I would like to start this thread to discuss ways of nullifying the effect of Lenz law.
Most of the free energy motors bypass Lenz law, therefore they can produce more energy than conventional science says is possible. If you remove Lenz law, so much electricity can be made from a generator that it can be made into a closed loop system that is "self powering."
For those of you who don't know what Lenz law is:
Lenz law states that the magnetic fields in a coil of wire will always be formed in opposition to the magnetic field that created it, therefore it always takes more magnetic force to induce more current in a coil of wire. Lenz law basically says that you are ALWAYS GOING TO LOSE ENERGY when you induce current into an inductor (coil).
We do not need to cancel this law (render it invalid), we just need to discuss ways of canceling the negative effect it has on our motors and generators.
Please share examples, patents, pictures, videos and any other information showing how to remove Lenz law !
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg222.imageshack.us%2Fimg222%2F1203%2Flenzslawfe6.jpg&hash=5020d41a900c1cf8d965ae5989fb8ecc2a7130e0)
Lindemann wrote in another forum:
Regarding the works of Jim Murray and his dyna flux generator:
Jim Murray video about his life/works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6761827664845630969&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6761827664845630969&hl=en)
And his generator Patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=qog8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4780632 (http://www.google.com/patents?id=qog8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4780632)
Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks. With regard to your post about the Jim Murray Generator design, I have known Jim Murray for 20 years and we published this patent in Borderland Magazine back in the 1980's. All of the people I worked with in Santa Barbara, including Mike Knox, Eric Dollard, and Chris Carson, met with Jim Murray a number of times after I moved away in 1992. Jim and Eric subsequently solved the solid-state method for converting reactive power back to real power using Jim's methods applied to Eric's FOUR QUADRANT THEORY of electric waves. All of these things you mention have already been accomplished.
While Jim has built working models of this generator, getting all of the electrical and physical resonances in phase is tricky. The machine does NOT exhibit drag free operation until these conditions are all balanced and synchronized. Still and all, it does PROVE that electric motors and generators are NOT converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to properly built motors and generators. For those of us who know the truth, this is not a problem.
As you have correctly stated, there is little purpose showing more precise theory in a forum like this when the model building difficulty only gets worse than what has already been shown. I will tell you plainly, however, that the CONSTANT RELUCTANCE MOTOR is the ticket and special geometries are the method of accomplishment. When the reluctance does not change at all during the power stroke, then the inductance of the circuit remains relatively constant as well. This allows for the design of a true, constant speed, synchronous motor that produces maximum mechanical power on 95% reactive power and about 5% real power. This allows a COP=20 operation as technically feasible.
Good Jim Murry video! I watched the whole thing. Steven Greer is the most courageous person there is on Earth, and Jim Murray is helping the right guy, that's for sure. That was an amazing story. Thanks Nali2001!
Overcoming Lenz’s Law would be a huge benefit and it’s almost hard to believe that after all these years and the technologies of the day and age it hasn’t been conquered.
I have had an interest in this subject, and here is some information I have gathered in the past. I haven’t tested any of these ideas, but maybe someone here can make better use of this information than I have thus far.
1. Lenz Free Coils: Several proposed coils designs to negate Lenz http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields8.htm
Fields 8-10 discusses the proposed designs. I would be interested on comments from others on these!
2. Coil/core cogging minimizing coil arrangement: Muller design (1st picture)
When 1 coil is pulling back, another is pulling forward, equalizing the cogging forces. (not Lenz cancelling, but helpful with iron cored coils - at the expense of rectifiying each coil individually)
3. Lenz minimizing coil design: Muller design (2nd picture)
More of the power is generated further back from the magnets.
4. No-load (Lenz free) generator U.S. Patent: 6,208,061 (http://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search and enter patent #)
EDIT: corrected patent # in line 4
The best anti - lentz motor....It works great:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-energy/files/anti-lenz/stanley_anti_lenz.gif
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/garry2coils.html
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=510
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/pugh.html
Quote from: wings on November 20, 2008, 06:40:35 AM
The best anti - lentz motor....It works great:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-energy/files/anti-lenz/stanley_anti_lenz.gif
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/garry2coils.html
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=510
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/pugh.html
Hi Wings,
I do not know if you built Garry's anti-Lenz motor but Stefan modified his comments written on his own drawing you attached ? Here is his comments on his ex free-energy yahoo group (where his drawing also was uploaded), message #2506
Hi All, after rechecking again my cables it seems that I made one mistake in connecting the coils.
Now after remeasuring the coils as shown in the diagramm, the induction voltage from the magnet adds up,instead of canceling, so after rethinking about it, I came to find the error: I used 2 equally wound coils. That is wrong !
Now if you look from behind each coil into the direction airgap it is clear, that one coil has to be left-turn wound and the other
coil has to be right-turn wound !
This is not the case with 2 equally wound coils and just rotating one by 180 degrees !
So this is very important and wrongly stated in my diagramm.
I will tommorow wind another coil the right way and retest it and post it. Regards, Stefan.
And later he continued in his reply#2579:
Hi all, I changed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-energy/files/anti-lenz/ the description of the stanley_anti_lenz.gif file into: it does not work...
Sorry, but I will still keep the file up there for reference.
Now we have to find out, why Garry gets only 2 Volts out when he turns his motor manually, although a single coil puts out 9 Volts. How is he canceling the lenz law induction in his motor...? Regards, Stefan.
Another thing I mention is that Garry's setup as shown with the two parallel connected coil pairs is for pulse motors and NOT for generators, i.e. not to induce current into a load (in Garry's motor there was no any load across any of the paralleled coil pairs). This clarifies the controversy shown in Ron's excellent tests made with the different coil-connecting combinations in the link you gave ( http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/pugh.html ).
I personally believe that the correct term to examine here is the counter (or back) EMF induced in the coils when the magnet is approaching, this is not the question of Lenz law effect. When the paralled coil pair is energized to pull the approaching magnet in, it is sure the magnet induces an opposing voltage/current in the coils with respect to our input voltage/current just like in a normal DC motor with permanent magnets. The difference is that the input voltage is switched off when the magnet arrives at the coils center, so no input current, hence no more counter EMF current. The good thing is that Garry used 12 coil pairs and 12 magnet pairs so he seemed to "gain flux" from the many Neo magnets. I say this because later Garry wrote that when he reduced the coil pairs to 6 the ou effect he had seemed to experience was gone.
Finally please notice this thread here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5890.0 maybe this is a genuine solution for getting rid of back emf ? I think it is worth considering.
rgds, Gyula
I am going to make a very compact alternator just to experiment with out of a long magnet that has N and S running lengthwise. This magnet is larger than the one shown in the pic. I will also wrap the coils all the way around.
Faraday's law of induction says that when you cut lines of force with a magnet at 90 degrees (right hand angles) you get the most induced current. So that is why the Bedini-Cole window motor works. According to some other electrical theories in the book, you shouldn't be able to create electricity without having Lenz's law, but we know this is not correct. The books are misleading.
I've tested this arrangement at 1400 rpm and it produces 99 MA and 1.125 volts. It is only about 3" long with the center cores. Hooking it to a Dremel at low speed made 500ma and 3 volts. With 6 times more copper and a larger magnet, I should be able to produce something useable without Lenz law.
One other Lenz free thing is the 'attraction motor' or rather a pulse driven variable reluctance motor. Since the 'torque producing method' involved does not use/interact with secondary magnetic fields (say, a rotor with magnets) it does not have a back emf. But it's a motor and not a generator....
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/271-electric-motor-secrets.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/271-electric-motor-secrets.html)
It would appear that the best way to get around Lenz law is to effect the magnetic flux density of the coil core with something that doesn't care about the induced current. Is there a way to retard the current of the coil so that the prime mover is long gone before the coil current flows. Like a cap bank to get a leading voltage and lagging current. Then pull the current through a current transformer cap network to put things back in phase?
@Supermuble & All
Thanks Supermuble for opening this thread :) It rekindled an old Idea I had but never tried :P
Has anyone looked at this link? http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields10.htm in #3 it talks about Ed Leedskalnin mentioning "I made more electricity with steel than I ever made with copper" :o If you click on the Ed Leedskalnin link or go to http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/exper/magcur.htm and near the bottom there's a paragraph that starts with "Now about a generator" that's interesting.
Also, after reading about the Jeff Cook Effect Generator some time ago I wondered if his type of iron wire coil couldn't be applied to a Bedini setup and what it might do ??? I wasn't able to find a local source of this type of wire but I'm going to start looking again ;D
Regards,
Paul
In 1910 Lenz´s Law was not canceled ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aWobDU0Cm0&feature=related
cheers,
khabe
@ Nali2001
Thank you for the link to the Jim Murray video, that was quite the eye opener :o
I was wondering about the part where he was oscillating between the source to destination power station by reversing the VAR (hope I got that right) :P would it be possible to do a mini version of this using a12 VDC to 100 VAC inverter as the source and a generator using this method?
Regards,
Paul
If Lenz's Law could be circumvented it would not be called Lenz's Law.
Perhaps Lenz's Generally Works But Sometimes Doesn't Principle.
ERS
@ Evil Roy Slade
Have you watched the Jim Murray video that Nali2001 posted earlier?
In it Jim Murray describes how he tuned his receiving station to the sending one, somehow in that example (although he blew some Christmas lights in the process ;D) he did get it to work where the generator turned into a motor and didn't register a load :o even though people were using electricity to power their homes :o
Doesn't that strike you as a possible break in our current laws ??? Lenz or otherwise ;) We're only human and haven't figured everything out yet ;D Besides I haven't seen anyone on this site or any other with that much of a history in trying different projects on that scale, have you?
Regards,
Paul
Thane's motor is a good example of not only negating lenz's law but defying it completely by acceleration of the rotor.
Lenz's Law is one consequence of the principle of conservation of energy. It is also a 'one size fits all' law.
It proves well with single loops of wire and solenoid coils. It does not prove well with flat spiral coils.
Unlike single loops and solenoid coils the flat spiral coil magnetic polarity is radial - not axial.
I don't purchase 'one size fits all' clothing either.
BEP
P.S.
I believe Thane's work is like driving your car with a hole in the gas tank for years and then plugging the hole to find your mileage increased. You can't defy Lenz's law but you can remove it from the equation.
So BEP removing Lenz from the equation is not defying the law? That's also an intresting point you brought up about spiral coils. I don't believe I've seen any motor using spiral cores before. Hmm brings up food for the brain.
A flyback transformer with a ballasted primary seems to run with gain as it controls the core reluctance and retainance to very efficient levels. Some force is changing the core saturation parmeters back to status quo. The forward current from the horizontal output transistor comes in at 15khz and produces heat from the voltage drop in the horizontal output transistor. Then we drop some more voltage through a bank of leds and finally we drop the rest of the voltage with core saturation change. Then the sawtooth wave goes into transition and the saturated core goes back to status quo real fast producing a kick voltage up to 27kv. This voltage is not at the expense of the input current it is produced by core magnetism resetting to the ambient magnetic field parameters. The faster the better.
OK, I wanted to chime in here because this subject if touching on some aspects of designs I am currently looking ot design.
What I want to know regarding Lenz's Law is the relationship of this Law to the BEMF or CEMF (NOT FLYBACK if you know the difference) also known as DRAG, not of an electric motor but on an electric generator. This DRAG increases as the generator load is increased. Is this what you are talking about. If so, I have some ideas, but I wanted to now before anything else if Lenz's law is responsible for the drag on a motor. If someone can answer this question, I will then post how I see this. Otherwise, if this is not related, then I will simply say sorry for an off topic post.
In my book bemf/cemf and Lenz is the same thing.
To quote:
'The counter-electromotive force is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is represented by Lenz's Law of electromagnetism.'
Steven
Hi Steven,
Yes, in the meantime I also realized that practically they can be considered the same effect.
Thanks for this notice.
Gyula
Just to clarify, Lenz law is indeed a factual law. It is a fact of all magnetic machines. However, if you modify the configuration, then Lenz law does not cause negative side effects. You can either use Lenz's law to wreck over-unity by letting it create drag inside of a motor/generator/transformer, or you can avoid letting it cause drag, and you can achieve over-unity.
This discussion is definetely not whether it violates the law of conservation of energy, since it does not. Electricity is created by a moving magnetic field. Magnetic fields create the electricity. Gasoline engines do not create electricity, they just provide a means of moving your generator which moves the magnets. However, since a magnetic field can be moved without using physical force, then there is no logical reason why you need "physical motion" to induce current!
Lenz's law causes the magnetism in a transformer to decrease, causing the transformer to fail. Instead of being an inductor, and resisting current flowing into the primary coil, the magnetic field strength collapses when you draw a load from the secondary. This is because Lenz's law makes the primary and secondary fields CANCEL EACH OTHER instead of REINFORCING each other. If you take Lenz's law out of the equation, then the primary inductor coil on a transformer will not increase current flow when the secondary coil is hooked up to a load. I have a post under the MEG forum that describes this in more detail. Though I am not an expert on transformers.
Faraday's law of induction says that one factor in how much electric power you can create is increasing the RATE OF CHANGE of the moving magnetic field passed over a coil of wire. On a generator that has no drag (no Lenz's law drag) then it can spin at very high speed, improving the RATE OF CHANGE, and according to Faraday's law, you get MORE VOLTAGE and MORE CURRENT without destroying tremendous amounts of energy at the input shaft of the generator.
Lenz law exists in motors. Yes, Lenz law causes drag. Lenz law creates drag anytime there is current moving through motor windings, or alternator/generator windings. Lenz law can only cause magnetic drag when the coils are carrying current. Coils that do not carry current do not have magnetism, so they cannot create magnetic drag.
The video of the Bedini-Cole window motor that runs on a capacitor may or may not be a true video, but it is definetely not far fetched to say that it worked. Without Lenz's law, you can make a motor that is self powering. Yes, self powering! (NO I have not done it myself... ) ;D
My statement about taking it out of the equation means taking it out because it no longer applies.
These laws are only observations by people. Most over a hundred years ago. We still pay for Faraday's mistake thinking particles couldn't go through a solid.
Lenz didn't include flat spirals in his law. I assume because Faraday said there was no induction.
Wrong. When you approach the axis of a spiral coil with a magnetic pole there is an opposing magnetic force generated in that coil. It just isn't 180 deg. opposing. It is 90 degrees. So if a magnet could also have a name for the equatorial part of the field then that is what opposes the oncoming magnet's pole.
That is one way.
The other is to have no variation in the magnetic flux - then Lenz no longer applies. Normally current isn't generated either!
Not always.....
CEMF, BEMF are not the same thing but both are tied to the Lenz law. BEMF is also called flyback. It is the result of a coil's magnetic field collapsing. It is created when you remove EMF from the coil. CEMF is the counter force created when you apply current to a coil.
There is absolutely nothing magical about BEMF (BEMF was not part of my vocabulary until I started using the web for research on these topics and I've been burning circuits since the early 60's)
If you build a magical generator (no Lenz) then it should not also work as a motor. If you build a magical electric motor (no Lenz) then it probably won't work.
I mean NO LENZ law - not reduced or countered or whatever.
For the generator you would be able to turn the shaft and feel absolutely no magnetic related reluctance. AFAIK the only way to do this is to design a rotor that smoothly shifts the magnetic flux from one coil to another without -ever- causing a fluctuation in that flux.
Hi!
Correct. Laws are merely observations! ;D
The real world has no boundaries, and anything is possible. The people who cannot think outside of the box, are terrified. They are scared to find that their entire reality is just an illusion. The illusion is a world of limitations. We are taught specific limitations and we are forced to obey them.
When you realize that we (normal citizens) really know nothing, it is very difficult to accept!
BEP, I have a question.
I have no experience with spiral coils, but I was wondering if you could make a generator from a spiral coil and avoid Lenz law magnetic drag. If you were to move a north and south magnet paralell to the wire, would this generate any useable power? Otherwise, if you moved the magnet across the wires at a 90 degree angle, would this have Lenz law? I am having trouble picturing it, since I have never used or studied a spiral coil. I do know that they do not have self inductance, therefore no back emf. In my understanding, you could induce current into a spiral coil, but there would not be ANY magnetic field in the spiral coil, since it has no inductance. Is this right?
Quote from: supermuble on November 21, 2008, 08:30:01 PM
BEP, I have a question.
I have no experience with spiral coils, but I was wondering if you could make a generator from a spiral coil and avoid Lenz law magnetic drag. If you were to move a north and south magnet paralell to the wire, would this generate any useable power? Otherwise, if you moved the magnet across the wires at a 90 degree angle, would this have Lenz law? I am having trouble picturing it, since I have never used or studied a spiral coil. I do know that they do not have self inductance, therefore no back emf. In my understanding, you could induce current into a spiral coil, but there would not be ANY magnetic field in the spiral coil, since it has no inductance. Is this right?
By 'self inductance' you mean turn to turn induction? Yes, one turn would 'induce' into adjacent turns. Look at a typical, so-called 'Tesla transformer'. The primary is a spiral and the secondary a solenoid coil. Certainly there is induction. Also I consider this setup as likely free of the directly opposing Lenz problems.
A spiral coil follows the same rules as any other coil. The difference is a solenoid coil or single loop has the N/S poles at the ends of the axis of the coil.
A spiral has the N/S poles at the inner and outer diameters.
The Lenz law still applies, just not exactly as described in most text books. Most assume the two types of coils are the same except to the eye. They are not!
Make a generator with spiral coils? Why not? Figure it out and try. Be ready for some difficult winding. This may be why most folks haven't tried it. Think about the difficulty....
Winding a solenoid coil you just attach a wire to your spool form and spin that form until you have enough wire on it. (not exactly that simple). Multiple layers extend from the center of the axis in an ever increasing radial direction.
Multi layer spiral coils start at one end of the form and stay at that same spot until the maximum diameter of the coil is reached and then begin a second layer by winding in an ever decreasing diameter toward the coil form center, reverse-create another layer and continue until the length of the coil form is covered.
