Overunity.com Archives

G?day all.

Today I want to put a subject into the arena that to my knowledge has never been discussed here, though it should be. The device I am talking about is from the early days of radio and may well have exhibited overunity.

There is little detailed information of it on the net (one wonders why), so at the risk of boring some of you that are familiar with the history and technology I will start at the beginning.

I will leave aside the very early forms of wireless transmission via spark gap transmitters and coherer circuits as receivers, for they have nothing to do with the subject under discussion other than being a historical precedent.

The real revolution came about as the result of the researches of a man with the unlikely name of Greenleaf Whittier Pickard.

Greenleaf Whittier Pickard (born Feb. 14, 1877, in Portland, Maine) discovered that certain crystals, when touched by a fine wire (called a cat?s whisker) in certain spots, were capable of detecting RF waves and converting the signal into audible form. Thus he discovered semiconductors. Pickard patented his device in 1906.

This led to the development of the crystal receiver, or crystal radio as it was later known, which made its general appearance in around 1920 when it became a fad to build these receivers amongst radio amateurs.

The first sets were almost unbelievably simple. Here is a picture of the most basic form. You can build one of these today, it will still work.



As you can see it consists of an antenna, a tuneable coil a crystal detector (commonly a Galena crystal touched by a very fine silver wire) and a set of high impedance headphones. Antennas were usually between 30 and 100 feet long and about 10 feet or more off the ground. A good earth and a good antenna are crucial. There was no power other than what the antenna could drag in, which was typically in the Micro-Watt to small Milli-Watt range.

The next real trick was to convert these very small currents into a pressure wave to make them audible. Luckily the device that could accomplish this was already invented. Telephones were then in existence and the telephone earpiece made a good starting point.

So how did this work?


The feeble current was fed into the coil of an electromagnet A. This in turn magnetised the soft iron core B in harmony with the strength of the signal, attracting the steel membrane C accordingly and creating a compression and decompression zone adjacent to the membrane, allowing these pulses to be perceived by the human ear.

For convenience and to cut out extraneous noise two these devices were employed in parallel and clamped to the ears of the listener. A contemporary headset is pictured in Fig.2. Although the device pictured is from around 1930, they were available in almost unchanged form from around 1910 until the late 1950?s.

Coil impedance was generally between 1000 to 2000 Ohm, although coils with up to 4000 Ohm were in use at some time or other. This is very high by today?s standards where 8 or 16 Ohm are common. The coils were wound with incredibly thin wire, thinner than a human hair, often silk insulated, which was quite an engineering feat in itself at the time.

OK, so much for background history and technology.

Headphones, at the best of times, are a pain in the butt. The headsets of early times were a hundred times worse. The metal membrane kills virtually all bass and has a tinny, grating sound which is hard on the nerves for extended periods. On top of this searching for a station would, in between signals, pick up static that screeched in your ears and send you almost deaf. Not a really good experience I can tell you. Apart from this, the things are uncomfortable and do not allow sharing of the broadcast, as two headsets on a single receiver are too much for the signal to drive.

The race to make it audible to more than one person was on. Thus the loudspeaker was born. A number of avenues were explored, including the use of a gas flame but since they are only of peripheral interest I will leave them aside.

The breakthrough came when some bright spark came up with a novel idea.

History appears to be strangely silent on the events leading up to this monumental discovery, in fact the whole thing appears to have disappeared from the text books, except in nondescript allusions. Again, one wonders why.

Instead of using an electromagnet to energise the membrane by direct influence he did the following:


He placed a soft iron reed B mounted on a support H via a piece of spring steel G, put it inside the coil A instead of a traditionally rigid core and found that the reed vibrated with the magnetic fluctuations.

Thist would not have given him much sound, but he went further.

Next he placed a permanent magnet around the device in such a fashion that the iron reed moved between the jaws of a permanent horseshoe magnet. To make the effect more pronounced he added pole shoes to the magnet to concentrate the field in the vicinity of the iron reed. He then added a connecting rod and a paper membrane to the device.

Like this:

The effect was stunning. Suddenly the signal was amplified many times, to the point where it could drive a 7 inch paper cone and make the signal audible way beyond what a headset could produce, without additional input of energy. WOW! Hello There! (I will come back to this later.)

The trouble with this device was its poor performance acoustically. If the signal got too strong the soft iron reed hit the permanent magnet and got stuck there for an instant before the signal dropped to a point where it let loose again. This meant that the device could only be run at low volume.

I don?t know who invented this device, in spite of all by best efforts I have not been able to find out. There MUST have been a patent, if it still exists, as it should, I have been unable to find it. Make of that what you will.

Patents aside, this is not where development stopped.

The next development in this area was what German literature calls the Freischwinger. English literature is strangely silent on the matter.

Again, I have trouble locating who was responsible for this. One would have thought that in relation to  a device like this, which was used by countless manufacturers from around 1925 to 1945 at least, and is still being used in some devices today where quality does not matter as much as very low current consumption, the relevant patent should be readily locatable, but no such luck.

Anyway, here it is:


So, what are we looking at here?

Someone, perhaps the original inventor, took the system one step further, Instead of placing the electromagnet and its sphere of influence inside the horseshoe magnet he put it outside. Though still within the field of influence of the horseshoe magnet, the soft iron reed was now free to move outside the limits of the pole shoes. (Thus the German term Freischwinger, which means ?free to swing?) This allowed for much bigger amplitude. The result was much increased volume. In fact optimum volume since the device has never been improved upon.

Leaving its poor acoustic performance aside, I think we are looking here at a genuine amplification phenomenon. Energy is entering from somewhere. Keely talks about this, so do a lot of others. Rather than following a lot of dead avenues such as the Tasnierius device, the Perendev or Minato wheels, which have not produced anything of value, I suggest you look at this phenomenon. At least it works. Is it overunity? I don?t know for sure, but I would say it is likely.

Just to show how real this is have a look at the following photos:


This is a photo of the real thing. Notice the horseshoe magnet, the coil, the soft iron reed and the connecting rod that goes through the wall energising the membrane.

Here is the whole device, the Fl?chenlautsprecher Nora L 10 - Jahrgang 1926

(sold and manufactured in 1926 in Germany) The German Volksempfaenger produced before and during the war had a similar loudspeaker.



Just think about it!

For better or worse,

Hans von Lieven

photos?  where?

LOL fleebell,

you were too quick for me, Still uploading  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hans

 I don't know about all the rest but that top photo is interesting. I used to have a book many years ago that was printed around the turn of the century with almost the same drawing.  It had a 1 meg pot instead of the coil and and another ground rod instead of the antenna . We used to use the little high-z earphones you could get from radio shack with it. (those strange looking pink ones they sold)   Some of us (teenagers at the time)  tried it out and found out you could tune in the local telephone conversations in the neighborhood.  I guess it was picking up some kind of electromagnetic ground waves.  I never could figure out how a 1 meg pot could tune it though but it did.  Learned  a lot of interesting things about the neighbors though  ;D

The rest looks like it would be easy enough to try out and see what happens.
Lee

@Hans
Thanks for the insight.Very interesting lesson.

helmut

Yes, This was exactly what I was referring to Hans.

Thanks for digging it up.

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmagnetmotor.go-here.nl%2Fwesley-gary%2F1.png&hash=dc56380015830da97689daa2afc2a1cf76c17025)
In US Patent No. 190206[1] Wesley Gary[2] described the combination of pushing and pulling[3]. His devices embodies a permanent magnetic north and a permanent magnetic south pole with one end of a ferromagnetic core placed in the center, as a result the core moves neither up nor down. By creating an electromagnetic pole between the 2 permanent magnetic poles (what I refer to as) the effect of 3 points interacting arises[3]. Said pole is now subjected to both push and pull but in complimentary direction. This while the electricity consumed reflects the difference between the push and pull.

[1] - http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT190206
[2] - http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary
[3] - http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/3-point-interaction
[4] - http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=24

I also put together a video. 1 moment...

here :)

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/?wmf=perpetual-motion.wmv

or here :P

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary/?wmf=/../perpetual-motion.wmv

I also do art for fun when I don't have time. hahaha

How is this?

@Hans,

You bring some of the most interesting devices to our attention! Here's a clue to possible original patents:

http://www.crystalradio.net/soundpowered/introduction/index.shtml (http://www.crystalradio.net/soundpowered/introduction/index.shtml)

Balanced Armature: A technology used to reproduce sound and is used in speakers, headphones and telephone units. First patented in 1918 by Henry Egerton and based on the 1882 balanced armature telephone patent of Thomas Watson.

