Overunity.com Archives

.



.

So rotation occurs because of the interaction between the electromagnets and the inner and outer magnets with no input?

Quote from: mapsrg on May 16, 2008, 02:46:50 AM
So rotation occurs because of the interaction between the electromagnets and the inner and outer magnets with no input?

The rotation occurs because the rotating permanent magnets are attracted to the non-energzed metal core of the electromagnets and of course inertia. When the rotating magnets center on the electromagnets, a pulse of current is supplied to the coils just enough to release the magnetic grip.

The energy needed to create enough force in the electromagnet to release the magnetic grip of the permanent magnet is less than the force of the attraction of the permanent magnet to the non-energized metal core of the electromagnet.

Also, as the magnets rotate they interact with the input coils wrapped around the circumference of the wheels. This produces current. This is a unique aspect of KORE.

Quote from: rukiddingme on May 16, 2008, 02:59:00 AM
The rotation occurs because the rotating permanent magnets are attracted to the non-energzed metal core of the electromagnets and of course inertia. When the rotating magnets center on the electromagnets, a pulse of current is supplied to the coils just enough to release the magnetic grip.

Thus expending energy in the coils all the time... Is it not just a nice embodiment of a normal permanent magnet rotor electromotor?

QuoteThe energy needed to create enough force in the electromagnet to release the magnetic grip of the permanent magnet is less than the force of the attraction of the permanent magnet to the non-energized metal core of the electromagnet.

But still significantly more than the zero energy input the permanent magnets
need to attract the cores... So what you've got is an electromotor that runs due to the current supplied to the coils... The current needed to release the magnets is indeed smaller than that needed to repel them, but the resulting torque should be proportionally smaller as well. So what you gain in lower input energy is lost
in lower output energy as well... Or at least, that's what it looks like to me ;)

QuoteAlso, as the magnets rotate they interact with the input coils wrapped around the circumference of the wheels. This produces current. This is a unique aspect of KORE.

Well not really unique...
And since you can't break the law of conservation of energy in a physical system, the current produced in any output coils has
a back emf effect which effectively either decreases the rotational momentum of the rotor or increases the input energy needed
to make the rotor rotate equally fast. So whatever you pull out of the outer coils must be put in to the rotation, and should not
be able to produce any effective energy gain.
But again, that's what it looks like to me and I could be mistaken somewhere eh ;)

Perhaps taking a look at Butch LaFonte's "Equilibrium motor" ("engine"?) might give you some
interesting ideas? He used equal attraction through cores to decrease attraction between certain
parts of the rotor, making it possible to remove the previously attracted core elements without
having to provide opposite magnetic fields with electromagnets... Hmm... I realise that is not
a clear description... Well, in any case, it's just for informations sake anyway. :)


[/quote]

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM
Thus expending energy in the coils all the time... Is it not just a nice embodiment of a normal permanent magnet rotor electromotor?

This may be true, but nice is good, but I?m not sure I have ever seen a coil that is attacked by permanent magnets like this one. Opposing magnetic fields interacting inside a coil. If you can show me an example that would help a lot.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamslaughter.com%2Fkore%2Fkore_files%2Fimage066s.jpeg&hash=ff182fa52f20dc54ae3d174474bcf022ea107302)

I also have never seen the concept of the release of magnetic grip in a cage configuration, using both sides of the electromagnets.

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM

But still significantly more than the zero energy input the permanent magnets need to attract the cores... So what you've got is an electromotor that runs due to the current supplied to the coils... The current needed to release the magnets is indeed smaller than that needed to repel them, but the resulting torque should be proportionally smaller as well. So what you gain in lower input energy is lost in lower output energy as well... Or at least, that's what it looks like to me ;)

Yes, what you say makes sense. But I maintain that the difference between the attraction of the PMs to the core and the energy needed to release the grip is significant, plenty of torque to rotate the wheel with the magnets, especially with inertia in the mix.

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM

Well not really unique...
And since you can't break the law of conservation of energy in a physical system,

Utilizing the difference between the attraction to the core and the release of the magnetic grip does not break the law of conservation. . . .

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM

. . . . the current produced in any output coils has a back emf effect which effectively either decreases the rotational momentum of the rotor or increases the input energy needed to make the rotor rotate equally fast. So whatever you pull out of the outer coils must be put in to the rotation, and should not be able to produce any effective energy gain.
But again, that's what it looks like to me and I could be mistaken somewhere eh ;)

I?m not sure BEMF is created by this device. When you pull a permanent magnet away from a coil, the needle moves in the direction of the pull; this happens in all cases, whether they are north or south polarity. If you pull a permanent magnet from the right of the electromagnet the needle moves to the right. If you pull a permanent magnet from the left of an electromagnet the needle moves to the left. If you pull two PMs away from a coil, one from each side simultaneously, the two forces cancel and the needle doesn?t move. Therefore, there is no induction created by this device in the classical sense. There may be electromagnetic forces at work in all these cases, but induction is defined by a change in current, and if there is no change in current there is no induction. We would have to make up a new word to describe the forces at work when the pulls cancel and what work it is that is done, I call it ?Fade?.