Difficult to describe but think of a rod with a bunch of washers stacked and slid onto it.
Then think of each washer as a separate flat spiral coil. All of these coils have the same handedness BUT one half of them have their winding start from the inner diameter and the other half start from the outer diameter.
Why I referenced the flyback transformer is that it is designed to draw energy from the core mass. They know it is going to build up or retain magnetic domains when pulsed with dc. To insure it doesn't they design the core to shed it's residual magnetism and make sure it does it all at once. So what is actually giving us all that high voltage is coming from the steel atoms themselves as they return to natural magnetic arrangements. I did a small experiment with a very unoptimized audio transformer. See below. The leds litup and the second battery charged and the buzzer got louder as long as I didn't overvoltage the system.
I also included a motor with a fan blade attached to the "stator". The fan blades are a matched load. Looks to be more efficient then stretching mounting bolts. Seems that reactive energy is being overlooked alot.
Couldn't you just pulse one polarity and then pulse the opposite continuously to keep the core from magnetizing? Wouldn't that also be away to collect the back EMF without have to have a second winding? To do that couldn't you have a second wire attached to each of the leads from the coil and place two diodes one way and the other two the opposite and charge the same battery that way?
It may be obvious that I don't know much about circuitry but that has been bugging me for some time now because I have yet to here of that being done.
A physics web forum said, if you "Make any flat (2d) figure of a wire such as a sinusoid or a spiral they will not have inductance. Inductance will appear only if these figures are stretched in the third dimension."
I did notice that the flat spiral cores they print on circuit boads called "planar" are not really spiral core. They are simply printed coils, with a normal design and a normal core that wraps around them almost entirely. The coil itself may not have much inductance until the core is placed on it. So printed circuit boards aren't a good example for an argument.
Then I found the math equation for self inductance of a spiral core. I am terrible at math, but I came out with a figure of 11 Micro Henries (uH) for a hypothetical spiral coil that is 16" in diameter mounted to a round flat piece of wood using 120 turns of wire (not sure what gauge) with no gap in the center of the coil.
If I were to use a spiral coil mounted to a board, it should not be able to create any noticeable magnetic drag in opposition to a rotating magnet, since the copper wire will not be able to create much a magnetic field. It has very little induction right? The question now remains, can you induce very much current into a spiral coil winding using rotating magnets?
I hope I'm not WAY off track, lol.
If you have built such a coil I suggest you measure it, apply current and test with a compass.
I've found many formula for these coils. None work unless you throw in a 'fudge factor'.
For a coil with no inductance they do very well in RFID tags, security badges and wireless power transmission.
I believe there is a company called CheckPoint that prints them in sheets so you can catch shoplifters.
@bep "wireless power transmission" :D. Do they make em so you can catch them sneaky joule thiefs? Probably not JP Morgan made sure of that.
@supermuble
They make or made an alternator that used 2 kidney shaped flat ouput windings wound with aluminum flat wire and a set of permanent magnets spinning on the rotor.
Really simple machine that didn't even need a voltage regulator to respond to changing load currents. Really put out alot of power for it's size. No steel core real light. Guys would swear by em for ouput to fuel cost ratios. Could have been Kohler or Generac. Seems to have been a move in the right direction getting rid of the steel.
Or you might also try:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=dboCAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6169343 (http://www.google.com/patents?id=dboCAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6169343)
Quote from: supermuble on November 22, 2008, 01:03:49 AM
If I were to use a spiral coil mounted to a board, it should not be able to create any noticeable magnetic drag in opposition to a rotating magnet, since the copper wire will not be able to create much a magnetic field. It has very little induction right? The question now remains, can you induce very much current into a spiral coil winding using rotating magnets?
I hope I'm not WAY off track, lol.
Hi Supermuble and all,
I see exactly what you are picturing in your head. As a matter of fact I've been wondering the same thing many times. You can even image "sweeping" the pancake coil with a N pole from the front and a S pole from the back at the same time.... Don't know if that would improve it further.
The question is: will the motor driving the magnet(s) really see no load? Will making it spin faster increase efficiency of the whole thing to a point where there is more current induced in the pancake coil(s) than the motor consumes?
I have never tried this for the simple reason that it sounds too simple to be true. If this thing would be able to go overunity, someone would have done it long time ago. Or am i wrong?
regards
Dutchy
Ya'll want to know what 'Zero-Point' really is?
Zero-Point is speculating on what something may do when you base your visualizations upon work done by someone else. The thought of no magnetism because there is no inductive reactance AND the coil having little or no inductive reactance without winding one and testing yourself is Zero-Point.
The term 'planar' was used. Since there is no induction then something like a planar transformer is ridiculous, right?
Tell that to a credit card company or most governments. If they believe you then a lot of credit cards and passports should be recalled.
I see three ways to interact with Lenz and his Law:
1. It is there in its full glory, lets not forget all the devices that we use everyday that use this Law.
2. You effectively disable it, and hence take it out of the equation, in ways similar to BEP stated, among others.
3. You sit down and have a talk with Lenz and he decides to help you, thereby reversing his Law just for you because you were so nice to him :P
I am quite sure, that out of the three, you guys might want to know more about number 3? Or are you thinking it is just a joke?
Let me just give a quick example of how this can be done, and has been done, perhaps unknowingly in many devices, heh.
1. Ok, take a simple low remanence core and wind two coils on it. Call one a power coil, and the other the pickup coil. Both coils should be OPEN.
2. Have a rotor with magnets on it's outer edge. Spin the rotor slightly.
3. Now, what will happen? The nearest magnet on the rotor is going to be highly attracted to the low remanence core material and provide you with essentially free motive power.
4. When that magnet gets at just about TDC to your low remanence core/coils, you fire a pulse into your power coil. This pulse should create a magnetic field that 'zeroes out' the magnetic field from that magnet on the rotor such that the magnet on the rotor doesn't 'see' the low remanence core anymore. Leave the pickup coil OPEN at this time, so there is no Lenz effect from coil to coil.
5. The magnet on the rotor now maintains its momentum and continues around and easily passes TDC. Another thing to remember is, the magnetic field of the rotor magnet is no longer in the low remanence core, it is bend away from the low remanence core because of the pulse from the power coil.
6. So, it is at this moment that the next key thing happens. The power pulse shuts off abrubtly, re-OPEN-ing the power coil. At this same instant, or slightly before, the pickup coil is CLOSED, preferably with a load of some sorts.
7. What happens when that power pulse shuts off? Well, lets look at the situation. We have the rotor's MAGNET moving AWAY from the low remanence core and we have that rotor's magnet's FIELD moving TOWARD the low remanence core. Did you get that? The physical magnet is moving away from the core and WITH MOMENTUM and the magnet's FIELD is moving TOWARD the low remanence core. Remember, the rotor magnet's FIELD was bend and expelled from the low remanence core during the power pulse, so, now that the power pulse is gone, the FIELD is trying to move TOWARD the low remanence core.
8. What happens now? Well Lenz's Law happens! But, this time Lenz helps us. The FIELD enters the low remanence core, and since the pickup coil is CLOSED, Lenz's Law will kick in and the pickup coil will create current flow in the pickup coil and the magnetic field that results from that current flow will OPPOSE the INCOMING FIELD from the rotor's magnet. Did you just see what happened?
9. What happens then is this, the rotor's magnet is moving along with it's built up momentum, and it's field tries to get back into the low remanence core, but Lenz's Law kicks in within the pickup coil and opposes the rotor magnet's field. So, this means that the rotor's magnet will be PUSHED AWAY from the low remanence core BY LENZ'S LAW that is occurring in the pickup coil, this means that the momentum and speed of the rotor and it's magnet WILL INCREASE, and at the same time that is happening, we have POWER FLOWING INTO the pickup coil, all thanks to Lenz's Law.
10. More later, if so desired...
Thanks Lenz...
With proper geometry and design, you CAN have Lenz's Law WORK FOR YOU! It is possible.You might have to 'pay for a single pulse' (and this in many setups might make everything under unity), BUT the fact remains, you CAN make Lenz's Law HELP YOU...
Peace guys...
Hi Tao,
Very interesting idea, thanks for sharing it.
I assume the flyback pulse received across the power coil after the pulse switch-off could also be collected and used for reducing the input power, right?
If you have already thought of what the proper geometry is the most beneficial I would be curious to know (in case you can share it of course).
Thanks again,
Gyula
Maybe it's just me but do people really understand magnetic induction to a fundamental degree. I'm struggling real hard with it. I keep ending up in loops thinking of how all the things that involves magnetic induction.
A coil that is being powered makes a magnetic field at the same time this field is then being held back by an induced and making things even complex by having a PM move by. Trying to simulate it in your head can lead to madness.
BEP, you sound upset? Yes, more people need to experiment, I agree. But personally I cannot experiment as much as I would like because money is always a limiting factor. Not everyone can afford to test everything without learning about it on paper first. It is simply too expensive to test every configuration while ruining rolls of wire that cost $35 each. Though, I do think that people who speculate WITHOUT ever once experimenting should be called ZERO-POINT because there is no point in them learning anything. Electrical engineers sometimes go their entire life without ever trying anything new. Now that is a waste!
I just made a spiral core. It responds like a Bedini-Cole window motor coil. You have to spin a rotating N/S magnet across the coil windings, and you get voltage (no measurable Lenz) since the core is only as thick as the wire itself. The spinning magnet cannot possibly see any magnetic drag with this configuration. The only unique problem is the way you have to cut a cross the windings. Ideally, you would need to wrap up the spiral core inside an alternator or something so the magnets can cut "across" the wires to create more current. Running the spinning magnet paralell (lengthwise) to the wires produces nearly no voltage or current. For example, according to my experiment, if you had a spinning magnetic wheel, it would not generate much power at all unless the magnets cut across the spiral coil at a 90 degree angle. That means, you would need a HUGE machine and it would not be practical. I think that is why if you roll up a spiral coil and put it into an alternator, you would have no Lenz drag, while having a much more compact unit, and the magnets would be cutting ACROSS the wires (not paralell).
So spiral cores are out. I don't think they would work for a practical small generator unless you can make the coil on a sheet of aluminum or plastic, roll it up into a cylinder, and stuff the entire thing inside an alternator (not really practical).
TAO, Great insight! You just described a Bedini motor, using Pulsed DC. I built one using a particle board rotor with 16 small 1" magnets. When the magnets approach the coil, they see no LENZ since the coil is shut completely off. When the magnet passes over the coil it kicks on, generating an opposing magnetic field, but only enough to allow the magnet to pass by.
The LUTEC motor uses this exact same principle, though with much different timing and components. I can't figure out how you can use Lenz law to cause acceleration while there is a current load on the coil? It sounds like it all comes down to the proper timing, and pulsing. If you pulse things in the correct manner, you avoid the opposing drag created by Lenz law. I need to ponder on these ideas more, because this concept is difficult for me to visualize.
Great insight!
Broli, you are right. Thinking about inductors and magnets is a never ending process. Our books explain some of it, but as Bearden said, our current models are not complete, hence our major curiosity and confusion.
Here's more confusion. Say instead of changing the core magnetic flux with a permanent magnet we get the core magnetic flux to respond to a wave propogation.
The wave travels on into the core the core mass vibrates in response to the wave and the coil puts out some amps but the wave has moved off at the speed of light and could care less about what slow motion reaction is going on back at the core. Then the wave reflects and does it's thing again to the core. The power is in the wave the energy is in the core atoms. And the work is in the output coil.
'Upset'? Yes, it is frustrating. The most important differences of a spiral coil are the pole locations, the variation of current speed from one turn to the next, with some work you can make them resonate at unbelievable frequencies, they can be more capacitive than inductive, etc., etc.
Wrapping them inside a motor will likely be a bad move. Like said before - if you stretch them into a third dimension they start acting like common coil designs.
Avoiding Lenz is one of my best sidebars. I check back here during a break once in a while. This morning I came back and found before a good idea had been confirmed we were off theorizing the next step with bad assumptions from the first.
I should just go back to the bench and shut-up ;)
Quote from: sparks on November 22, 2008, 03:00:56 PM
Here's more confusion. Say instead of changing the core magnetic flux with a permanent magnet we get the core magnetic flux to respond to a wave propogation.
The wave travels on into the core the core mass vibrates in response to the wave and the coil puts out some amps but the wave has moved off at the speed of light and could care less about what slow motion reaction is going on back at the core. Then the wave reflects and does it's thing again to the core. The power is in the wave the energy is in the core atoms. And the work is in the output coil.
Nice idea but it requires a step that most here won't take....
Understanding a core, coil, or magnet are not the source of the magnetic flux. Until that happens they'll continue crashing into a closed door - repeatedly.
Enough... I'm going back to my bench now ;D
tao - good post.
What you are describing is similar to the Adams motor design. I think this type of design holds the highest promise for OU.
One thing you didn't include is the 'pre-charge' of the pulse coils. As the magnet approaches, attracted to the core, the pulse windings begin 'pre-charging', resulting in a smaller input required from the source to power the pulse coil.
So in the whole process you get:
1. Free acceleration from the magnet to the core
2. Free 'precharge' of the pulse windings
3. Usable output from the generator windings
4. Usable output from the collapsing field of the pulse windings and the generator windings
5? The portion I'm unsure of is the repulsion created by the core/generator windings you describe?
Have you observed/measured this? More details? So rather than seperate pulse/pickup coils you need to wind them in a bifilar wrap or one on top of the other for this effect?
There should be more work being done on the Adams motor theory IMO! It's not a 'repulsion' motor, but rather more an 'attraction cancelling' motor with pickup coils.
God this is getting me nowhere. The experiment on the first page or the one in this image...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quarrying.org%2Fdictionary%2Fimages%2Fe%2FElectromagnetic-induction.gif&hash=27469c3cf788e15a9cb6571e4a50195b13abdd8c)
Does not fully compute in my head. I think the confusion is because the fact that induction is actually a cascading effect. When a magnetic field is changed a current is induced such that the magnetic field created by this current opposes that changing field. This is Lenz's law as most of you know. But this keeps applying "infinitely". Because the induced field is also changing so this again induces another field countering that one and this induces another counter field and so on... Stuff gets even more confusing when dealing with self induction.
Hi Tao,
Good explanation you got there, I know how hard it is to put a detailed process explanation onto a 'few' words.
You describe the Adams motor to a great extend am I right?
Anyway lets talk about your 'point 9'
I see what you are getting at. You consider the 'returing' field from the magnet after tdc as 'incoming/inbound' relative to the coil and in that respect will lenz indeed set up a repelling field. And accelerate the rotor motion. But... here is the point I wonder about. It is true that the field can be seen as 'inbound' but the physical magnet itself is in reality 'moving away' so along that line of thought lenz will 'eventually' set up an attracting field and restrict the magnets field from leaving again. Since the field of the magnet has to leave the core at some point...So it is a bit of a power struggle between the two modes. Wonder who wins? Any though on that?
Regards,
Steven
BEP,-- why the frustration? ??? If you are upset because we have some incorrect ideas, please help to correct those ideas. Don't just stand there, grab a shovel! ;)
broli, I did also have trouble visualizing the flow of current, magnetism and opposing fields (Lenz's law). The things that happen in coils cannot be seen with our eyes, so obviously visualizing it can be tough. I felt that it was important for people to study this more. The study of induction seems to be more important than any other single thing. Because if you understand magnetic fields, you can build a machine of any shape, size or power that produces over-unity. Electronic circuits seem to be only 25% of the equation in free energy generators creating free energy, the rest deals with induction.
So, the easiest way to get a good understanding of induction is to simply grab a coil of wire and pass a magnet over it. You can see how the magnet charges the coil differently by using different angles and different movements of the magnet.
Maybe this will help. Imagine that any given coil of wire on a spool that has an open top and bottom, it wants to FIGHT the motion of ANY MOVING MAGNETIC field. Whether the magnetic field is another electromagnetic or moving magnet. This is what happens in a transformer when you load the secondary, it fights off the primary's magnetic field since causing a cancellation in the total magnetic flux in the core (less overall inductance) hence more current draw into the primary until the flux is built back up (yes it is a cascading effect, always continuously variable, up until too much load occurs and the wires burn up!). On an AC power outlet from the house, if you hook it to a big coil of wire on a metal core, it won't flow much current because of the inductance. Induction happens because the center core acts like a moving magnet, moving on and off.
Faraday's law of induction (please find a very simple explanation of it without any math, and read it if you haven't lately). It says that the way to induce current into a coil is to have changing magnetic fields. You technically just need to have a "change" and no real physical motion. So when the magnet leaves the core, the center of the coil changes by losing its magnetism, this change creates current according to the Faraday law.
If you are still confused, there is one very easy thing to do. Take a roller skate wheel and build a Bedini motor. It takes 25 minutes to build from start to finish. When the motor runs it produces a sharp back EMF voltage that shocks you. If you touch the wire with wet fingers, you will get shocked. I've shocked myself with every possible method I can imagine and it has helped the learning curve dramatically. We are talking about very low amperage, nothing dangerous! I don't grab onto 120v household wires. I learned about inductors by shocking myself with about 5 different coils and configurations. The worst shocks occur when you add inductors in series with pulsed DC. It creates the highest voltage. What is very strange is that back EMF spikes are stronger than the original voltage that created them. With a single coil (not a transformer) you get 10 times multiplication out of a small 450 turn coil with 24 gauge wire. Up until a couple months ago, I thought it was impossible to step up power without a transformer, but it is possible - and you can feel it when you shock yourself! :P.
Tesla shocked himself to learn. Let us learn from the best. Ha ha!
Quote from: supermuble on November 23, 2008, 01:02:39 AM
...snip
Up until a couple months ago, I thought it was impossible to step up power without a transformer, but it is possible - and you can feel it when you shock yourself! :P.
...snip
Hi,
May I kindly notice for you that it is STILL impossible to step up power with a transformer, unfortunately.
