I have discovered a way to improve/modify an "Eddy Current generator" in order to make useful and higher DC voltage and lower DC current. My test device is a regular toroid transformer, but with only one coil. An equal magnetic pole is directed into the toroid from above and underneath. When rotating the magnets, a constant flow of electrons will go through the windings in only one direction and generate voltage. There is however no current flowing unless the coil is connected to a load.
Think of never concern about efficiency loss due to 50/60Hz voltage traveling thousands of miles across the country. DC supply must be the right way to export energy?
I have a simple prototype, ultra beta test model;D: One neodym magnet, and a toroid coil.
Just by slowly striking the toroid across the windings it generate constant DC voltage, where polarity is depending on direction. 0,5V with very low velocity of the single magnet. Imagine 1000rpm with several magnets!
I have an idea of making a large non conductive ferrite ring, 10 inch in outer diameter, 2 inch inner diameter, and 1/4 inch thick, and wind a coil on this. Equal poles from two disc magnets will face the ferrite ring from above and underneath. Normally the magnets will repel, but when they are close enough to the ferrite ring, both magnets will be attracted to the ferrite disc making a magnetic field crossing the coil, where the magnetic loop will end up at the ferrite disc outer edge and back to the opposite pole of each magnet. When the magnets start rotating, a DC voltage will be measured. Depending on the load, a certain amount of DC current will flow through the coil.
Any ideas of improving, this to increase efficiency?
PS! I have tried to reverse the process by adding DC current to the coil, and hopefully make the magnets to move in one direction around the toroid, but that does not work - for some reason. In other words the generator, can only be a generator, and is not reversible (???)
Br.
Vidar
Hi,
Did you mean your setup like this? see drawing attached.
Quote
Think of never concern about efficiency loss due to 50/60Hz voltage traveling thousands of miles across the country. DC supply must be the right way to export energy?
I do not understand this. In case of DC voltage too, Ohms Law also applies when wire resistance is involved any time current starts flowing in the wire.
Quote
PS! I have tried to reverse the process by adding DC current to the coil, and hopefully make the magnets to move in one direction around the toroid, but that does not work - for some reason. In other words the generator, can only be a generator, and is not reversible (???)
This is because of the toroidal shape, the magnetic poles close inside the ring and do not spray out too much to the outside of the toroid. Test it with a magnetic compass, it is much more sensitive than your heavy magnets.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on March 14, 2007, 05:28:01 AM
Hi,
Did you mean your setup like this? see drawing attached.
Quote
Think of never concern about efficiency loss due to 50/60Hz voltage traveling thousands of miles across the country. DC supply must be the right way to export energy?
I do not understand this. In case of DC voltage too, Ohms Law also applies when wire resistance is involved any time current starts flowing in the wire.
Quote
PS! I have tried to reverse the process by adding DC current to the coil, and hopefully make the magnets to move in one direction around the toroid, but that does not work - for some reason. In other words the generator, can only be a generator, and is not reversible (???)
This is because of the toroidal shape, the magnetic poles close inside the ring and do not spray out too much to the outside of the toroid. Test it with a magnetic compass, it is much more sensitive than your heavy magnets.
Gyula
Yes, it's the same as you show on your picture.
A long wire, maybe 100 kilometers long, have quite much inductance. 50/60Hz on such wire will increase the cables impedance. A DC current will not increase the impedance of the cable. The resistance will however always be an issue on DC as well as AC.
What do you mean by testing it with a compass?
I know however that the magnetic fields are going into the toroid because of the iron core.
Br.
Vidar
Hi Vidar,
QuoteA long wire, maybe 100 kilometers long, have quite much inductance. 50/60Hz on such wire will increase the cables impedance. A DC current will not increase the impedance of the cable. The resistance will however always be an issue on DC as well as AC.
Well, this is ok, but in case of AC the reason the AC voltage is transformed up to several hundred kV range is just to reduce the current needed to transfer a certain power, hence the wire losses get reduced. I am not a High Voltage guru but surely those specialists designing those HV transformer/transmission systems are well aware of this. The long wires' impedance may be designed into the primaries and secondaries of the power transformers or/and can be partly compensated for.
QuoteWhat do you mean by testing it with a compass?
Simply place a normal compass near enough to your toroid and switch on the current into the coil: the compass probably will react by turning slightly away or towards the body of the toroid core. You may want to place the compass at different positions alongside/around the toroid core (taking into consideration the compass natural attraction to the core too). It is possible you can only detect any compass movement only very close to the core.