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM

Perhaps taking a look at Butch LaFonte's "Equilibrium motor" ("engine"?) might give you some interesting ideas? He used equal attraction through cores to decrease attraction between certain parts of the rotor, making it possible to remove the previously attracted core elements without having to provide opposite magnetic fields with electromagnets... Hmm... I realise that is not a clear description... Well, in any case, it's just for informations sake anyway. :)

I will look into the "Equilibrium motor".

Thanks for the time and help.

. . Error . .

Quote from: Koen1 on May 16, 2008, 07:08:48 AM

The current needed to release the magnets is indeed smaller than that needed to repel them, but the resulting torque should be proportionally smaller as well.

Someone once said, 'a little bit is infinitely more than none at all.

Also, there is no repulsion.

No, that's not what I meant to say. What I was trying to convey was the point that
- yes, you can detach a magnet that is attracted to an iron core by supplying just enough
current to the coil to 'cancel out' the permanent magnets attraction and allow it to drop off.
- in most electromotors the current is usually increased above that point which does generate
a repulsive force, and this provides additional torque in the rotor
- in your idea this does not happen, so although the attraction is cancelled out, the
torque generated should also be a lot less than in a motor that does generate repulsion
- so the energy you save on the input side by not generating this repulsion also leads
to less effective torque on the output side. Less in => less out.

That was sort of what I meant to say. ;)

It's still a nice idea and I don't want to be negative, I'm just telling you what I think will happen...
:)

Okay, looks promising. What are the test results? Does it produce OU and why? Many devices are built in the computer, but without any pactical application it is just digital air. You have to start building the thing.

AA

Just an idea: The purpose for the coils is to break or as you put it fade the point of highest flux density to get over the sticky point. In order to do this, you must generate a magnetic field equal to or in excess of the permanent magnetic field to effectively break the attraction. Conservation of energy aside, this principle won't scale very well. A larger wheel with larger magnets will require more energy in the coil to have the same effect. There are lower energy methods to neutralize or reverse the field. Look up Wesley Gray's work and also look at Steorn's low energy actuator. Using an actuator on a slide or small wheel, you could reverse the polarity of the magnetic field and get twice the effective torque. Not just break the hold but convert it to a push.

Quote from: AnandAadhar on June 20, 2008, 04:50:23 AM
Okay, looks promising. What are the test results? Does it produce OU and why? Many devices are built in the computer, but without any practical application it is just digital air. You have to start building the thing.

AA

I wish I could build it. I don't have the ability to do that. Don't have the money, the place to do it or the handyman mentality. It would be like me asking you to write a symphony. Some can do it, but not me. I would love to make a computer simulation of this, but there again, I don't know how to do that. If you have any suggestions, please advise.

Quote from: Onevoice on June 20, 2008, 12:57:18 PM
Just an idea: The purpose for the coils is to break or as you put it fade the point of highest flux density to get over the sticky point. In order to do this, you must generate a magnetic field equal to or in excess of the permanent magnetic field to effectively break the attraction. 

This is exactly where I have a problem. If you have two identical electromagnets, and you apply equal current to both with the touching faces of the same polarities, you get repulsion. Is this not correct?

If you lower the current of the first electromagnet, at some point there will be no repulsion or attraction. Is this not correct?

How is it possible that that a current with just enough to release the grip is equal to the current needed to create an equal or repulsive force?

Quote from: Onevoice on June 20, 2008, 12:57:18 PM
Conservation of energy aside, this principle won't scale very well. A larger wheel with larger magnets will require more energy in the coil to have the same effect.

This is correct.

Quote from: Onevoice on June 20, 2008, 12:57:18 PM
There are lower energy methods to neutralize or reverse the field. Look up Wesley Gray's work and also look at Steorn's low energy actuator.

I am researching this now.

Quote from: Onevoice on June 20, 2008, 12:57:18 PM
Using an actuator on a slide or small wheel, you could reverse the polarity of the magnetic field and get twice the effective torque. Not just break the hold but convert it to a push.

Again, this is where everyone is making a mistake. I don't want more torque, I want overunity. If you apply equal and opposite forces you have equlibrium, not overunity. The whole point of this is to gain energy from the permanent magnets by utlizing the difference between:

1. - The energy gained by that attraction of the permanent magnets to the non-energized cores of the electromagnets, and

2. - The amount of energy needed to produce the release of the magnetic grip between them.

These two values are different, because if you have equal attraction and repulsion, you do not have overunity.

All the torque I need is enough to rotate the wheels. The same magnets that produce the rotation also produces current in the output coils.