LOL Tak,

It would never have occurred to me to look under "balanced armatures" A little too esoteric for me and my prosaic mind.

Thanks, I am enjoying this.

Greetings from the (Down) Underworld,

Hans

Hey, might as well keep you laughing as I sure can't read this stuff  :D

http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/upload/328-332_Trockengleichrichter.pdf (http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/upload/328-332_Trockengleichrichter.pdf)

The pictures look right though  ;D

tak

G'day Tak,

Greetings from the Down-Underworld.

Since we have had a lot of rain this year, the river Styx is full of water. Good old Charon is no longer pissed off about all the Mexicans that have been sneaking into the Underworld without permit or paying him.

Well, perhaps that will slow down the flood of Somalis coming here. But then with the government we now have that is unlikely.

They should give good old Caron his job back who according to Virgil (Aeneid (book 6, line 369)

    There Charon stands, who rules the dreary coast -
    A sordid god: down from his hairy chin
    A length of beard descends, uncombed, unclean;
    His eyes, like hollow furnaces on fire;
    A girdle, foul with grease, binds his obscene attire.

On the other hand, who needs a prick like this? Maybe Kevin Rudd is a little better.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

Thanks for the historic expose into this unique device.

Looking at the progression of designs that you have shown us, its obvious that there is definite GAIN (seen from the volume increases) going on this the successively designed devices.

Now, based on what I am thinking and seeing, I'd think that increasing the magnetic fields of the horseshoe magnet (or using a more modern setup with NdFebs, etc) would result is increased 'volume'. Therein lies the mechanism for GAIN, the shear presence of the permanent magnet(s), period.

Now, how does the presence of the horseshoe magnet (with pole shoes) increase the effective output (volume) of the device?

I am thinking along these lines (mind you, I usually ponder things much longer before posting, so excuse any errors in spelling or thought, lol):

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Ffs3.jpg&hash=b4ba8cb17b105eaf59f5248674f1d870fd7a02bf)

1. The device is at rest: the soft iron reed (B) is being equally attracted to both pole pieces of the horseshoe magnet which causes the soft iron reed (B) to stay right where it is. The mounting (H) and the spring steel (G) help the soft iron reed (B) stay right in the middle of the two poles of the horseshoe magnet. (Picture the mounting (H) and spring steel (G) pieces, as they are connected with the soft iron reed (B), picture this like a spring for the purposes of our discussion)

2. Now, when a current flows through the coil (A), a magnetic field will be setup along the length of the soft iron reed (B). Now, this is where I feel the GAIN is, because there is a magnetic now setup in the soft iron reed (B) and no matter how small that magnetic field is, there is now a disruption of equilibrium between the soft iron reed (B) and the horseshoes poles. So, in effect the equilibrium that was in Step 1 is now no longer. So, depending on the orientation of the magnetic field setup in the soft iron reed (B), the pole pieces of the horseshoe magnet will now attract and repulse the soft iron reed (B). An example would be, if at the end of the soft iron reed (B), that is near the poles of the horseshoe magnet, there is setup a south pole for instance, then the south pole piece of the horseshoe magnet will now repulse the soft iron reed (B) and the north pole piece will attract the soft iron reed (B). The force of these attractions and repulsions would be based on two variables, the strength of the horseshoe's pole pieces and the strength of the magnetic field setup in the soft iron reed (B) by the coil (A). Therefore, one could conclude that using stronger permanent magnets would result in MORE GAIN in this device.

3. Now, how does the soft iron reed (B) get back to the Step 1, for instance when the incoming audio signal to coil (A) alternates polarity, or the signal to the device via coil (A) is no longer incoming? Well, the answers to these two situations involve two effects I feel. One is the SPRING effect. Remember I said to think of the mounting (H) and the spring steel (G) as a spring. The other effect is the changed magnetic field on the soft iron reed (B) when the coil (A) reverses polarity or stops a signal all together. Now, for the case when coil (A) changes the magnetic field on the soft iron reed (B), the two effects combine to cause the soft iron reed (B) to move in the opposite direction. The one effect is the mere fact that coil (A) is producing an opposite magnetic field on the soft iron reed (B) which will cause a repulsion of the soft iron reed (B) from its current position, and the second effect involved would be the RELEASING of the energy now stored in the SPRING effect of the mounting (H) and spring steel (G). These combined things will cause the soft iron reed (B) to move to the opposite pole of the horseshoe magnet. Now, in the case where coil (A) is no longer providing a signal, this means that there won't be an impressed magnetic field on the soft iron reed (B) by coil (A) anymore and this fact and the ensuing RELEASING of the energy built up in the SPRING made up of the mounting (H) and the spring steel (G) will ALLOW the soft iron reed (B) to get BACK TO a state of equilibrium that it had in Step 1.

PHEW...

I can explain what I have written if anyone doesn't get it. It's about 1am, so again, please excuse any spelling or thought errors...

More on this from me later, heheh.

;D

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 25, 2008, 11:01:28 PM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on February 25, 2008, 07:02:46 PM

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 25, 2008, 02:09:25 AM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on February 24, 2008, 08:46:12 PM

Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 24, 2008, 08:00:20 PM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on February 24, 2008, 04:55:51 PM

He shows us even the most Heretic septic can lead out creative bursts or at least pulses of creativity.

Still I find my own explanation some what less complicated.

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.

:)

I have been called a lot of things before, heretic - yes,  skeptic  -  yes,  Heretic septic LOL Never, I like it!

Incidentally Gaby, your idea has merit. There was a similar system working in the 1930's where it was used to amplify sound. I don't know how good your German is but have a search under Freischwinger Lautsprecher. The system was used in the wartime German Volksempfaenger. Literature in English on the subject is non existent, just a few references to soft iron loudspeakers, nothing definitive.

Hans von Lieven

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2794.0%3Battach%3D17985%3Bimage&hash=1fd18a4ef2b7a87c844950148ddf2d2cb7b00380)
Is this what you mean?

@ Gaby,

Yes,

But let's leave uncle Adolf out of the picture.

It is the technology of the speaker (as in loudspeaker and not political speaker) I am talking about. The speaker, as used in the Volksempfaenger, was capable of reproducing sound with an unpowered crystal radio as a source, if used instead of the customary headphones. We are talking here about Micro-watts driving a 5 inch paper cone with the assistance of permanent magnets. If this is not getting close to overunity I don't know what is.

The system was made obsolete, not because of efficiency, but because of its poor performance where sound quality (fidelity) was concerned. It simply could not compete in this area against the newly invented moving coil loudspeakers.

Hans von Lieven

Very nice, thanks for this.

QuoteThe system was made obsolete, not because of efficiency, but because of its poor performance where sound quality (fidelity) was concerned.

Yes, indeed I keep reading no no this is not good move on nothing to see here kinda articles.

A bit like when some one said the halbach array was dangerous. haha You know like hydrogen? Danger danger? lol

QuoteIt simply could not compete in this area against the newly invented moving coil loudspeakers.

Hans von Lieven

Sure, we only need one good speaker, the rest is often forgotten about.

Here is some more info on the idea.

Perpetual motion made simple (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=6964)

Well Gaby,

Jokes aside,

I was serious, for once, in this thread. I have been working for a while on this, ever since Gustav Pese and I discussed the subject some 2 or 3 months ago. I put the finishing touches on my essay and put it up on the forum under

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4172.0/topicseen.html

Maybe it will be of help

Hans von Lieven

Well Hans, don't forget that I'm the one who has been working at this for quite some time. I asked you for your opinion of my work. you was working at the earth batteries and the milkovic pendulum and at lawrence.

you say, "Incidentally Gaby, your idea has merit." and "Jokes aside, I was serious, for once, in this thread. I have been working for a while on this," And now this new topic where you disclose "your" grandiose idea that you worked at for some time. While you was the serious guy? And I was the incidental factor?  Dude, you have only just begun taking the whole topic seriously.

I bet 10 min from now you even see merit in a Hamel spinner. hahahaha

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary/?wmf=/../perpetual-motion.wmv

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/?v=FaJb6uh-VuU

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/3-point-interaction

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching

Then years later Hans says:

"Today I want to put a subject into the arena that to my knowledge has never been discussed here"

Sure hans!

pffff!!

Hi Folks,

I fully agree with the GAIN as Tao termed it in the setup referred to and it comes from adding flux from permanent magnet to that of electromagnet and the higher the flux of the permanent magnet the smaller input power is needed for the electromagnet for a certain task to fulfill.  Fine, so far so good. The GAIN manifests in less input power to the electromagnet.