Gyula
PS: I wonder which plane do you think to rotate the magnets:
1) in a plane parallel to the sides of the toroid core (this means the magnets always remain in a equal distance from the sides of the core and always the same poles are facing the core)
2) in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the toroid (this means the poles approach and leave the sides of the core and there is the possibility for alternate the poles during the rotation)
Thinking out loud here... It looks like to me that the center magnet would cause a secondary magnet to form in a magnetite toroid core. This "inner toroid magnet" flux would constantly change position with the spinning magnet's position. It looks like it might cause a DC voltage output to be induced in the coil.
More rings around the spinning magnet might be added to increase output.
Spin the permanent magnet with a small DC motor.
Hi Don,
I think what you have shown one of the best setups I have seen with toroidal core + some rotating magnets setups, thank you.
No sticky point and input power is needed 'only' to rotate the mass of the magnet (friction and air resistance).
The only thing I don't get is you mention DC voltage output: why?
there is a continuously changing flux during a 360 degree full revolution and then it all starts over again, smells like a sinusoidal output to me.
Gyula
Hi Gylua,
I was thinking that the output might look like a half sine wave that repeats. I picture it like a cylindrical magnet constantly spinning in the same direction on the inside of the copper coil. This should produce a DC voltage I think?...(same direction induction) with one revolution. The induction might be interrupted when the magnet passes the open point in the coil. Then the pulse should increase again. So I would guess that the pulse would look like a long pulse in one direction that would repeat. I'm guessing that it might look like a half of a sine wave pulse in the same direction...pulsed DC, but pretty constant? That is the picture I had in my mind about how the output might look. How were you picturing it?
Hi Don,
I imagine it the same like you with the cylinder shape magnet inside of the toroidal core/coil but I consider a full sine wave is created.
Let's start the rotation with the cylinder magnet North pole facing 12 o'clock and its South pole facing 6 o'clock, ok? Suppose the core is fully filled with the coilwire, the output wires are at say 11:59 and 12:00 positions, ok?
Now let's start rotation and let's rotate only 180 degree first: North pole will be at 6 and South pole will be at 12 o'clock. Half of the coil (from 12 to 6) has been swept by the North, the other half (from 6 to 12) has been swept by the South pole, both coil parts must have received maximum fluxchange at 3 and 9 o'clock positions (because at the start the magnet's flux at 9 and 3 o'clock positions were at the minimum due to the Bloch wall).
Up till now the induced voltage must be of increasing amplitude, starting from zero value, reaches a maximum at 3 and 9 positions and then start decreasing again towards zero as the 180 degree position arrives.
Continuing rotation beyond 180 degree, this is what I think at the moment as the induced voltage will increase again but in the opposite direction because now the South pole moves where the North has been before and I think when a change in the poles happens it changes induced voltage polarity. Maybe I am mistaken, I am not a 100% sure here ::)
I understand your half sine waves but would accept them in case the magnet would move like a 180 degree pendulum only back and force inside the core, ok?
Tests would be needed for making sure...
Thanks
Gyula
Quote from: Liberty on March 14, 2007, 12:39:10 PM
Thinking out loud here... It looks like to me that the center magnet would cause a secondary magnet to form in a magnetite toroid core. This "inner toroid magnet" flux would constantly change position with the spinning magnet's position. It looks like it might cause a DC voltage output to be induced in the coil.
More rings around the spinning magnet might be added to increase output.
Spin the permanent magnet with a small DC motor.
In your picture it looks like both magnet poles are spinning in the same direction inside the toroid. This will induce two opposite charges, and ends in zero. With "my" design (I want to be careful saying this is my design - it might be several equal designs already out there), the spinning magnet use only one pole facing the magnet. The other pole might be useful for a second toroid. The toroids must also be more flat to reduce the nonworking part outside and inside the toroid. As far as I know, only the part of the winding going inwards to the middle is the working part - at least this part generates more output than any other parts of the toroid I have tested.
EDIT: This generator does not, for some reasons, work as a motor. Punning a DC current into the windings, the magnets will not start to spin. Does this maybe mean that the motor can be fed by the induced charge from the toroid, without the toroid working as a motor driven by the induced charge from the motor? Will this be the correct approach to make a self sustaining motor/generator?
I ask everyone here as well :)
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Liberty on March 14, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
Hi Gylua,
I was thinking that the output might look like a half sine wave that repeats. I picture it like a cylindrical magnet constantly spinning in the same direction on the inside of the copper coil. This should produce a DC voltage I think?...(same direction induction) with one revolution. The induction might be interrupted when the magnet passes the open point in the coil. Then the pulse should increase again. So I would guess that the pulse would look like a long pulse in one direction that would repeat. I'm guessing that it might look like a half of a sine wave pulse in the same direction...pulsed DC, but pretty constant? That is the picture I had in my mind about how the output might look. How were you picturing it?
