Overunity.com Archives

Hello :)

Here I share with you yet another idea about manufacturing a Lenz free generator and I also mention a big problem in pulse motors and talk about how to over come that common problem. I hope you enjoy it. If you think something is wrong, please point out the problem so we can discuss about the technical side of the design. 

Here you can find the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY&list=UUXEFFysykQp53qAVElhrAgg

Best Regards
Sam

Quote from: life is illusion on December 21, 2014, 06:36:25 PM
Hello :)

Here I share with you yet another idea about manufacturing a Lenz free generator and I also mention a big problem in pulse motors and talk about how to over come that common problem. I hope you enjoy it. If you think something is wrong, please point out the problem so we can discuss about the technical side of the design. 

Here you can find the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY&list=UUXEFFysykQp53qAVElhrAgg

Best Regards
Sam

The curret will continue to flow in the same direction when you switch of the coils, and thus the magnetic field will remain the same-it will not revers fields as you stated in your video, which means your system will not work as you think it will.

I have always been under the impression that when current direction changes, (like when we pick up the BEMF) the magnetic flied of solenoid will change as well. I mean how can magnetic field stay the same when a REVERSED current is running through the solenoid, is picked up by diodes and charges a cap, battery or lighting a lamp? :)

When you push water around a hydraulic circuit to do some work you naturally expect some back pressure right? Water acts as a medium which extends, or carries, the work from one place to another place. Like a string, a chain , rope etc. Electrical generators pump electrons instead of water, so of course you expect a back pressure when the electrons you are pushing around are doing some work in the load.  I wouldn't even bother calling it Lenz's law, just common sense.  If you want over unity, forget trying  to trick nature , find another source of energy to tap into. If you really believe in this Sam, by all means start experimenting, I'm simply expressing my views on the science , as you and all others are welcome to do in any of my threads. Survival on this forum for more than a few years requires a tough hide , perseverance and the ability to overcome failure.

Tinman is correct, the current does not change direction.  Coils have "electrical inertia" that is analogous to the inertia associated with a moving mass.

Sam
You also have to believe that men like Tesla were lying when they said they could do the impossible
{Wardenclyffe } and many other very credible men  were also lying or scammers in the past .


yeah,  nothing to see here move along.............


::)


welcome to the forum where a few men who " Don't"  spend a lot of time telling men who "do"


"how its done" as well as Wearing out the google search and "cut and paste" buttons on their 'Expert" computers.


yeah,They know everything about everything ..
just ask em they'll gladly tell you.


Chet

Chet:

You are way off base.  The clips are a swiss cheese of mistakes and incorrect conclusions.  That's the reality.  If you are not that technical about electronics, then fine.  You will have to take my word for it.

Your little dance in your posting is growing tired, nor does it apply here.

MileHigh

Yes MH
I grow tired too,tired of the men that would put Finite limits on infinite possibilities.
and use the  same broad  brush and lazy tactics as an excuse to never actually Build anything.


whilst never really Doing anything themselves , except a whole lot of Google search and cut and pasting.


yes there are valid points at times ,but they in no way justify the Broad brush approach as well as attempts to stifle experiments in things like Lenz , magnetism, Gravity,water fuel ,or energy harvesting from Matter or the environment.


we just don't know enuff about these things to take such a stance .


Oh yes there are secrets ,when it comes to money..? "you betcha",the Chinese kept a worm secret for 5000 years .because they could control the technology.


when it comes to money and control there are things which we are not supposed to play with or know how to do.


but that's changing ..as ALL such things eventually do.


if your weary Take a nap...

I just wanted to welcome the New Kid ,.I like his handle .
I'll leave you be...

Chet

Quote from: life is illusion on December 21, 2014, 08:02:05 PM
I have always been under the impression that when current direction changes, (like when we pick up the BEMF) the magnetic flied of solenoid will change as well. I mean how can magnetic field stay the same when a REVERSED current is running through the solenoid, is picked up by diodes and charges a cap, battery or lighting a lamp? :)

When we apply voltage across a coil, magnetic field increases and current increases. The self inductance offers impedance to magnetic field and current build, because as the field that is building cuts the coils windings produces current influence opposite of the input. So the field and current increase are not instantaneous.   lol, thats why I imagine a super conductive inductor to not pass any current at all, because without losses, the self induced impedance, again, without losses, would never let current flow from the input. ;D

Now, when we cut the input, the field, of the same polarity that was produced, collapses and the fields 'cut' the coil windings inward instead of outward, causing currents in the coil to want to go forward, the same direction as the input produced.

But, if the switch, which ever kind it may be, is shut off without allowing the HV developed by the field collapse to to cross the gap/terminals/semiconductor, then the coil field collapse will produce a HV charge from end to end, with no where to go. So the high voltage potential across the coil produces a reverse current, in turn producing a reverse field.  But the switch needs to be able to resist the high voltage when the switch is opened. Like in a reed switch of a pulse motor, the spark when the switch opens drains the forward voltage from the coil and the coil does not produce back emf, and the field of the coil doesnt get a chance to reverse. Just saying, under special circumstances, yes, the current and the field of the coil can reverse if once the input is cut, the coil is isolated enough to allow the coil to build to full voltage from the field collapse. Then it has to reverse.  Then use a diode to send that energy simply back to the battery.

In fact, if the input is cut, and the coil is left completely isolated, with no where for the currents of the coil to go in either direction, the coil will oscillate, at a very high freq, till it dies off due to losses.

So I say yes, there can be a reversal of current and magnetic field, under the right conditions. ;)

Mags

Chet:

Quoteattempts to stifle experiments in things like Lenz

You have to understand.  "Stifle" is your word.  Meanwhile I encouraged Tinman to do his experiment.

What you don't understand is that discussing the alleged "Delayed Lenz effect" is not an attempt to stifle, it's an attempt to educate so that people are on the right track when they do their research.

You are taking a "circle the wagons" approach.  You know, "We do things the wrong way and we don't care if it is the wrong way and leave us alone."  That attitude is the antithesis of what people should be embracing.  You know the famous story where in the early 20th century a fossil researcher put the wrong head on a dinosaur skeleton?  Everybody thought it was right.  50 or 60 years later they dug up a new skeleton that this time included the head.  Shortly after that in museums around the world the caretakers were taking the wrong heads off of their dinosaur skeletons on display.

The "delayed Lenz effect" is analogous to having the wrong head on the dinosaur skeleton.  Ignorance is not cool.  After a certain point willful ignorance is simply stupidity.

MileHigh

life is illusion (may I call you lii) , I found your vids interesting. Me too, was thinking that a coil causes a reverse current flow when switched "off". It takes a while to build up the B field when turned on, energy is stored in the B field, just like in a cap. You turn it off, then that energy is still there, the field collapses and the current flows back. It may be ideal to shorten this reverse current, so the coil rings on the back EMF. however, I find it rather tricky to harvest the back EMF with diodes because you don't want the fwd EMF to go the same way.
One method would be, since the Back EMF tends to be a HV Spike, compared to the fwd voltage, to use a sparkgap to extract the back EMF. By doing so, it may be possible to even grab some additonal free electrons in an electron-avalanche situation ala Townsend-Brown.


Keep it up, I'd like to see somebody build a prototype. This Bitoroid Gen has some serious potential, considering some bitoroid successes using metglas cores, as seen on tube.