There are two simple inexpensive experiments to determine this.

Start with two electromagnets that have non-magnetized metal cores. With the coils not charged there is no attraction or repulsion between the cores.

Position the electromagnets vertically. Apply enough current to the upper electromagnet so the lower non-charged electromagnet is supported comfortably by the attraction of the charged upper electromagnet to the non-magnetized core of the lower electromagnet. Measure the current.  We will call this ?x? and give it a value of 10.

With the lower electromagnet positioned so it produces an opposing magnetic field relative to the upper electromagnet; increase the current to the lower electromagnet until the lower magnet falls away. This current has to be less than 10 because if it were 10 it would be an equal and opposite field producing repulsion, not just a null force. Measure the current. We will call this ?y? and give it a value of 8. This is a total guess and this is why this experiment is so very important.

Therefore, if we subtract 8 from 10, we gain 2 or 20% of x every time one element of the system goes through the pulse sequence. We will call this gain ?z?. This should be followed by an experiment that uses two permanent magnets, one on each end of an electromagnet.

I cannot escape the logic that the energy needed to create enough force in an electromagnet to release the magnetic grip is less than the force of the attraction of the permanent magnet to the non-energized metal core of the electromagnet. This is because if you applied the same amount of current you would get repulsion. Someone will need to explain to me how a null force, the release of the magnetic grip, is equal to the repulsion of two equal electromagnets. If no one can explain this to me, this is over unity.

This system was designed around permanent magnets about 2 inches across. The ones I have here have a surface field strength about 380 pounds. If we assume z is equal to 2, then .2*380=76. Assume we lose 80% of the surface field strength (this is a wild guess, I think it may be closer to 60%) due to the gap between the permanent magnets and the pulse core, then .2*76=15. Since we are using both sides of the pulse coils, we gain 30 pounds of surface field strength per element per pulse for torque.

Six elements per wheel and 4 wheels gives us 720 pounds torque per revolution. At 60 RPM, you get 43,200 pounds per minute. At 600 RPM, you get 432,000 pounds per minute. I am convinced that is enough to overcome any back electro motive force and create over unity, especially if the cores and magnets are shaped with a groove decrease the gap loss.

The next simple and inexpensive experiment is as follows:

Create an overlapping circular coil and rotate permanent magnets positioned on the inside and outside of the coils, Measure the current. Experiment with different polarities and positioning of the permanent magnets. Measure the current. With the magnet fields of two permanent magnets interacting with each other in the center of a coil the amount of current produced may be a surprise.

Kore doesn?t need to have massive torque, it only needs enough torque to rotate the wheels against back electromotive force, since the electrical generation is created in the system's output coil. Actually, I?m not sure that this device even creates back electromotive force.

Thanks for your input.

Quote from: rukiddingme on June 20, 2008, 07:18:29 PM
I wish I could build it. I don't have the ability to do that. Don't have the money, the place to do it or the handyman mentality. It would be like me asking you to write a symphony. Some can do it, but not me. I would love to make a computer simulation of this, but there again, I don't know how to do that. If you have any suggestions, please advise.

I have the same problem with my IPMM designs, but I keep trying even without the help of the handyman. Somehow we have to get it going. Keep up the good work.

QuoteHow is it possible that that a current with just enough to release the grip is equal to the current needed to create an equal or repulsive force?

Ahh, but aren't you using forces against themselves rather than forces acting together. If I understand your energy model, you are taking magnet energy. Turning it into rotation which drives a coil to produce electricity which cancels the magnet. at each step, you have energy loss. You may be 101% efficient overall but at a cost of most of the potential energy simply because you are using most of it against itself and losing some at each step along the way.

I'm not diss'ing your idea. I'm trying to offer what I humbly think is an improvement. A purely mechanical KORE could be easier to realize than an electromechanical KORE. A simple and low energy mechanical setup could also provide your field to break the grip or even contribute energy to the system using additional permanent magnets and some iron or other shielding - at least it could be energy neutral overall - which is what you want.

By the way, my engineering and construction skills ain't so hot either but it isn't stopping me from playing around. Anything you practice at, you will get better at and what better thing to have as a hobby than an (seemingly) impossible puzzle.

Response to another post:

Quote
(there's hysteresis to contend with as well. I.e. you need to apply an H-field in the opposite direction just to get the magnetization back down to zero.)

This was a tough one. I must have read a hundred Webpages to get a handle on this. I?m sure you are familiar with the hysteresis loop. It looks like a big fat ?S?. There are examples all over the net. I kept looking at it, but it showed the same friggin thing that I DON'T want to do.

It shows a loop starting at zero, which is at the center of the ?S? that increases positively to a value that is saturation of the material to the upper right. Right away, this is wrong for what I am doing, I don?t want to go to fully saturated polarization. It then moves down and to the left showing where the remanent value is. It then continues down and to the left until it goes negative an equal amount. Equal and opposite. Sigh, thwarted again. Equal and opposite does not apply to this system.