The output will be constant DC if the windings is many enough to get several windings inside the flux area of the spinning magnet. If the windings are few, and the magnet is short, you'll get DC pulses - probably with a small opposite charge before and after the main pulse as some of the magnetic lines probably goes the opposite way. Most of the magnetic flux is going in one direction, to the iron core, hence the DC output.
Br.
Vidar
Thinking out loud again...
With the picture that I posted, it may be that magnetic flux flowing in both directions will cancel out current flow in the coil with flux flowing through both halves of the toroid at the same time in opposite directions, while the center magnet spins? I suspect it might just result in no power output from the coil or very little output.
Probably the way to avoid current flow conflict within the coil would be to use the original setup that Low-Q suggested by using two magnets in attract (passing flux from one magnet through one side of the toroid/coil to the other magnet on the other side of the toroid). The magnetic flux would always pass through the coil in the same direction causing current to flow in one direction only for a DC output. Multiple magnets could be mounted on each side of the coil and spun on a common rotor by a motor. There might be some opposing field to the rotating magnets on each side of the coil/toroid, similar to the operation of a speaker coil that passes through a magnetic field. But it looks like most of the opposing magnetic field that is generated (when power is pulled from the coil) would flow in the core of the toroid and cancel out within the toroid core itself. If the magnetic field that was created by pulling power out of the coil cancelled out in the other side of the toroid core for the most part, (being the easiest flux path); it may not create as much of an opposing force to the field magnet as it passes by? This might possibly be a type of reduced drag generator?
Quote from: Liberty on March 14, 2007, 04:07:09 PM
Thinking out loud again...
With the picture that I posted, it may be that magnetic flux flowing in both directions will cancel out current flow in the coil with flux flowing through both halves of the toroid at the same time in opposite directions, while the center magnet spins? I suspect it might just result in no power output from the coil or very little output.
Probably the way to avoid current flow conflict within the coil would be to use the original setup that Low-Q suggested by using two magnets in attract (passing flux from one magnet through one side of the toroid/coil to the other magnet on the other side of the toroid). The magnetic flux would always pass through the coil in the same direction causing current to flow in one direction only for a DC output. Multiple magnets could be mounted on each side of the coil and spun on a common rotor by a motor. There might be some opposing field to the rotating magnets on each side of the coil/toroid, similar to the operation of a speaker coil that passes through a magnetic field. But it looks like most of the opposing magnetic field that is generated (when power is pulled from the coil) would flow in the core of the toroid and cancel out within the toroid core itself. If the magnetic field that was created by pulling power out of the coil cancelled out in the other side of the toroid core for the most part, (being the easiest flux path); it may not create as much of an opposing force to the field magnet as it passes by? This might possibly be a type of reduced drag generator?
In bold:
The two magnets have both either south or north pole facing the toroid from both sides. In a loudspeaker, the opposite pole is in the middle of the voice coil where the pole piece are (The iron core inside a toroid transformer), and the other pole is surrounding the voice coil. The same principle must be used on a toroid generator, but the opposite pole must be created in the iron by the pole facing the toroid, and not by an opposite pole on the other side of the toroid.
Br.
Vidar
I am willing to bet that your output looks very similar to this(the scopeshot on the right) and that it repeats:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.free.fr%2Fimages%2Fmagconfig.gif&hash=5d1580ede51b361f8c6302dda386debf2931c729)
From http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm
It seems that either you and JLN are RIGHT, or FEMM is wrong, OR all are right!
I did tests based on your design in FEMM and when I induce current in the coils, the magnets are opposed and pushed, although VERY little. I did A LOT of tests and wrote down all the X and Y force values that the magnets were feeling then I introduce current in the coils. This means that if you put in a very large current into your toroid, the magnets should move a little bit at least.
BUT, the interesting question we need to ask ourselves is: Due to the oppositional setup of the rotor magnets, and thier interaction with the toroid, is the ratio of back torque on the rotor magnets to the ratio of power output in the toroid coil the SAME or DIFFERENT than normal types of generators that DON'T have their rotor magnets orthogonal to the power output coil???????????!?!?!?!?!?
Here is a sample shot from one of my sims in FEMM:
Hi Tao,
That is the same scope shot picture that I thought of with this device. Would you think if another magnet were added on one side of the original magnets, but spaced away a little, would aid in the flux return flow path through the windings? (Basically a horseshoe arrangement). Would FEMM show the optimum spacing for placement of a "return flux magnet"? Or would it do any good to add a return flux path concentrator in your opinion?
I would hope that the orthagonal toroid coil might tend to direct or concentrate the magnetic field that is created when power flows from the coil, in the direction of the toroid core, rather than directly at the source field magnet, due to the direction of the windings (similar to a solenoid winding) and the proximity of the core. Nice pictures Tao and excellent question that really does need to be answered yet.