What you can feel when you shock yourself is the flyback voltage pulse which can indeed be higher even 10 times than the voltage you fed into the coil. It is the higher intensity or the higher peak amplitude of the pulse received after the switch-off which stings you.
But this is a voltage pulse and you cannnot call it power (nor energy), ok? You can study flyback pulse when googling for flyback transformers for instance.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Tao,
Now that I slept on your idea a little, I would like to return to your point 6...
Quote from: tao on November 22, 2008, 11:47:36 AM
6. So, it is at this moment that the next key thing happens. The power pulse shuts off abrubtly, re-OPEN-ing the power coil. At this same instant, or slightly before, the pickup coil is CLOSED, preferably with a load of some sorts.
So if you close the pickup coil with a load exactly or even a little earlier when the power coil is switched off, then the collapsing field of the power coil will certainly be 'seen' by the pickup coil, being placed on the same core, right? If so, then you have to consider the current induced in the pickup coil and its magnetic field thus created, don't you? How will this induced current/magnetic field affect the operation: in an aiding or in an opposing sense ?
I do not think we can leave this effect out from the operation without any consideration. Also what I mentioned yesterday on utilizing the flyback pulse across the power coil is to be reconsidered again.
@Steven
Interesting question you ask with point 9. My understanding is that the speed of the field "coming" from a permanent magnet is at the speed of the light so that the event the flux of the leaving magnet snaps back to the core happens much much quicker than the magnet is leaving. This should mean that the useful flux change in the core is able to induce current in the pickup coil much much earlier than the effect you ask is able to work (the speed of the leaving magnet is some thousand RPM and compare this to c). So I think the negative effect of the "moving-away" magnet will be small.
It is sure the power pulse fired into the power coil should be just enough to just counteract the permanent magnets field and I think the pulse duration is of high importance too (must be short enough and with very steep rise and fall times).
Thanks and Best Regards,
Gyula
Gyula, you are right. You can't normally step up power with an inductive kick back (back EMF). It is just a high intensity spark. I did not mean to use the word "power." I meant voltage. Though the fly back voltage contains less power, it does contain higher potential. You can use this potential to "activate" lead acid batteries so they will furnish their own power, so then power is greater from the fly back in this scenario. But of course, I have seen the oscilloscope readings, and the inductive kick back is high voltage, but very short duration so it is not normally useful.
According to Thane Neinz who finds that there is tremendous benefit to using different reluctance materials for a transformer, and according to P. Lindemann who says the best motor or generator is the reluctance type (with varying magnetic reluctance). Anyway I came up with this idea. It may or may not be useful.
Hi, supermuble,
Well about the setup you show, there is no real reason why the field from the magnet will 'go all the way though' the coil section since the field from one polarity will have to return to the other polarity. The field will just leak back to the magnet somewhere along the core. And even if there would be some induction going on, then the leakage will be even worse wince then the coil part will be even less a 'path of least resistance'
Steven
Unless you try it, you cannot be sure. I just tried this same setup, without the arch piece in place. I used a transformer, with an EI core with a passing north/south series of magnets, induction created .225 volts at 1000 rpm, which is about 1/5th of the voltage generated with an open core, but since there is no Lenz drag, there could be a 90% reduction in resistance to spinning the rotor which means you can easily spin the rotor more than 5 times faster.
I can try it with an arch piece, but cutting through a piece of toroid is very difficult with a dremel. I need to get my chop saw out.
Take for example, Thane Heinz transformer that is up to 7000% overunity. You would never believe that this could form a magnetic coupling, but it does. The point is, if you get the rotor spinning very very fast, induction will have to occur, since Farday's law of induction says the rate of change is just as important as the magnetic flux. Increase the speed enough and you should get induction without Lenz's law.
If you have a better idea please show it. My idea is to combine Heinz transformer principles over into the design of a generator. Since generators and transformers both are plagued with Lenz's law, they should both be able to use the same principle to avoid Lenz's law. Both use a moving magnetic flux to create electricity, and remember that flux has no weight, so it should not take any physical force to move it.
Look at the attached pic. Imagine what the flux should do. In real life it only travels in one direction (mostly towards the secondary) so that the force creating the flux never knows it did any work at all, since it is largely unaffected by the secondary magnetic field.
In the picture below, there is no reason at all for the main flux from the primary coil to travel out into the secondary core, but it does.
2nd Revision: I just tested the design with an unmodified toroid attached to a square inductor. There is about 10 times less voltage induced into the core, meaning the flux is staying in the toroid, so it doesn't work at all with a regular toroid. I will try a half circle (cut toroid) when I get the opportunity and compare the difference. It is quite possible that it will not work like you say. 11:27 AM
Quote from: supermuble on November 23, 2008, 01:57:42 PM
Take for example, Thane Heinz transformer that is up to 7000% overunity.
You need to re read Thanes posts about his bi-toroid transformer - very carefully. Far from being 7000% O/U, when you compare the actual output power with the input power, his bi-toroid transformer is much less efficient than an ordinary transformer.
Cheers.
Really? On a news article it said it was 7000% over unity, and tests were done to prove it? Well I guess I'll go back and re-read everything.
Here is somebody from youtube who also has a No Lenz toroidal generator.
He can show it already.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bjusticeforever&view=videos
Seems to depend really on all setup parameters like
length of magnets coil length, airgap sizes, etc...
Regards, Stefan.
Well, as I see it he is using a closed magnetic-flux. It looks like a flyback-core. Now some guessing about this driver-motor : 500 Watt ?
Output : 2,5 Volt at 10 amps.= 25 Watt
I do not think a 500 Watt-Motor will slow down noticable by just 5 % load of it nominal power.
We have to invite that person to Thanes topic..
Regards
Kator01
If you notice in the video above, if you remove the toroid core, there is still no way you can have effective drag caused by Lenz's law. If the magnets are spaced in a NSNSNS configuration, then there is no Lenz's law.
Imagine that the magnet pulling away from the coil of wire is a south magnet. It will try to create an opposing field (north) in the left side of the coil. On the right side of the coil, a north magnet is approaching and is trying to create an opposing field (north). Two sides of the coil are equally trying to create a north field.... How can this have a Lenz's law effect? It can't. It is the same concept exactly as the Bedini-Cole window motor.
It appears that magnet spacing and configuration as well as the layout of the wire is easily adjusted to remove Lenz's law. Proof is in the Bedini-Cole window motor videos.
What happens if we control the reluctance of the circuit so that as the magnet approaches it begins to flip over magnetic domains. The coils are placed deep in the back iron. There is going to be a delay as the steel takes it's time spreading the magnetic domains.. By the time the coil current starts flowing and the countering magnet field produced the rotor permanent magnet is long gone. This doesn't mess with Lenz law it is just a matter of timing. The below diagram uses some ringing to get into overunity. Remember this circuit works off of magnetic domain flipping. What force unsaturates a core?
Hi all
When ever i try a coil/magnet arrangement to cancel the Lenz effect, the coil gives less juice, when I cancel Lenz completely I get zero juice.Seems I can't get one with out the other!!!
peter
It was actually pretty simple....I just shorted out the back EMF (if that's the correct term.) I'm currently in the process of making a more efficient coil than the one in my video that Stefan posted a link to. Once that's accomplished, I'll make several and put them in series to really show the design's effectiveness, and the 'lessened' Lenz drag. I'm also trying to build them in a manner similar to an auto alternator to help lessen the 'cogging' of the rotor.
Sorry, but I don't have a meter to test the motor's amp pull (maybe Santa will bring me one) but I can tell you that the rotor has zero drag (other than the magnets) when spun by hand. Also, I've witnessed first-hand the effect of Lenz on a motor driving an alternator when it shuts down.....It comes to a immediate halt. This doesn't.
I'm not going to lie to you fellows.....a lot of this is Greek to me.....I have zero background in this stuff and everything I've learned has been self taught. I (sort of) understand the back EMF that causes the push-pull Lenz effect, and that's what spurred me to attempt this. I believe that the back EMF acts exactly like electricity and takes the path of least resistance....so I gave it that path. The real problem was 'balancing' the core to still induce current. I've learned a tremendous amount in the last year about this balance, and it's the key (in my humble opinion!)
I've followed Tesla's work with intense admiration and would love to create a more efficient method of generating power than what's out there for the sake of the environment and for energy costs, too. I'm particularly fond of Tesla's earth-core turbine (I don't remember what the devil it's called) that uses the earth's heat to drive a steam turbine.
Anyway, I'll keep you posted on any success that I have with this project.
Thanks for inviting me, Stefan.
bjustice
Good responses,
I was also thinking that there must be a way to use reluctance, specifically the hysteresis of iron in a unique way that can reduce the effect of Lenz drag. Solid iron takes time to charge and discharge magnetically (hysteresis). I thought if you could make a piece of iron hold onto a magnetic field long enough, it could be used to oppose the force of Lenz's drag. I need to study this more because I don't know much about hysteresis.
"When a ferromagnetic material is magnetized in one direction, it will not relax back to zero magnetization when the imposed magnetizing field is removed. It must be driven back to zero by a field in the opposite direction." This could be very useful with the proper design in a motor, generator or transformer. Sourced from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solids/hyst.html
Also it sounds like a piece of solid iron has a transistor effect, read: "The main implication of the domains is that there is already a high degree of magnetization in ferromagnetic materials within individual domains, but that in the absence of external magnetic fields those domains are randomly oriented. A modest applied magnetic field can cause a larger degree of alignment of the magnetic moments with the external field, giving a large multiplication of the applied field." Free electricity, amazing!!! ;D http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/solids/ferro.html#c4
When you try to make electricity without Lenz's law, you can still have Faraday's law of induction, and you can still make current. The catch is, it makes way less power in most configurations. The problem is, the books say you CAN NOT produce ANY CURRENT. They are directly lying! Read about induction and you will see many lies... Just for a reference, I have a Bifilar coil that I've tested extensively. Well if you hook up both windings against each other so they are producing ZERO net magnetic field when power is applied to them, and if you try to generate power on this bifilar coil by rotating a disc with magnets, you get amperage out of it, all this while having the bifilar coil wound against its self so it is NOT an electromagnetic anymore. Since the coil no longer has any external magnetic field that has any effect on the spinning rotor, there is zero Lenz drag. Without Lenz's law you still should make some electrical power in a simple test.
Hello supermuble,
thank your for the hyperphysics-link - especially this part. Reading further on in the sub-hyperlink :
" Long Range Order In Ferromagnets " you can read :
" When an external magnetic field is applied, the domains already aligned in the direction of this field grow at the expense of their neighbor.If all the spins were aligned in a piece of iron, the field would be about 2.1 Tesla. A magnetic field of about 1 T can be produced in annealed iron with an external field of about 0.0002 T, a multiplication of the external field by a factor of 5000! "
I wonder how to do that. But it is close to what user sparks has tested : it is the returning of this enormeous mag. aligment-energy back to its initial state of domain-disorder.
@sparks : is the Lenz-Kickback involved in certain configurations if you use pulsed DC - eg. saw-tooth with a slow ascending ramp and fast sudden cutoff which returns the best Kilovolt output in a flyback - what you mean ?
I found the following information on "magentos" - an ignition-system build by Bosch in the 30´s :
http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php (http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php) ( german website, just look for the pics.
and this here the english version of another Bosch-Related website :
http://histor.ws/dmag/desintro.htm (http://histor.ws/dmag/desintro.htm)
Have a look at 2.5 Efficiency at the left side navi-bar
Compare this to our new ignition-systems here :
http://bt-h.biz/terrytweaks.htm (http://bt-h.biz/terrytweaks.htm)
I would like to ask you to help me in doing research on a lecture on magnetos by a person named "Steve Gillis" held in Sursee ( Switzerland) Subject of the conference 2007 : " Revolutionäre Energietechnologien "
( revolutionary energy-technologies )
it was stated that this technique holds a good chance for OU.
I found this statement at a german website :
http://www.secret.tv/category/Technologie_1269.html (http://www.secret.tv/category/Technologie_1269.html)
Nor further access unless you pay for a video. But there must be a transscript somewhere.
Sorry, folks, about this german stuff but I have the feeling this is very important.
Regrads
Kator01
Kator01
Hello Folks,
I found this guy. He is an American living in Germany :
http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0907S13-18.pdf (http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0907S13-18.pdf)
His adress is in this pdf-document.
Also seem to be his website :
http://www.forgotten-genius.com/ (http://www.forgotten-genius.com/)
May be he is a member here - I do not know.
Regards
Kator01
That last link you posted is great! There is a tremendous amount of research at this site: http://histor.ws/dmag/teil01.htm
There are lots of very clear photos and design information for generators. Of course, when reading, we always have to imagine alternative configurations.
The German website appeared to simply show a magneto and on the other website, a gravity wheel of some type. I didn't see any free electricity device?
I searched for the person you spoke about, who was in Switzerland. I could not find any information in English. I did find an article in .PDF format, but it was all in German. I have no idea if this is the right link, but here is the only thing that looked like it might be the same guy. http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0907S4-12.pdf
Please correct me where I am wrong. ???
This is my current understanding of creating free electricity:
Why you can create free conventional electricity with ordinary materials:
1. Moving magnetic fields create electrical current. Magnetic fields have less than no physical mass (no weight).
2. It does not consume energy to move something that has no physical mass.
3. Voltage creates a magnetic field. Amperage is not necessary since it takes very little energy to create a magnetic field.
4. Faraday's law of induction says that the strength of the magnetic field, the direction of the magnetic field and the rate of change determines the amount of current induced in a coil of a wire.
5. If you position any moving magnet paralell to a coil of wire, then the rate of change can be increased for free since there is no Lenz's law. For example, increasing the frequency of a primary winding has no cost associated with it, if the secondary coil cannot induce Lenz's drag on the first coil. (See Thane Heinz transformer). In this example, frequency increases will increase the power output for free.
6. If you have a generator that has no magnetic drag (Lenz's law), the speed of the rotor can be increased with very little input energy. For example, if you double the speed of the spinning rotor, you may consume 10% more power. However, If you double the speed of the moving magnetic rotor, you will have double the voltage and double the output power. That is a 100% increase in output power with only a small 10% increase in input power.
7. Without Lenz's law, a spinning magnetic rotor in a generator has no drag whatsoever, except those associated with air turbulence and mechanical losses in the bearings.
8. Without Lenz's law, it is true, that you often produce much less electrical current in a given coil of wire. However, since the "rate of change" or frequency of the system can be increased for free, and since the rate of change increases current, then it stands to reason that machine speeds can be increased to make up the difference.
9. An inductor at high frequency usually flows less current. High frequency induction creates more electricity in a secondary coil. If you remove Lenz's law, there is an inverse relationship between primary input power and secondary output power. In other words, as machine speeds, or frequencies increase, so does efficiency.
10. According to Faraday's laws of induction, you can create more electricity in a given coil of wire than is required to create a magnetic field that created it - so long as their is no Lenz's law. The only requirement is that the rate of change, either RPMS or frequency, must be increased to the point where induced current exceeds the input energy.
With the help of some experts in this field, we can create a name for these guidelines. Perhaps we can call this overall principle the FLUX SPEED LAW. "In a given system that does not exhibit Lenz's law, the magnetic flux speed can be increased until secondary output current equals or exceeds that of the primary."
@Supermumble
If the change in the core of the output coil comes in the form of a magnetic wave then we are getting Lenz law to work but who cares it doesn't effect the initiator of the wave this puts Lenz on our side of the fence.
this autor is member here, last year he was very busy
but unfortunatly, must folk coudnt follow his ideas.
I ave often phoned via skype with him.
possibly he will return if he follow still as reader all
the time. He is American , and stay longer in Germany
afte his US military time wasfinished.
EM
Hi folks, just wanted to mention Ive never read Garry stanley mention he didnt obtain results with the 6 magnet/stator layout and ive looked through all posts i could find and ive built the same motor which is by far the best running motor ive built to date and have built many. Where is Garry Stanley anyway, what happened to him.
Its the other way around:
The only thing that 'makes' the magnetic field in a coil is the amperage, volts are just there to overcome the ohmic resistance and stuff and to get the amps flowing.
----------------
Something else you can wonder about.
Take a 2000watt microwave oven transformer.
Look at the big heavy primary coil. And connect a variable dc power supply to it and set it to say 5 volt. Now you probably will be putting in a watt or 10 maybe. Thing is that at that watt level the core is saturated as hell. It takes nothing in dc to saturate a core. (I have saturated half mot cores with only 2 watt dc.) So that means that only 10watt will create a magnetic field that is above the maximum field strength the core can support. Now... look at the situation in ac:
You see the transformer is rated for 2000watt. Now you think, if the core already saturates at 10watt dc how can it work efficient in 2000watt ac?
Main thing to remember is that at 2000watt the magnetic level is not more then what was created with that 10watt dc. So also in a transformer, if you could do away with back emf then you can run that 2000watt power level from a 10watt source.
Same with a multi megawatt generator that supplies several cities, These thing have electro magnets. Now these electro magnets require probably only 100watt dc input. So in a sense you can say that these multi mega watts were created from a 100watt 'source'. That is if again you can do away with the back emf. And minimize the input motor. Problem is that back emf/Lenz are there when induction happens they are both part of the same process, they are the "balance of nature, light and darkens, up and down" Lenz can not be removed. You can however (probably) make a systems where lenz is re-routed or something so that is does not react to what you are putting into the system. It would be the Holy grail in this field.
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on November 27, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
Hi folks, just wanted to mention Ive never read Garry stanley mention he didnt obtain results with the 6 magnet/stator layout and ive looked through all posts i could find and ive built the same motor which is by far the best running motor ive built to date and have built many. Where is Garry Stanley anyway, what happened to him.
Hi,
Maybe I misunderstood the post Garry wrote in his Pulse_Motor_Group yahoo group, message #1376 but he concluded going back to the drawing board when he run the motor with 6 coil pairs instead of the earlier 12 and introduced capacitors in series with the coil pairs.