Quote from: Magluvin on December 21, 2014, 11:51:40 PM

When we apply voltage across a coil, magnetic field increases and current increases. The self inductance offers impedance to magnetic field and current build, because as the field that is building cuts the coils windings produces current influence opposite of the input. So the field and current increase are not instantaneous.   lol, thats why I imagine a super conductive inductor to not pass any current at all, because without losses, the self induced impedance, again, without losses, would never let current flow from the input. ;D

Now, when we cut the input, the field, of the same polarity that was produced, collapses and the fields 'cut' the coil windings inward instead of outward, causing currents in the coil to want to go forward, the same direction as the input produced.

But, if the switch, which ever kind it may be, is shut off without allowing the HV developed by the field collapse to to cross the gap/terminals/semiconductor, then the coil field collapse will produce a HV charge from end to end, with no where to go. So the high voltage potential across the coil produces a reverse current, in turn producing a reverse field.  But the switch needs to be able to resist the high voltage when the switch is opened. Like in a reed switch of a pulse motor, the spark when the switch opens drains the forward voltage from the coil and the coil does not produce back emf, and the field of the coil doesnt get a chance to reverse. Just saying, under special circumstances, yes, the current and the field of the coil can reverse if once the input is cut, the coil is isolated enough to allow the coil to build to full voltage from the field collapse. Then it has to reverse.  Then use a diode to send that energy simply back to the battery.

In fact, if the input is cut, and the coil is left completely isolated, with no where for the currents of the coil to go in either direction, the coil will oscillate, at a very high freq, till it dies off due to losses.

So I say yes, there can be a reversal of current and magnetic field, under the right conditions. ;)

Mags

Mag's
If the inductor become's open circuit(power interupted),and the inductive kickback has no where to go,then there will be no current flow(or an extreem small amount),and the magnetic field will collap's almost instantly. Current cannot reverse direction if there is no current,and it is current that creat's the magnetic field-not voltage.Only the voltage reverses polarity,not the current when the power supply is disconected from the inductor-->this is the very reason the negative terminal of the charge battery is hooked to the positive terminal of the run battery in the SSG circuit.

@LII
The current will continue to flow in the same direction.
The magnetic field will remain the same polarity(if we can call it polarity)
Only the voltage across the inductor will change polarity.
The lower the resistance of the load capturing the inductive kickback,the longer it will take for the magnetic field to collaps.

@ Chet.
I dont see this as being any different to school,where the teachers correct your mistakes so as you learn. I see many here haveing a dig at MH,but i see him as a great teacher,and only once has it been me that corrected MH(yes,im learning through bench time). Is he any different to that of poynt99,TK and the like's?,the guys that point out our mistakes,and give solid explinations as to why some asumptions are wrong. It's these guys(poynt,TK,MH) that have allowed me to get to where i am today(along with my own experimentation),the guys that show me the path to correct test method's,and correct outcomes. When i first started out in all this FE stuff,i built a pulse motor that i thought was way OU ;D-->i can now sit back and have a good laugh at myself. If it wasnt for these guy's,i'd still be leeding myself up the garden path--you know this with a couple of devices that i had poynt spend quite some time on with me. The only one i havnt figured out yet is my dad's little setup,but one day i will know enough to work that out too-->that is what im waiting for.

Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2014, 06:57:07 AM

@LII
The current will continue to flow in the same direction.
The magnetic field will remain the same polarity(if we can call it polarity)
Only the voltage across the inductor will change polarity.
The lower the resistance of the load capturing the inductive kickback,the longer it will take for the magnetic field to collaps.

Thanks everyone for commenting :)
And Tinman, I am very glad that I can finally talk to you, I have been watching your vids and learning a lot from you ^_^

Back to the topic:
I'm uploading a drawing for you and in the drawing we can see a normal DC electricity running through a solenoid and producing N pole at the entrance of positive pole! Then after disconnecting the current, the BEMF is being used to run a load. By doing so, the direction of current is changed, the voltage and current both are going the opposite direction and thus I think they are going to be generating an opposite magnetic pole just simply because positive is not in the same place it was in, thus the N pole can't stay in its place either :)

I also would like to say that the existence of magnetic field in an electromagnet is absolutely dependent on the flow of current. So in an air core solenoid when we disconnect the current flow, the electromagnetic field around the solenoid will collapse and disappear immediately regardless of we collect the BEMF or not. But if we DO collect the BEMF, just like I explained earlier, the current changes direction and I assume it will change the poles of electromagnet. The current of BEMF is much weaker that the main input, so the changed magnetic poles might not be as strong as the main poles but I think they still do exist and can cause a small problem in system :)

Quote from: life is illusion on December 21, 2014, 08:02:05 PM
I have always been under the impression that when current direction changes, (like when we pick up the BEMF) the magnetic flied of solenoid will change as well. I mean how can magnetic field stay the same when a REVERSED current is running through the solenoid, is picked up by diodes and charges a cap, battery or lighting a lamp? :)

Just like when a capacitor stores voltage putting a non-powerful minus voltage on the wire does not immediately switch the capacitor
to minus (it takes time to discharge). Then it becomes minus after a time delay. An inductor does exactly the same thing
*except* the => inductor does that with current <=.  If you look up the mathematical definition of a capacitor and compare
it with the mathematical definition of an inductor in Wikipedia, you will see that e voltage potential is replaced by i current
in their respective equations. The magnetic field takes time to shrink when a non powerful current is applied so for a time the collapse
current overwhelms it. This is why an inductor+capacitor circuit will ring. If this ringing is done because of the inductance and
capacitance of "free space", an EMF wave will be transmitted through space. Light does this, so when light travels billions of years
between stars one can see that this LC relation must be perfectly described by it's mathematics as nearly as is possible.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: life is illusion on December 22, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
...

I'm uploading a drawing for you and in the drawing we can see a normal DC electricity running through a solenoid and producing N pole at the entrance of positive pole! Then after disconnecting the current, the BEMF is being used to run a load. By doing so, the direction of current is changed, the voltage and current both are going the opposite direction and thus I think they are going to be generating an opposite magnetic pole just simply because positive is not in the same place it was in, thus the N pole can't stay in its place either :)

....

Hi Sam,

When you have time please edit your post with the high sized picture attachment above and use  max of 860 pixels horizontally, that is the pleasant acceptable size so that we do not have to scroll forever horizontally to read the posts. You can edit your post within 12 hours, after that you cannot Modify it. (You can find your Modify possibility if you scroll to the very right of you post...  :) )  You can use MS Windows Paint to resize it easily.

I edited your drawing to explain how the current directions are and why the original poles of electromagnet do not change (only diminish towards zero). 
When you switch off the current in a coil, it is the polarity of the voltage across the coil which changes, the current starts to decrease towards zero but its original direction does not change.  Its amplitude changes to a lower and lower value till full dissipation by a load and by the losses but its direction does not change in the switch-off moment.   The coil becomes a generator with instanteneous output voltage polarities as you also indicated in red, hence the current direction in the coil remains the same as was from the input voltage source. 

Why the induced voltage polarity changes after the switch-off with respect to the input voltage: the change in the magnetic field reverses from an increasing (or already steady) state to a decreasing state as the field collapses.

Keep up the ideas coming, possibly with practical tests if you can.

Gyula

Hello  gyulasun :)

I edited the pic, I hope its better now. And thank you very much for explaining the details to me. I have been scratching my head about this for a long time and now I finally understand it :D Thanks a lot! But do you see any problems in the generator side? If yes, could you please be kind and tell me about those as well? :) I just wanna learn and I appreciate any guidance and help very much :)

Best Regards
Sam

So let me get this straight, you guys say the current "flows" forward while the voltage was inverted?


Wow. Then those guys who use diodes to protect circuits from being destroyed by BEMF kickbacks must be fools. I mean, what is voltage without current? Or does the current also "flow" against the voltage in semiconductors? Does the current have anything to do with the voltage at all?