Hi Vidar,
After more study, I agree with you and your explaination because you are correct, that using directly opposite poles (N-S) might fight current flow in the coil because the coil is approaching the magnetic field from the same direction at the same time (unlike a rotating motor coil). Therefore, as you stated, you need to use one pole outside of the coil in that spot. But the FEMM pictures from Tao may possibly suggest that using a horseshoe magnet arrangement might improve flux flow return path. I suppose polarity and direction of rotation would also be important for placement of return flux magnets (if they would work).
Interesting topic that you brought up Vidar. It's been fun.
Quote from: tao on March 14, 2007, 08:05:37 PM
I am willing to bet that your output looks very similar to this(the scopeshot on the right) and that it repeats:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.free.fr%2Fimages%2Fmagconfig.gif&hash=5d1580ede51b361f8c6302dda386debf2931c729)
From http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm
It seems that either you and JLN are RIGHT, or FEMM is wrong, OR all are right!
I did tests based on your design in FEMM and when I induce current in the coils, the magnets are opposed and pushed, although VERY little. I did A LOT of tests and wrote down all the X and Y force values that the magnets were feeling then I introduce current in the coils. This means that if you put in a very large current into your toroid, the magnets should move a little bit at least.
BUT, the interesting question we need to ask ourselves is: Due to the oppositional setup of the rotor magnets, and thier interaction with the toroid, is the ratio of back torque on the rotor magnets to the ratio of power output in the toroid coil the SAME or DIFFERENT than normal types of generators that DON'T have their rotor magnets orthogonal to the power output coil???????????!?!?!?!?!?
Here is a sample shot from one of my sims in FEMM:
For the given coils shown in the first picture, the scope shots are correct. However a toroid coil has an "infinite" length with no start or end, hence the output will be constant, and not pulsed.
Regarding your question, I have no simple answer. I have just discovered that moving a magnet in circle along the toroids circumference measures a constant DC output. If I reverse the direction, an opposite charge is measured.
If I flip the magnet so both poles are going parallel with the toroid, and then move it in the same way as described earlier, no output is measured.
I have also discovered that the magnet will just flip 90
o when current flows through the windings.
I used a 2300mA N-Mh cell on the toroid coil with 0,5ohm resistance - 390 turns with 1,4mm wire. The current is approx 2A.
Br.
Vidar
Vidar,
I don't know if you already addressed this or not, but do you have a digital camera of some sort that you could take a picture of your complete setup with?
How big is your magnetic core?
How do you move the magnet along the circumference of the coil? With a rotor? With your hand?
What is the diameter of your toroid and is it single layer or multilayer wrapped?
What size are shape are your magnets and how many and used around your device?
What was your highest power output from your setup and did you try to power anything?
Lastly, Vidar,
You are saying that there is absolutely no change in the speed of the magnets when they are moving around the circumference of the coil when you extract power and put a load on the torodial coil? And when you put current into that torodial coil, the magnets on the circumference don't move.
That is asymmetrical, and if those two statements are true, then you have yourself a device that can easily be made to run itself and power other loads...
Hi Low-Q,
Do you have any further information from your tests on your set up to determine the voltage output and current output capability? It would be useful to compare output of this DC generator to needed input power to run it. This would determine if the addition of the toroid core with generating coil angle reduces drag and is an advantage in power generation over a standard DC generator. ???
I should retract my last posting with my FEMM testing, because it seems Vidar(Low-Q) was right about the torodial coil and how it since it really doesn't have a begining and end to it, that this 'changes everything', so to say...
So, I did some testing today in FEMM to verify what Vidar said about how the magnet on the circumference doesn't move when he puts current into the torodial coil, and how his unit will act as a steady DC generator BUT won't act as a motor! This is a VERY important feature of ANY 'would-be' OU magnetic setup!
So, below are pictures from my FEMM tests. You will note that I used only one magnet and that the magnet is on the right side of the toroidal coil/core. I had to do this because FEMM is in 2D. This is still a perfectly good simulation and verification setup for testing what Vidar said though! You will also note the torque and amp values on the images, these show how many amps are being put through the torodial coil that I have around that iron core in the FEMM sim, and the torque value shows the torque that the magnet on the circumference feels due to the magnetic field that is in the torodial core from the torodial coil. So, in each of the below sims, they are simulating you taking power out of(or putting in) the device when the unit is operating, they are like snapshots.
So, my FEMM tests, needless to say, they 100% verify Vidar's claims. This is a good thing ;). Note that the torque values stay practically the same, no matter if you are taking out(or putting in) 0 amps or 20 amps from the torodial coil!!!
I have taken a couple of videos just to see the measurements and how I move the magnet. It is not much voltage, but I had to have the camera between my chin and chest... -> hard to make the right movements.
This is practically the same setup as the Steven Sullivan patent.