Would like to ask if you ever managed to measure torque on your Garry motor and if yes how it compared to the electric input power?
I also agree that Garry's pulse motor stands out from most of the pulse motors and I think the secret is using many magnets (12 pairs) with many coils (also 12 pairs) on the same disk and the coils are flat pancake-like shaped (taken from old floppy drives) and both sides of each coil are utilized as magnetic poles. And because of the flat coils the distance between the facing magnets was short, hence the attracting flux between them could remain strong and focused. If you recall there have been few or no such pulse motor design that featured these properties.
Unfortunately Garry finished his own website as I noticed and do not post in the usual group he had used to (at least I cannot see any letters from him since about 2 years) which is very unfortunate.
rgds, Gyula
@nail
If you have a coil of highselfinductance or a choke coil and you pulse it you can change the magnetic flux inside the core of the choke coil without a single bit of current flow.
Quote from: sparks on November 27, 2008, 07:36:29 PM
@nail
If you have a coil of highselfinductance or a choke coil and you pulse it you can change the magnetic flux inside the core of the choke coil without a single bit of current flow.
@Sparks
In an inductor current follows voltage. Even saying that I do not mean current and voltage do not reach the end of the wire together. I'm sure they do. It is just that the rise of current follows the rise of voltage by a 90 deg. lag. So the magnetic field maximum arrives at the end of the wire later than the maximum voltage applied to the conductor reaches the end of the wire.
So, I'll disagree with you this time ;) Current is what changes magnetic flux. If the charge is not moving it makes no change to the magnetic flux. If the charge is moving then there is current.
The above is only true for forces travelling through the conductor. Beyond that you must go beyond most publications.
Well all depends on the amp turns as well naturally.
1000 turns at 1 amp is the same field strength as 1000amp with one turn.
Thing is that at 1000 turns you have much more resistance to overcome.
Hell, femm magnetic field simulation software only wants to know the input amp data in order to know the resulting field strength, volts data is not even asked for.
But true an unloaded transformer or choke (pulsed or ac) draws very little power. Boils down to that it takes very, very little power to 'saturate' a core (obviously you want to stay below saturation in normal use) Mayhem starts when loading begins lol.
@BEP
What I was thinking about was the use of torroidal chokes to filter out the transient voltages on a line already carrying current. I understood that the transient voltage got consumed by conversion to magnetic flux changes in the core of the choke. I bought and installed alot of these upstream of vfd drives to protect the drives. I was taught it was a good idea to put some steel and copper between the controls and the trash running around the grid. Your right in that this is more of a traveling wave happening than a line driven flux change.
Kator01 @All Forgotten genius is user Ehrfinder's website
There is an open invitation to forum members bye user AMOG03 at this site, he is hosting a tutorial
A very interesting and unique tutorial [a work in progress]
Chet
I have noticed that if you limit current to an inductor, it does produce a less strong magnetic field. So I am wrong in saying that "current is not necessary." You need a small amount of current. However, it should not be necessary to continue increasing current as the load is introduced to a motor. This current increase is used to fight Lenz's law. It is WASTED energy.
Thanks for the pointers. ;)
Good point about the number of turns of wire! I forgot about that factor. The more turns you have, the magnetic field increases with an inverse relationship to the current draw. The current draw goes down, as the magnetic field strength is increased. There is not a direct relationship to the current draw and the magnetic field strength. A coil with very very high resistance has very low current draw, however the magnetic field is very very strong. It is only when you introduce Lenz's law and breakdown the magnetic field in a coil of wire that the magnetic field is weakened and current draw increases.
Guys I found a very good magnetic motor. I think everyone should try this right now. If you watch this video, it is a representation of the Bedini MU-Metal motor. I haven't studied magnet motors much, so I have never seen an actual demonstration of a magnetic shield. When I see a real demonstration, it makes me realize that you could make a machine of any size and power using much simpler methods than some of the complicated magnet motors!
http://www.overunity.org.uk/
Please see MU-Metal and download the video. This is the link if you don't want to read.
http://www.overunity.org.uk/CLaNZeRPlayingwithMUMetal1.wmv
I am going to start collecting hard drives! What a great switching mechanism!
There seems to be one thing about these magnets that all are not catching.
Now I am not going to say it doesnot work, it does. The actual make up of the
metal backing is a trade secret for sure. They will tell you so.
The part missed is the make up of the magnet its self. This type of magnet
has 4 poles. Example below:
NNNNNSSSSS
SSSSSNNNNN
XXXXMETAL-BACKINGXXXX
This makes one side of the circuit complete and the other open. Take 4 mags
and make the setup as above and stick to a backing plate. With standard metal
you will still have some attraction to the back side but very little. I used a 1/16"
galvanized metal for the backer and 4 grade 8 mags.
thaelin
Hi folks, hi Gyula. That explains it, I was never able to see that website because I discovered the forum thread apparently too late, always wondered why my registering to his site went nowhere. i assume his pulse motor forum is dead now. Anyway, I am setting up a prony brake bar to test it so I should soon have an idea of the efficiency. Although It must be said as im sure your aware, that because it uses both coil poles and has absolutely no back attraction to cores or any collapsing field effects causing drag (back emf) and limits the collapsing spike which is nice for keeping transistors alive. Now i cant say for sure that it lessens lentz (cemf) however i have noticed i can bring a cap thats being charged from collapsing field lower in voltage than in most pulse motors ive built which may indicate less counter voltage being induced. Also if your aware of a motor called kawai motor, its efficiency which is claimed to be at least 315% derives its efficiency mainly from the fact that it cancels the flux of the stator coil that its leaving by diverting it away by energizing the next coil ahead eliminating drag back. Now isnt that what Garrys pulse motor does while still maintaining high density flux for coil attraction, unless a ferro core is needed to get the extra output seen in the kawai motor but if not then i would say garrys pulse motor probably is 200% at least based on this knowledge. Even the muller motor uses the same idea to get the extra output, eliminate the work required to move a magnet pole around. the difference here i think is that with garys design we can get practical torque levels by having that compressed permanent magnet field such that any other geometry would not be adequate to produce useful levels of shaft power.
peace, love, light
Thanks for the correction Thaelin. SkyWatcher, keep us updated.
Ok, so I guess we need more than just Mu-Metal to block a magnetic field. A magnet that sticks on one side and not the other is called a Halbach array after the name of the inventor.
Here is a link on how to build one. This could be very useful in any motor or maybe even a transformer design. I didn't realize you could setup magnets in a way that "blocked" the magnetic field only on one side. If you place one of these magnet arrays on a motor, it will have a tendency to spin longer than if you don't have a magnet. This is a form of free mechanical power.
http://www.matchrockets.com/ether/halbach.html
@nali
it take only 10 or 20 watts, because it must not deliver any outut in electric or mechanic output !
EM
Lenz's Law states:
An electromagnetic field interacting with a conductor will generate electrical current that induces a counter magnetic field that opposes the magnetic field generating the current.
A more elaborate experiment that demonstrates the same scientific principles can be done with a solenoid wrapped around a pop can. When the switch is closed. a capacitor in the circuit is discharged through the solenoid. Since the current varies in time, the magnetic field in the solenoid and the magnetic flux defined in the solenoid will vary in time. This variable flux also passes through the can inside the solenoid, inducing in it a current in opposite direction of the current through the solenoid (Lenz's Law). The two antiparallel currents repel each other, and since the solenoid is fixed the can will be crushed.
khabe
If the lines of force from a pm are bent away into a magnetic shielding material like zinc or lead or the special stuff on the back of speakers and there is a slot in this material that forms a rotor what happens now. The stator laminations have to be such that the steel transmits the magnetic energy and after that returns to magnetic polarization depending on the Earth's magnetic field. This would entail attention to the retaintence of the core. This overunity effect has already been done many times with a flyback transformer. 300volts in ballasted 30kv out. The free energy is in the draw from the magnetic energy of the Earth or whatever demagnitises the core of the flyback. Just a matter of what you do with that 30kv potential you get in reactive energy that does not come at the expense of the input pulses.
Quote from: supermuble on November 27, 2008, 02:45:34 PM
1. Moving magnetic fields create electrical current....
Many believe that there is no real distinction between a current and a
magnetic field. They are like opposite sides of the same coin. If you
have one, there will be the other lurking about somewhere.
Paul.
Hi Supermuble,
yes correct. This is Steve Gillis and you are right, this is where I read his statement that he believes a certain type of magneto-design used in Ford T - Model ( 1930 I guess ) has a good chance to OU-Output. In this german Journal
there was some statement from Ford-Management that he mentioned - at the verge of the struggle for power by the bankers ( Gas versus electricity- Tesla ) that Ford would be able to run the car on electricity alone ( of this magneto delivering up to 40 Horespowers ) and leave the Gas-Bankers alone. You have to know that this magneto had a double-function : it worked as an alternator and an ignition-system.
But please again, look at power-output of the magneto versus a standard-ignition-system. This tells the story.
Why I was posting this : It is directly linked to Thanes development and to this topic here
@BEP : If you talk about phase-shift here we have to destingiuish between primary and secondary coil. If you use a saw-tooth signal as driver-signal on primary of a flyback - as I said - the slow ascending slope will give time enough for the current to rise. I have tested this. If you switch on a primary with a rectangular wave you will observe a 45 Degree falling-slope of the voltage at the primary. This means - no current-full voltage at start. If the end of ths triagle is reached - current is at the maximum. This maximum can be controled by the time the sawtooth is switched on and the voltage-level of the sypply and the saturation-level of the core. Now you counteract this behaviour of a rectangular waveform with a sawtooth. You do not switch voltage instantly to full level but slowly in a 45 degree slope to give the current time to reach its maximum.After the sawtooth has suddenly switched off the magnetic orientation of the ferrite-elements return back - as sparks said it already - and you have a very high Voltage at the secondary which - when under load - can not communicate its kickback-force to the sender ( controller ) at the primary - as it is switched off.
Now I hope you get the point : You can control this by the on-off-ratio and the puls-width of the sawtooth. If the ratio is - let say 20 % - there might be a chance that the kickback runs into the next following sawtooth-pattern.
Now back to the magneto : The configuration of the german website is the one in my favour because this principle here is the mechanical interrupter which cuts of the current in the primary at a certain angle-position and thus works close to what I have described above.
http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php (http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php)
Just look at the pic below the Heading :
"ARBEITSWEISE DER TECUMSEH-MAGNETZÃœNDUNG "
It is almost the same configuration of the presnet coil-design of Thanes Perepiteia.
I am really sorry - but I could not find any english website presenting this very information. But I will try - if there is time - to translate this into english and present it here.
@BEP : Look at the attached pic. Here I performed the cap-switch-experiment of user nul_points. You can see
the full level of voltage in the beginning and then the slope-down as current increases which reflects itself due to the coil-resistance as voltage-drop.
I will present another scopeshot of the scame circuit at the same moment of time - in the next post - of the current-rising-up at 2-ohm-Resistor placed in the source of the Mosfet-switch.
Regards
Kator01
Hi BEP,
here is the other pic of current rising up.
Regards
Kator01
Quote from: Kator01 on November 28, 2008, 10:20:15 AM
Now back to the magneto : The configuration of the german website is the one in my favour because this principle here is the mechanical interrupter which cuts of the current in the primary at a certain angle-position and thus works close to what I have described above.
http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php (http://www.motoruf.de/mo/info/Arbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php)
Just look at the pic below the Heading :
"ARBEITSWEISE DER TECUMSEH-MAGNETZÃœNDUNG "
It is almost the same configuration of the presnet coil-design of Thanes Perepiteia.
I am really sorry - but I could not find any english website presenting this very information. But I will try - if there is time - to translate this into english and present it here.
Hi Folks,
Here is a google translation from German to English, much better than guessing:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motoruf.de%2Fmo%2Finfo%2FArbeitsweise_der_Zuendanlage.php&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en
rgds, Gyula
Kator01, thanks for the information. Come to think of it, it is weird that we don't use magneto's more often, since they seem to be pretty reliable. According to the graph, the faster you move the flywheel, the higher output you get. I can understand that if you spark a battery with high voltage (not high current) it will not explode since there is no hydrogen bubbles, and it will charge very fast when conditioned to accept high voltage (Bedini charging). But looking at the diagrams, it appears that Lenz's law applies to the configuration of the Magneto, and it is doubtful that it would work any other way since there is a forced change in magnetic flux that has to occur, meaning mechanical drag? ???
Khabe, good experiment! That must be the basis for inductive heating?
@Kator01
Vielen Dank für die ausführliche erklärung. Mein Deutsch ist nicht perfekt, aber in der Regel gut genug beim Lesen. Mein problem ist, habe ich gelernt, Platt mehr als Deutsch.
Most of my time was at the Schlewsig Detachment and Magdeburg (before the iron curtain fell) and that was over 30 years ago (ASA/INSCOM/MI). So I embarrass myself when I try conversing. I avoid it. My wife says I sometimes speak like her Opa in my sleep. He was from Lübeck. I almost stayed.
I can't disagree with your last posts. When conductor current is the question I have no doubt current and potential reach the end of a wire at the same time. So it shows on my best scope (Textronix 7904A). I also think sawtooth must be considered because this is used in TV sets.
Now when it comes to an open circuit things change a bit. Here arguments begin but what I see is current still flows but no more than hitting a water hose with pressure with the far end valved off.
The magic seems to happen when you do as SM stated.... cancel the flux. Then there is nothing opposing the impulse (no CEMF). Another benefit is if you build a coil to cancel the flux you are also building the foundations for extremely low resonance of that coil.
When I saw the benefits is flux cancellation I dropped sawtooth as there was no need for that ramp.
As far as the kick being perpendicular induction - perhaps. When done this is the result more of wire cross-sectional mass and the number of wire crossings than length or inductance. It also leads directly to DC output when you include rotation.
In discussion of the magneto please be aware the most power producing function is this:
When the rotating magnet creates a flux circuit between the left and middle core parts this is like stacking a pile of bricks higher than normal.
When that same magnet then builds a flux circuit between the middle and right core parts it is reversing the previous polarity causing that high stack of bricks to fall. This reversal or 'fall' is more energetic. This creates the higher output of voltage AND energy as compared to simply applying the magnet , off and on, to a two pole core.
I believe @Sparks described it better. Basically there are more magnetic domains to flip during that reversal. This as opposed to a common spark ignition coil having voltage applied and removed to create flyback for spark.
Yes, this man was a genius.
If you want similar performance from a common ignition coil - I suppose you could hit the primary with alternating pulses (crossing zero) but then you would need a way to stop CEMF during half the cycle, like the 'points' do in the magneto.
Quote from: supermuble on November 28, 2008, 12:00:39 PM
Khabe, good experiment! That must be the basis for inductive heating?
Yes - Lenz´s Law explanes Eddy current ... Eddy losses ...Eddy brake ... Eddy clutch ... induction furnace ... etg ...
But actual animation ... when all posts about OU´s have been readed then ... it must to be an brilliant OU :o
Beer can will be deformed when capacitor dicharged.
When this aluminum can restores his form - it does! - it charges through coil the capacitor newly ... and then capacitor dicharges and can will be deformed ... and so on up to end of world ::)
No ???
OK - but why most of similar and much more stupid chemes we can found must to work? Like motor-generator owerunity or selfrunning_waterwheel_generator_pump wheres much more losses than in this simple cheme ;)
regards,
khabe
Bill Muller of Canada who is dead now, still has a very good website on electrical generators maintained by his daughter.
Here is what it says about Lenz's law on Bill Muller's website:
"MAGNETIC DRAG
There is another loss in generators, caused by the approach of the electromagnet coils to a magnet. When a magnet moves by a coil, the magnet causes the coil to become an electromagnet with the same polarity as the magnet. It is well known with magnets that like poles repel each other. Repulsion causes drag on the rotor. This "back emf" bucks the motion of the generator, making it more difficult to turn the rotor, which of course reduces the effective power output relative to the power input.
Thus, all generators and motors consume some mechanical torque just to continue spinning. The Muller Dynamo virtually eliminates all magnetic drag. It eliminates magnetic drag to such perfection that a 450 hp generator can be spun with one hand. That is absolutely unheard of. Normally, several horsepower would be required to turn the rotor. The Laws Governing Electricity and Magnetism"
And this is the same principle I have been describing. No energy required to move (change) a magnetic field. This is from the Muller website.
"WORK REQUIRED TO MOVE A MAGNETIC POLE:
When a magnetic pole is moved, work must be done against any force acting on it if it is moved in the direction opposite to the force, and conversely, work will be done (or can be extracted) by the magnetic pole when it moves in the direction of the force. In other words, when the magnet falls to another magnet, as when it pulls a rotor around, useful work (energy we can use) is obtained. But trying to move the magnet off of the magnet requires equal work, and so we end up with nothing useful left over.
However, if no work is done in moving a magnetic pole around a closed path in a magnetic field,
such as a rotor inside of a stator, the net effect would be that work could be extracted by the movement around the complete path without any other change in the system, giving the possibility of a perpetual motion machine that is seemingly contrary to the laws of mechanics.
When Odd and Even numbers of magnets and poles are used as in the Muller Dynamo,
there is no work necessary to move one pole from another."
See website here:
http://www.mullerpower.com/Research/Research.php#Research1
"When Odd and Even numbers of magnets and poles are used as in the Muller Dynamo,
there is no work necessary to move one pole from another."
They refer to the removal of magnetic cogging here.
The alleged lenz diverting propriety's of the muller system come from the coil winding style and switching electronics.
The Muller system is an interesting device, wonder if his daughter will do something with it.
Steven
Pole Slot combination - its wellknown method to minimise iron core electric machine cogging (or "magnetic drag" id you like :'(. When added scewed rotor magnets or scewed stator teeths
then cogging will be minimised factually near zero like air core machine (ironless) has zero cogging.