First I need to find an example that doesn?t go to saturation and second, an example that doesn?t go negative.

??

Sigh.
??

Frustration.

??

Sigh.
??


WHAM BANG, thank you Berkeley, I found it, advanced labs, mediawiki. Who says wiki isn?t worth anything.

http://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hysteresis (http://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hysteresis)

This shows a more detailed analysis of the hysteresis loop. First, they show the standard ?S? hysteresis loop. Then they have a loop defined by a? b? c? d? e? f? a?. This is a loop that is of lesser value so as not to go to saturation. Notice how it is of an elliptical shape and not like an ?S?. This is very good.

But most important, notice the third loop ? a? b? a?. As the article states ?or (a'b'a'...) if the current "I" never becomes negative? How beautiful is that! I hope you can imagine what it felt like to see that loop. This is exactly what is needed.

Look at that loop! It moves perfectly from a? to b? exactly as this system needs. While the system is in operation, the a? is the pulse point, where the pulse happens and the permanent magnets move away.; b? is the attraction phase, where the permanent magnet is attracted to the core. If timed right, and a little assistance from electronics, this system can run bouncing back and forth between a? and b?. This system can ride above the hysteresis loss, staying charged, between a' and b'. How sweet is that.

Of course, while the system is running, the cores have to get to a point that replicates uncharged metal so the permanent magnets will still be attracted to the cores significantly. This is can be done by using permanent magnets as the cores of the electromagnets - equal in force to the difference between 0 and b?. Thereby shifting the 0 point relative to the permanent magnets and the cores up to b?, while at the same time maintaining the complete hysteresis loop relative to itself. This really is awesome.

What we need now is something that shows the timing of the dissipation of a magnetic field in different materials, how long it takes to get from a? to b?. That?s gonna be a lot harder to find. Any suggestions?

Quote from: Onevoice on June 21, 2008, 07:26:17 PM
Ahh, but aren't you using forces against themselves rather than forces acting together. If I understand your energy model, you are taking magnet energy. Turning it into rotation which drives a coil to produce electricity which cancels the magnet. at each step, you have energy loss. You may be 101% efficient overall but at a cost of most of the potential energy simply because you are using most of it against itself and losing some at each step along the way.

I look at it a different way. I think there is an advantage to be gained from the difference between the energy needed to release the grip and the energy gained by the attraction of the permanent magnets to the cores of the electromagnets. Either there is a gain created or there is not. A couple of simple experiments can determine this. I think it is a significant gain. Take two electromagnets, charge the first one. Charge the second electromagnet until there is a null force between them, no attraction or repulsion. Measure the amps to each and see if there is a difference. If there is a difference, we gain that difference in this system by substituting a permanent magnet for one of the electromagnets.

If true, there is no energy loss at this point, in fact we have a gain. We are gaining more energy from the attraction than the release of the grip. Moving the coils from a separate generator and including them in the Kore system does nothing but add more gain. Where is the loss of adding coils, the loss would be if we didn?t make use of the rotating magnets. The same magnets that cause the rotation are the same magnets that create current in the output coils. I think I need to ask you where the loss is?

Quote from: Onevoice on June 21, 2008, 07:26:17 PM
I'm not diss'ing your idea. I'm trying to offer what I humbly think is an improvement.

I know that. Thanks.     :)

Quote from: Onevoice on June 21, 2008, 07:26:17 PM
A purely mechanical KORE could be easier to realize than an electromechanical KORE. A simple and low energy mechanical setup could also provide your field to break the grip or even contribute energy to the system using additional permanent magnets and some iron or other shielding - at least it could be energy neutral overall - which is what you want.

If shielding works well I suppose there might be a way to do it. I have seen the videos of people using shielding to attempt this. Maybe you could figure out a way that cams would move magnets around to pull them out of the way as others approach. If you have any ideas about this, let me know, I?ll think about them.

Quote from: Onevoice on June 21, 2008, 07:26:17 PM
By the way, my engineering and construction skills ain't so hot either but it isn't stopping me from playing around. Anything you practice at, you will get better at and what better thing to have as a hobby than an (seemingly) impossible puzzle.

I believe that, but I literally don?t have a place to create a work bench. I would love to mess around, I can?t. I am confident I will someday, and when that day comes, I will be all over it. I can?t go out and buy some electromagnets and a couple of variacs right now.

Thanks for your kind words. Let?s just keep on doing what we can.

Here's a copy of the hysteresis graph I found at:

http://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hysteresis (http://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hysteresis)




Notice the loop at a' to b'. Notice how it rides above the hystersis loss from 0 to b'.

Hysteresis is eliminated if Kore runs back and forth from a' (the pulse) and b' (the attraction).