Energy gain by induction change.

[broli]

Yes I have been pointed to those links. But the situation here is not the same. In this concept inductance and current do not vary at the same time! When current increases the inductance is constant at a low value. Then when the inductance increases the current is constant with no voltage applied (if it's a super conductor). So they do not change simultaneously. The crucial part is the nature of saturation. If materials didn't saturate then this concept would not work as you would end up with the coil sensing flux change and thus producing a back EMF as the magnet moves away.

You can do this test for yourself. First short the coil and rotate the magnet and note the back emf. Then apply a DC that saturates the core and rotate the magnet at the same speed, you will see the back emf to be much lower than the no DC test. Not zero of course since saturation hysteresis is not ideal. This basically means that the field of the magnet is not amplified by the core since the core is already saturated, thus the net flux change is also small producing way less back emf.

I would also say that you don't need strong magnets. Neo magnets cause over saturation at small distances so they have to be quite far from the core to saturate it just barely. So instead ferrite magnets could be used as well at closer distances.

[danmarius7]

I advise you to go over the presentation again. The coil isn't energized to allow the magnet to leave easily it's the contrary. You should redo your math and logic. You can do this experiment step wise but you'll need a super conductor so current keeps flowing without a voltage source.

step 1: Let magnet attract to core => mechanical energy gain
step 2: Add current to already saturated core due to magnet => inductive energy loss, but is little due to low inductance
step 3: Move magnet away => mechanical energy loss, is more than the gained in step 1 since coil field is constant as magnet moves away
step 4: Discharge coil => inductive energy gain, at first sight this is a lot more than the mechanical loss and inputted inductive energy

You see, there's no time variables.

This is EXACTLY what Shawn said in his Steorn Orbo new 2010 presentation. Care to tell us the secret behind theory to practice?

[gravityblock]

This is EXACTLY what Shawn said in his Steorn Orbo new 2010 presentation. Care to tell us the secret behind theory to practice?

A conventional motor has a BEMF induced that is in opposition to the EMF of the battery driving it.  This leads to a loss in induction.

In an OU motor/generator such as the Orbo and the concept that Broli is talking about, the BEMF is a negative time flow of current.  Since this negative time flow of current is flowing backwards in time, it then becomes an EMF that is not in opposition to the battery, but is with the EMF of the battery.  This leads to an energy gain in induction.

Saen is right about manipulating the "time frames".  The negative time flow of BEMF would be a positive EMF with the same polarity as the battery, which is a gain in energy and makes it OU.  There are no time variables just like Broli said.


GB

[broli]

Attached is a refreshed design of this dated thread. This is a more practical setup. With ideal core hysteresis placing 4 coils 4kW should be reachable. But we need to discuss most fitting cores. The most important thing is a low remanent field.