"Dragless" generator (when magnetic rotor, wires and iron core or air core) unfortunately possible only without load. I have readed near all what honourable Mr.Muller wrote, he has done big and nice work ... regrettably not much useful things about his generators could be found from . Declared by him his 450 hp generator - yes he turned by hand - but he never can make electricity using musculars even hundred times less - perhaps 450W vey short time. More its impossible. Even when this generator is able for 450 hp at all ( I have deep doubts) - to spin it you must spend bit more than getting from output. Perhaps he invented something else ... Im sure he did ... but this "this" is not this "Dynamo".
What is Muller´s machine - Muller Dynamo - its permanent magnet machine wheres stator cores as well as rotor poles have no closed magnetic circuit.
http://www.mullerpower.com/index2.php
Anyway - I do respect highly this old man
About pole slot combination you can find: http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/publications/reports/2004/IR-EE-EME_2004_005.pdf
regards,
khabe
I was told by a good friend who visited once Mueller and wanted to work with him,
that the cogging forces in idle RPM mode were reduced, but that , if you loaded the generator
you also had to apply more torque to the drive motor, so it was not a real dragless generator.
My friend then mentioned that to Muller and he did not want to hear it and
then they had a verbal fight, when I remember correctly and my friend
dropped out of the "contract".
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 29, 2008, 05:45:08 PM
I was told by a good friend who visited once Mueller and wanted to work with him,
that the cogging forces in idle RPM mode were reduced, but that , if you loaded the generator
you also had to apply more torque to the drive motor, so it was not a real dragless generator.
My friend then mentioned that to Muller and he did not want to hear it and
then they had a verbal fight, when I remember correctly and my friend
dropped out of the "contract".
I agree that Mullers generator is not a "dragless" generator under all conditions. But the odd/even Muller configuration, is without doubt, a cog-less (or cog reduced) generator.
The distinction between cogging torque and magnetic drag is a definitive one. Cogging torque is a macro - product of core design and configuration, especially in salient core open magnetic systems. But magnetic drag is an inherent characteristic of all (ferromagnetic) cores (not air cores), and is determined principally by the make up of the core material.
It is possible to build cog-less (cog reduced) motors/generators, but magnetic drag from the core material is still always present.
The drag produced when current is drawn from the coils (counter MMF) is another form of drag altogether, and is not the same as core drag which exists independently from coil current consumption.
In even numbered coil to magnet configurations, the cogging torque can be so great, that at certain RPM's, the acoustic vibrations generated can produce harmonics that will literally cause the motor/generator to "scream". In the past, I've built some very high precision, high speed Adams motors, that have only consumed a few watts of power, but have produced such shrill acoustic vibrations (at very high speeds), that a set of ear-muffs need to be worn.
The great advantage of Mullers odd / even, stator to rotor magnet configurations, is that they prevent standing acoustic waves from developing due to cogging torque. This means that less system energy is wasted in the form of rotor and stator acoustic vibration.
Cheers
However, the arrangement of coils/mags in the Muller setup requires rectification of each coil individually. So instead of a 1.4V drop in a single phase, you have 15 x 1.4V = 21V drop to rectify each of the 15 coils individually.
While you will see a theoretical output increase due to the greatly reduced cogging, IMO there is no way it will makeup for the 21V dropped rectifying.
If a geometry was developed that utilized the Muller idea, but allowed for 3-phase output, then it might be a different story!
Quote from: capthook on November 20, 2008, 03:12:12 AM
Lenz Free Coils: Several proposed coils designs to negate Lenz http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields8.htm
Fields 8-10 discusses the proposed designs. I would be interested on comments from others on these!
Has anyone read this and have any comments on it?
Or tried the Muller 'cone' windings?
So if we can get the field generated in the coil to remain CONTAINED IN THE COIL rather than reaching out to the passing magnet, this would negate the magnet drag/Lenz's Law.
The fields 8-10 discusses something along these lines.
What if the coils field was contained with a magnet?
1. As a N magnet passes a coil, a S field is induced in the coil, causes drag from the attraction of the two fields..
2. If a small magnet was placed at the backend of the coil with the N face towards the coil, the S field of the coil is now attracted to the backing magnet, rather than the passing magnet, eliminating the drag.
3. The airgap between the backing magnet and the coil end would have to be smaller than the airgap between the coil and the passing magnet so that the coils flux takes the path of least resistance - the backing magnet.
4. What if the coil core was an actual magnet?
5. The increased airgap between the coil and the passing magnets will reduce output, but increase efficiency.
Or is this going to kill/cancel ALL output?
Containing the coils induced field away from the passing magnet is the key to reducing/eliminating Lenz IMO.
Quote from: capthook on November 29, 2008, 10:54:06 PM
While you will see a theoretical output increase due to the greatly reduced cogging, IMO there is no way it will makeup for the 21V dropped rectifying.
If a geometry was developed that utilized the Muller idea, but allowed for 3-phase output, then it might be a different story!
Yep ... there's always a price, no matter what the configuration. 3 - phase is definitely one positive way to go.
Though your 21 volt drop would only occur if you were connecting the o/p of each rectifier in series to attain the voltage you are after.
If your coils are high voltage coils to start with, o/p say 240 v peak to peak, and each coil is rectified with rectified outputs paralleled, the 1.4 volts x whatever current for each coil will amount to a negligible power loss overall. E.g. at 240 volts with 1 amp total consumption from a combined output of 15 rectified coils in parallel, the O/P will be 240 watts - (1.4 v x 1 amp(total) = 1.4 watts) = 238.6 watts. Actually, the true RMS power value would be less than this but you get the picture. The total percentage of power lost is small. The power lost in each rectifier will be 1/15 of the total loss, but there would indeed still be a loss associated with it.
But the odd/even motor will run more quietly, and if you have to work in an environment where electrical motor noise is loud and prominent, this factor gains a higher priority in the list of things to consider.
In generating systems for modern aircraft, the electrical output versus acoustic dissonance characteristics are a big consideration. This is because they run their systems at a higher frequency in order to use smaller systems to produce the amount of power needed. This decreases the weight factor associated with the generating system. There is a trade off between total electrical efficiency, weight, and rigid safety requirements. Systems that appear to be prone to acoustic vibration dissonance are quickly struck off the suitability list. Thats because most of the internal bracing struts in aircraft are made from aluminium which quickly degrades from prolonged exposure to localized high frequency vibrational stress.
Cheers
A 240 volt coil - Yowza! Are you building a coal fired mega-watt power plant? ;D
The benefit of the Muller design is its geometry. The pitfall of the Muller design is..... its geometry.
From Bill Muller:
"By its geometry, this device produces 15 distinct Phases of AC at its output with no perfectly matching opposing phases.
Therefore, in order to merge the outputs together, the AC PHASE differences must be eliminated by rectification to DC.
Each generator output must be Fullwave Rectified to DC before being merged with the other outputs"
And each coil is wound for 12 volts @ 5 amps.
12V x 5A = 60 watts x 15(coils) = 900 watts potential output.
But each coil has to be sent through a rectifier:
12V - 1.4V = 10.6V
10.6V x 5A = 53W x 15 = 795W
900W - 795W = 105W rectifier loss!
The unknown (to me) is how many 'watts' have you gained by reducing the cogging using this method?
Unless you can decrease the rectifier losses by improving the geometry to merge the output into phases, I see it being a net system loss.
(P.S. One could use individual Schottky diodes in place of the silicon rectifiers for a .7V drop compared to the 1.4V drop - a 50% savings. Now the rectifier losses are down to 53W. But still, do you 'gain' more than '53W' by reducing the cogging? What IS the potential gain of the low-cogging?)
Well magnetic cogging is in 'theory' not a loss... You see, if the rotor magnet is approaching the stator core finger, it is attracted and that attraction is a 'free rotor momentum gain'. Now if that rotor wants to rotate onward it has to break free from the attraction to the stator, and that is a 'momentum loss'. All in all you can see that there is a gain and a loss happing which is in theory that same, and results in zero net gain or loss. Another way of looking at it is when you ride you bicycle up a hill. The energy you put into climbing the hill is the same you get back when you go down the hill. Assuming the hill is on both sides equal.
When a generator gets up to speed the cogging is neglectable anyway. But all is never perfect so if you have a choice of making your gen in a no-cogging geometry you should do so.
Steven
I know this is old tech but some might be interested.
An old approached to a Lenz less generator:
The idea is:
Lenz can only hinder your input when you move the magnet, or coil in relation to each other.
So what happens if you have a generator where you do not move the coil or the magnet at all?
In fact the coil and magnet are stationary, and you only 'switch' the flux pathway between them.
This concept can be found in a few 'older' designs and I guess the more 'famous' one is the Ecklin-Brown setup.
Of should I say the Lindemann setup? Anyway here is some info on that one, with some added resent info from Lindemann.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/fluxgate/index.htm (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/fluxgate/index.htm)
Oh and here is a variation of me to that same general idea, you can also look at it as a 'mechanical meg':
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/NewPMgen001.wmv (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/NewPMgen001.wmv)
Regards,
Steven
A nali2001
Like this? The pm in this diagram could also rotate 180 degrees so that the next time the stator is exposed the magnetic dipole moments are reversed by the pm. Has this been tested before?
Hi Sparks,
Well you show the "partially screening approach"
I guess it could work. Few things to consider here is the issue that the 'shield' has to be tick enough to re-route all the fields from the magnet. And a second issue is the the Eddy current drag in such a solid screen.
You probably know this already but Alan Frankoeur made a thing called the "interference disk generator" do a google search.
If I am not mistaken he eventually went to Metglass screens. Don't know what really became of it.
@Guys
Good discussion.
For me, motor drag is a 360 degree sticky spot. Magnet against magnet, regardless of if it is a magnet or a coil, as long as a N and S rotor is moving next to the N and S of a stator.
Let me give you guys some practical advises on what not to do when testing this line of work or research with electric motors.
OK, to start off let me say that using modern day AC or DC motors as drive motors and generators is a total and absolute waste of time. This I did not realize then after many many types of tests, if I knew what I see today, I would not have wasted so much time. Why. Because anything of modern day motors that have a commutator will not work in OU, regardless of if it is RV or any other. If it is standard issue, you will have to work that motor seriously before it can become suitable for OU testing.
Why, well the problem is commutator motors use brushes, which are wider then one width of a commutator copper strip called a "segment". So there is always four segments connected at all times. The flyback is lost because the brushes will then simply disengage from the commutator segments opening the previously energized coil from both ends. Not very good for catching flyback so they get hot. I am such a shmuck for not realizing this before. lol
A DC Motor. Hey let's use it as a generator. No good. Again why, well for any type of efficiency, the generator should produce current from 360 degrees since the drive motor is expending energy to rotate it in 360 degrees, but most DC motors only have a two permanent magnet stator and wound rotor with only some of the rotor coils being connected to the output at any given time (this is because the DC motor was originally designed to provide a motive force through successive coil activation via the commutator). You will be turning the rotor 360 degrees but have power output potential on only around 200 degrees and only at the points where the brushes decide to connect the output rotor coil per rotation. OU Robbery 1st Class. Also generators should not produce flyback if all the coils are always engaged. If your generator is producing flyback, it's wasting output.
Flyback is best to occur in the drive motor not in the generator. If the drive motor has three or four brushes, two at 180 degrees and two at one segment after the first two according to the direction of rotation, the two off brushes can be used to catch the flyback. Or, if only one of only a two brush system, one brush should be the width of one segment and the other the width of two segments, you can catch flyback. Otherwise these standard motors are unfortunately a total and major waste of time.
So guys using standard identical motors in an RV set-up are just wasting time because at the base base of these motors is a built-in nullification for OU. A motor design cannot be an efficient drive motor and expect it to be an efficient generator motor. You can cap the drive motor all you want, it will never equal the energy you can get back via an aggressive flyback. You can make a 1hp AC drive motor turn with 100 watts with the right caps, but this is still wasting flyback, and your 100 watts will never be enough to overcome the generator losses and drag under any serious load.
Drive motors using a wider brush then one segment and that also have an armature have totally detracted from Tesla's original teaching on why to use an armature in the first place. Tesla uses an armature when his total design calls for an interrupted feed. While the feed is cut, Tesla knows that the armature will having enough magnetic polarity to still push the rotor forward to the next energized commutator segment. So he was getting one free segment movement plus the flyback returning to source. Good deal.
To expect any chance at OU with motor/motor setups here is a summary.
DRIVE MOTOR
- needs to have more then two brushes so the 3rd and 4th can be used to catch flyback. If you cannot catch flyback off the drive motor you are wasting input energy which will be added to the losses you will have to overcome in order to show OU. That's like running a marathon with only one leg. Good Luck.
GENERATOR MOTOR
- The design should be such that the generator rotor/stator exchange occurs all throughout the rotors 360 degree rotation and not only during a portion of the total rotation. This means DC motors with commutators and two PM's are the worst type to use. I am shocked to realize this now.
- General rule, the generator must have slip rings and not a commutator.
Best advice. Look at what you are "really" using for drive and generator. Understand fully how these motors are made and how they work and you will realize that 99 times out of 100 they are advanced checkmate for OU.
wattsup
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on November 27, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
Hi folks, just wanted to mention Ive never read Garry stanley mention he didnt obtain results with the 6 magnet/stator layout and ive looked through all posts i could find and ive built the same motor which is by far the best running motor ive built to date and have built many. Where is Garry Stanley anyway, what happened to him.
Garry Stanley old pages
http://web.archive.org/web/20070614070723/http://www.cable.net.nz/ou/
http://web.archive.org/web/20070614222455/www.cable.net.nz/ou/Lenz.html
Quote from: capthook on November 30, 2008, 04:25:15 AM
(P.S. One could use individual Schottky diodes in place of the silicon rectifiers for a .7V drop compared to the 1.4V drop - a 50% savings. Now the rectifier losses are down to 53W. But still, do you 'gain' more than '53W' by reducing the cogging? What IS the potential gain of the low-cogging?)
Hi,
You can further reduce the loss of the rectifier diodes by using so called syncronous rectifiers which are power MOSFETs with low Rds on resistance switched on when your rectifier diode is to conduct. Here is a practical circuit:
http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=19871 IF this seems rather involved to replace the usual full wave bridge, well it maybe is but you do get power savings. And there can be simpler circuits for this job.
rgds, Gyula
Gyula - great stuff as always!
"The circuit was compared to a popular KBU8B silicon diode rectifier. At an input voltage of 5 V rms at 50 Hz and a constant load of 5 A dc, the KBU8B’s output was 4.45 V dc, average, measured across C3 (15,000 μ F). Under the same conditions, the “greener†(MOSFET) rectifier produced an output of 5.9 V dc, average."
I've investigated MOSFET rectifying in the past because of it's greater efficiency. But actually building/implementing the circuit has (and still is) been over my head. The link you gave is great study material. (The first time I implemented individual Schottky diodes over a store-bought silicon rectifier, I considered it an excellent step forward -MOSFETs would be an even greater step)
Quote from: gyulasun on November 30, 2008, 07:08:29 PM
And there can be simpler circuits for this job.
rgds, Gyula
Say you have 3-phase output @ 14v x 1 amp. Any easy step-by-step MOSFET circuits for idiots? :D
Hi folks, hi wings. Are you posting those links with inactive pics to point out where he said his 6 magnet/stator layout changed something because Ive already read through all that material years ago and all his posts on overunity.com or whatever the old name was and never read that. I dont think it matters truthfully because I think there is something to this design and any dc unidirectional pulse motor for that matter. When a perm. magnet enters and exits both polarities are induced and cancel one another and as it exits it negates or lessens any buildup of voltage that was acquired on entry if using attraction mode, hence the less voltage to counter input and thats what i think im seeing as well, not sure about the magnet field pulling back effect to aid input although i wouldnt rule it out seeing how the permanent magnet field is compressed. Im running a 5 blade car radiator fan as a load, the big metal ones. it really moves a heck of a lot of air i have to say with no coil heating noticed at 36v, 4A total parallel series coil circuit is .75 ohms, 18 awg.. I cant yet do proper prony brake tests without a tachometer setup although maybe i can use my model airplane tach, problem is it responds to the 60hz pulsations from room lights so I have to figure something out for that.
peace, love, light ;) :)
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on December 02, 2008, 07:16:09 AM
Hi folks, hi wings. Are you posting those links with inactive pics to point out where he said his 6 magnet/stator layout changed something because Ive already read through all that material years ago and all his posts on overunity.com or whatever the old name was and never read that. I dont think it matters truthfully because I think there is something to this design and any dc unidirectional pulse motor for that matter. When a perm. magnet enters and exits both polarities are induced and cancel one another and as it exits it negates or lessens any buildup of voltage that was acquired on entry if using attraction mode, hence the less voltage to counter input and thats what i think im seeing as well, not sure about the magnet field pulling back effect to aid input although i wouldnt rule it out seeing how the permanent magnet field is compressed. Im running a 5 blade car radiator fan as a load, the big metal ones. it really moves a heck of a lot of air i have to say with no coil heating noticed at 36v, 4A total parallel series coil circuit is .75 ohms, 18 awg.. I cant yet do proper prony brake tests without a tachometer setup although maybe i can use my model airplane tach, problem is it responds to the 60hz pulsations from room lights so I have to figure something out for that.
peace, love, light ;) :)
Hi,
Garry has got a (now inactive) yahoo mail group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Pulse_Motor_Group/
and his message #1376 is of interest for your question: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Pulse_Motor_Group/messages/1376
If you are not a member there, (though it would be worth to become a member so that you could read all the letters written 2003 December to 2004 January) here is the full text of reply #1376 Garry wrote to Stefan Trethan (who did not believe Garry statement as of his 2 parallel coil setup has no Lenz effect):
Well Stefan,
I hate to say it but it looks like you may be right or at least more right
than I thought you were.
Since I removed 6 of the 12 coil pairs because when disconnected the motor
ran better and I assumed from this that the coils were to close together and
the pulse was pulling the magnet that was exiting the coil back at the same
time as it pulled the entering one in, but with less strength and so the
motor ran better without them.