It must be the same when I go to the left and my shadow turns right. Silly is he who thinks reversing the electrical polarity will also reverse the electromagnetical polarity :D


To be honest, this contradicts everything I have read, learned and experienced. I am getting to a point where I see wikipedia as a giantic disinformation tool. Sorry guys.

 Revese Lenz  :)  ...   If the load is connected to the coil, the coil is approached to the magnet occurs
     braking according to Lenz's rule. And if the coil is filled with the magnetic field of the opposite
     sign, when approaching a magnet following the rule of Lenz will accelerate! and acceleration
     will be greater, the more energy will be removed from the coil ! This occurs because
     interaction with different magnetic poles in the field coil decreases. this leads
     change the direction of the current in the coil to the opposite compared to the classical case,
     which leads to an acceleration of the generator rotor. This principle is : Kromrey ,
      Ecklin.....

Hello Dieter,

Please try to understand what I wrote. From the moment of the current switch-off the coil becomes a generator and the polarity of instanteneous peak (or spike) voltage will be just the opposite polarity to the input voltage which caused the input current. And this reverse polarity peak voltage can only drive a current in the same direction via the load which closes the coil circuit.
What you mention on the protecting diodes, it is okay because if you check the direction of a protecting diode in parallel with a relay coil for instance, the anode of the diode is connected to the negative point of the coil when the other end of the coil receives the input positive polarity of a battery, ok? The diode is reverse biased for the input battery voltage but the spike created right after the current switch-off will forward-bias the diode which is in parallel with the coil, right?

Study the schematic I modified for Sam and understand first the polarity of the input and the induced voltages (induced by the field collapse) across the coil and then think of the coil as the remaining generator in a closed circuit after the input current switched off.  The two current directions will be the same.   

Gyula

Ooooouki douki :D

I trimmed the video and took out the pulse motor part :D So now lets see what can we take out of the generator side ;)

I'm so glad I learned about my mistake. Thanks a lot Tinman and Gyula, I really appreciate it :) <3

Best Regards
Sam

Quote from: life is illusion on December 22, 2014, 12:44:29 PM
Hello  gyulasun :)

I edited the pic, I hope its better now. And thank you very much for explaining the details to me. I have been scratching my head about this for a long time and now I finally understand it :D Thanks a lot! But do you see any problems in the generator side? If yes, could you please be kind and tell me about those as well? :) I just wanna learn and I appreciate any guidance and help very much :)

Best Regards
Sam

Hi Sam,

Okay on the picture size now...  :D

Do you mean this video on your generator question? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY 

Or you mean you are going to edit a video?

Hi :)

Yes the same video, I just removed the second part and now it only contains the generator part :)

Best Regards
Sam

Quote from: BorisKrabow on December 22, 2014, 01:44:26 PM
Revese Lenz  :)  ...   If the load is connected to the coil, the coil is approached to the magnet then braking occurs according to Lenz's rule.

The Lenz's law does not state that braking will occur in such situation.  This law states only the direction of the induced voltage & current.  It does not even state their magnitude which makes it a qualitative law ( bummer :( )

The braking (drag) is caused by the electrical resistance of the coil (and load).
If the coil conducts with zero resistance, then it will repel an approaching magnet as well as a departing magnet.
The work done during the approach & departure will be the same with an ideal shorted coil.

Quote from: BorisKrabow on December 22, 2014, 01:44:26 PM
And if the coil is filled with the magnetic field of the opposite sign, when approaching a magnet following the rule of Lenz will accelerate!

Yes, the coil will attempt to keep itself "filled" with constant magnitude of this magnetic flux (of opposite sign to the magnet's pole) and an approaching magnet will be attracted to such coil (accelerated).
...but this magnet will also be attracted back to this coil during its departure with the same force over distance, thus the work performed during the approach & departure will still be the same with an ideal shorted coil.

See this video:
http://youtu.be/CvShY8YAis4

Quote from: life is illusion on December 22, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
Thanks everyone for commenting :)
And Tinman, I am very glad that I can finally talk to you, I have been watching your vids and learning a lot from you ^_^

Back to the topic:
I'm uploading a drawing for you and in the drawing we can see a normal DC electricity running through a solenoid and producing N pole at the entrance of positive pole! Then after disconnecting the current, the BEMF is being used to run a load. By doing so, the direction of current is changed, the voltage and current both are going the opposite direction and thus I think they are going to be generating an opposite magnetic pole just simply because positive is not in the same place it was in, thus the N pole can't stay in its place either :)

I also would like to say that the existence of magnetic field in an electromagnet is absolutely dependent on the flow of current. So in an air core solenoid when we disconnect the current flow, the electromagnetic field around the solenoid will collapse and disappear immediately regardless of we collect the BEMF or not. But if we DO collect the BEMF, just like I explained earlier, the current changes direction and I assume it will change the poles of electromagnet. The current of BEMF is much weaker that the main input, so the changed magnetic poles might not be as strong as the main poles but I think they still do exist and can cause a small problem in system :)

Thanks for the complement LII,it is nice to know that some get some use out of my video's. But in saying that,there are those here that know a far greater deal than i do,as im what you would call!young! at this stuff,and still have much to learn.

But some truth's that i know that may help you out some more.
1-and probably the biggest one that throws a spanner in the works is-no current will be produced without the lenz force present. The more you reduce the lenz force,the less current will be produced by the generating coil. Always remember that to date,every action has an equal and opposite reaction--the generators magnetic field will always want to push against the rotors permanent magnetic field as much as the permanent magnetic field wants to push against the generators magnetic field-->equal and apposing fields.

Current flow through a wire can be seen like water flowing through a pipe,and most electrical circuits can be replicated useing water,pipes and valves. Below is a video that i would concider to be the very same as an inductive kickback circuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSE4GeWszg

Tinman, I hope you don't mind, but you said several things that are not only incorrect, but unneccessarily discouraging.

Quote
the generators magnetic field will always want to push against the rotors permanent magnetic field as much as the permanent magnetic field wants to push against the generators magnetic field

The Generators field (or more precisely the pickup coils field) has no idea where the PM is. It cannot think or want something. All it does is, it builds up a B-Field by its own, due to current flow. It is only because of the common coil design practice that the coils B field is focused so "effectively" on the PM. It is possible to design coils with high pickup efficiency and low electromagnet features, eg. by diffusion and also by closed loop cores.
These coils may require more space, but that should be ok.
You sure may not know how field diffusion is achieved and therefor you may disagree.
The approach is simple: make a coil that is a miserable electromagnet, but picks up induction rather well.
First you have to drop the usual openloop core. Then try a pancake monofilar that is shaped as a hemisphere.
Think about why are the poles of a pancake not radiant? (like south in the center, north at the rim) Because the domains tend to parallelize... they don't want to have a higher density at one pole than at the other, at least to some degree. On a hemispherical coil the field is radiant (in the sense of a sphere) like fur and diffuse. Furthermore, a stack of hemispheres can be used, with some space between them.


Well I don't think you Tinman are now convinced, but I hope some others will find it useful.


Peace

Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2014, 06:57:07 AM
Mag's
If the inductor become's open circuit(power interupted),and the inductive kickback has no where to go,then there will be no current flow(or an extreem small amount),and the magnetic field will collap's almost instantly. Current cannot reverse direction if there is no current,and it is current that creat's the magnetic field-not voltage.Only the voltage reverses polarity,not the current when the power supply is disconected from the inductor-->this is the very reason the negative terminal of the charge battery is hooked to the positive terminal of the run battery in the SSG circuit.

