Electromagnet power transfer question.

[nwman]

Thanks gyulasun.

So what is everyone's initial thoughts about this concept?

Tim

[gyulasun]

Well, my opinion is your Config4 has one (big) drawback: when you connect a load across coils C and D the flux created by the load current reflects back totally to coils A and B (normal Lenz law).  Putting it otherwise: if you excite coils C and D with any AC or pulsed DC, you will get output at coils A and B just like in the reverse/intended case.
Otherwise, your setup seems a good idea...

rgds, Gyula

[nwman]

Steven was telling me something about that but I'm still not fully understanding the concepts. Is this what they call BEMF? Is this what is impossible to over come or is there a way to get around it? It seems that if a transformer works then this should work?

Tim

[gyulasun]

Tim,  with my previous mail I meant the problem is a direct flux connection between input and output coils, just like in case of normal transformers.  And as such, the output power you wish to take out will include a certain part from the input power (say you make the same amount of flux by the EM like your permanent magnets have, then half of the the total induced power at coils C and D will come from your input power you furnished).  You may say who cares if it is still ou? 

But first you have to build this and test whether you can receive ou this way at all because up to now this is a theory from me...

So the reason I mentioned Config4 has that (big) drawback is that personally if I were you, I would not like to include my input power into the output power at all...  How would that be possible?

There is a Meg_builders yahoo group where I came across a link to a so called Bulgarian MEG that claims a measured COP of 2... 

And their solution differs very much at the output coils: they use a closed magnetic square or ring circuit in place of the straight core columns where the Beardan team or Naudin places the output coils. This means that the flux created by the load is able to find a closed magnetic path inside its own square or ring shaped core, separately from the magnetic path of the input coils, the two fluxes cannot "see" each other too much.   
I attached a picture grabbed from their site to see how their core looks like, (I drew green dots on where I mean).  The link with the pictures is here: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page5.html 

And this is their only English text page with some explanation: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html

They included a video from their measurements of the COP of 2, about 78MB in size: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page8.html

Several MEGs have been built in Meg_builders group (censored by moderators) as per Bearden/Naudin but not any one of them achieved higher than COP of  0.85--0.9 during an active 4-5 years periode.  (Then came the link (last year) of the Bulgarian MEG with the claim of COP of 2. There has been silence in that group since then...)
I am 100% sure the failure in the group has had two reasons:
---they did not make the output coils on separated magnetic circuits
---they were not aware of a very important thing, the role of the small air gaps, you wrote after Steven's excellent video:
"The reason I have the air gaps in the design is so that the PM field returns to its respective primary core when the EM fields is turned off."   

Maybe there some more small (or not small) tricks embedded in the Bulgarian MEG to get that COP of 2 I do not know.  Perhaps Steven already knows one or two more I wonder?  Only tests can tell.

rgds,  Gyula

[nwman]

gyula,

Thanks for your info.

Tim,  with my previous mail I meant the problem is a direct flux connection between input and output coils, just like in case of normal transformers.  And as such, the output power you wish to take out will include a certain part from the input power (say you make the same amount of flux by the EM like your permanent magnets have, then half of the the total induced power at coils C and D will come from your input power you furnished).  You may say who cares if it is still ou? 

We are on the same page. I totally expected that the input power would travel through the input coil and be collected by the output coils. It should be easy to loop that power [if there is ou] back around and self feed the input coils. Thats a small [ ha ha ] detail which can be dealt with if there is OU. For now I'm trying to justify spending the time and money on R&D. I have spent too much money on "ideas" in the past and I want to make sure I'm not over looking anything obvious and costly?

Is there any other problems you can foresee? Or does it simply come down to testing to see if the PM actually adds to the flux field of the EM?

What percent of increase in flux would be needed to determine a positive gain? 50% stronger, 100% stronger, 200%?
Again, from what I know an electromagnets field should be within 90%+ [given ideal construction] of its potential field so if a gain of 50% is achieved then it should have a 40% gain? Correct?

So if I do a simple attraction force test with the EM and EM-PM and it shows an increase of over 50%[random #] then it could be wise to conclude that OU is achieved and full scale R&D is required? I know people that can professionally construct and refine this idea but I don't want to make myself look like a fool in front of them.

 
Any other comments or concerns?

Thanks again,

Tim