I would like to understand how or why this will bring us to overunity?

rgds,  Gyula

 


The FREISCHWINGER Loudspeackers ....
Whole series VOLKSEMPF?NGER had.
Did around 1950 with the father learned to repair such things (with 8-10 years ewis in garages).

Yes it is forgotten issue, which no one knows more and has garnicht of function.
I see that with perhaps a 1-2 watts GIANTS-VOLUME reached
TO and I simply so that the high
Magnetic coil Milliwatts needs only to the anchor of the funds situation.
This is in the "neutral zone" of the magnetic field.
(Also a rare term that hardly recognized)
BUT with the publishing from the neutral position is
Very stiff cardboard with membrane VIOLENCE alternately by North / South dressed!
There is an enormous power to the anchor "to attract" would, because the membrane forces against this magnet power.
That means the construction works as MAGNET-AMP, in the truest sense of the word! De will work through the membrane into efficient strong speaker sound wiedergegen ..
I have the "feeling" that the efficiency (by the magnetic force) is many times higher, than the current meters
Speaker all with irrational watt high-performance driven,

ADD at 28.febr.08

THE MEMBRANE was very hard attached in Chassis an very hard to move . Only with stronger forces
the mebrane was to move + - 1 mm  !!   With audio - sound it was less , ut very loud.
IT schowm that a low power on coil  can not make the power to move the menbrane . The (overunity?) Forces comes from the Magnets ,when the tongue is leaving the neutral zone and the magnetic forces added 

Gustav Pese

Quote from: gyulasun on February 26, 2008, 11:48:04 AM
Hi Folks,

I fully agree with the GAIN as Tao termed it in the setup referred to and it comes from adding flux from permanent magnet to that of electromagnet and the higher the flux of the permanent magnet the smaller input power is needed for the electromagnet for a certain task to fulfill.  Fine, so far so good. The GAIN manifests in less input power to the electromagnet.

I would like to understand how or why this will bring us to overunity?

rgds,  Gyula

G'day Gyula and all,

By and large I agree with tao's assessment of the device. By adding the permanent magnet there is an enormous increase in mechanical power observable in the device without any more input power being consumed.

That means that the magnetic field adds energy of some sort into the system. Isn't this what we are looking for?

To my mind it is the use of the neutral point between the poles that opens up an avenue for heterodyning of some sort. The famous Neutral Centre that Keely continually talks about, which according to Keely has to be established first before any influx of energy form the ether, as he terms it, can take place. Keely states that by influencing the Neutral Centre of a device the whole equilibrium can be disturbed with less power than it takes to wind a watch (his words, not mine). It would appear that here is an example of this mechanism.

The mechanical gain exhibited by the Freischwinger has never been satisfactorily explained, physics books simply sweep the phenomenon under the carpet.

I am endeavouring to design a machine that makes use of this phenomenon. It is probably a better direction to follow than a lot of other ideas floating around. At least this one holds promise.

Hans von Lieven

Go for it Hans!

If this is a breakthrough then it would be one of the most ironic discoveries in history!

Because if you research "balanced armature driver" you'll discover they are used in popular earphones, which would mean millions of people are walking around oblivious to the tiny OU devices in their ears.  ;D

tak

@ Tak,

I know, also the same technology is used in small buzzers where the loudest possible noise with the smallest possible power consumption is more important than the quality of the sound.

Someone should have been asking questions about the device's potential for overunity long before now.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

Here is something you may enjoy. Probably not a well known version of an auto radio power supply. I always found them interesting because they were said to do a great job of heating the car when you didn't want to use gasoline.

OK, so now we build a bigger magnet magnified "speaker", disconnect the speaker from the connecting rod, then attach what?

This is a new area for me. What is the most efficient known method for converting a pulsed force into electricity? Attach a magnet and shuttle it back and forth in a coil?

Also, is it essential to have a horseshoe magnet, or could it be done away with and just use magnets in place of the pole shoes?

With these question answered I'd know if my thoughts on a few ways to maximize the force and do away with the spring steel might work.

tak

@ BEP

Well observed, here the same principle is used to drive a vibrator in an inverter circuit.

@ tak

Yes , you could do this. It would seem to be a very clumsy way of going about it though. I actually designed something like this to test the system for overunity. I since have rejected the idea in favour of a far more elegant solution.

Below is my original concept

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

Greetings from the mild west of Canada! Does your 'more elegant' system still involve any moving/pivoting/swinging/rotating/pushing parts? No need to divulge yet, just curious to know if I should think of a better design than my current one, which has movement reduced to just linear motion of a transfer rod through a guide bearing.

I'm still not sure this can be done without a horseshoe style magnet. Can't know for sure until tried I guess.

tak

@ tak,

I share your view with the horseshoe magnet as I think a clean north and a clean south is required, not a combination of both on either side, but maybe that does not matter if the magnets are long enough. Experiment will tell.

My concept drawing and animation of the motor are finished.I am now working on the write-up. I should have it up by tomorrow sometime barring the unforeseen  ;D

Hans von Lieven

Btw. The new design has no rods and no spring.

I have been thinking I had seen something like this before. Finally found it.

This guy was doing something like this with magnets and pivots.  You might want to look at his stuff too.

http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm

Lee

hansvonlieven, I am assuming you will be using a pulsed power source for the input and I am wondering if you have considered using the back EMF from the relay to enhance the output?

This next video link will give you a idea of what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9OmLZ_wEVE&feature=related

Quote from: nightlife on February 28, 2008, 12:30:49 AM
hansvonlieven, I am assuming you will be using a pulsed power source for the input and I am wondering if you have considered using the back EMF from the relay to enhance the output?

G'day Nightlife and all,

You are correct in assuming that my device requires a pulsed power source. I have not thought about using back EMF. At this stage I want to get the mechanical problems out of the road and get a prototype running. There are considerable problems yet to be addressed in relation to the timing mechanism. Once these are overcome we will need to have a look if we can utilise back EMF.

It is early days yet.

Thanks for your contributions and suggestions. They are welcome.

Hans von Lieven

I do not wish to discourage anyone from doing research. Personally, i feel that although this balanced armature device is very efficient at converting milliwatts of power into sound, it is probably not overunity. It just appears so, because of the very low efficiency of most loudspeakers in use today. This is not a problem, because audio amps are very cheap to make.The real difficulty , as always is measurement. How can you accurately measure sound output in watts?

Quote from: neptune on February 28, 2008, 02:42:23 PM
I do not wish to discourage anyone from doing research. Personally, i feel that although this balanced armature device is very efficient at converting milliwatts of power into sound, it is probably not overunity. It just appears so, because of the very low efficiency of most loudspeakers in use today. This is not a problem, because audio amps are very cheap to make.The real difficulty , as always is measurement. How can you accurately measure sound output in watts?

This is possibly right. We don't know for certain though, do we? I feel it is worth inquiring into.

First we have to get away from sound to make real measurements, on that I agree. I am addressing this.

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans and all,

Somehow I still feel first a setup with a conventional electromagnet as the input power receiver is to be built and do our best making the output generating coils to produce at least the 60-70% of the total input, right? So far this is an unusual but valid AC/AC converter if you like with an expectable efficiency.
And when we have such so called converter working fine, we could improve the input power receiver electromagnet with the addition of permanent magnets and see the hopefully useful effect of them in the reduced input power needed for the same output power as before without the magnets. 
Say we have to input 15W to the normal electromagnet to receive 10W at the output, this is about 66.6% efficiency and surely could be achieved.  Better designed converters boost an efficiency number of well over 90% in a certain (narrow) output power range.
After the addition of the improved electromagnet with the permanent magnets at the input, let's say we find the input power needed now is only 8W to get the same 10W output power. This would be about 125% efficiency (or a COP of 1.25). 
Hans, I like your proposed principle and I also can understand you wish to start with the improved electromagnet. I hope you will succeed.  I just think to follow a safer way and work out.

rgds,  Gyula

G?day all,

Before we go into the design concept for a motor, let?s have a look at the principle involved here.



(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Ffreischwingerprinciple.jpg&hash=cb90c78778f635f62b46a27da31810d7ab04d6c7)

Fig. 1   shows the device at rest. There is no power supplied to the coil. The soft iron reed sits at the midpoint between the poles, held in place by a spring. Since un-magnetised iron gets attracted by either pole there is equal pull from both sides, therefore the device is in a state of equilibrium.

Fig 2   shows the coil being energised by a forward current. The soft iron reed has now become an electromagnet. The illustration shows the forward current forming a south pole facing the horseshoe magnet. The reed is now attracted by N and repelled by S giving it sharp unidirectional movement.

Fig 3   shows the current being reversed in polarity resulting in movement in the opposite direction.