So for the first time while trying out the caps I have on it to see what
would happen suddenly I have output and not just a couple of volts like
before now I have 1.8 volts per coil pair with 0.9 volts per coil and 0.1
volt measuring inside the coil pair when running on 12 volts.
This of course now means that I have to rebuild it and see if I can get back
to where I was before but because the coils I took out are wired so that
they power the motor even though this means that they were wired up the
reverse way these are wired due to the fact that they were CCW while the 6
pairs left are in fact CW I didn't think it would make a difference but I
did have these in as a parallel pair with a pair of existing coils and then
these 6 coil sets were series wired together.
No wonder I cant explain it to you im trying to tell you that the current
set-up is how it works and in fact what has happened is that its reacting
just as theory says it should except its a lot slower on 12 volts than I
think ive ever seen it even if it is only drawing 2.8 watts ( 12 volts at
0.24 amps ).
I have a pair of caps on it in series rated at 15 volts each and it easily
charges them up to 30 volts in about 30 seconds but only runs from them for
about 10 seconds, I have them now connected to a battery and the output says
0.01 amps at 12 volts and I note that when I disconnect the wires from the
motor to the charging battery there is no increase in speed as there is no
increase in draw when they are connected so this doesn't make any sense
either.
I guess at least the output indicates that its running at 90% 1.8 times 6
coils pairs 10.8 and 10.8 being 90% of 12.
Back to the drawing board I think :(
Garry Stanley
After this letter, Garry has not returned with any update on his motor since then.
This is why a Prony brake test is needed to evaluate the efficiency, though you have 6 coil pairs and Garry earlier had 12 coil pairs. Garry used 4 Ohm coils, two in parallel was 2 Ohms and the 12 coil pairs in series gave 24 Ohms total DC resistance. He used 96V total battery voltage on his bike when he claimed ou.
Good luck in testing!
rgds, Gyula
Regarding Lenz's Law and how to break it. I had this idea this morning and scramble quickly to get a drawing to explain the device.
Basically, this device would use both a coil to produce power and an impulse coil to push the magnet to the next quadrant. Might be fun to try. Hmmm.
Nice design. I think the zener is being used incorrectly.
also: the induced current that charges the cap will result in lenz law which works against the motion of the magnet.
The push of the second coil won't contain more energy than was induced so eventually it will slow down, but.. this all is according to conventional em/ee theory, so don't let _that_ discourage you, but keep it in the back of your head.
This is my view, feel free to correct me.
edit: Will the rotor be driven by a motor a la Peripeteia?
Maybe you can eliminate/delay lenz like Thane does in his setup (HV coil), so the energy is stored between the wires as an electric field instead of a (countering) magnetic field. ?
Quote from: alan on December 02, 2008, 04:14:50 PM
the induced current that charges the cap will result in lenz law which works against the motion of the magnet.
The push of the second coil won't contain more energy than was induced
Nice diagram!
However, I have to agree with alan.
Hi Wattsup,
Yes, there will be Lenz drag during the capacitor is charging. The inclusion of a Zener diode will let the capacitor discharge to as low as the Zener voltage so there will always be some voltage left in the capacitor, this would help reduce Lenz drag to a degree in case there would be a reed switch in series with the Zener diode. (Lenz drag is less when the capacitor is not charged from a totally discharged state but from some left over voltage level in it like the Zener voltage (maybe a few Volts?) in this particular case.
Without the switch the capacitor (hence the pickup coil) is continuously loaded by the Zener + pulse coil and this would mean a constant drag on the rotor. The induced voltage for charging the cap should always be higher than the Zener voltage, to get a meaningful pulse at all and in case there is no switch to break the load circuit (i.e. the Zener + pulse coil) on the capacitor the voltage would always be as high as the Zener voltage and any further discharge current would be fed continuously to the pulse coil. This would cause the continuous drag on the rotor and ALSO a continuous pole on the pulse coil.
By including a reed switch the capacitor is able to charge up to the maximum voltage the induction constitues (strength of the magnets and the pickup coil's number of turns) and then the switch would suddenly discharge it through the Zener diode into the pulse coil (say to repel the rotor magnet away) and the capacitor would be discharged to the Zener voltage level from the max induced voltage.
(The Zener in fact dissipates induced power, and it should be tested whether it is worth using it at all, the only benefit it would give at all is not letting the capacitor discharge towards zero voltage so the Lenz drag would be less a little bit between the pickup coil and the rotor magnets.)
I hope I was understandable with this explanation, if not, please ask.
rgds, Gyula
Hi folks, hi gyulasun. Ok thats interesting, all the other information and obvious advantages of the motor design get thrown out the window just because of one post and then the man falls off the face of the earth, how very interesting. Lets not forget this motor design uses both poles of coil directly with the flux compression, that alone makes this motor superior to anything else ive ever built, i dont know about anyone else. So even if there is no cemf reduction it doesnt really matter because this design makes practical use of air core coils by the flux compression and dual poles being used and by design no drag back to coils and all other benefits of not using cores.
peace, love, light
This site has a really good picture of Lenz law. Just locate lenz law on the right hand side of the index.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hframe.html)
From this we can study what happens in a simple alternator, namely a coil and a magnet that passes by. As a magnet approaches a coil with a load attached, the magnet will encounter a repel force from the coil as induction occurs. As the magnet begins to leave the coil, attraction forces occur as well.
Now for some fun. What if...
The load was not applied to the coil until the magnet is centered in the coil. Then wouldn't current follow voltage by ninety degrees in the coil, allowing the lenz magnetic field to approach full strength (90 degrees later) to form a lenz attraction reaction a short time after the magnet starts to leave the coil? This arrangement would reduce the overall power that is induced, but it may seriously reduce the lenz attraction drag by providing a gap between the magnet and the coil when maximum attraction occurs from the lenz reaction?? Do you think this would result in an advantage?
@guys
Thanks for your comments. My EE as you know is the pitts. I thought the Zener would stay closed until voltage would reach a certain level on the cap, then open to discharge the cap into the impulse coil. Dammit. Then the only alternative is to replace it with a reed as @gyulasun says and just position it physically so the rotating magnet hits it at the right time.
The coil should discharge a North polarity when the magnet has passed above the impulse coil and its trailing North polarity is right above it, or better if halfway.
Yes my thinking is if the pick-up can load enough and then get dumped, it could not stay under Lenz's law. It basically took the charge and ran with it right away leaving the pickup dry and the magnet free to continue to the next dry pickup coil.
And having the circuit on each quadrant being independent all would only rely on the magnet passage to give it the charge and discharge. The Magnet is the flux and timing provider. I'd call it the boss.
So take away the zener and replace with a positioned reed.
Does this make sense. Hmmmmm.
I think this idea could have some merit to go to the next level.
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on December 02, 2008, 09:16:54 PM
Hi folks, hi gyulasun. Ok thats interesting, all the other information and obvious advantages of the motor design get thrown out the window just because of one post and then the man falls off the face of the earth, how very interesting. Lets not forget this motor design uses both poles of coil directly with the flux compression, that alone makes this motor superior to anything else ive ever built, i dont know about anyone else. So even if there is no cemf reduction it doesnt really matter because this design makes practical use of air core coils by the flux compression and dual poles being used and by design no drag back to coils and all other benefits of not using cores.
peace, love, light
Hi Skywatcher,
Yes I fully agree, Garry's motor setup is not an average pulse motor, and it surely is worth testing. This is why a real mechanical output power measurement is needed on it. Years ago I also built it with only 4 magnet pairs and 1 coil pair to see and experience and I was also impressed. (My limited mechanical skills did not let a robust rotor to be built so did not increase the number of coils and magnets to get higher RPM.)
Both Ben Thomas and David Squires suggested an improvement to this motor, namely to use a small piece of soft iron in the middle of each coil pair because the flux gets even more focused towards the center point. (And the additional drag this small iron piece would cause will be also small.) Maybe it would be also worth trying.
Regards and good testing,
Gyula
@Wattsup
I won’t say much more about this idea except the following:
This generator cannot be used as a motor. Dimensions and material are up to you.
The basic concept is rotor cogging and the majority of magnetic drag is avoided. The reason is at any rotor radial position the magnetic flux density or ‘flow’ (not appropriate) from the magnet remains the same.
The normal negative Lenz issues are simply circumvented.
No laminated metals should be used. Since there is little variation in flux between the magnet, rotor and stator there is no reason for eddy currents between those three. But some will occurr between the rotor and stator.
I suggest that ‘grained’ metal be used, if possible. A good alternative is molded ferrite material or annealed iron.
You can have pulsed DC or AC output depending upon the coil design and connections.
When spun by hand and open coils you should feel no drag. If you feel substantial drag with load then check the area where the rotor meets the stator in all positions. Since there is more distance to the far coil there is a bit more reluctance for that coil. In that case the rotor should present more surface area to the stator for that coil alone.
My first one was the summer of ’82. It is an interesting experiment that all should try.
Warning…. Any (usual and expected from most OU researchers) variation from the basic concept is guaranteed to fail. I make absolutely no claims or guarantees for what this thing can do. If you want to know more â€" build one yourself.
Yes, end to end balancing becomes an issue but who cares?
Merry Christmas!
BEP
What?
No slamming comments?
No claims of 'I did it first'?
And really surprising: No religious fanatics sending threatening email?
Oh well, I haven't checked all my email boxes yet. I supposed there will be some there ;D
And no phone calls? Must of had their hours cut. Maybe they only work 8 - 5 now ;)
@BEP
Bam, slam, boom, boing, blump, nay say, no no, never never. Hope you're happy now. lol
Now that we have dispensed with the formalities, let's talk shop.
Basically, my above design is just a design starting point and my initial goal was to see if a design such as this could actually rotate on its own, not to produce any real torque but to produce a continuous rotation without exterior assistance. If the device was made and well balanced, and it the impulse coil was distanced far enough from the mag rotation to not get attracted to the impulse coil core, then upon impulse of the coil field can push just the trailing North end, I think it will work. Again depending on the pick-up coil winding configuration. I will put this on my to-do list but right now I am "overloaded" as is with current experiments plus I am spending some time giving the FTPU some more time.
Regarding your design using that inclined rotor (armature) here is what I am worried about, and this is not being a naysayer but more of a coulditbesayer. lol
That incline when turning will move the rotor armature from left to right, right to left over the coils making the shifting field above the coils. I just don't know if that shift will be enough to induce current power into the coils because I have nothing to base it on. Usually an energized armature will want to rub against the coil armature as close as possible and over the total exposed surface area, whereas in your design, the armature will cover maybe 20% of the surface area and slide left to right, right to left. The slide part is good since this is moving a magnet over a wire but I would imagine that you will need 3 to 4 times the rotational speed to equal the output of a standard full surface exposed system. The main main main and again main (to not be too much of a naysayer) good point of your design is the way the rotor is shown, it will be able to counter a higher level of drag because the rotor is more "cutting through" and not the conventional "gliding over" any potential drag condition.
So sorry to say but you DO have a good idea there. lol
Quote from: wattsup on December 04, 2008, 09:51:06 AM
@BEP
Bam, slam, boom, boing, blump, nay say, no no, never never. Hope you're happy now. Lol
That does make me feel things are back to normal :D Thanks!
Quote
That incline when turning will move the rotor armature from left to right, right to left over the coils making the shifting field above the coils.
Incline? Armature?
Sorry, there is no incline or armature. There is a rotor that shifts an unchanging flux density from one coil to another and back for each revolution of the rotor. ‘Armature’ implies either there are windings on the rotor reacting to a field in the stator or the windings on the stator are reacting to pole switching at the rotor. Neither is happening.
Quote
Usually an energized armature will want to rub against the coil armature as close as possible and over the total exposed surface area, whereas in your design, the armature will cover maybe 20% of the surface area and slide left to right, right to left.
The rotor surface covers 100% of the left portion of the stator and about 78% of the right section. Each only when the rotor was making magnetic connection with that stator section. The sections are 180 degrees apart. It is not energized unless you wish to consider a non-rotating or changing magnetic flux as energized.
Quote
good point of your design is the way the rotor is shown, it will be able to counter a higher level of drag because the rotor is more "cutting through" and not the conventional "gliding over" any potential drag condition.
Sorry, there is no ‘cutting through’ or drag. The original generator had a third coil. This coil was on the stator section above the magnet. I kept trimming, grinding and rebuilding until the output of that coil was practically zero regardless of speed or load.
I suppose I’ll never be able to relay useful info. It seems most have lost the ability to visualize a 3D object from a 2D sketch. Sorry, I don’t mess with 3D. It is pretty enough but the machinists use my prints well enough. I work in AutoCad but convert to Paint so I can post. Too much is lost.
Think of that rotor section as a coin spinning on the tabletop. Just before it falls the spin axis tilts. At that point the spin axis of the coin is oblique to a perpendicular line from the tabletop. From the stator’s view this action is a linear motion, constantly shifting from one pole of the stator to the other.
The magnet sees NO change in flux density. Lenz is no longer part of the equation for the magnet.
Drive the shaft with a small motor. Take what you need from the stator coils until they fry.
Quote
So sorry to say but you DO have a good idea there. Lol
Thanks. If you only knew. lol
I tried :)
@BEP
Well...........At least I got the first part right. lol
Man did I miss this or what.
Nah.... I don't think I got it that wrong.
My use of the word armature was simply to explain that the rotor is not a magnet but is magnetized by one side of the disk magnet. Also, the two coils look wound on an armature regardless if laminated or not. The incline is your angled rotor going over the coils twice per rotation.
I then compared it to a standard full rotor and mentioned that since this design has less "armature" ratio turning over the coils it may need more rpm's to produce a better output.
So I have two questions.
Do you think the center magnet located on the shaft has enough magnetism to then permit having eight coil pairs all around the rotor as a full stack that would give eight times more output per rotation while turning the rotor should not expend more energy. If yes, you could then add two, three or more stacks to increase even more the output.
Something like the Lutec stacks.
Anyways, sorry if what I posted was not clear enough.
Quote from: wattsup on December 05, 2008, 08:08:18 AM
The incline is your angled rotor going over the coils twice per rotation.
Nope, still no incline. In the stator's view there is no incline. The same amount of flux is connected regardless of the rotor's position.
Quote
So I have two questions.
Do you think the center magnet located on the shaft has enough magnetism to then permit having eight coil pairs all around the rotor as a full stack that would give eight times more output per rotation while turning the rotor should not expend more energy. If yes, you could then add two, three or more stacks to increase even more the output.
Something like the Lutec stacks.
Thats a 'run before walk' statement. There are improvements but if you jump to the improvements you will probably find nothing works and move on to something else that has no chance of working at all.
I do that all the time :D
Lutec? There is nothing like this out there.
Multiple stators ( making a three phase generator? ) will cause problems because flux will take the shortest/best path. You will still only have one set of poles working.
Enough magnetic force with this one magnet? Nah. Not enough to run your space heater but it should be enough to make you see the idea works. ("Killing the dipole" is B.S. for 'I got nuthin and want you all to think I have sumptin')
Quote
Anyways, sorry if what I posted was not clear enough.
The mistakes in clarity are mine. I know you to be high in mechanical visualization. If you aren't screaming and jumping at this sketch then no one else on this forum will see anything. Not that they wait on you. Just they don't have the ability.
I know I don't have one at this stage for photos. It was hard to make by hand. Might be easier to strip a current one....
The question here is what is going on when a magnet flips over magnetic dipole moments in a piece of steel. Is the energy coming from the magnet to create the magnetic domains or is it coming from the atoms responding to the magnet. Lets say we just put and electromagnet on the field pole. Then cause current to flow through the solenoid windings and change the magnetic flux density inside the steel core with the stator coil open. This will require energy investment by the rotor but the coils on the rotor are two chokes so that very little current flows just converts voltage to magnetic flux change. The impedance of these chokes is such that current is resisted and all work goes into magnetic core saturation. In other words all current is choked by the impedance of the rotor chokes. Like a primary on a 60hz power company transformer with no secondary current messing with the impedance parameters of the circuit.
Unlike the secondary of the rip off power companies mess on the pole we abruptly open the primary just as the choke coil cores saturate. The magnetic field in the stator now returns very quickly to unsaturated conditions. This shut off is timed with the close of the connection of the stator coil to a capacitor. As the magnetic field collapses around this coil we get a kick for free. We need the power companies voltage not there frigging inefficient secondary currents.
Quote from: sparks on December 05, 2008, 10:41:13 AM
This will require energy investment by the rotor
I don't know about the rest but the above statement is incorrect. Stick a motor on the end of the shaft. The only energy needed to rotate the shaft is friction of the rotor mechanics, provided your flux shifting is equal throughout the cycle.
There are no rotor chokes on any version. Capacitors come later. They are not required to prove the point.
Lenz does indeed play a role but ideally only at the coils. The coils can become hot ;)
Hysteresis of the stator arms is important. If you want to get over that, to a limited extent, use the same principals used in a magneto. Then you will dramatically increase output power and speed operating range. Again, I didn't offer those improvements because we always want the latest and greatest, don't we? Do that and your build will fail and one more person will think I'm an idiot.
Hi BEP,
Thank you for showing your very interesting setup, I like it!
Your explanations included in Reply#121 helped in understanding why the flux does not change in the stator leg on the right hand side going to the right hand side pole of the ring magnet. Putting this explanation otherwise, at meaningful RPMs (say above some ten or hundred or so) the flux in the right hand side leg will be constant because its value AVERAGES out to a certain value from the alternately facing or not facing rotor and stator areas as if there were always a closed magnetic circuit with a certain (static) flux value of the ring magnet while the flux changes of course in the left hand side and in the middle legs (shown with the coils) of the stator. Very clever idea indeed.
So in the stator leg with the coils the flux changes from a very low value (in case of using materials with low remanent flux) up to the AVERAGE flux set up by the ring magnet strength and the air gaps and the permeabilities of the oblique motor and the stator materials. This flux change will induce voltage in the coils and current if a load is connected.