He just uses a magnet inside the center of the toroid to rotate it there.
It was said to violate Lentz law.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi People,
Interesting,
if the coil form was a section of copper tube, like 4inch diameter and 2-4 inch long, and the magnet was made to tumble in the center around the axis.
Induction on the inside part of the turn(s) will cancel that from the outside part of the turn, UNTILL the magnet moves fast enought to generate eddy currents that flip the flux on the outside of the copper sleave, then I imagine some kind of DC as the output...
Spark
Quote from: tao on March 15, 2007, 12:07:33 PM
I should retract my last posting with my FEMM testing, because it seems Vidar(Low-Q) was right about the torodial coil and how it since it really doesn't have a begining and end to it, that this 'changes everything', so to say...
So, I did some testing today in FEMM to verify what Vidar said about how the magnet on the circumference doesn't move when he puts current into the torodial coil, and how his unit will act as a steady DC generator BUT won't act as a motor! This is a VERY important feature of ANY 'would-be' OU magnetic setup!
So, below are pictures from my FEMM tests. You will note that I used only one magnet and that the magnet is on the right side of the toroidal coil/core. I had to do this because FEMM is in 2D. This is still a perfectly good simulation and verification setup for testing what Vidar said though! You will also note the torque and amp values on the images, these show how many amps are being put through the torodial coil that I have around that iron core in the FEMM sim, and the torque value shows the torque that the magnet on the circumference feels due to the magnetic field that is in the torodial core from the torodial coil. So, in each of the below sims, they are simulating you taking power out of(or putting in) the device when the unit is operating, they are like snapshots.
So, my FEMM tests, needless to say, they 100% verify Vidar's claims. This is a good thing ;). Note that the torque values stay practically the same, no matter if you are taking out(or putting in) 0 amps or 20 amps from the torodial coil!!!
What happens if the iron in the toroid core is replaced by air?
Can you simulate that too?
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 15, 2007, 06:33:16 PM
This is practically the same setup as the Steven Sullivan patent.
He just uses a magnet inside the center of the toroid to rotate it there.
It was said to violate Lentz law.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
I'm not much familiar with Lentz Law. What does it say? I have searched the internet, but it says nothing specific - as far as I could find out.
Mvh.
Vidar
Hi Vidar,
You can find info on Lenz (and not Lentz, Stefan mistyped) law here is a link:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/lenzlaw/
Another classical demonstration of this law is the following:
You take a copper or aluminium pipe of a certain length and hold it vertically. Then you insert a cylinder magnet (or practically any magnet that can fall through the pipe) at the upper opening of the pipe and let it fall down inside the pipe. You will notice the falling speed of the magnet is reduced compared to that of the free fall outside of the pipe. The explanation is that the fluxlines of the falling magnet induce current in the wall of the pipe (the wall is a short-circuited conductor) and the direction of the fluxlines created by the wall currents OPPOSE the fluxlines of the magnet, hence they reduce the falling speed of the magnet, they work against the movement of the magnet.
In the meantime I found Naudin tests from 1998 with Steven Sullivan setup, see this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/1108sl1.htm
In the test Naudin used a coil which occupied only a small part of the full circumference of the toroid core, just the opposite case with respect to your coil covering the full circumference. And you reported magnet positionings / movements outside of the toroid core, not inside; just trying to sum up the differences in the setups.
I attached Sullivan pending patent application if you have not seen it.
Regards
Gyula
JL Naudin proved the method in his version 1 test, but then Naudin went and used a magnet which caused too much core saturation.
Just to note also, the originator wasn't Sullivan, but Frolov( http://alternativkanalen.com/ph-machine.html ).
Needless to say, THE KEY to this type of device is this: The combined flux from the magnet and the output coil that exists in the toroid can NOT ever cause the toroid core to be in saturation!!! For when the core is saturated, THE LENZ LAW BYPASSING EFFECT IS LOST!!!
I have been holding back my research on this TYPE of device. Let me just say that Vidar, your design isn't optimal, but you did bring to light this TYPE of device, and apparently brought me out of the shadows, lol.
I have done literally HUNDREDS of FEMM tests on these TYPES of devices, using LUA scripts and everything. I have used these tests to MAP THE BACK TORQUE on the inner-magnet-rotor, and I have figured out the best ways to construct these devices.
I have also found though my FEMM tests this(I had written this privately before):
"..... and I have a lot more to show you, especially ALL my FEMM sims SHOWING that there is practically 0 BACK TORQUE on the rotor(magnet) no matter HOW MUCH power you extract from the pickup coil...(UP UNTIL THE CORE IS SATURATED)
Basically, this means it takes the SAME AMOUNT of energy to turn the magnet, which is on the rotor, when you are producing 1 amp as when you are producing 100 amps in the output coil! SO, if it takes .25 amps to turn the rotor(magnet) and you can produce 1 amp in the pickup coil, then you can just increase the gauss of the magnet and produce 100 amps in the coil with the same .25 amps as input.