What is remarkable here is that it needs very little power for these reactions to occur. The slightest magnetic bias in relation to the magnetic field of the horseshoe magnet triggers a reaction. The real work is done by the permanent magnet.

I see it like putting up a sail in a breeze. The more sail you put up the more power is delivered to your boat because you catch more of the wind.

Similarly here, the stronger the bias the more of the energy latent in the permanent magnet is caught.

Now this is where I get into trouble with conventional physics. Conventional physics sees the permanent magnet more like an anchor against which the electromagnet pushes or pulls itself toward dependent on polarity.

My leaning is more in line with Leedskalnin and Keely who see magnetism as two opposing streams of very real particles which cannot be created but only channelled by such things a permanent magnets and electromagnets and a whole host of other things where the effects are not as readily observable.

I see the permanent magnet like some sort of a canal where the particle flows are determined by the physical constraints of the channels, whereas I see the electromagnet as a sort of two way valve controlled by an electric current.

Of course what I am saying here is pure heresy as far as conventional physics is concerned, but I have been called a heretic before, so it does not distress me unduly.

But back to our subject. The two main questions that need to be answered are: Can a motor be built using the Freischwinger system? and Does such a motor exhibit overunity?

The answer to the first question is: Yes a motor along those principles can be built with comparative ease.

As to the overunity question: Perhaps it can, experiment will tell.

So how would one go about designing such a motor?

Playing around with the fundamental principle I came up with the following approaches:



(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Fdevelopideas.jpg&hash=4e9957446a1cb9c0393d9f746e58c1cc8a6cce21)

Fig. 4   is just a extension of the original device. I have put two discrete magnets here, though a horseshoe magnet can be put in its place. At the moment I don?t know if discrete magnets work in the same fashion. Something to find out.

I extended the reed upwards from the pivot to get more horizontal movement in order to drive a simple Faraday generator. The springs are still required to keep the device centred when quiescent. I did not like this as it costs energy. I decided to do away with it.

Fig. 5   shows a pendulum arrangement. This was a bad idea! I decided to try a pendulum to get rid of the spring. The problem with this is the natural frequency of the pendulum.

The natural frequency of a pendulum is solely dependent on the distance between the fulcrum and the centre of gravity. In most places on earth (as gravity varies with latitude) that means that a one peter pendulum completes one cycle every two seconds, a 25 cm pendulum has a natural frequency of 1 cps and so forth. Since 1 cps was far too low for any practical application and 25 cm was about as small as you can get that meant that whatever pulses I fed into the device would have to overcome the natural frequency and force the vibrations. That would have cost a lot more than a spring in terms of energy, so it was back to the drawing board. Besides, I was unhappy with the reciprocal action of the device. Converting reciprocal movement into something usable is always inefficient and cumbersome. That is when I decided to try a wheel.

Fig. 6   shows the next arrangement. It became immediately clear that here was a far more elegant solution. I could try for rotation.

The result was the following design.

Sorry fellows, on this one I am reserving my copyright, because I think here is a very real chance for something worthwhile, perhaps not overunity, but at least a fairly substantial motor that can run on very little energy. You can build the thing for yourself and play with it as much as you like, power your house or car with it if you can, I wish you well. Only where commercial exploitation is concerned I reserve my rights.

So here it is:

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Fmotorconcept.jpg&hash=c6bf676601201bc2a92cebb4349f87f554cbdc16)



Now this looks suspiciously like a common garden electromotor. So why should this thing be any better?

It requires only small pulses of energy to run.

I will go into the timing and nature of these pulses in my next article. In the meantime enjoy the animation.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Fmotorconceptanimation.gif&hash=0f62af3ae71ed8eeb5444826ea35a47a62a42bb8)



Hans von Lieven

Hans,

Bravo! You promised elegant, and elegant it is!

I also like that the timing doesn't have to be exactly in the gap, as any pulse within the gap or the following pole shoe zone should work. The number of stators is probably only limited by required magnetic shielding. Very nice!

Options for horseshoe mags would be NIB arc segments, steel horseshoe with mag pole shoes, or maybe quite long bar mags.

I don't have the necessary parts on hand to try this out, but surely someone in our diverse group does.

tak

Yes, very nice setup! 

Maybe the magnets are to be placed onto the rotor and then the coils need no brushes for the pulse connections?

Gyula

I had thought about this Gyula,

I am not trying it as a first off though because I don't know how the magnetic field is altered if the pole shoes are curved, as they must if I want to maintain close proximity between the gap and the electromagnet. Something to think about later.

Hans

hansvonlieven, based on the last picture, I would think the magnets and coils should be switched. I also would have to think that the coils polarities need to be switched at precise times to utilize the full potential. I also would think that the magnets placements need to be off set requiring a certain timing sequence to help eliminate as much of the drag as possible.

Based on the last picture, it shows the coils cores to be blue and I am assuming that the blue is the polarity and based on your magnets south polarity being blue, the core must be a south polarity when power is added. If that is the case and based on the time of the power being pulsed, I see that as a drag. Please also note that this concept is not any more efficient than a common pulse motor.

Fig 4 is your best bet as far as designs you have posted. The last needs some major changes made before you should consider it.

Please note that this is my ignorant opinion but it is worth thinking about IMO.

Hi Hans,

If you're sure that moving the coil with the reed doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the device, then wouldn't you rather put the magnets on the rotor and the coils on the outside, so you don't have to use brushes?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

(OOPS! I see this has been suggested already)

OK, here's my crude drawing of a push/pull version using either ring magnets (if horseshoes not required) or paired horseshoes. Many pairs can be used in a circle to get as much force as possible, all joined to a center double acting connecting rod.

I have no idea how effective linear generation is compared to rotary, but it does greatly simplify the controls.

Drawing includes depiction of both ring mags or horseshoe, centre input coils, paired output guides, coils, and mags.

Please excuse the drawing, I have no appropriate software loaded right now.

tak

Hans,

What are you trying to do by rotating the coils? I don't mean the wheel itself, but you show the coils switching side at the top and bottom position. What is this for?

G'day guys,

I know this is not complete. Nevertheless, I will quickly outline what I have in mind.

The motor, for optimum performance requires three discrete pulses for every quarter turn. One forward, next reverse and the third forward again over a maybe 10 degree arc.

I am still writing this up. The timing and pulse-width are crucial.

I know it would be far more convenient for switching purposes to mount the magnets on the rotor, but as I said earlier I am not convinced this will work.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: ken_nyus on February 28, 2008, 10:30:59 PM
Hans,

What are you trying to do by rotating the coils? I don't mean the wheel itself, but you show the coils switching side at the top and bottom position. What is this for?

OOPS Ken,

This was not intended, some flipped frame in the animation, I will fix it when I have the chance.

Hans

EDIT:  All fixed now, sorry for the Gremlin  ;D

This all reminds me of Ed Leedskalnin's Coral Castle.  Maybe the answer to free energy was there all along in his nine-ton door that can be pushed open by a child's finger.   Find a balance in potential no mater how large and all it takes is a little push to get things going.

hansvonlieven, I was thinking your design would require three different pulses as well as a presice timing sequence.

Have you thought about tightening up the circle eliminating the third pulse after the start up becuase the first third pulse would then eliminate the first pulse needed for the next group if the next group was placed close enough.

Did that makes sense?

  @Hans

        This speaker looks like the magnet is used as a reference scource as in a modern speaker.  The spring and oversized magnet looks like it converts some of the input signal into torque at the expense of the distortion of the input signal.  Some of the energy of the input signal being converted to the needed torque to drive the diaphragm.  I like the old crystal sets though that can take rf potential waves and convert them into electrical energy.

Quote from: sparks on February 29, 2008, 02:14:57 PM
  @Hans

        This speaker looks like the magnet is used as a reference scource as in a modern speaker.  The spring and oversized magnet looks like it converts some of the input signal into torque at the expense of the distortion of the input signal.  Some of the energy of the input signal being converted to the needed torque to drive the diaphragm.  I like the old crystal sets though that can take rf potential waves and convert them into electrical energy.

Well Sparks,

This is the real point of contention here. If it is just that, a point of reference, then I am pissing in the wind. If on the other hand, as I think, the permanent magnets are contributing to the movement, then we are indeed in business.

Time will tell.

Hans von Lieven

What speaker?   Did I miss something.

Quote from: nightlife on February 29, 2008, 04:15:41 PM
What speaker?   Did I miss something.

Not much, only the whole idea behind this entire thread. Read the very first post, it says it all in there.  ;D

Hans von Lieven

I should have started from the begining. Sorry

Now that know what you all are talking about with using a speaker. Let me now suggest to use only the voice coil. Something else that I have noticed being over look with voice coils is the potential them themselves have for creating energy.