Hey Tin

There is capacitance within the coil. The coil itself can have a resonant freq. It can oscillate when pulsed. It is a very tiny capacitance. So with the coil completely isolated from being able to discharge in the forward direction during field collapse, the charge is within the coils capacitance. Once the field collapses all the way, the charge across the coil will be peaked out. Once the charge begins to reverse, and we allow a path in reverse(back to battery, source) using a diode across the switch, then the field in the coil builds(because of current flow ) in the opposite polarity and the discharge goes back to source. The key is the switch, One that when turned of, will not allow the forward current. Like the spark in a reed of a pulse motor, the spark or blue glow is the switch leaking forward discharge from the coil, so no reversal of current or field.
It works in sim also.


Mags

Quote from: life is illusion on December 22, 2014, 12:44:29 PM
....
But do you see any problems in the generator side? If yes, could you please be kind and tell me about those as well? :) I just wanna learn and I appreciate any guidance and help very much :)
....

Hi Sam,

I took a snapshot from your video on the generator and indicated flux directions with two black and one red arrow. When any of the rotor magnets enters the airgap on the left (open) side of the C core, flux from the rotor magnet will choose two directions (trying to make a closed magnetic path) as the two black arrows indicate, first suppose there is no load and no capacitor on the output coil.
I assume the two cross sections of core path A and core path B are equal as are the permeabilities, and I know that path B may be a little longer than path A.

You can consider the two flux directions A and B as two low value resistors in parallel i.e. good flux conductors and an input current (the flux from the rotor magnet) flows through both of them when you connect a battery across them i.e. the flux entering from the magnet is shared more or less equally by the two pathes: Phi_total=Phi_A + Phi_B where Phi_total is the flux from any one entering magnet. 
This means that path B shunts path A (and vice versa of course) and roughly half of the input flux of a rotor magnet will participate in induction from the output coil point of view. This is bad news...

Now suppose you use a load resistor across the output coil (and no tuning capacitor yet). The red arrow indicates this counter flux what you mention and label as N2 in the video. This counter flux as you mention will close its magnetic circuit to S2 via path B.
You mentioned flux N2 can close its magnetic circuit via path B to S2, I agree.

Now if you use a tuning capacitor across the output coil to get resonance with the rotating magnets speed, two things may happen: one is that the induced voltage will be enhanced in amplitude by the Q quality factor of the RLC parallel resonant circuit and the other thing is that the resonant current in the coil (which is not present in the untuned case) may cause a drag to the rotor.
I do not think the output power will be higher by the mere application of a tuned circuit for the generator output, perhaps matching the load to this RLC circuit can optimize the output with respect to an untuned case (but of course a partial matching can also be done in the untuned case).
Regarding your further idea on increasing the output power by using further C cores: I do not think they would work and do what you expect them to do, (see my bad news above),  each added C core is bound to shunt each other, flux will be divided to as many pathes as the number of C cores.

I would draw your attention to John Bedini's almost similar setup where he also used rotor magnets embedded in a disk that enter and leave the (magnet biased) stator cores, see here his patent and the differences:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6392370 (https://www.google.com/patents/US6392370)

If you are lucky, then member erfinder may read this thread and perhaps will make some good pieces of advice on the Bedini setup because erfinder studied it deeply if I am not mistaken. 

Hope this helps.  If you have questions, I'll answer if I can  :)

Merry Xmas to you all.

Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on December 24, 2014, 11:04:36 AM

I took a snapshot from your video on the generator and indicated flux directions with two black and one red arrow. When any of the rotor magnets enters the airgap on the left (open) side of the C core, flux from the rotor magnet will choose two directions (trying to make a closed magnetic path) as the two black arrows indicate, first suppose there is no load and no capacitor on the output coil.

Gyula

Dear Gyula,
Thank you for explaining all that, I appreciate it :)
I agree with everything you mentioned, at least with everything I understood :D So I decided to make a small change in the shape of the core. Would you please let me know what you think about this one? In the picture we can see the same solenoid in different stages of construction. First I think we can make the central core and wind the mag wire around it. Then we could do the rest of the casting and add the iron oxide glue mixture to the sides of the central core to dry. By doing so, the N1 will have to go through the solenoid regardless of N2 pushing it away or not. I mean the N1 will cut the solenoid and induce current on the solenoid and when N2 is generated it will take the path of bypass and move away from the rotor. N1 has 3 options:

1_ Go back to the rotor and fight the incoming magnets.
2_ Go through the central core and find S1
3_ Go through the bypass along N2.

Do you think this "modification" will helps us in here at all?

BR
Sam

P.S Merry Christmas to all :)

Hi Sam,

If I got it correctly, the difference in your above drawing and the one in the video is that the ends of the generator coil (i.e. the winding) are extended to be in the incoming flux path, before the incoming flux is just about to branch.
However this is but a few percent more flux to have it participate in induction because the total length of the coil is still placed on the I core where still nearly half of the incoming flux is available for induction only.

So I can see a trifle difference in the possible operation between the two setups of the two drawings, I think they are quasi identical, hence the incoming magnet flux is still divided into path A and path B as my arrows showed.

You drew a dotted arrow for N1 towards path B and you drew a solid arrow for N1 towards path A: what makes you think that N1 would not go towards path B when entering the modified setup?

There would be a possibility to insure that flux N1 should not choose path B: letting some air gap between the I core of the solenoid and the C core on the right hand side. This way you would have a means of controlling the magnetic reluctance of the magnetic path and you could steer almost all the incoming flux towards the I core of the solenoid and only a little flux towards the C core on the right.

However, this air gap will also be present when the counter flux N2 appears (and it does appear in the very moment you attach a load resistor across the generator coil) so that the reluctance introduced will be there for N2 too.

However, the fact that the air gap can be chosen much smaller between the I and right hand side C core than the gap on the left side where the rotor magnets enter, you have a means for a trade-off how much part of the input flux participate in the desired induction in the I core and how much counterflux you let towards the right hand side C core.

And it still remains to be seen whether such air-gapped setup would produce more output power than it is needed for maintaining the rotation of the rotor magnets...   :(
Only carefully building it with minimal cogging to ultimately reduce input power and correct measuring can answer this. And, unfortunately, nobody has come along with positive results... (positive=more output than input) 
And of course this may mean two things: it is not possible to get more out than in with such setup, or those who did get more out than in keep silence...  ::)

One notice, you wrote this:  "By doing so, the N1 will have to go through the solenoid regardless of N2 pushing it away or not. I mean the N1 will cut the solenoid and induce current on the solenoid and when N2 is generated it will take the path of bypass and move away from the rotor."

As per Lenz law, it is not possible in your setup that flux N2 (i.e. the counter flux) should not fight against N1 in the I core too which is part of the core path for the solenoid. Because the source of flux N2 is the solenoid itself, when you attach a load to it, you immediately create and launch a second "rotor magnet" which ruins almost everything, showers most of the sunshine away...

Gyula

Hi guyz.
In the attachment you can find a good solution to this. It is a frame from a guy's YT vid from a while back.
I works like this:
A magnet has to be strong enough to almost saturate the thin, front part of the core.
The center part, where the coil is has to be twice as thick as the front part to make some room for the CEMF flux from the loaded
generator coil which is being looped by the back keeper part of the core assembly. So the CEMF flux is effectively decoupled from the source
and does not influence EMF flux and thus the moving magnet.


@Gyula
I disagree with you on that, that the flux from the magnet will go through both legs of the core. If the permeability of the center core is high enough
the flux will take the shortest route leaving the back 'CEMF keeper' part of the core unaffected, ready to receive the flux from the generator coil.