SO, in other words, the amount of energy needed to turn the rotor is the same when you are taking 0 amps from the pickup coil as when you are taking 100 amps from the pickup coil! So, to get more amps output, all you have to worry about doing is increasing the rotor magnet's gauss(UP TO CORE SATURATION) or speeding up the rotor...Neither of these affect or cause ANY back torque!
Enjoy..."
I will let all that info soak up in all your brains for a while................................
More later....................
Peace...........
I'll sleep on it. Thanks guys :)
So, if the motor require 100mA to run, the coil can provide more output current?
More output current, can be fed into the motor, and the motor will increase the RPM until the core is saturated?
And it will then run by itself forever?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 17, 2007, 09:09:11 PM
I'll sleep on it. Thanks guys :)
So, if the motor require 100mA to run, the coil can provide more output current?
More output current, can be fed into the motor, and the motor will increase the RPM until the core is saturated?
And it will then run by itself forever?
Vidar
Hi Vidar and all,
Well, it sounds as simple as you have summed up but I do think in practice there are several problems to solve for, otherwise this motor/generator combination would have already gained higher reputation among its replicators... Since the time periode from 1994-1998- to nowadays the overunity capability of this setup should have turned out and should have been in use since then.
Why is it not so? I would like to read Stefan's opinion on this too, he is mentioned in Tao's link too.
If we cannot get any more technical/practical info on the truth, (the non-reciprocal behavior can be considered as proved) we have to experiment on it to get more and possibly final insight.
Regards
Gyula
@ Tao,
You have deleted the FEMM simulations from post #17.
I wonder, why?
Gyula
EDIT: Please could you or someone send them to me, I have had no time to study them thoroughly. e-mail: gyulasun(at)yahoo.com Thanks.
I was hosting them and they were eating my bandwidth.
I sent you the images in email......
Quote from: gyulasun on March 18, 2007, 07:23:33 AM
@ Tao,
You have deleted the FEMM simulations from post #17.
I wonder, why?
Gyula
EDIT: Please could you or someone send them to me, I have had no time to study them thoroughly. e-mail: gyulasun(at)yahoo.com Thanks.
Gyula,
The main reason that this thing hasn't been built already and all over the place is that everyone thinks 'it is too simple' and 'why has no one else replicated it already'.
Well, I know of only one person who tried to replicate this device per Frolov's/Sullivan's specs, and that is JL Naudin. Nuadin HAD it in that first test, but in the second, he introduced too large of a magnet for that small of a toroid. So EVERYTHING reading that thinks, 'oh, see it doesn't work, I won't even bother replicating it'. Naudin should have done the variable resistance setup on that FIRST setup, he only used a 1Kohm resistor on that first setup. Had he done that all would have seen that the back torque doesn't change when the output power changes. Naudin did say though in that first test that he shorted the output and there was no back torque, this should be ALL anyone needs to conclude that further research is needed.
And what of Sullivan, and why isn't his device in the marketplace? Well, it seems he never got an actual patent on his devices, he only has that patent application. So.....
Hi Tao,
Ok, I got them, thanks.
Your thoughts on the "fate" of this setup is reasonable I think. And this situation is unfortunate, I tend to think Naudin wrote what he wrote on purpose, once the setup had been as patent applied for.
I would be happily read Stefan's understandings on this too.
Re Sullivan's case, it is obvious the US Patent Office hold up the granting of his application, for he included measurement results in the Example as an obvious overunity (input: 12.92V at 0.8A, output: 6.5V at 40A loading current), a COP of over 25! (if we believe in the application data of course).
Regards
Gyula
For those interested in contacting, I have located Steven Sullivan...
He has had a corporation since '99 called Omnidyne.
He has the patent(application) US2003025416: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2003025416&F=0
He is the originator of the EasyMEG.
His corporation Omnidyne is incorporated in Florida and all his contact info is here: http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=P98000082668&n2=NAMFWD&n3=0000&n4=N&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=OMNIDYNE&r5=
He is obviously still around because he has kept up his corporate filings.
08/13/2006 -- ANNUAL REPORT
Here is some data from FEMM to tease your mind and move you to ACT on this design...
Note: There was a constant 20 amps being put into the toroid coil on the toroidal core and the magnet rotor was moved in 10 degree increments. This shows through FEMM analysis that this design CAN'T be used as a motor, ONLY a generator. Oh, you might want to know that having 0 through over 100 amps going through the toroid core all produce practically IDENTICAL torque values(like those listed below).