Old crystal radios for instance. They use no power but yet create sound. We all know that sounds are created from vibrations and those vibrations could be used to create power instead of sound.

Based on that concept, the design can and should be simple by just conecting one or more iron rods or plates from the vibrating coil that would run through other coils that have magnets placed on the out side of the coils. The energy created from the vibrating iron rod in the coils can then be used as a power source.

Another concept would be to utilize both ends of the voice coil.

I have seen some speaker motors but I have yet to see a simple design like I am referring to.

Does that make sense?

G?day all,

Now we come to the pulsing required to get the device to work.

Before we get into this though we must take another look at the Freischwinger system in its original form. Because the energised soft iron reed moves between the poles of a magnet there is a definite limit to the amount of movement available. No amount of power will propel it beyond this.


Fig. 7   shows the limits of movement.

In position A the iron reed is un-energised. Since iron is attracted to either pole both poles exert equal pull, the forces balance each other out, and the system is in equilibrium.

If we now energise the reed by turning the coil on, it will become an electromagnet with two distinct poles. We can reverse the polarity of the electromagnet by reversing the flow of current through the coil.

Shall we say a forward current polarises the reed with the north pole facing the permanent magnet. Since like poles repel and unlike poles attract the reed is propelled by both poles to the right, up to the strongest point of attraction (point B). There it will come to rest, having found the point of equilibrium of all participating forces.

Reversing polarity will move the reed in the opposite direction and stop at point C.

If we switch the power off at the extreme points the iron reed will just stick there since it is still attracted, albeit with diminished power. That is why the spring is necessary to bring the reed back to the neutral mid point.

In the design of the motor we have to deal with these ?stick points? in some way before we can induce rotation. This we can do with well timed pulses.

Fig. 8   shows the pulse sequence.

The first pulse is applied as the reed reaches the limit of the magnetic sphere of influence of the horseshoe magnet (A). Strictly speaking this pulse is not required as the soft iron reed is attracted naturally, but an energy injection at this point is advantageous.

The polarity must be reversed when the ?stick point? is reached (here indicated by the black line). This polarity must be kept up until the next ?stick point? is reached (black line in B).

Now we must reverse again (C) until the reed is outside the sphere of influence of the horseshoe magnet.

Needless to say that all four magnets in the motor are energised simultaneously.

Thus we have rotation.

Hans von Lieven

@hansvonlieven
LOL, we are on the same runway thats for sure, Hans I built "your" motor last year! ;D But you are only utilizing one pole, I also built the rotary version of Wesley Gary's process which uses both poles of the armature. As well you have no active means for energy recovery such as inductive kickback or transformer action to increase efficiency. It was only a matter of time before sombody got this so we may as well open this can of worms.
If you look at the picture Hans posted we see an armature imbedded in the rotor, a non-metallic rotor, we could concieve this armature as a "monopole" as it relates to the PM field because it does not link in series with it nor does it actively repel the PM field in the usual manner. As such the PM field cannot couple to the armature field thus cannot effect its operation, the armature acts exactly like an open inductor not like a rotor armature as the PM field flux does not flow "through" the armature only "around" it---- this is the key to its operation. The drawback of Hans design is the fact that the armatures other pole is not utilized in any way.A better design is illustrated in the picture below (BA motor), the ring is made of ordinary iron washers with tabs welded on, the PM bridge section is an "H" transformer cut in half with the magnets secured as shown. The dark grey lines are the wires for the series wound armature the red lines are wires for energy revovery if one would wish to raise the output voltage through induction like in a transformer(recommended), the green lines indicate flux lines. This design works very well with the appropriate circuitry and can have many PM sections around the perimeter depending on the rotor diameter.
The next photo(AB motor 2) is a design I developed from the Wesley Gary motor------ It is the Wesley Gary motor  :D------ only the rotor happens to run past the magnets and not between them. Here both poles of the armature are utilized, the main diagram is the top view, the red lines are windings on the dark grey armatures, on the lower left is a side view of the rotor and armatures. The magnet polarities are indicated as red (north) blue (south), the green lines are flux direction indicators.
What is not transparent is the fact that little is gained from this setup from a magnetic perspective, there are forces acting against the rotor you just don't see them unless you build it. The gain comes from the fact that the armature can act like a "pure inductor" and not like a conventional rotor would where the flux must flow through it----- think residual magnetism and magnetic drag or the lack of it. Is it OU, I will let you decide when you build it. ;)

Don't feel too bad that I beat you to this hans, I was beaten as well---- I built all the motors posted and was very excited ---- then I learned all of this has been patented in the 1940's LOL ;D. I was beaten to it by over 60 years, such is life.
Maybe with help we could improve this to new heights!!! --- brushless maybe?

 You all maybe should being looking at utilizing this next invention's concept by using voice coils instead of wind. It would be much more simple to design and build and yet would create 100% true free energy from thin air if a cystal radio concept was utilized in the design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMojRXK14jU

Quote from: allcanadian on February 29, 2008, 06:49:26 PM
--- then I learned all of this has been patented in the 1940's LOL ;D. I was beaten to it by over 60 years, such is life.
Maybe with help we could improve this to new heights!!! --- brushless maybe?

@allcanadian,  could you recall the patent number, please?

Thanks,  Gyula

If Im correct I found it at the Rexresearch site or panacea , it was a motor like hans and another that used an insane amount of PM armatures like the ones I posted with the same armatures crossways on the rotor. In any case I was looking at patented devices, it broke my freaking heart is what it did, you think "ya" this is it I got a live one --- my own device, new and unique and then your crushed. Is there anything that has not been patented !! So we just keep plugging away----such is life-again ;D
I have my motors still, I scammed the neos and the bearings but I imagine I could get them running and post a few scopeshots if anyone wants.

allcanadian, I believe that anything we figure out, has already been figured out as well as patented. All we can do is make our findings public so those who want to, can build them themselves.

Damn, I thought I put this behind me but something Hans said got me thinking ;D
Hans said the field between the PM's is like a stream, if so then the armature is like a paddle --- we dip it in and catch hold of the stream and at the center we reverse our paddle to propel ourselves out of the stream. But the power in this instant is limited due to the surface area of our paddle and the fact work is involved when we have to turn it at the center point, as well the stream is limited in distance --- we jump from puddle to puddle incurring more losses. What we want is to extend the stream as far as possible in length to increase efficiency but still retain the geometry of the stream, why use a paddle when we could use a paddle wheel ---- think of paddles only smaller whereby energizing one catches the stream but also induces a paddle next to it in sequence, this sequence moving in the opposite direction of the stream---- so it is standing still----in the stream but the armatures are moving !!!! So there would be no switching, it would be a series of timed inductive discharges in a ring of micro armatures, micro LC circuits ------ the more slip in the armatures the more current is induced in them and the more it grabs the stream accelerating the rotor. This could be done with simple slip rings on the rotor shaft to maintain the process.
Im going to have to think on this a bit and do some calculations. :D

I really like this idea!  Time to ponder....

In this next video, think of the this coil as a voice coil and how a voice coil works and the potential it has when coupled with a crystal radio and how the voice coil could be used to create movement needed to create energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ELycNRccY

Take for instance this next design of mine and alter it by replacing the battery with a crystal radio and replace the electromagnet with a voice coil. The EMF should be routed to the over all output. Also note that when the EMF is taken away, relays and coils tend to operate cooler which helps keep them as efficient as possible.

@ allcanadian,

I am not altogether convinced we are talking about the exact same thing here. Give me a day or two to think about it in depth and we'll talk some more.