Now we just have to organize the geometry around the rotor as in Muller ODD/EVEN no magnets/coils and we have ourselves an excellent OU generator :)
kEhYo

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 25, 2014, 07:20:39 AM
@Gyula
I disagree with you on that, that the flux from the magnet will go through both legs of the core. If the permeability of the center core is high enough the flux will take the shortest route leaving the back 'CEMF keeper' part of the core unaffected, ready to receive the flux from the generator coil.

and I agree with Guyla's analysis.
You are wrong that all the flux takes the shortest route (or the path of least reluctance).
The magnetic flux takes all parallel routes inversely proportionally to their reluctances.

Quote from: NoBull on December 25, 2014, 10:07:43 AM
and I agree with Guyla's analysis.
You are wrong that all the flux takes the shortest route (or the path of least reluctance).
The magnetic flux takes all parallel routes inversely proportionally to their reluctances.

Finally! I've been waiting for someone to point this out. Thank you NoBull for your knowledge and your willingness to share it. (You may find that it is a thankless task, here, though.)

Quote from: NoBull on December 25, 2014, 10:07:43 AM
and I agree with Guyla's analysis.
You are wrong that all the flux takes the shortest route (or the path of least reluctance).
The magnetic flux takes all parallel routes inversely proportionally to their reluctance.

How do you explain the behavior of flux switching in Flynn device then? Like in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4PWiyN1G7I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4PWiyN1G7I)
Clearly there one can make flux to go through one side or the other and the opposite side is unaffected there.
The reluctance ot the path from magnet to coils core is lower than from magnet to the back part of the core.
The flux will take the path of lower reluctance in the case of CEMF too. As the front part of the core is almost saturated,
The back 'keeper' part of the core exhibits lower reluctance than the saturated front so the CEMF flux takes that route.

Quote from: gyulasun on December 25, 2014, 06:45:32 AM

Gyula

Hi Gyula :)
Thanks again for taking your time and explaining all these for me, that is very kind of you :) I agree with almost everything you mentioned but I think there has to be a way to go around Lenz's law! I think we should just think and push as hard as we can and I'm sure we will break through this wall. I think if we all give it thought and work on it, we can do it :) That's why I'm gonna fire one more of my crazy designs hoping that this one might give us a bit more energy compared to the previous ones ;)
Would you please be kind and let me know what you think about this one? And forgive me if I keep repeating the same mistakes, it must be because of my lake of knowledge in the filed of magnetism and electricity :)
In this design, on the right side of the picture I tried to show that the core must be rotated 90 degrees towards us so that the shunt would be positioned at 90 degrees compared to the plate that magnets are rotating at.

@ kEhYo77 :) Thank you my friend for sharing this design. And the video you shared was truly AMAZING. Thanks a lot for making this clear for us :) Would you please let me know how could I find more information about this design? under what name it goes and who did it please? :) And I also think that magnetic current takes the shortest path until the path is fully saturated and then the rest of the flux will take the second path :) Thank you everybody for sharing your thoughts in here, this is amazing and I really appreciate it :)

Hi kEhYo77,

In the second paragraph of my Reply #26,  I wrote that (for the analysis)  "I assume the two cross sections of core path A and core path B are equal as are the permeabilities, and I know that path B may be a little longer than path A."

Also, in my Reply #28,  I mentioned magnetic reluctance and that the reluctance of path B can be controlled by introducing an air gap.

I agree with you in that by carefully choosing the core materials for path A (center core) and for path B (the C core on the right hand side) the incoming flux can be kept under control as to how much part of it should go to which direction.

I have just noticed your parallel path example video and I think the setup as Sam (life is illusion) drew it has a huge difference from a parallel path setup: Sam did not leave any air gap between the center and C core on the right, and this is crucial from an entering flux point of view. 

Gyula

@life is illusion
There is only this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySId1F9YKvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySId1F9YKvM) as far as I know and I have not seen a replication yet.


@gyula
The parallel path just illustrates the behavior of flux switching nicely and an air gap is not required there. Without the gap it will
work just the same. Flux wants to take the most compact loop an once it is locked in there sitting pretty there is no easy way
to change that (like adding route for the flux will not change the distribution pattern of the flux lines to expand to available new space).


BTW the solution presented in this thread works on the basis of Thane's BiTT and he does not have any air gaps to make it work.
It is just a mechanical equivalent.


kEhYo

This looks very simmilar to an ongoing project of mine albeit the flux path is slightly rearranged. I planned to use off the shelf transformers rather than expensive custom build ones. Below renderings shows the engineering model of the stator, rotors (which should go on both sides) are not shown here, and an earlier illustration of the overall concept.
It's good to see others thinking in this area.

Hi Broli as a matter of fact I am building one too! :)
I think that in your design the flux going through all the 3 legs of the core on rotation will inhibit performance.
But I guess we will see about that.
In mine, the attraction forces from magnet to the cores are distributed on 3 phases. So there are 3 points
of attraction at a time in the form of a triangle. 9/12 ratio gives nice reduction of cogging as well!


kEhYo

PLEASE DO NOT POST IMAGES THAT ARE WIDER THAN 1024 PIXELS !!

It screws up the page formatting, as you can see. You can use any number of different image processing programs to resize your images to a reasonable size, or you can crop out significant sections that need to be shown at higher resolution, etc. At one time there was an official notice about image sizes but I haven't seen it lately. Nevertheless, if you keep the images below 1024 pixels wide it will be easier on everybody viewing the page.

Hi kEhYo77,

There seems to some misunderstanding between you and me in that what we originally meant...  ::)

you wrote: "The parallel path just illustrates the behavior of flux switching nicely and an air gap is not required there. Without the gap it will work just the same. Flux wants to take the most compact loop an once it is locked in there sitting pretty there is no easy way to change that (like adding route for the flux will not change the distribution pattern of the flux lines to expand to available new space)."

I agree with all what you wrote above. What is more, I agree that Thane's BiTT setup has no air gap either, it does not need an air gap.
BUT Thane solved this as he wrote in his patent application, CA2594905: "The Bi- Transformer design also has one primary coil but it differs from conventional transformers in that it has two secondary coils. The two secondary coils are set on a Toroid shaped core with a reluctance which is maintained at a lower value than the primary core leg throughout the transformer's entire operating range. This can easily be accomplished by physically increasing the Toroid area or using transformer core material with a higher relative permeability." 

And Sam, (life is illusion) did not refer to any air gap or permeability condition in his setup for his center core and for his C core on the right hand side, so I had to define these conditions (to make real operation more understandable for his setup), and this is why I referred to an air gap as a possible means for influencing reluctance, when I answered to your reference to the parallel path setup shown in the video link. In Sam's setup in this thread there is an air gap into which the rotor magnets enter and the coming and leaving sequences of the magnets would represent Sam's primary "input coil", while Thane's setup has no air gap anywhere and his primary core is also a closed magnetic circuit with a given reluctance path versus his secondary path.


Does this all mean that in Sam's setup,  if the reluctances in the center core and in the C core on the right hand side are equal with each other,  then the incoming flux from the rotor magnets chooses both the center and the C cores i.e. input flux is divided into two (more or less equal) parts?  I think it does.

Now hopefully we can already be in the same boat from now on...   :) 8) :)


Gyula

Quote from: life is illusion on December 25, 2014, 12:38:54 PM
....
Would you please be kind and let me know what you think about this one? And forgive me if I keep repeating the same mistakes, it must be because of my lake of knowledge in the filed of magnetism and electricity :)
In this design, on the right side of the picture I tried to show that the core must be rotated 90 degrees towards us so that the shunt would be positioned at 90 degrees compared to the plate that magnets are rotating at.
....