What is below is a simple verification of what JL Naudin said at the bottom of his webpage:
"As you can notice in the results below, there is no speed change in spite of the intensity of the load. If the output coil is short-circuited there is also no speed break."
For 20 Amps:
At 0 degrees, Torque = -0.0009817438326728337 N
At 10 degrees, Torque = 9.772240574959878e-006 N
At 20 degrees, Torque = -0.001101295481678291 N
At 30 degrees, Torque = -0.002626577964867691 N
At 40 degrees, Torque = -0.006226968852356712 N
At 50 degrees, Torque = 0.00233148835752307 N
At 60 degrees, Torque = 0.00883054400279997 N
At 70 degrees, Torque = 0.02561072601289777 N
At 80 degrees, Torque = -0.01353369591225235 N
At 90 degrees, Torque = -0.01142745225242375 N
At 100 degrees, Torque = -0.02766294113134633 N
At 110 degrees, Torque = 0.006280762507799352 N
At 120 degrees, Torque = -0.009836929582267449 N
At 130 degrees, Torque = -0.01444920554524031 N
At 140 degrees, Torque = 0.002949971954641363 N
At 150 degrees, Torque = 0.001125314130291776 N
At 160 degrees, Torque = 0.001826714955073673 N
At 170 degrees, Torque = -0.001862916673116099 N
At 180 degrees, Torque = -0.009961534718975203 N
At 190 degrees, Torque = 0.008104876157242685 N
At 200 degrees, Torque = 0.003549206052378345 N
At 210 degrees, Torque = 0.008421799500612488 N
At 220 degrees, Torque = 0.00692905846722094 N
At 230 degrees, Torque = -0.0001280430610466589 N
At 240 degrees, Torque = 0.0189246174282994 N
At 250 degrees, Torque = 0.03545781830688011 N
At 260 degrees, Torque = 0.005237435261593956 N
At 270 degrees, Torque = 0.004039433118091761 N
At 280 degrees, Torque = -0.01323866537624573 N
At 290 degrees, Torque = 0.01619653153268216 N
At 300 degrees, Torque = -0.004107694167806885 N
At 310 degrees, Torque = -0.01118367147562354 N
At 320 degrees, Torque = 0.00490410685805791 N
At 330 degrees, Torque = 0.002329700141073329 N
At 340 degrees, Torque = 0.002533793413706925 N
At 350 degrees, Torque = -0.001531691555336643 N
Hi Tao,
Would you give some details on the setup your torque simulations based on:
-magnet is inside the centre of the toroidal core?
-coil fully covers the core or just like that of used by Naudin?
-how much air gap is involved between the magnet ends and inside diameter of the toroid?
-approximate OD, ID of the core?
Knowing these would help more in digesting this all I think.
Thanks,
Gyula
Hi all,
This has got to be one of the easiest theories to experiment with that we've seen around here in a long time. I'm a constant lurker around here, always waiting for something that I can tackle with limited budget, time, and equipment. I'm going to tackle it. Anyone else onboard?
Here's a snippet of conversation from KeelyNet between Jerry Decker and Steven Sullivan:
Sullivan
I read the info about steven's device. I remember talking to someone
via e-mail in 1996 about my design and he stated that he was using bailing wire for the core material to run through a coil that was already wound as he had no wire to wind onto a toroidal core so he
used the bailing wire inserting into an existing coil.
By the way my name is Steven Sullivan.
Decker
Interesting, some say iron wire is the key to a working free energy
device. I have some questions if you don't mind answering;
1) what is the input power vs output power of your device
Sullivan
Our test setup uses an ac induction motor for the rotational input to
our generator.
Until we get our torque meter we will not have an accurate measure of the input power to the generator but when we short the output we get a current flow of over 30 amps without any increase in input current to the 3/4 hp motor.
When we compaired this with current generator designs the current design stalled our motor when we shorted the output.
Our newest effort will be using 48 MGOe material 32 magnets on a 4 inch rotor with 16 magnets for each pole of a 2 pole rotor.
We are also going to a low loss electrical steel and tightening the air
gap this all should increase the overall performance.
We have many different models over 13 in all. The output is AC on all
of these prototype models. We have one model that draws 15 amps when shorted and the input motor current decreases by 2 amps.
Shorting is used for our testing as it is the highest current flow that
the generator will ever have to produce which is also the maximum torque the generator would ever see as torque is directly proportional to current.
Verification will be conducted by a University. Once the patent comes
into public domain anyone can construct a prototype as I believe that is what the current law allows.
If you wish to construct a device I would not mind. All you need is a DC slotless brushless motor and remove the windings and wind the stator core in a toroidal fashion.
Then attach to an input source to provide the rotational motion. You
should use a slotless motor of 2.5 HP or larger as the smaller cores
have an inductance that is very high and the terminal voltage will
drop as you load it.