I appreciate your input and contribution. I just see things a little different right now. But that is what makes bookmakers so we cannot be doing all that bad.  ;D

Greetings from the Down Underworld,

Hans von Lieven

@hansvonlieven
Hans I would really like to thank you for introducing me to the balanced armature oscillator, It is people like you that take the time to research and post documentation that make this such a nice place to be. I was taken on quite a journey after my last post, mostly things I knew but could not put in there places.
If we look at the basic balanced armature and evolve it to a rotary machine some things become apparent, that switching is an issue. If we further evolve the design we would turn the rotary design inside out, that is PM's on the rotor and small/long core armatures of high self-inductance on the stator. The rotor would have alternating poles(N-S-N-S) and the flux paths would link---- our stream. This is the adams motor, the bedini monopole motor and the lutec motor ----- all are motor/generators!
So we have an evolution of design, a timeline starting at the balanced armature oscillator, the Wesley Gary oscillator(both poles utilized), the adams motor, the bedini motor and most recently the lutec motor/generator. Most people see these machines as repulsion motors but I think they are far from it, I would call them repulsion/attraction motors, both in the same instance. Based on a better understanding of the core technology(the balanced armature), I came to another understanding that the PM fields are always spherical in nature. We tend to see only the opposing poles of the PM and not the neutral center or the fact that the field becomes spherical the farther we move away from the field following the inverse squre law. In the picture below of a PM rotor we can see the fields and what could be considered nodes of sorts, the green lines would seperate outgoing flows and the blue lines incoming flows, the red lines the magnetic field and its direction of flow.So here we can see the need for continuous switching of the armature polarity and the losses associated with this switching is the biggest loss I can think of. It would seem that the simplicity of the basic balanced armature still has a lot to offer, maybe more so that it's evolved counterparts in this respect.
Realistically my previous rant has some merit, that is the field must be stretched out to a maximum length to minimize switching losses. The PM field should be very large relative to the rotor diameter so that the armature does not interact with any PM pole persay but with the spherical field as a whole as in the picture BA Rev5. This would not be a powerful motor but a very efficient one and that is what we are after I think, O/U would be about efficiency, that is energy in Vs energy out and not so much about power density. So I think this thread that Hans has started has a great deal of potential and I learned that even this old dog can learn some new tricks. ;)

G'day all,

Perhaps one of you electronics guys can answer this one.

Given the same current, is there a difference in the magnetic field strength between a high impedance electromagnetic coil (say above 1 Kilo-Ohm, many windings with very thin wire) and a low impedance coil (say 100 Ohm, fewer windings, thicker wire)?

Hans von Lieven

Please read

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg79952.html#msg79952

for my comments

Quote from: hansvonlieven on March 01, 2008, 05:49:54 PM
G'day all,

Perhaps one of you electronics guys can answer this one.

Given the same current, is there a difference in the magnetic field strength between a high impedance electromagnetic coil (say above 1 Kilo-Ohm, many windings with very thin wire) and a low impedance coil (say 100 Ohm, fewer windings, thicker wire)?

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,

Yes there is a difference: the coil with higher number of turns will produce higher field strength than the coil with less number of turns, assuming the same current for both.
There is the so called Amperturns (as characteristics coming from excitation law H*l =I*N  H=field strength, l =length of magnetic path, I=current, N=number of turns)  which means the number of turns  of a coil is multiplied by the current flowing in that coil, so the number of turns is linearly proportional to the received field strength [assuming the core (if any) is not approaching saturation].

Note: to maintain the same current in a coil with higher number of turns, you have to pay for it by feeding in higher input power.  (compare in you example of coils DC resistances:   I*I*1000 versus I*I*100)

Gyula

EDIT: one addition to a fuller picture is that in case of electromagnets the permeability of the core plays a tremendous role in the final ?strength?,  for the higher the relative permeability the stronger the emagnet can be, considering the same current.  See the very good experiments by member Honk here with electromagnets for his motor.

QuoteNote: to maintain the same current in a coil with higher number of turns, you have to pay for it by feeding in higher input power.  (compare in you example of coils DC resistances:   I*I*1000 versus I*I*100)

Which also means theres going to be more heating.  If the internal resistance of a coil (the wire resistance) is too high, you'll have more of a heater than a magnetic field source.  The best thing to do, is to find an AWG wire gauge chart:

http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm

Select a wire with a current rating you'd like to use then calculate the number of turns you'd need to produce a magnetic field using the equation

B = (4Ïâ,¬x10^-7)*I*N/r

where I is current (amps)
N is the number of turns
and r is the distance between the coil and the point your measuring the field

This equation is only good for constant current flow. 

<ADD> the distance should be in meters.

Quote from: hansvonlieven on March 01, 2008, 05:49:54 PM
G'day all,

Perhaps one of you electronics guys can answer this one.

Given the same current, is there a difference in the magnetic field strength between a high impedance electromagnetic coil (say above 1 Kilo-Ohm, many windings with very thin wire) and a low impedance coil (say 100 Ohm, fewer windings, thicker wire)?

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,

When you run current through your coil, the energy goes into 2 places -- resisitive heating of the wires, and into the magnetic field.Ã,  The energy that heats the wires is lost, but the energy that goes into the magnetic field is not -- if you don't use it to power some device, then the coil gives it back to you when you stop powering it.

In order to make efficient use of your coil, then, you must ensure that only a small portion of the power you put in goes into resistive heating.Ã,  You will need to be able to calculated the coil's inductance to determine this.Ã,  Your coil is essentially an air core solenoid, and there are many applets on the net that will do that calculation for you.Ã,  Assuming an air core might give you an inductance value that is too small, but that's an error on the safe side.

If you're driving the coil with an AC waveform, then ensuring that most of the energy goes into a the magnetic field means ensuring that the inductive reactance is high compared to the DC resistance, since power lost = current^2*resistance, but power stored in the field = current^2*reactance.Ã,  Ã, The reactance in ohms is 2*pi*f*L, where L is the coil inductance in Henries, and f is the AC frequency in Hz.Ã,  Notice that your coil is more efficient when you drive it with a higher frequency, but the mechanical systems you're trying to drive will have a pretty low frequency limit.

If you're driving the coil with DC voltage pulses, then you have to use a different calculation.Ã,  It's not a standard formula, so I'll work it out below.Ã,  Given your coil inductance L, DC resistance R, and pulse width T seconds:

dI/dt = V/L
so instantaneous current during the pulse is I = Vt/L
instantaneous power in = VI = VVt/L
so average P_in = VVT/2L
instantaneous loss =Ã,  I^2 R = RVVtt/LL
so average P_loss = RVVTT/3LL

so average P_loss / P_in = 2RT/3L

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

G'day all,

Sad news. 

The motor, as designed DOES NOT WORK ! The results of some tests I did it show clearly that it is not a goer in its present form. I will write my tests up. I just want to issue this warning now already so no-one wastes time and money on a dud.

Back to the drawing board, and haven't we all been there before.  >:(

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven, did you get any positive results from any of the concept?

G?day all,

Well, as they say:  ?The best laid plans of mice and men?.?

As it is the motor is a dud. I should have known! I have no excuse other than getting carried away with what turned out to be a stupid idea

Let me tell you how I found out.

When I published my first test concept I used discrete magnets instead of the horseshoe magnet as specified in the Freischwinger. Post 19, page 2 in this thread.

Tak22 expressed doubts about this. He said: ? I'm still not sure this can be done without a horseshoe style magnet. Can't know for sure until tried I guess.? Post 20, page 2.
I decided to test this. In my tests I used several configurations.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Ftestconfigurations.jpg&hash=d8e5a9dcc556562ba30182561b7753310ac096c7)

Here are the seven configurations I tried.
Fig. 1   shows the horseshoe arrangement as in the original Freischwinger.
Fig. 2   shows the use of two discrete magnets in horizontal alignment.
Fig. 3   shows the use of a bar magnet.
Fig. 4   shows the use of two discrete magnets in vertical alignment.
Fig. 5   shows the use of two discrete magnets in vertical alignment with a steel bar.
            connecting the magnets, thus mimicking a horseshoe magnet.
Fig. 6   shows the use of a magnadur magnet. (Magnadur magnets are ceramic
             magnets with their poles on their flat faces).
Fig. 7   shows the use of two magnadur magnets connected with an iron yoke.

In contrast to the Freischwinger the reed did not move inside an air coil. I simply wound the coil directly on the reed itself as I was not interested in the detrimental effects in relation to sound fidelity. All I wanted to test was movement.

This is where it showed up that the motor as designed does not work. In all instances the application of a forward or reverse current sent the reed in the appropriate direction up to the strongest point of attraction, the dreaded ?stick point?. At this point, I erroneously thought, that the application of a reverse current will propel it further. This worked well, but only in one direction, in the direction away from the midpoint!

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffreischwinger%2Freversepolarity.jpg&hash=2755b71a106163f13f7073e69e6ec987c8b96e4c)

This means of course that the horseshoe arrangement in the motor is out. As the reed approaches the magnet there is a counter force which cannot be eliminated with a pulse. Perhaps this could be overcome with inertia from a flywheel, but that is not the idea here. On the other side of the magnet it is an asset, since a pulse applied there aids rotation.

Does that mean the motor is doomed?
Not at all. It just needs a bit of revamping. My tests indicate that this can be done. I will write up my test results and the changes to the design shortly. I just wanted to show now why it does not work as designed before someone tries to build it.