Hi Sam,

Well, it is XMAS time, right.   :D ;D

I think that the setup you show in your drawing Lenzfree.jpg might be a bit better Lenz-wise than the generator setup shown in your shorted video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2kLZ5JqODY) )

From the input flux excitation point of view, there is no closed magnetic path, while there is a closed path for the counter flux created by the load in the generator coil. This may mean  that induction efficiency is less (I would say about 50% less) than in your above video setup where both poles of the rotor magnets participate in induction.

BUT the 50% less induction efficiency (my gut feeling estimation) with respect to the gen setup of the video is not neccessarily a drawback of course. Especially, when you consider that the counter flux (due to Lenz law) of the generator coil is able to create a closed magnetic path of low reluctance via the C core on the right hand side,  so chances are better that the counter flux should not readily leave the closed C-I core shape to work against the moving rotor magnets. This assumes the core never gets into saturation either from the rotor magnets flux or from the counter flux created by the load current. 
However, there is a chance also for the counter flux to prevent some rotor magnet flux entry to the core as per its own flux value that depends mainly on the value of load and the usual losses.  So I cannot say for certain this is a 'heureka' moment....

Whether my gut feeling estimation is correct or not, a practical cogging-free setup is needed to build to explore how Lenz law affects your setup.  Of course, you can play with different permeability cores or differing cross section cores,  to make a trade -off between parameters, all this need testing.

Gyula

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 25, 2014, 01:07:39 PM
Hi Broli as a matter of fact I am building one too! :)
I think that in your design the flux going through all the 3 legs of the core on rotation will inhibit performance.
But I guess we will see about that.
In mine, the attraction forces from magnet to the cores are distributed on 3 phases. So there are 3 points
of attraction at a time in the form of a triangle. 9/12 ratio gives nice reduction of cogging as well!

kEhYo

It's true that flux will be distributed over the three legs but it was important to get as much surface area covered under the magnet as possible. In ideal cases I would have liked to have one continuous ring to leave no gaps, see attached stator example. This would reduce cogging and any back torque effect (See Lafonte's minimal air gap demonstrations). But this turned out to be not very economical financial wise so I turned to cheaper alternatives.

This ring type of stator would introduce low reluctance path from magnet to magnet and I doubt that any significant flux would go through the coil's core part to the opposite side. Basicaly it would short out the flux.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 25, 2014, 06:06:03 PM
This ring type of stator would introduce low reluctance path from magnet to magnet and I doubt that any significant flux would go through the coil's core part to the opposite side. Basicaly it would short out the flux.

Correct... if you do not limit the amount of magnets on your rotor. At least that's what the simulation shows. However when you limit the amount of magnets to 2 (180°) or 4 (90°) the flux will mostly choose the shorter bridge rather than traveling 1 half or 1 quarter around the ring. That's why in the designs I focus more on the amount of bridge pieces than the amount of magnets. It's a small sacrifice to get zero cogging for free and potentially zero back torque.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 25, 2014, 11:58:27 AM
How do you explain the behavior of flux switching in Flynn device then? Like in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4PWiyN1G7I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4PWiyN1G7I)

That's different than passive flux splitting between two paths, that was being discussed, because the system shown in this video  has 2 MMF sources (magnet & coil) which add or subtract from each other.

That would be like comparing two parallel resistors to two parallel batteries, in a purely electronic system.  See Hopkinson's law here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit#Hopkinson.27s_law:_the_magnetic_analogy_to_Ohm.27s_law):

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 25, 2014, 11:58:27 AM
Clearly there one can make flux to go through one side or the other and the opposite side is unaffected there.

With bucking MMF sources - yes
With parallel reluctances - no

In the latter case the flux distribution is inversely proportional to these reluctances, which might only seem like a total flux switch if one reluctance is much greater than the other (a 0.5mm air gap can increase a reluctance 100x).

Saturation decreases the differential permeability only.  It does not decrease static permeability (increase reluctance) to constant flux sources.
In other words: modulation of differential permeability by saturation makes a magnetic "AC switch" not a "DC switch'.

Quote from: NoBull on December 25, 2014, 10:07:43 AM
and I agree with Guyla's analysis.
You are wrong that all the flux takes the shortest route (or the path of least reluctance).
The magnetic flux takes all parallel routes inversely proportionally to their reluctances.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit#Hopkinson.27s_law:_the_magnetic_analogy_to_Ohm.27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit#Hopkinson.27s_law:_the_magnetic_analogy_to_Ohm.27s_law)


Magnetic flux always forms a closed loop, as described by, but the path of the loop depends on the reluctance of the surrounding materials. It is concentrated around the path of least reluctance.


Limitations of the analogy: When using the analogy between magnetic circuits and electric circuits, the limitations of this analogy must be kept in mind. Electric and magnetic circuits are only superficially similar because of the similarity between Hopkinson's law and Ohm's law. Magnetic circuits have significant differences, which must be taken into account in their construction.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 03:48:49 AM
Magnetic flux always forms a closed loop, as described by, but the path of the loop depends on the reluctance of the surrounding materials. It is concentrated around the path of least reluctance.

Yes, it is concentrated.  Concentration does not mean that all flux is confined to the path of least reluctance - just most of it.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 03:48:49 AM
Electric and magnetic circuits are only superficially similar because of the similarity between Hopkinson's law and Ohm's law. Magnetic circuits have significant differences, which must be taken into account in their construction.

Electric current also flows in closed loops.
Yes, this analogy has limits but the significant differences start appearing only when the magnetic flux starts varying in time.

Quote from: NoBull on December 26, 2014, 06:52:59 AM
Yes, it is concentrated.  Concentration does not mean that all flux is confined to the path of least reluctance - just most of it.

So now You admit, that most of the flux will go through the first section that has the least reluctance. It will be concentrated mainly there if the core can fit the flux without saturation.

It is not certain that the flux always goes to the path of least resistance. For example, the flux may go there where it is the most needed. Flux is just a name for extremely complex electromagnetic processes, happening inside or around the core. To just name all that somehow.

Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2014, 08:04:22 AM

Current flow through a wire can be seen like water flowing through a pipe,and most electrical circuits can be replicated useing water,pipes and valves. Below is a video that i would concider to be the very same as an inductive kickback circuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSE4GeWszg

      hello NoBull !    This video contains a large error : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSE4GeWszg      ) ) )
        Here is the correct video  : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm2USIYc53E   
        change in the motion of the magnet changes the direction of the current           
         If you receive information from textbooks contain errors - you can not get free energy  .
         

Hello Broli ,  I was more interested picture(  gen4 ). The coil windings interact with a magnet, and Lenz remains in the core ! seems to have been a generator Gramm  and project Orbo .

Boris,

by the way, position C in your reverse Lenz - pic is wrong concerning field-polarity
When approaching ( A) a North-field is generated in the coil which is compensated by the pm
When leaving the middle position B , field in the coil will change to South thus amplifying
the S-field of the pm-magnet-> more drag is acting on the rotor.

Kator01

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 10:38:17 AM
So now You admit, that most of the flux will go through the first section that has the least reluctance. It will be concentrated mainly there if the core can fit the flux without saturation.

Yes, "most" but not all flux.
Also the word "now" wrongly imputes that I ever claimed otherwise.

Quote from: BorisKrabow on December 26, 2014, 01:05:36 PM
Here is the correct video  : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm2USIYc53E   
change in the motion of the magnet changes the direction of the current

That video shows current stopping after the magnet stops moving because of resistance of the ring.
If there is no resistance then the current does not stop even after the magnet stops moving.

