rising, not collapsing, because of the permanent magnet. Basically the reason being is that the permanent magnetic reverses the process.

As to why this may be the case is not easy to describe unless by computer animation. Also it's just a theory / hypothesis not yet backed by mathematics or computer simulations. Basically we have electrons that cause the magnetic field. Most of the field is caused by intrinsic electron spin. These electrons flip during magnetic avalanches. When they flip they convert potential energy into kinetic energy. That is a fact. My theory / hypothesis is that the faster the applied magnetic field rise equates to less energy being absorbed by the electrons neighboring atoms _if_ the circuit takes advantage of it.

Marcus, I am wondering about some other matches. For example, is your device more
efficient when using rods sa compared to toroids? Also, is your device more efficient
with material that is not too high or too low in permeability?

I tried it with a coil on a ferrite rod, but there is no effect noticable
(effect = increasing kickback energy while the total power consumption drops)

I didn't tried other toroidal core materials, because I own only this kind of ferrite
core. I think I can get a damaged PC-Power supply from a friend. So therin I will
hopefully find some other kinds of ferrite cores to play with (from the step-up
switching circuit).

Are you saying your toroid has the effect but the rod did not? As you know, toroid has much higher _effective_ permeability compared to rods. So it's a matter of permeability. As to the exact values of permeability that the hypothesis predicts I am not sure unless I wrote some advanced simulation program. Initially I the lower permeability might equate to better results, but the permanent magnetic trick changes everything. Basically the idea is the get the magnetic material to switch to a higher state as quickly as possible. Although, faster switching equates to more energy loss-- less efficient. Higher permeability equate to less energy to magnetize the material. So really there should be a happy balance. My concern with toroids is making sure it can switch fast enough.

Presently I would guesstimate that your best material of choice would be laminated transformer iron in the form of a toroid. ***BUT***, presently I cannot see a good method of extracting the extra energy except only by using a permanent magnet. In this case, you would have to insert the permanent magnet inside the toroid in a similar fashion as Tom Bearden's MEG. Wow this is getting exciting and if true then it seems to be linking numerous magnetic devices together.  My problem with the MEG is they use such high permeability material. It's my understanding that such material is very sensitive to changes such as temperature and perhaps even physical shock. According to the hypothesis, the free energy is coming from ambient temperature-- the magnetic material becomes colder. This could cause the device to work just momentarily.

So I am very interested in your results in that which exact demonstrated the free energy effect? It was only the toroid and you never saw any free energy effect with rods?  If that's the case then I'll just concentrate on toroids since I have no simulations of this to guide me.

Maybe the magnet in my setup will cause a faster re-aligning of the magnetic domains
in the toroid core and cause a higher energy emission - same way as you noticed in your
other post? Hmm, but why does it do not work this way with a coil on a normal ferrite rod?

According to the hypothesis, the applied magnetic field from the coil must demonstrate two unit signals. 1. A relatively slow and steady rise in current-- lower di/dt.  2. A sudden change in current in the opposite direction-- high di/dt.  Also, it seems very difficult to extract the extra energy unless you use a permanent magnet to flip the process. This switches the extra energy cycle to the collapsing applied field, which is what you want so that you can extract the energy. In other words, how can you extract energy at the same time you are adding energy. This is why the permanent magnet is so important, or at least I presently see no method of doing both at the same time. The permanent magnet splits the two processes so that you add energy during one half of the cycle and can then extract the extra energy during the other half of the cycle.

OK, that's enough talk on just a hypothesis. Over the next few days I hope to build an appropriate efficient circuit to test this. If it does not work then it could be incorrect hypothesis or simply not the appropriate magnetic material. Only successful device or simulation can decisively determine this. Hopefully tomorrow I'll build the device.

Thanks for listening and for the great help of your device. Let's cross our fingers and hope that the hypothesis can construct an improved device that is good enough to actually run by itself. If it works then I'll fully published and given to humanity. The goal is so that anyone may freely build the device for themselves or even freely build and sale for profit or non-profit as they wish.

Kind regards,
Paul Lowrance

[PaulLowrance]

I tested your pulse circuit in Electronics Work Bench

Hi kingrs,

How do you like Electronics WorkBench?  I'm just using the free LTspice and have to hunt around for models, but I really like it. Have you tried LTspice and if so how does it compare to Electronics WorkBench?

Thanks,
Paul Lowrance

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul,
EWB is OK I suppose, it will stop the simulation some times and I cannot figure out why.
Its good for trying out an idea with actual manufacturer components, it has most of them in its library.
Funny thing: if you simulate a lamp, and drive to much voltage through it, the filament blows and disappears from the diagram.
I did the pulse circuit using a 555 timer 12v supply and iron core coil and a 24v lamp and it blew!