Question arises what happens with the flux created in the stator legs by the load current? I think the two triangle facing ends of these stator legs with some air gap between them are meant for closing this flux within the two legs, is that right? If I am not right then why are the facing triangle shaped leg endings needed?
Thanks again for sharing and wish you also Merry Christmas.
Regards,
Gyula
The triangle shapes (feet - I call them) serve two purposes.
1. Enables smooth transition of the 'concentrated' flux from one stator pole to another.
2. In this level of design - allows the 'Lenz generated' flux a connection return path so it does not try to go through the magnet.
I'm not sure what you see with the 'averages' part. The first attempt had only one coil on the far left. Both stator arms were still there. The basic idea is to continue a path for flux connection but move that path in an alternating fashion, through one stator pole then the other and back.
Basically a magneto (none German version) but the rotor axis is rotated 90 deg. on the axis of the rotor.
My rotor doesn't move BEP unless you want to use it for a voltage regulator. ;D I got to refer to Tesla's efficient ozone generator. Notice that introduction of power from the mains is through two chokes charging a capacitor. This is a series resonant circuit charging a load capacitor. The chokes impedance resists current changes while it does not resist voltage. The power factor who gives a shit the capacitor charges cause it likes voltage and could give a damn about current. Of course there is ohmic losses but how much resistance does big fat wire wrapped around a piece of steel heat up?
Sorry Sparks
I thought you were talking about my design. I offered it as one way to avoid Lenz law problems and still use the positive aspects of Lenz's law.
While cancelling Lenz's law is ridiculous (IMHO), avoiding the problems can be done more than one way.
This idea is a more mechanical one and should be easier for most folks to understand.
The heat generated in these coils is from the common reason. - Eddy currents. A later version avoids the heat better but I haven't found a need to go that route, yet.
This is a very old project for me. While it should be one answer to the stumbling block for many my current project uses no coils or electronics to generate torque. I'll be concentrating on that most of the time.
Ahh!
I see what you meant by averages....
Averages require a range of varying data.
The integer does not change. There is nothing to average unless you are talking about the smallest of gradients. ( on the stator section directly above the magnet.) This is where most of the work had to be done. I tried adjustable gaps at each stator/rotor connection until I found the right gaps.
Basically I used the generator as a lathe and hit the rotor with a file until I found the balance.
Hi BEP,
Thanks for the 'feet' explanation.
Quote from: BEP on December 05, 2008, 11:29:41 AM
I'm not sure what you see with the 'averages' part. The first attempt had only one coil on the far left. Both stator arms were still there. The basic idea is to continue a path for flux connection but move that path in an alternating fashion, through one stator pole then the other and back.
Probably the 'average' for the flux is not the most fortunate but I meant the followings:
The highest flux value occurs in the stator leg on the right hand side (and at every part where the magnetic path is just closed) when the rotor is at standstill and one of its area is facing one of the stator feet.
And when the motor is started from standstill the facing areas move away for a half-turn time, so the flux in the right hand side leg should get reduced from its earlier value.
Then comes the next facing rotor stator areas see each other so the flux increases towards its earlier (maximum) value (but cannot reach it already because the rotor-stator areas see less and less facing time due to the gradual speedup of the motor).
When the driving motor finally speeds up to a constant value, the flux in the right hand side leg (and in every other parts constituting the closed magnetic circuit) will also be constant (provided the facing feet and oblique rotor areas are already fine tuned as you described) but this already constant value flux will be slightly less than the flux value referred to above at standstill.
This is how I used the flux 'averages' to a certain and constant value. At startup the flux is at the maximum and during the speeding up time it gets a little bit reduced from its maximum value (of course I mean but a small, practically not important reducement in flux strength).
Have you thought of going for the OverUnity prize money with this design? You would certainly deserve it!
Thanks, Gyula
@gyulasun
It seems you have an excellent understanding of this device.
I'll not go for any prize. I've suffered through that before. Do not forget I am not claiming overunity.
Some details you may not be aware of:
1. At one end of the speed spectrum the flux shifting lags. Beyond a certain point it leads. I suggest you use the output to feed a PWM control to drive the driving motor. There is no 'runaway' scenario. None I've seen.
2. There are many improvements to this that I'm not sharing at this point. The inventors of the magneto deserve the highest credit for these.
3. Some circuitry is still required. This makes this device a problem for OU researchers because most think in terms of the circuitry and get lost in complexity. If it is complex then it is a joke. Then I am at fault.
The best application for this would be wind generators.
So make a wind generator! Or power your soldering iron or laptop from it. But be prepared to do a great deal of work before it is useful to you ;)
I'll continue on my other project.
Many thanks for the tips, I understand them. :)
The PWM control sounds especially useful for the wind generator case where the RPM can always change by the wind.
I can understand your refraining from the prize for this device. And I hope you will disclose your other project when you feel like to and when it is appropiate, I certainly look forward reading about it!
All the best, Gyula
Somewhat related?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qog8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4780632 (http://www.google.com/patents?id=qog8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4780632)
Lindemann's comments on the thing:
"Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks. With regard to your post about the Jim Murray Generator design, I have known Jim Murray for 20 years and we published this patent in Borderland Magazine back in the 1980's. All of the people I worked with in Santa Barbara, including Mike Knox, Eric Dollard, and Chris Carson, met with Jim Murray a number of times after I moved away in 1992. Jim and Eric subsequently solved the solid-state method for converting reactive power back to real power using Jim's methods applied to Eric's FOUR QUADRANT THEORY of electric waves. All of these things you mention have already been accomplished.
While Jim has built working models of this generator, getting all of the electrical and physical resonances in phase is tricky. The machine does NOT exhibit drag free operation until these conditions are all balanced and synchronized. Still and all, it does PROVE that electric motors and generators are NOT converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to properly built motors and generators. For those of us who know the truth, this is not a problem."
I became familiar with that patent about 25 years after I built the first one of mine.
About the only similarity is the rotor design. The best I can tell that patent describes just another generator basing its entire function upon the use of Lenz's law, as conventional generators should.
I can imagine problems with 'tuning' on that design. It probably had multiple speeds where it worked best but those probably changed with load and load types.
It is very likely that the patent shows a generator that could be used as a motor, albeit a poor one, or an electromagnetic brake. My design will not work as either. It will only generate, unless it isn't built correctly. Then all bets are off.
The only tuning I've used is to slowly shave/file the rotor to provide as little ripple as possible, on the stator just above the magnet. This was done with a temporary coil, not shown on the sketch.
Mine does prefer to run at certain speeds. If I remember correctly the speed preferred by the one I show in the sketch was between 450 and 500 rpm. So if you built it be prepared for it to shake itself to death until you perform some basic balancing (do not use ferrous weights!).
If you're not using good construction with 'real' bearings (nothing special just good basic construction) the thing may eat itself when you run it up to a speed that shows promise. I always try for no more than 2mm clearance between the rotor and stator. So the faces of the stator and rotor are not flat.
So other than the word 'oblique' being used there aren't many similarities, in my opinion :)
The current that is produced by induction is opposite - it is a mirror image, see? A reflection.
A smart person will realize that not all reflections are opposite.
Quote from: Grumpy on December 08, 2008, 10:55:11 PM
The current that is produced by induction is opposite - it is a mirror image, see? A reflection.
A smart person will realize that not all reflections are opposite.
And not all opposites are reflections ;D
For example: my wife one week and then the next. Definite opposites but one isn't a reflection of the other, at all! Sometimes even as out of balance as my first of these generators :D
You were right Grumpy. They scream they want fish. You hand them a fish. They look at it and keep screaming they want fish.
Should I just smack them in the head with the fish?
>>Edit
Oh WTH. I should just fry the bastard in beer batter and eat it. Maybe it is time for another pond :(
Quote from: BEP on December 08, 2008, 11:28:56 PM
And not all opposites are reflections ;D
For example: my wife one week and then the next. Definite opposites but one isn't a reflection of the other, at all! Sometimes even as out of balance as my first of these generators :D
You were right Grumpy. They scream they want fish. You hand them a fish. They look at it and keep screaming they want fish.
Should I just smack them in the head with the fish?
>>Edit
Oh WTH. I should just fry the bastard in beer batter and eat it. Maybe it is time for another pond :(
I love fried fish - beer batter is great - few hush-puppies on the side - little lemon to squeeze on top - tasty good!!
Quote from: Grumpy on December 09, 2008, 08:57:07 AM
I love fried fish - beer batter is great - few hush-puppies on the side - little lemon to squeeze on top - tasty good!!
When I get some time off the road I'll serve you up a plate ;D
Hi folks. i posted a pic of the motor ive been testing a few posts back. what if a pulse motor when driven with a given input voltage say 24V we then measure its speed, then we bring the motor up to this speed without applying any input we are just mechanically rotating the rotor to see what the induced voltage is in the coils. now what if the induced voltage at this rpm is only 2 to 3V, would this not have some usefulness as far as converting electricity to mechanical power. Again by the way this is the Garry Stanley motor design. any thoughts appreciated.
Quote from: BEP on December 05, 2008, 12:57:33 PM
But be prepared to do a great deal of work before it is useful to you ;)
I'll continue on my other project.
BEP,
Here is my start of the project... how am I doing?
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on December 31, 2008, 09:17:26 PM
BEP,
Here is my start of the project... how am I doing?
Ron
Very nice start! You certainly have the concept. I never did well with a ferrous center because the flux will find sneak paths just like electric current. I always wound up using brass, silicon bronze or plastic for the axel of the rotor.
Don't throw it out by any means. If it is a problem you can modify later. When sizing the stator sections try to maintain the same amount of cross section as the rotor portion facing the stator.
I had to take a short break from a newer design. These things can really wear on you >:(
Quote from: BEP on December 31, 2008, 11:27:06 PM
Very nice start! You certainly have the concept. I never did well with a ferrous center because the flux will find sneak paths just like electric current. I always wound up using brass, silicon bronze or plastic for the axel of the rotor.
Don't throw it out by any means. If it is a problem you can modify later. When sizing the stator sections try to maintain the same amount of cross section as the rotor portion facing the stator.
I had to take a short break from a newer design. These things can really wear on you >:(
Thank you!
I note that on the drawing it says, "low permeability rotor core"
Other than that, couple of questions, what did you use for magnets? that is what material and about
what size? Is the magnet stationary? gap at the rotor interface? Have you tried the "magnet stack"
in the vertical leg? or even additional magnet material in the vertical leg?
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on January 01, 2009, 11:00:18 AM
Thank you!
I note that on the drawing it says, "low permeability rotor core"
Other than that, couple of questions, what did you use for magnets? that is what material and about
what size? Is the magnet stationary? gap at the rotor interface? Have you tried the "magnet stack"
in the vertical leg? or even additional magnet material in the vertical leg?
Ron
By 'core' I meant the supporting structure of the rotor. To me the rotor and 'core' were different materials.
The ceramic magnets were liberated from the largest welding ground clamp magnets I could find. they are about 3/4 thick and 2-1/2 O.D.
The magnet is attached to the rotor.
Some of my first experiments used a magnet in the stator. I found I had better coupling with a rotating magnet coupling to a stator than magnet in a leg plus another air gap.
The post with the sketch was meant to show the basic function. I usually build with what I can find so all the other measurements must follow.
Quote from: BEP on January 01, 2009, 04:44:45 PM
By 'core' I meant the supporting structure of the rotor. To me the rotor and 'core' were different materials.
The ceramic magnets were liberated from the largest welding ground clamp magnets I could find. they are about 3/4 thick and 2-1/2 O.D.
The magnet is attached to the rotor.
K, I was designing here for 2 1/4 inch MOT magnets and was wondering if I was close. I have a
couple of speaker magnets at 4 inch and 5 inch but every thing gets much bigger... so glad I am some what close.
This thread is open to all, jump in, if you have a question or comment....
Ron
I was again surprised to find nothing on this page about DAN QUALE's lenzless generator. Found here...
http://www.overunitybuilder.com/lenzlessquale.html
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DQuale&view=videos
The idea is very simple and effective. You have a rotor with washers. in his case the washers blocks the magnetic field to the cols. The coils in turn see the change in flux and induce a current to counter this change. Now at the moment he hasn't shown really high speeds of his generator, Only hand spun. I think his current setup will give rise to Eddy currents in the washers he uses. These can be eliminated by engineering though. By using thin laminated pieces or some other method. Also the difference in neodymium magnets and ferromagnets hasn't been shown.
Now imagine this generator hooked to Lindermann's attraction motor. You have on one hand a highly efficient motor that gives you almost 90% of its energy back and which provides a non conventional electrical power-to-torque ratio and on the other hand hooked to this motor you have a generator that has no drag on it.
Regardless this makes for a simple replication project.
Quote from: broli on January 05, 2009, 08:01:23 AM
IDAN QUALE's lenzless generator.
http://www.overunitybuilder.com/lenzlessquale.html
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DQuale&view=videos
Hi broli - thanks for the links.
Interesting idea/build, but I don't see it being lenzless. Maybe low-lenz drag due to the large airgap. And he comments on the drag created between the washers and the magnets, which would be IMO much larger than the lenz drag.
So I see it as reduced lenz due to an inefficient air gap and also the washer setup helping but trading traditional lenz drag for an even larger drag between the washers/magnets.
Net result: worse efficiency than a standard design.
capthook sorry but I disagree. I also thought about eddy currents heavily dragging the rotor but when he let it run down the rotor should have stopped way before the video ended. EVEN if we agree on this fact there's a SIMPLE engineering solution to avoid eddy currents. And that is using laminated washers in such a way that the eddy currents will have a hard time flowing. Here's a diagram that shows mainly the orientation of the laminates. The rest of the diagram shows a hypothetical improvement on his current design. I don't know how well it does really though. But theoretical there should be no back drag what so ever. But in practice there's no such thing as a uniform magnetic field so there will always be small losses.
When the "breaker" rotor is not near the magnetic fields are mainly crossing the air gap. As the breaker nears the magnet field prefer the breaker and the breaker also gets attracted by a magnetic force. At TDC the washer conducts all magnetic field while the coil is doing its thing inducing currents and what not. As the breaker leaves There's again an attraction force of the magnet but that's not a problem since it got attracted by an equal big force at the first stage. Since this a symmetrical process the net force is 0. Resulting in the in free energy from the coil at no cost from the rotor.
I tend to chuckle whenever I see a ‘Lenz Free’ claim. Generally, if it is Lenz free it simply cannot work or do work.
I believe the only motors that can work without Lenz use the Lorenz force.
If a coil works then Lenz is part of the action.
So, even the generator I proposed several pages back is not completely free of Lenz.
In order for Lenz to be a factor there must be a variation of flux density. Without this variation there are no eddy currents or induction. If this varying flux only varies in the proximity of the coils and not the source of the force (i.e. the magnet or exciter coil) then there are no losses at the joining of this force and the rest of the mechanism. In other words… keep Lenz at the coils only and not between the coils and the source of that force. This equals no drag on the driving mechanism.
While Dan Quale’s efforts may lead to something new I’m quite sure it will not be OU. Any time you have ANY cogging there is drag. Even when the in and out force equals zero. His large gaps and incomplete magnetic circuits should always result in very low output voltage and power.
The only chance to produce such a device is to make rotary motion result in linear change with no variation in the flux density, as seen by the source. Unfortunately, such a machine is difficult to build even though it is very simple.
I appreciate the work being done by others but I found a very long time ago that complexity leads to failure, in machine and circuit design.
I'm not going to start a discussion about semantics here. The operation is obvious and simple. So I don't know why you're saying it's complex. Sure there are some parameters to play with but that's the whole point of research. When I said the speed of the rotor is independent of the generated power that's of course not 100% true. You can't spin it at 1.000.000 RPM and expect to have a linear behavior in output vs rotor speed. There are technical limitations like saturation and what not. But like I said that's the fun of research. So belittling a new idea like that puts you on the same page as ignorant skeptics in my book. Your "idea" is not better imo. You "idea" is pure words without a single proof of concept. As a matter of fact your idea is highly complex. It has a million parameters :P.
@sparks and @grumpy and @all
You know what a Faraday cage is. It is used to keep out ambient magnetic influences from entering into it's interior. So inside the cage has no outside field influence and outside the cage has a field influence. Has..... does not have....... lol
So if you could send a coil in and out of a Faraday cage, it will experience a differential in the ambient magnetic field and hence, should make some juice. Since the cage is not magnetic, it should not be influenced by Lenz's law.
The ambient field I am referring to is the simplest one that points your compass towards the North Pole. That is the ambient magnetism level.
Is that logical?
Now to appreciate the strength of the North Pole take a compass and a magnet and identify the north side of the magnet. Then put the compass on a table and let it point to the real North Pole. Take the magnet and put it on the side of the compass that is pointing to the south but with the north side of the magnet pointing towards the south side of the compass. Approach the compass to the north pole of the magnet. Now slowing move the compass farther and farther from the magnet until the compass points back to real north. That is the distance that your magnet can influence until the real north pole takes over again. So the real North Pole has the strength equal to your magnet at the distance you have found. So in reality as you walk around anywhere the strength of the Earths magnetic field is like having a whole bunch of those small magnets you used in the test that are placed all around you at the distance required. This is no small pickings. I don't think people realize or appreciate all the energy involved.
So I am wondering if you could build a very huge Faraday Cage Generator, would it make a difference if you built it anywhere on the surface of the northern hemisphere, or, if you would get maximum surface results if it was built right at the north pole, or, do you have to go down down down into the Earths crust to get an even higher field strength because the actual Earths physical magnet stops at the magma core, and all the rest right up to the Earths surface would be like a magnets insulation. Like the real magnet above and the distance to where the real North Pole takes over.
Now here's the after thought for TPU's.
A baling wire cage could also be used to make a Faraday Cage. But how do you make the Faraday Cage effect disappear in intervals, without moving the cage physically. lol What if you gave it very small electric impulses? Would the cage alternate between a field cloaking (at off) and field initiating (at on).