Quote from: NoBull on December 26, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
Yes, "most" but not all flux.
Also the word "now" wrongly imputes that I ever claimed otherwise.

You agreed with Gyula's analysis: "You can consider the two flux directions A and B as two low value resistors in parallel i.e. good flux conductors and an input current (the flux from the rotor magnet) flows through both of them when you connect a battery across them i.e. the flux entering from the magnet is shared more or less equally by the two pathes: Phi[/font]total=Phi[/font]A + Phi[/font]B where Phi[/font]total is the flux from any one entering magnet. This means that path B shunts path A (and vice versa of course) and roughly half of the input flux of a rotor magnet will participate in induction from the output coil point of view."

Which implies roughly equal distribution of the flux between two core parts that is not true.
And you can not directly compare magnetic reluctance to electrical resistance as the reluctance of the same region can change the moment flux starts flowing!
So as at the beginning reluctances of both paths might be roughly the same, but as soon as the magnetic loop is being established the first path becomes more and more 'conductive' for the flux, that is why it is concentrated there in the end.


UPDATE: Here is tinman's video confirming that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFwIF4B7BP4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFwIF4B7BP4)

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 02:04:45 AM
Which implies roughly equal distribution of the flux between two core parts that is not true.

Why?  Guyla's analysis implied approximately equal reluctances of paths A and B so the flux sharing between them must also be roughly equal.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 02:04:45 AM
And you can not directly compare magnetic reluctance to electrical resistance as the reluctance of the same region can change the moment flux starts flowing!

The reluctance becomes variable only when nearing non-linear portion of the BH curve (e.g. saturation) in the magnetic path but Life is Illusion's invention did not stipulate that.
BTW: It is possible to use a PTC thermistor to electrically simulate the non-linear behavior of the BH curve.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 02:04:45 AM
...as soon as the magnetic loop is being established the first path becomes more and more 'conductive' for the flux...

Why?
Because of non-linear relationship of reluctance to flux density ...or because of opposing MMF ?
If it is the latter then I'd like to notice that opposing MMF does not constitute reluctance, just like opposing electrical voltage is not a resistance.

BTW:  Magnetic "Conductance' is called Permeance.

@NoBull

Have You seen TinMan's video I linked?
What are your thoughts on that real life experiment data?

Quote from: Kator01 on December 26, 2014, 04:58:51 PM
Boris,

by the way, position C in your reverse Lenz - pic is wrong concerning field-polarity
When approaching ( A) a North-field is generated in the coil which is compensated by the pm
When leaving the middle position B , field in the coil will change to South thus amplifying
the S-field of the pm-magnet-> more drag is acting on the rotor.

Kator01

Hi Kator01  I'll try to explain without knowing English ))) . in position B Lenz law magnetic field in the coil max . in position B reverse Lenz magnetic field in the coil minimum (different poles of magnets N + S = min ). Position C Lenz law magnetic field is reduced ,appears inductive current that antagonizes opposite magnetic field . Position C reverse Lenz  magnetic field  increases and induction current has the opposite direction than  Lenz law  ,  that is why magnetic field of the coil promotes acceleration N + N .
    a similar principle in generator Kromrey    the greater the load the faster it rotates         youtube.com/watch?v=6OHxzT61nyU

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 02:04:45 AM
....
Which implies roughly equal distribution of the flux between two core parts that is not true.
And you can not directly compare magnetic reluctance to electrical resistance as the reluctance of the same region can change the moment flux starts flowing!
So as at the beginning reluctances of both paths might be roughly the same, but as soon as the magnetic loop is being established the first path becomes more and more 'conductive' for the flux, that is why it is concentrated there in the end.

....

Hi kEhYo77,

I agree with you that a rigorous and precise comparison between paralleled electrical resistors and paralelled magnetic cores can surely reveal the nonlinearity issue of the cores, so in the paralleled cores the magnetic flux can divide unequally BUT I maintain that the difference is but a few percent (say less than 10%) provided the input flux entering the two paralleled cores does not bias the cores towards the saturation limits so the magnetic operation point on the BH curve can remain on the more or less linear part of the curve.

I also agree with you that as you wrote  "...as soon as the magnetic loop is being established the first path becomes more and more 'conductive' for the flux, that is why it is concentrated there in the end."  PROVIDED there is NO any air gap between the center core and the C core on the right hand side. I think the air gap is the explanation for any significant difference in the flux quantities of the yellow and the blue magnetic path I indicated in the picture taken from tinmans video, see the attachment.

IF the blue magnetic path would be constructed from a closed ring core and the two prongs that bring the flux of the rotor magnets into the setup would be attached to the ring core say at 6 o'clock and at 12 o'clock positions while the output coils would be wound in the 8 to 10 o'clock and in the 2 to 4 o'clock areas of the ring core, then there would be no any significant difference in induction just because BOTH output coils share the same closed magnetic path.
The input prongs would be perpendicular to the plane of the ring core, both would be attached to the side of the ring core with identical and at least as small air gap as there is now in tinman's C core attachment, the latter are fastened by probably with glue and two rubber bands. I assume that the air gap in tinman setup between the two C cores I indicated in red in the picture can be any value between say 0.06 to 0.1 mm.  This gap can already cause a magnetic reluctance value high enough in the secondary path of the setup so that the input flux prefers to choose mainly the yellow path.

Agree?  Remember that in the drawing made by Sam earlier in this thread, there were no any air gap indicated or referred to between the center and the C core.

Gyula

Actually both of you are partially right, the flux is NOT equally distributed and it is NOT concentrated on the closest return path either. The answer is a mix of both. I already conducted quite a few of experiments and ran many simulations to convince myself of this. I attached some simple FEMM simulations showing this.
Perm. of core is linear at 1000 (so no saturation is possible) I tried with non linear steel as well and gave pretty much the same result
N52 magnet
And as gyulasun points out, indeed even the tiniest air gap will cause almost all of the flux to go through one leg.

To me this was common knowledge. What is not so common knowledge is the effect of the air gap between rotor and stator and resulting back torque. This is where my simulations broke down.

@Broli
Could you redo this sim with a magnet's value of 0.7T (roughly a half of your initial value) ?

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 05:40:22 PM
@Broli
Could you redo this sim with a magnet's value of 0.7T (roughly a half of your initial value) ?

Here you go.

Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 27, 2014, 08:02:00 AM
@NoBull
Have You seen TinMan's video I linked?
What are your thoughts on that real life experiment data?

They are in accordance with 200 year old principles.
There are tiny air gaps which represent huge reluctances to the flux (R₄ and R₅).
It is not surprising that magnetic flux through R₈ is only several percent of the flux through R₃ when the proportionality of these reluctances is considered. 

When the coils are loaded then R₃ and R₈ are converted into delayed MMF sources.
The coupling factor between coils is very low.

The delays between coils wound over R₃ and R₈ are easily accountable, too, by the different resistances/loads and inductances of the coils.

The larger the coil's resistance, the shorter the net flux change delay*.  This is because a larger resistance dissipates the induced current quicker in the same inductance.  It is this induced current that is responsible for creating the opposing flux, so when this current dies down - so does the opposition.
Superconductors have no resistance so the induced current in them never dies down and the opposition to flux changes persists forever, thus the delay to the external flux change never ends and the net flux through a shorted zero-resistance coil never changes (is constant).

These delays are the basis of operation of the shaded pole motors which cause a flux change delay by a shorted coil in the stator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyEnwJ1Lazg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaded-pole_motor

Old style electromechanical electric power meters with the spinning disk are another devices operating on a similar principle. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter#Electromechanical_meters
These meters also have two different coils that are wound and loaded in such a way as to produce flux 90deg. out of phase.