I can provide you with any details about the construction. I will have
much more information when we complete our newest prototype.
Ok guys... Heres the deal.
I was going to keep all my research and work quiet, until an unspecified time. But I feel this TYPE of generator almost speaks for itself, so there isn't really much HIDING or SECRETS that can be kept with it, lol.
So, without further adou, here is the KEY mechanism to this design.
Now the world knows, if it didn't already!
I made this image MANY months ago, just so you know. (Gyula, this is how my FEMMs look, I will post images of them if you want)
It should be self explainable.................................
I have named it: The 'Zen Generator,' due to it's circular shape, the same type of shape that is popular is the Zen arts...
Enjoy...
Thank you tao!
Very clear and logical, have you built one yet? Weren't you showing off a nice toroid core you acquired a few months ago? ;)
How about if you move your last post and pic to a new "Zen Generator" topic? You've contributed so much to the OverUnity forum and this deserves it's own starting point. Thanks again.
tak
Hi Tao,
Thanks for giving further insite into your private files on this 'Zen generator' :D
Re your offer on uploading FEMM simulations, I would like to see maybe one where the flux from the output coil current is also in the toroid together with the flux from the permanent magnet.
I wonder how can we imagine the poles in a toroidal core from a coil like you (or Naudin) showed in the simulations/pictures? I mean in case of a horse-shoe electromagnet the poles are clearly at the ends and when we close these ends to form a circle i.e. a toroidal shape, what happens to the poles? they seem to disappear.
It seems as if a series of infinetely small magnets would be lined up behind each other in an infinite number? Can this be the case?
Thank you again,
Gyula
Here is some info
Quote from: Nali2001 on March 20, 2007, 11:31:02 AM
Here is some info
Not ALL the flux will move to the other side of the toroid.
You will still have power output, and when you do, it will still cause 0 back torque.
Here is some info from Steven Sullivan himself:
"If you wish to construct such a device I would not mind. All you need is a DC
slotless brushless motor and remove the windings and wind the stator
core in a toroidal fashion."
Our test setup uses an ac induction motor for the rotational input to our generator.
Until we get our torque meter we will not have an accurate measure of the input power to the generator but when we short the output we get a current flow of over 30 amps without any increase in input current to the 3/4 hp motor.
When we compaired this with current generator designs the current design stalled our motor when we shorted the output.
Our newest effort will be using 48 MGOe material 32 magnets on a 4 inch rotor with 16 magnets for each pole of a 2 pole rotor.
We are also going to a low loss electrical steel and tightening the air gap this all should increase the overall performance.
We have many different models over 13 in all. The output is AC on all of these prototype models. We have one model that draws 15 amps when shorted and the input motor current decreases by 2 amps.
Shorting is used for our testing as it is the highest current flow that the generator will ever have to produce which is also the maximum torque the generator would ever see as torque is directly proportional to current.
Verification will be conducted by a University. Once the patent comes into public domain anyone can construct a prototype as I believe that is what the current law allows.
If you wish to construct a device I would not mind. All you need is a DC slotless brushless motor and remove the windings and wind the stator core in a toroidal fashion.
Then attach to an input source to provide the rotational motion. You should use a slotless motor of 2.5 HP or larger as the smaller cores have an inductance that is very high and the terminal voltage will drop as you load it. 2.5 HP core size is minimum.
Quote from: Nali2001 on March 20, 2007, 11:31:02 AM
Here is some info
So, maybe this construction will work better as the load will even the flux all over the toroid in spite of lower permeability when loaded?
Do you follow the idea? Anyone?
Br.
Vidar
Well not really, you see there is a specific reason why there can only be one coil per 2 magnet poles(north and south that is). That is exactly what you see in the patent. '2 poles machine > 1 coil' or '4 poles machine > 2 coils' and so on. It has to do with the polarity of the induced field due to lenz law. Plus if you were to use a neo magnet that size it will oversaturate the core like 3 times.
If we use electronic or mechanical switches that enable one coil at the time as the magnet rotates, should work (?). I believe the output would encrease too.
What happens if two oposite coils operate simultaneously, and there is a rectifier on every coil. Would that work?
EDIT: I also understood that the toroid could not be saturated by the magnet, as I believe that saturated iron have no room for change in magnetic flux, which in turn is important to generate electricity in the coil.
Br.
Vidar
A full-wave rectifier bridge on each coil section would work nicely as the electrical switching mechanism required.
NIB magnets may not be the best choice for the magnet material.
Sullivan has a patent application for a similar device. He suggests the core for his device should be made of an amorphous magnetic alloy or Hyperco 50. The MEG builders use Metaglas for the core material.
Even if the coil is not connected (or shorted) it henders the others, or so I found in my simple experiment.