Hans von Lieven

    Ampere-turns will give you the flux density of the coil. With negligible difference other then resistance losses when smaller gauge wire is used.  I use to rewind electric motors and when in doubt always went to the largest diameter wire we could get in the stator slots to avoid overheating.  AWG to metric diameter wire conversion was always fun.

... dunno how this post happened ...

Did it not go past the strongest point of attraction at all? Wasn't the strongest point at center? I thought it would go just passed center then back unless the polarity was switched when it just passed center, which is a must if you want it to rotate.

Are you trying to switch the polarity during the first attraction? If so, there is no way that can work. It must be switched at the precise moment it passes the center. Not at center or before.

I understand that may be hard and or impossible to do with your design because of the switching polarity not being stationary. It would have a much better chance of passing the center if it was stationary.

There are a few things that I am unclear about with your design. One of them is the timing you have as well as the time length of your pulses.

Another was the rotation speed. The faster it goes, the more of a G force affect it will have. Even at a slow rotation, you are still going to have a G force factor you will have to compensate for. Was that figured in to it? Based solely on that alone, I would be very hesitant on even trying that design. There are just to many factors involved that would require using more energy to get passed them.

I am assuming the sound signal worked for creating and switching polarity's, am I right? If they did work, why not use it in design like I posted earlier or even yours but with keeping the cores stationary?

@Hans

Before you throw the baby out with the laundry you may wish to consider these...

1. The swinging metal portion should be only slightly ferromagnetic. A high grade of stainless steel or bettter yet, aluminum, should act more like you wish. The aluminum will only react to magnetic fields when it is moving in relationship to a magnetic field or within a mag field that is changing.

2. The metal swing needs to be moving within the excitation coil otherwise it can only represent the coil, not the coil and the equal (and not quite opposite) reaction of becoming ferromagnetic while moving within those two fields.

Remember:
Aluminum is Paramagnetic NOT diamagnetic like copper. As such it has the ability to be temporarily ferromagnetic.
The point between poles of a horseshoe magnet has been proven to provide torsion/spin in association with specialized micro-structures - maybe swinging isn't the only thing goin on and that is the straw that will break the OU back.

Cheers!

@ hansvonlieven
I think we knew the answer to why this motor cannot work, the armature when over the "pole" of a PM becomes polarized in an opposite sense and is thus attracted. We know this because it happens in each and every PM motor we know of. I think Wesley Gary had the answer, the armature cannot leave the magnetic field thus cannot interact with the magnetic poles only the field "between" them. Or the armature can leave the PM field and interact with the field between them but cannot interact with the poles in any way. We should ask ourselves why we keep doing the same things over and over with the expectation of getting different results when there can be none. Here is a question, what would happen if the armature could not be polarized by the PM field in any way? ,if the armature could polarize "itself" but not be polarized by external forces
(the PM poles), in this case there is action without reaction because a reaction can only occur in the PM field and not the armature, the source of the action.

Now that we have all the magnet experts here, I have been thinking that we need a material that behaves as a ferrous material when say a DC current is passed through it or
some kind of additive to iron to make it behave non-ferrous on demand. No one would have thought of non magnetic stainless steel so this idea is not so crazy.
I wish I had paid more attention in my metallurgy classes.

AM

Ok let's start getting tangible results , I think Hans is a hands on guy so if he is willing we will build an OU motor together. Im not going to post my motors, we are going to start very small and get results from square one---- results everyone can understand.
The projects starts here------http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4209.new.html#new

You are on allcanadian  ;D

Hans

    http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4209.new.html#new

  Ignore this message as I needed to copy the link so it would work and help the rest out.

thaelin

I still think that the Freischwinger has some potential.  I'm not taking the route you guys took though, I'm sticking closer to the original concept - changing a few things here and there.  I'll continue to tinker and let you fellows know if I find anything interesting.

Until then,
Charles Van Neste

Hey guys,

I've been doing some thinking along these lines here and there. A rotary setup is surely preferred for many reasons, but I feel there will be many inherent problems with creating a rotary system, mainly because the essence of the Freischwinger has the movable member always in a region very near the equilibrium spot between the two pole pieces of the horseshoe magnet. So, having the soft iron reed leave the equilibrium area might not work and might result in normal motor/generator lenz effects and all that is normal in such rotary setups. Time will tell though, there is certainly still hope in a rotary setup. Mind you, the above were just some basic thoughts I had on the matter of a rotary setup.

Now, I've been doing some thinking along the lines of how we could test this puppy for OU/FE and do so in a manner where we could maximize potential OU/FE and do so with a fairly simple setup.

So, I have come up with a design (its ever changing, but I will present what I have now) that you might want to see. It can be setup relatively simply, it operates like a piston that can go in two directions. It also incorporates a generation action, so that we can directly create electric power and test for OU/FE that way.

Below is the GIF image for the design. Please note that I don't have my usual 3d image or otherwise done yet because I am using an 'eeePC' (google it) and I am not using a mouse with it, so bear with me until I get to a regular computer, hehehe.

Now, to describe the setup, the FOUR magnets you see in the GIF image are what I am calling the equilibrium magnets, there is an iron bar (can be another ferro material), there is also a coil around this iron bar (take note of the coil, it is wrapped around the LENGTH of the iron bar NOT the width) which will cause a magnetic field to be created though the width of the iron bar (NOT through the length as the Freischwinger does).

Now, I have done over 25 FEMM sims on this setup and have figured out how to best operated this device.

Look at the GIF image, where the iron bar is right now, it is in perfect equilibrium. If the iron bar moves even a fraction of an inch up or down, then the iron bar will have on it a force of 2+ Newtons moving in the direction it moved that fraction of an inch.

Not having a picture that describes the whole setup yet, I will cover briefly how it works now. The iron bar will only be allowed to move in a piston fashion, up and down (up and down based on the viewpoint in the GIF image). There will be two springs, one on each side of the iron bar (separated by a non magnetic rod so as to avoid magnetic attraction issues of the springs and the equilibrium magnets). Reaching through the center of the two springs, on either side, there will be another non magnetic rod piece that has a magnet on its end (this magnet will be used for the generation action), and past these end magnets will be pickup coils (two).

I am sincerely sorry if you don't GET what I am describing here, you will just have to wait for the picture I eventually make.

The operation of the device will be as so:
1. The iron bar will be slightly tapped by hand to get the device moving. The iron bar will be pulled VERY strongly into the equilibrium zone of the two magnets it is moving toward. This will cause an output on the pickup coil produced by the end magnet (generation action magnet).
2. the iron bar will keep moving toward the equilibrium zone of the two magnets it is moving toward and it will compress a spring as it gets stopped by a mechanical stop piece (so the iron bar doesn't go too far into the equilibrium zone.
3. At this point the spring is compressed, the iron bar is in the equilibrium zone.
4. The coil around the length of the iron bar will be pulsed electrically and will cause a left-right (based on the viewpoint of the GIF file) magnetization that opposes the orientation of the equilibrium spot between the equilibrium magnets.
5. Based on my FEMM sims, it only takes a small pulse and the iron bar will no longer be pulled into the equilibrium spot of the equilibrium magnets. This pulse causes the iron bar to want to leave the equilibrium spot fairly forcefully and this is also where the spring can kick in and add energy to the 'leaving process' (from the equilibrium magnets).
6. Now the iron bar will move away from the two equilibrium magnets that it was near and will move through the equilibrium point of the FOUR magnets combined and this is where the pulse cuts off and the pull from the OTHER two magnets will occur, FORCEFULLY pulling the iron bar into the equilibrium spot of THOSE two magnets.
7. Again, we have the compression of the spring, the power being output on the other pickup coil and the eventual stopping of the iron bar.
8. Again, another pulse if sent into the coil and the iron bar moves, etc. etc. etc.

So, the iron bar is moving up and down (from the viewpoint of the GIF file) VERY forcefully and only small current pulses into the driving coil are needed to cause the movement of the iron bar between the THREE DIFFERENT EQUILIBRIUM POINTS...

Ok, enough talking, haha, here is the pic.

Better pics, showing the whole setup (generator magnets, non magnetic rods, springs, etc.), will come later when I have time and get to a proper computer.

Peace guys...

Hi Tao and all,

I think you show a clever setup because it seems most of the work/energy needed for generating output power is designed to be coming from the four permanent magnets' attract force they exert on the iron bar.  And a certain part of this work/energy done by the magnets on the bar is temporarily stored in two springs which is regained during the process.  I like very much the fact that on the generator side, Lenz law is also forced to work against the permanent magnets' attract force  and not mainly against the input pulse power we have to feed in.