In this experiment the phase difference is only several degrees, but the principle is the same.
Nothing new.


*More precisely it is about the L/R ratio.

Quote from: broli on December 27, 2014, 06:08:44 PM
Here you go.

Hi broli :)

I love the idea of gap on the path of magnetic current. Thank you guys very much for bringing this up. In last few days that I have started my activities in this page I have learned so much!
Would you guys be kind and let me know what do you think about this model? 3 mm distance between the magnet and solenoid and a 1mm or less gap on the shunt, so that the incoming N would not take the path of shunt as easy as it goes through the main core, but when the N2 is induced on the solenoid, it can take the 1mm gap and get to the other end of solenoid and find S pole! I think its a bit easier to manufacture such solenoid compared to the main solenoid shape I recommended at the beginning. Of course even this can be modified...
Do you think this could at least decrease the Lenz's law fighting us?

Best Regards
Sam

Hi  life is illusion ! just a spontaneous idea and always with a sense of humor  : Pseudo parameter control death Lenz   :D  ;D .

Quote from: BorisKrabow on December 29, 2014, 09:37:10 AM
Hi  life is illusion ! just a spontaneous idea and always with a sense of humor  : Pseudo parameter control death Lenz   :D  ;D .

Hello Boris :)

I think having two gaps will put too much of resistance on the path of magnetic current. Also the added solenoid will create a lot of reverse magnetic field and will not allow the reverse magnetic field of main solenoid to exit the conflict zone. On the other hand, I could be totally wrong :D

BR
Sam   

Quote from: life is illusion on December 29, 2014, 06:33:21 PM
Hello Boris :)

I think having two gaps will put too much of resistance on the path of magnetic current. Also the added solenoid will create a lot of reverse magnetic field and will not allow the reverse magnetic field of main solenoid to exit the conflict zone. On the other hand, I could be totally wrong :D

BR
Sam

Hello life is illusion . celebratory poem    :D   :
                      Magnet closer happiness brighter.
                                          Resonance occurs in the holiday comes .

Quote from: gyulasun on December 27, 2014, 12:47:03 PM

The input prongs would be perpendicular to the plane of the ring core, both would be attached to the side of the ring core with identical and at least as small air gap as there is now in tinman's C core attachment, the latter are fastened by probably with glue and two rubber bands. I assume that the air gap in tinman setup between the two C cores I indicated in red in the picture can be any value between say 0.06 to 0.1 mm.  This gap can already cause a magnetic reluctance value high enough in the secondary path of the setup so that the input flux prefers to choose mainly the yellow path.

Agree?  Remember that in the drawing made by Sam earlier in this thread, there were no any air gap indicated or referred to between the center and the C core.

Gyula

Hi Gyula :)

As you can see in Tinman's second video, there are no air gaps and the two sides of the C cores are just pushed against each other by a rubber band :)
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg


As you can see in the first video the motor is pulling 164.4 milliamps and the primary and secondary are both on load. In the second video the secondary is removed and primary is open and the motor is pulling 166.2 milliamps.
After all, I think it is very possible to crack this curse of Lenz's law ;) I'm waiting to see Tinman making the 3rd video!

And guys, when you do the experiments and video them, please share your results in here. I don't know almost any of you and I don't know if I have you in my subscription list in youtube. It would be amazing if you could share your findings in here also so that I can see if I  have made mistakes in my calculations or if they function just like I imagined them to :)

Best Regards
Sam 

Sam,

There is air gap in tinman setup between the two C cores, even if it is a very tiny one, it can cause a much higher reluctance in the core than a continuos piece of ferrite rod has, even if the 'rod' is not straight but has a rectangular C shape with corners.

This is why I wrote that I agree with kEhYo77 as he said:  "...as soon as the magnetic loop is being established the first path becomes more and more 'conductive' for the flux, that is why it is concentrated there in the end."

So the entering N pole flux of rotor magnet prefers the first C core very next to the rotor for closing its magnetic path towards its own S pole.
Supposing the case when the flux enters a ring core with no any air gap at say the 12 o'clock area and leaves the ring core at its 6 o'clock area via two ferrite prongs that are perpendicular to the ring core, then in both magnetic path of the ring core the entering flux would be divided equally because both path would have equal reluctance values.

Regarding the current draw of 164.4 mA and the 166.2 mA in the 2nd video: I am not sure what you ask or mean but I can say that: The 100 Ohm and the 2 to 90 Ohm loads are very 'easy' loads so due to this, the Lenz effect can only be also low by 'default'. If you estimate the load currents, the primary coil is loaded by 1.3 Vrms/100 Ohm = 13 mA and the secondary coil is loaded by about 3 mA (0.27 Vrms/90 Ohm) or 6.85 mA when the load is only 2 Ohm across the secondary (0.0137 Vrms/2 Ohm).  So the load currents are very low with respect to the input current of 164.4 mA taken by the prime mover motor.
And it is not known what the current draw would have been if tinman had removed the C cores with the resistor loads completely and the prime mover motor would have been spinning on its own in the same setup. 
In the drag test video tinman did not mention whether he used the same supply voltage to the prime mover so we have no real info why or how the 166.2 mA current draw was taken.

Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on December 31, 2014, 02:30:35 PM

Gyula

Hello Gyula :)
As I have said before, I really liked your gap idea and I think I'm gonna use it in many of my future works :) But air gap or no air gap, the whole purpose is to achieve a low "lenz" or "lenz free" generator :)
And about Tinman's video, I agree with you that the information is not shared yet, that is why I am waiting for the 3rd video, but I just assume (I know assuming is not a smart thing to do) that he is running the motor with the same voltage input, but lets wait and see if Tinman comes to tell us about this himself :) I think if the concept works to a degree, we could make a bit bigger coils and put bigger loads on them :) I am very thankful to Tinman for conducting this experiment, he did an amazing job :)

Best Regards
Sam

Basicly the theory is the same with Thane Heins: Offer the CEMF an easier path. In theory the current in the 2nd coil, if it consists the CEMF, should be reversed compared to the first coil. In theory the path trough the second coil should become less attractive when under load, resulting in reduced RPM. Which didn't happen which is contradicting.  :o However, deflecting the CEMF to a separate core loop will prevent the Lenz effect, no need for a second coil if this works. Although, a Gap may be required to prevent the primary flux to skip the first coil and use 'the easy path" instead.

Hi All ! Well, if there named Thane Heins and love gaps  ....  surprise !
           Thane Heins + Gap = Valeri Ivanov  ( Bulgaria ) .  600 percent efficiency ! ! 
   http://www.inkomp-delta.com/   ,   http://www.youtube.com/user/Waleri1021/videos  .

Quote from: BorisKrabow on January 02, 2015, 12:27:09 PM
Hi All ! Well, if there named Thane Heins and love gaps  ....  surprise !
           Thane Heins + Gap = Valeri Ivanov  ( Bulgaria ) .  600 percent efficiency ! ! 
   http://www.inkomp-delta.com/   ,   http://www.youtube.com/user/Waleri1021/videos  .

Boris, I really liked this design. Thanks a lot for sharing it. Pasiba :) 600% is truly amazing achievement! Now I just feel like putting a shunt next to the secondary of the generator. I think I should change my name and call myself "the shunt man" or even "gaped shunt man" :D

@ dieter, I totally agree my friend, I think the second coil is not needed, but if it doesn't interfere with the primary nor with the rotating disk of magnets, then it is more than welcome to join our party :)

Best Regards
Sam