I have a DC-DC converter circuit made up already(built it over 3 years ago on a proper pcb), I just need to wind my toroid and wire it in and I will be ready for testing.
If all goes to plan I will order up some schottky diodes too.

I wanted to have a go at building a MEG device and this seems so simple it will make a good starting point.
I have been following the Hilden-Brand Motor for some time now and experimenting with FEMM 4.0 simulation software and this does a very good job at showing the flux valve in action, but I have yet to prove by simulation if it can give over-unity.
What Markus seems to have done is to drop the supply current and increase the output in the back emf just by externally introducing a magnet, I would never have thought of putting the magnet on the outside, but it gives you a lot of flexability.

The critical thing I found in all my simulations is that too much input power will over-whelm the core material and you will not get over-unity, there seems to be a sweet-spot of input power and flux density of the permanent magnet for a given core material.

Also, a rod will never work as there is no return path for the field, a toroid is the best shape for a return path.
An "EE" core (two "E" shaped pieces of ferrite) is the easiest to wind a coil for and has a good return path.
Farnell has a good choice of "E" cores.
For large toroid cores I plan to use a 0-12v 0-12v mains toroidal transformer and just use the secondary windings as is. The only limit using a mains toroid is the core material may not be suitable for high frequency pulsing.
They do some massive toroids for mains, 1000Watts 7.5kG toroid rated at 40-0v 40-0v at 12.5 A.


Regards

Rob

[PaulLowrance]

Hi Paul,
EWB is OK I suppose, it will stop the simulation some times and I cannot figure out why.
Its good for trying out an idea with actual manufacturer components, it has most of them in its library.
Funny thing: if you simulate a lamp, and drive to much voltage through it, the filament blows and disappears from the diagram.

Now that is an accurate circuit sim! :-)

I have been following the Hilden-Brand Motor for some time now and experimenting with FEMM 4.0 simulation software and this does a very good job at showing the flux valve in action, but I have yet to prove by simulation if it can give over-unity.

Actually if these type of simulators showed over unity then it's flawed, lol.  Truthfully after studying magnetic properties for some time now there is free energy to be gained by ambient temperature, but it can't be put in some simple magnetic math equation. What happens inside magnetic material is a whole universe in itself. It amazes me. Things like avalanche are so complex that modern day computer sims are just beginning to touch it.  But these type of simulators that use Ising models are working on a molecular level (not quite atomic yet) ... something of which FEMM by no means does.

It is possible that a complex Ising model that goes beyond what anything I've seen so far could report thermal energy conversion to electricity. Last year I wrote a similar type of program, but turned out to take about a year just for one simulation. I never completed the sim., which required the addition of ambient temperature.

Ising models don't analyze what's actually going on inside the atom. My non-mathematical hypothesis is actually based on what's happening on this atomic level. Crazy. That's why I give it low odds of being accurate. Although I'm just amazed at so many coincidences. In other words, if you just started with the hypothesis from scratch and knew nothing about the MEG or Markus device then you should end up with a device very similar. So are they just coincidences?

What Markus seems to have done is to drop the supply current and increase the output in the back emf just by externally introducing a magnet, I would never have thought of putting the magnet on the outside, but it gives you a lot of flexability.

Doesn't Markus place a magnet inside a toroid? That's pretty much the same effect that the MEG has. Although Markus coils are different, but over all it's pretty much the same effect IMHO, just a different flavor. I really believe Markus and the MEG are legitimate so-called "free energy" devices.

The critical thing I found in all my simulations is that too much input power will over-whelm the core material and you will not get over-unity, there seems to be a sweet-spot of input power and flux density of the permanent magnet for a given core material.

Has anyone successfully used a typical iron core transformer for these type of devices?

Also, a rod will never work as there is no return path for the field, a toroid is the best shape for a return path.

Your right there's not much other than air (perm. ~= 1). The hypothesis shows that you want to switch the core as quickly as possible, but that requires more energy. Somewhere there's a happy medium. My simulations of toroids last year (not FEMM) showed how toroids get their high effective permeability. Unfortunately the extra effective permeability comes at the cost of time. But I was probably overdoing it since toroids can achieve high frequencies. A short rod can indeed achieve even higher frequencies, but it's probably an over kill.

I think you guys are correct in that higher perm (to within reason) is better since it requires less energy to magnetize the material.

Paul

[PaulLowrance]

Hi,

Is FEMM 4.01 the latest version? Every once in a while I get into problems where it takes forever during analysis and I know this is a program bug.  For example, it works fine for hours and all sudden I make a change and it can't analyze. It just sits there forever. Then I'll cancel it and click the undo button to put it back where it was and if I analyze again it still can't finish. So I'll restart the program and same thing, it freezes.

What I have to do is click New and complete recreate the exact same thing from scratch, except it analyzes without freezing. If there's a new FEMM version could someone post the download link?

Thanks,
Paul Lowrance