I wonder what mechanical solutions could be chosen for insuring the easy but still robustly guided movement of the iron bar (thinking of the huge side forces from the four magnets).  Linear bearings may be good candidates for this task.

Tao, maybe repel magnets of appropiate size and strength could replace the two springs at the ends of the bar? Not that I am against springs but maybe the bumping of the bar at the two outside 'equilibrium points' could be made totally noiseless by using facing repel magnets so that the only noise would come from the bar's guided movements.

rgds,  Gyula

   If you magnetize a ring of iron with a coil with x number of watts input.  Then you set the ring aside and attach the coil to a capacitor it will slowly charge the capacitor as the magnetic domains reset. You get power from the Earth's magnetic field to reset the magnetic domains but no more then what went into the system to establish them.    What happens if you put a coil around a torroidal ring magnet and set that aside attached to a capacitor.  I bet it charges the capacitor but will take a long long time.  But if the magnetic domains can be caused to reset by introducing shock waves
then possibly we can get the energy out that created the domains in the first place. This would be energy harvesting.
Maybe that's what SM is doing with his tpu.  He always seems to be putting magnets in them somewhere right before activation.

Quote from: gyulasun on March 05, 2008, 10:16:16 AM
Hi Tao and all,

I think you show a clever setup because it seems most of the work/energy needed for generating output power is designed to be coming from the four permanent magnets' attract force they exert on the iron bar.  And a certain part of this work/energy done by the magnets on the bar is temporarily stored in two springs which is regained during the process.  I like very much the fact that on the generator side, Lenz law is also forced to work against the permanent magnets' attract force  and not mainly against the input pulse power we have to feed in.

I wonder what mechanical solutions could be chosen for insuring the easy but still robustly guided movement of the iron bar (thinking of the huge side forces from the four magnets).  Linear bearings may be good candidates for this task.

Tao, maybe repel magnets of appropiate size and strength could replace the two springs at the ends of the bar? Not that I am against springs but maybe the bumping of the bar at the two outside 'equilibrium points' could be made totally noiseless by using facing repel magnets so that the only noise would come from the bar's guided movements.

rgds,  Gyula

I'd just like to comment on something you said real quick here (kind of busy at the moment, hehe)...

"I wonder what mechanical solutions could be chosen for insuring the easy but still robustly guided movement of the iron bar (thinking of the huge side forces from the four magnets)."

When I said in my post that the iron bar was in equilibrium between all four magnets, I mean COMPLETE EQUILIBRIUM. There are 0 Newtons of side forces on the iron bar, as long as the iron bar only moves up or down (from the viewpoint of my gif image). So, you NEVER have to deal with ANY side forces as long as you keep that iron bar exactly in the middle pathway. So, basically, in my gif image there, the iron bar is in equilibrium in both x and y directions. When the device is operating, ONLY the y direction (from the viewpoint of the gif image) will experience dis-equilibrium, the x direction will ALWAYS be in equilibrium.

:)

Ok, you are right,  I see it now, if there is any small difference in attraction forces from sideways it can only come from the different strengths of the facing permanent magnet pairs (but then this small difference can be compensated by some small re-positionings of the magnets before the final fix).

So this fact makes this design even more attractive!  :D

Thanks,  Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on March 05, 2008, 05:39:32 PM

Ok, you are right,  I see it now, if there is any small difference in attraction forces from sideways it can only come from the different strengths of the facing permanent magnet pairs (but then this small difference can be compensated by some small re-positionings of the magnets before the final fix).

So this fact makes this design even more attractive!  :D

Thanks,  Gyula

Yes, you got it  ;D

Have you actually ever tried to get a piece of metal in the exact neutral point of a magnet, let alone 4?  It is an almost, next to impossible feat.  I've tried many many times.  The best I did was using 18-8 Stainless Steel screws as positioners and "tuned" a piece of iron into the center.  This was still not perfect but pretty close.

If you have any tricks that can get around this let me know.

Thanks,
Charlie

Actually I have been researching early radio for what is missing in todays world of tech advances.  Most of us have got into a rut on trying what is already out there and everybody else is doing.  What happened to designing something that is not someone else's work?

The possibility that some one else's very good work was put on a shelf waiting like a treasure Chet

I don't know if anyone has said it..but what about the good old gated coil inductive collapse method of production?

Ie, create the potential/polarization/electron-alignment point, and then allow the alignment to collapse before it conducts, like the other 'over unity' devices? One could even tune this sucker by ear. and then use the mechanically created energy to crank a crystal or motor system, and thus create energy on the inductive collapse?-without using any.

A magnet assisted 'non self demagnetizing' choke-coil-'dc reactor' design.

  D.C. reactor
10/13/1998
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 5821844
Link to this page:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5821844.html
Abstract:
A D.C. reactor has a core structure having two opposed cores separated by a magnetic gap, to form a closed magnetic circuit. A coil is wound on one or both of the cores. A pair of permanent magnets for biasing are disposed on the core structure. The bias flux generated by the permanent magnets and the flux generated by the coil to flow in opposite directions. Bypass means for causing the bias flux generated by the permanent magnets to bypass the magnetic gap are provided. In an embodiment the core structure comprises an E-shape core and an I-shaped core, the magnetic gap is defined between a center leg of the E-shaped core and the I-shaped core, the coil is wound on the center leg of the E-shaped core, and each permanent magnet is shaped as a rectangle and disposed on both side surfaces of the center leg of the E-shaped core. The permanent magnet is a sheet-like permanent magnet magnetized so that in a longitudinal direction and a thickness direction two poles are formed and a neutral line of this permanent magnet is brought into conformity with the center line of the magnetic gap and is disposed on adjacent outer side surfaces of the I-shaped core. Since the flux generated by the D.C. reactor does not pass inside the permanent magnets, an eddy current loss decreases, and even when a large current abruptly flows through the coil, the permanent magnet is not demagnetized.

Hello all,

have a look at this Aspden-Report. It was very difficult to find because the report-section in hidden if you access the main page http://www.aspden.org :

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es9/

an download esr9.pdf

Regards

Kator01

Quote from: Charlie_V on March 05, 2008, 06:11:26 PM
Have you actually ever tried to get a piece of metal in the exact neutral point of a magnet, let alone 4?  It is an almost, next to impossible feat.  I've tried many many times.  The best I did was using 18-8 Stainless Steel screws as positioners and "tuned" a piece of iron into the center.  This was still not perfect but pretty close.

If you have any tricks that can get around this let me know.

Thanks,
Charlie

Hi all...and Charlie...This brings up an idea and experiment I carried out. When using a ferromagnetic material for shielding, if you keep the material at exactly the magnetic center, meaning center of flux density, half way point between your two (or more) source magnets, the transition is smooth and balanced and doesn't "pinch" either of the magnets or the ferrous material. The forces maintain an equal "grip" on the material. The experiments I carried out were linear, circular arrangements are even more difficult to create a mechanism that maintains the balance. A third magnet can always be used to pull the shielding material out to fire a repulsive setup. Shielding with an attractive setup may be possible as well?

-[mag]+         [FM]         +[mag]-

-[mag]+ [FM] +[mag]-
              +
         [3rdmag]
              -

Quote from: fleebell on February 25, 2008, 11:05:30 PM
  It had a 1 meg pot instead of the coil and and another ground rod instead of the antenna . We used to use the little high-z earphones you could get from radio shack with it. (those strange looking pink ones they sold)   I never could figure out how a 1 meg pot could tune it though but it did.  Learned  a lot of interesting things about the neighbors though  ;D

The rest looks like it would be easy enough to try out and see what happens.
Lee

Can not work with  Resistor.
Coil , better "tuned coil" with condensor
variable coit or variabel condensor in it.
diode as 1n34 , 1N60 gernanium diode.
or "crystal"
headphones with high impedance as 2 K-ohm.
Antenna and ground.(erath)
will work , at day with local AM station. In night also long distance reveiving possible.
G.Pese

  I was wondering if you use the aether for a magnetic flux capacitor then collapse the field in the prescense of a conductor would you get away with no backemf.  Spin up some pms over a 1000mph and see if a magnetic whirl sustains in the aether.  If so slide a conductor in and see what the shockwave produces.   I wouldn't try this at home though. ???

Quote from: sparks on May 13, 2008, 07:18:23 PM
  I was wondering if you use the aether for a magnetic flux capacitor then collapse the field in the prescense of a conductor would you get away with no backemf.  Spin up some pms over a 1000mph and see if a magnetic whirl sustains in the aether.  If so slide a conductor in and see what the shockwave produces.   I wouldn't try this at home though. ???

Hehe, in a very basic sense, the recipe for a TPU...