What I am trying to explain is that in usual coupling we look to create the most extreme differences to simulate a moving magnet over a wire. But the wire is already biased or plunged into the sea of the Earth magnetic field meaning the moving magnet has to be that much stronger to create a difference. Now that strength seems like nothing but it is substantial and using a Faraday cage would send the coupling effect from an "absolute zero field" when the cage is a cloak to the ambient field strength that equals all those magnets placed around you.
So in the FTPU, the outer ring could be the collector and the outer coil could be the field deflector or the Faraday Cage. By pulsing a very very small current into the outer coil, you are neutralizing the cloaking quality around the collector that does let the magnetism from the FTPU magnet to reach the collector. Then when the outer coil is at off, the magnet's field is cloaked by the outer coil and this change creates power in the collector. This could be easily tested. But the clincher is in the FTPU this could be working in reverse where the pulse in the outer coil is deflecting the magnet field from touching the outer ring and at off is letting the magnet field hit the outer ring or collector.
wattsup
@Wattsup
Your post has me thinking about SM's TPU
If we look at his optimized unit the last one he had up for sale we see a choke with two copper ring windings inside. If the magnetic field is compressed by a kick input to a torroidal choke the core magnetic field is densified. And absorbs the voltage spike because of the impedance match to the unwanted signal. This energy does not go away. The compression of the magnetic field induces a voltage between all fields of different flux densities unlike itself. This is a simple fact discovered by Faraday. This voltage will create currents of various magnitudes and quickly eddy currents convert the energy of the pulse into heat.
Say this compressed field is maintained and the field is shielded from magnetic fields of differing flux density. The pulse energy therefore resides in the magnetic field compression. Subsequent pulses therefore maintain the compressed field and can be reduced in amplitude to a maintenance level. Any warping of the compressed field will result in a voltage arising between the two areas of the compressed field. If conductors lie within these two different flux compression zones they will represent a path for the induced voltage between these two different magnetic flux density zones to discharge through. If the ambient magnetic density is manipulated to sustain this compressed field warping a conversion from the magnetic ambient energy into a special kind of eddy current could insue. Attention of course to the electrical fields within the core must be maintained otherwise the current will discharge from coil to coil within the device.
@All
A Faraday cage has little to no effect upon a static or slowly changing magnetic field, unless you build it from a ferrous material. Even with iron screen there will be magnetic field within the cage.
I know of no method to remove all influence from the Earth's magnetic field.
Some Gauss meters com with a box that shields the meter from electromagnetic radiation just so the meter can be used to register the magnetic field from the Earth.
Quote from: wattsup on January 20, 2009, 09:56:53 AM
@sparks and @grumpy and @all
You know what a Faraday cage is. It is used to keep out ambient magnetic influences from entering into it's interior...
Big confusion. A Faraday cage doesn't work against magnetic fields but against electric fields, the principle being that the repartition of the electrons on the cage creates an electric field opposing the outside electric field.
Static or quasi-static magnetic fields are not shielded by Faraday cages.
Only HF magnetic fields are also shielded, if the holes size of the mesh is less than the half-wave length and the thickness of the metal is sufficient relative to the frequency (the ability of a variable magnetic field to penetrate a metal is inversely proportionnal to its frequency squared). It is due to Foucault currents opposing the changing magnetic field (wich is not the principle of a Farady cage).
A box with very thick walls in metal of high magnetic permeability can shield static magnetic field by diverting the lines of flux from the inside, but it is not yet a "Faraday" cage, its working principle is also completely different.
Far more precise, but yes :)
@exnihiloest and @BEP
Thanks guys for the correction. I noticed this also last night during some tests. The magnetic field is so damn persistent. lol
Gotta be a way to make the Earth's orbital velocity relative to a standing wave field. Moving 67,000mph through space is a pretty good clip. Some kind of Doppler effect. 5khz 1/2 wavelength 67,000 miles? Set up this standing wave field and smack into the nodes at 67,000 miles per hour or something.
@sparks
I agree.
Is it possible that electrons wizzing around the neucleus would maintain continued energy force because the electron is going in and out of the shadow side of the neucleus, relative to the 67kmph directionality and that continuous and alternating change in potential provides it with the energy to keep turning.
Yes, there's got to be a way to block the field. Maybe Leedsklalnin figured it out.
Gabby just posted a video about this stuff on his yahoo blog page:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress)
This involves the Kaluza-Klein theorem.
Take care.
nap
Seen this video before and could be described as mass classification of acceleration of an atom. The damn proton stays at home and the electron leaves the normal orbital alignment. The proton's electrostatic charge is no longer insulated by the electron and it if felt far beyond the atomic neucleus. This will not happen if the accelerating force is maintained for too long a time. The proton will start to accelerate and move into the inertial field frame of the electron acceleration. Another way to look at it as converting the orbital momentum of the electron into tangential acceleration of the electron. Cutting the electrostatic bind (gravity if you ask me) between the two different energy density aether warps.
Quote from: BEP on December 03, 2008, 10:47:33 PM
@Wattsup
I won’t say much more about this idea except the following:
This generator cannot be used as a motor. Dimensions and material are up to you.
The basic concept is rotor cogging and the majority of magnetic drag is avoided. The reason is at any rotor radial position the magnetic flux density or ‘flow’ (not appropriate) from the magnet remains the same.
BEP
Well I tried... and got a conventional result.
It ran at 16.589 watts no load and 17.528 watts under load
That is .939 watts increase to make .7 watts....
Ron
What is the material of your balance weights and weight bolts?
They should not be magnetically conductive. In your layout they probably should not be electrically conductive either. (Eddy currents)
The gap between the feet looks large. If you have some solid aluminum wire try jamming short pieces in the gap nearest the rotor. No need for a motor for initial tests. Just spin by hand with the coil open to check for cogging.
Don't spend much more time on it until I have my demo built for your viewing. I didn't expect you to be working on it right now so I've been slacking in my home bench work to keep up at work.
Quote from: BEP on February 11, 2009, 05:46:12 PM
What is the material of your balance weights and weight bolts?
They should not be magnetically conductive. In your layout they probably should not be electrically conductive either. (Eddy currents)
The gap between the feet looks large. If you have some solid aluminum wire try jamming short pieces in the gap nearest the rotor. No need for a motor for initial tests. Just spin by hand with the coil open to check for cogging.
Don't spend much more time on it until I have my demo built for your viewing. I didn't expect you to be working on it right now so I've been slacking in my home bench work to keep up at work.
The counterbalance weights are lead with SS bolts
I have been doing sixteen other things myself... and just wanted to get this finished off
The gap is .067 thou
Ron
What about REDUCING Lenz?
Is Lenz dependant on CURRENT or POWER?
Say producing 100 watts:
1. 10V x 10A = 100 watts
Large CURRENT means large field in windings meaning large Lenz?
2. 50V x 2A = 100 watts
Small CURRENT means small field in windings meaning small Lenz?
The generator windings are like an electromagnet.... the more current, the stronger the field.
So will producing power at a large voltage but small current reduce Lenz??
Hmmm.. then again... if you get the larger voltage by using more turns.....
The field strength is: N(turns)x I(amps)
So increasing the turns to get the higher voltage/decrease the amps multiplies out to the same field/same Lenz ...... :-X ?
BUT - increasing RPM's to increase voltage rather than TURNS = less Lenz?
Quote from: capthook on April 18, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
What about REDUCING Lenz?
Is Lenz dependant on CURRENT or POWER?
Say producing 100 watts:
1. 10V x 10A = 100 watts
Large CURRENT means large field in windings meaning large Lenz?
2. 50V x 2A = 100 watts
Small CURRENT means small field in windings meaning small Lenz?
The generator windings are like an electromagnet.... the more current, the stronger the field.
So will producing power at a large voltage but small current reduce Lenz??
Hmmm.. then again... if you get the larger voltage by using more turns.....
The field strength is: N(turns)x I(amps)
So increasing the turns to get the higher voltage/decrease the amps multiplies out to the same field/same Lenz ...... :-X ?
BUT - increasing RPM's to increase voltage rather than TURNS = less Lenz?
These are very good questions.
This must be checked out by experiments.
By the way, if you use higher ohmical coils and want to avoid
the ohmical losses at the coil resistance then you get best the energy out of the
coil by using a graetz bridge across the coil and pulsing it and putting the BackEMF into
a Capacitor via the graetz diode bridge.
Then you have the charged up capacitor as the output energy source.
Tommy Lee Reed is doing this on youtube now and gets quite some
overunity effects,
see:
http://www.youtube.com/user/EnergyTechnologyNow
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: capthook on April 18, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
What about REDUCING Lenz?
Is Lenz dependant on CURRENT or POWER?
Say producing 100 watts:
1. 10V x 10A = 100 watts
Large CURRENT means large field in windings meaning large Lenz?
2. 50V x 2A = 100 watts
Small CURRENT means small field in windings meaning small Lenz?
The generator windings are like an electromagnet.... the more current, the stronger the field.
So will producing power at a large voltage but small current reduce Lenz??
Hmmm.. then again... if you get the larger voltage by using more turns.....
The field strength is: N(turns)x I(amps)
So increasing the turns to get the higher voltage/decrease the amps multiplies out to the same field/same Lenz ...... :-X ?
BUT - increasing RPM's to increase voltage rather than TURNS = less Lenz?
I was thinking along the same lines in the thread found here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3967-dc-motor-generator-talk-obvious-gain.html
You hook some high current-low voltage to a DC motor so you have lots of torque but little lenz drag. Then you use a very high gear ratio to spin a generator very fast but has high winding resistance, gives little lenz drag, so this generates low current-high voltage. You then step this up and feed it back to the motor.
Hi guys, have we covered this yet? I found this picture online and was wondering if it will work. I can't imagine that it would work, it doesn't look like it would really avoid Lenz drag at all? If we already covered this one, my apologies.
Reluctance generator
Paul Brown Variable reluctance generator.
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/bbrown.htm (http://www.linux-host.org/energy/bbrown.htm)
THE ADAMS MOTOR IS A ZERO LENZ
But, there is something even more simple that we can test.
I just read an article that sounded too good to be true. I haven't tested it yet. This guy said "TRY IT FOR YOURSELF" he said to hook up a bridge rectifier, to 4 coils, using an all north, or all south pole 4 pole motor with 4 equally spaced charging stators. The article said that there is something akin to "reverse" Lenz's law taking place. Supposedly, minimum drag occurs at MAXIMUM load with this arrangement (see picture). The large coils shown below have an over long core material that sticks out behind the coil winding (not sure why?). I don't understand how this would avoid Lenz's law, but supposedly the configuration in this picture does just that. If you cannot see the picture, then go to this link:
http://www.melog.ch/adams/adams_128k.jpg
Guys I need insight!
I built a Bedini-Cole window motor. I wound an additional generator coil at a 90 degree angle to the first coil. However, when I put a load on the generator, there is immense drag. But why? I cannot conceive of what is causing this drag. It doesn't seem to be Lenz's law, because if you draw it on paper, it doesn't make sense that this generator coil can even have Lenz's law. But still, it does slow down.
Very nice setup! But I don´t understand, why you are expecting no drag at all?
Quote from: supermuble on August 01, 2009, 02:46:41 PM
Guys I need insight!
I built a Bedini-Cole window motor. I wound an additional generator coil at a 90 degree angle to the first coil. However, when I put a load on the generator, there is immense drag. But why? I cannot conceive of what is causing this drag. It doesn't seem to be Lenz's law, because if you draw it on paper, it doesn't make sense that this generator coil can even have Lenz's law. But still, it does slow down.
Hi,
The generator part of your setup is nearly conventional: the rotor magnets create a changing magnetic field in your new coil what you actually load, right? Why would it be Lenz-free? Unfortunately the action-reaction is 100% in this case.
Your motor coil works only when you let it attract (or repel) the rotor magnets, otherwise the motor coil is an open circuit, right?
You gen coil is a continuously closed coil I suppose? Maybe you could use a switch at the gen coil like you use at the motor coil I wonder...
rgds, Gyula
If you draw out a rotor with 6 equally spaced NSNSNS magnets on it on a piece of paper, and draw a coil around it. Now visualize what that will do. It just seemed (on paper) that Lenz law couldn't possibly slow down the rotor. In this case, I think the magnetic drag is a bit more complicated, and I don't really understand it.
I heard John Bedini say "there is no Lenz's law in it" during a small video of his window motor where it is running on a capacitor. He must be referring to the "motor" part of the circuit. However, he also disconnects the power switch, and the thing keeps running, apparently with no load, even though the charge coil is STILL connected. I guess I thought he had somehow averted Lenz's law, but I am just confused! ;D
Here is the video link - John says "no Lenz's law!"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574&ei=Csd0SoPiIZvqqAOblKS_CA&hl=en
Could you show in a "paper"-picture here -step by step- your theoretical consideration,
why LENZ´s LAW in your design is supposed to do not apply?
Quote from: supermuble on August 01, 2009, 06:52:53 PM
If you draw out a rotor with 6 equally spaced NSNSNS magnets on it on a piece of paper, and draw a coil around it. Now visualize what that will do. It just seemed (on paper) that Lenz law couldn't possibly slow down the rotor. In this case, I think the magnetic drag is a bit more complicated, and I don't really understand it.
I heard John Bedini say "there is no Lenz's law in it" during a small video of his window motor where it is running on a capacitor. He must be referring to the "motor" part of the circuit. However, he also disconnects the power switch, and the thing keeps running, apparently with no load, even though the charge coil is STILL connected. I guess I thought he had somehow averted Lenz's law, but I am just confused! ;D
Here is the video link - John says "no Lenz's law!"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574&ei=Csd0SoPiIZvqqAOblKS_CA&hl=en
Hi, by disconnecting the power switch it means all the switches are open circuit, the coils are not loaded with anything electrically, the mass of the rotor magnets keeps the rotor in rotation, this what he must have meant be saying that. No closed circuit on a coil when it is still in a changing magnetic field= no Lenz law. This must be a case he meant.
If the charge coil remained connected and the charged capacitor has NOT been discharged during the power off situation, it means no or only a very little load to the rotor, hence its effect is insignificant. The lower the load current during any induction, the less effect Lenz law has on the process.
In case the charged cap is just starting to charge from the coil when you disconnect the power switch, and the cap has had zero charge in it the moment before, then you surely found a sudden, one time slow down in rotation (like a bump) which exponentially would diminish as the capacitor takes up the charge, ok? (Assuming there is no any load resistor on the charging cap.)
rgds, Gyula
Thanks, that makes sense.
After experimenting with the window motor, I have got an increase in torque, and a 50% reduction in current consumption by using a Reed switch for triggering. I used the basic window motor circuit. But instead of using the trigger coil, I just stuck a reed switch in it's place. One end of the Reed goes to the Base of transistor, the other end goes to a 2.2K resistor, then to the + battery.
With the Reed switch for triggering, I get sharp high voltage spikes even at very low speed. Where before, while using the basic trigger coil, those sharp spikes don't occur because the transistor doesn't switch on and off as sharply. It's a huge difference. Now I see how you can get the Window motor to run its self, because you have "radiant spikes" even at very very low rpm.
Holy cra* .... Now this person has done some amazing work. The best I've seen.
He says his window motor will run for HOURS on a capacitor.... Dang!
I suppose this has to be just "slightly" over-unity because tiny capacitors cannot run a motor for hours.... This video is proof positive that these motors do defy some conventional limits.
YouTube - Mini Window Motors Capacitor Demonstration.
Edit/Delete Message
Hi,
Re on your "...tiny capacitors cannot run a motor for hours..."
See this capacitor: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/201187493/super_capacitor.html it has 50 Farad capacitance value in that volume!!!
His window motor you refer to at youtube surely has a few milliAmper average current consumption from a few Volts DC voltage and as such it is surely able to work from even a 10-20 Farad capacitor bank charged up to a few volts. If his caps are 5.5V rated each, then his resultant working voltage is around 7-8V DC, considering he connected two in series (and another two series caps in parallel with the other two series to increase current loadability for the bank). EDIT: I realize that there are only two cpacitors only, not four as I said, I was mistaken by the mirror, lol.
This is the link by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVtGxSYdhU
So I think it is very much possible to run such low consumption motor from a capacitor bank of a few Farad, it is already practical.
rgds, Gyula
PS I seem to always shower your parade and I apologize but I try to help and share my understanding on some topics you bring up... ;) :D ;)
Thanks for the corrections.
So regarding a no drag generator. I understand the theory now. If you can move a rotor faster than the coils can reverse their magnetic field, then you can INVERT Lenz's law. It is very very simple. It's all about speed.
If you take a primary coil on a transformer and accelerate it faster than the secondary can respond, then you can INVERT Lenz's law, and instead of drawing MORE current, the primary will draw LESS current.
Of course, this is all in THEORY... I've never done it! ;D
n my seeking to find a way to obtain easy end cheap free energy, I found this patent in PJ book
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting
This was very interesting to me ,because seems to be very easy to replicate.
My ideea is to put this generator in conjunction with Osiie Calanan free energy unit
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...TYd5jc3ndQJ03w
You can find discussion about this, Here
Radiant Free Energy By Ossie Callanan
Excerpt from patent:
"This unique way of generating electricity allows generation of more electrical power, e.g. anywhere in the
range of 4 to 137 times more power, than prior, conventional means. It also has the advantage of obtaining
unity power with very little effort. "
With this type of generator,no need shaft torque to fight against lenz force.
We can recover entire energy from Ossie Callanan motor-generator section
and in the same time,we will have common power usable directly from this lenz less generator.
I want to give it a try and make replication but I have some misunderstanding
about this .Seems the information are not complete .For example the fig 4 are not explained.
My unclarity regarding this generator are:
1.Cannot see the difference between , interaction of magnetic field of magnets with coils in common generators with lenz force and interaction of the magnetic field in this lenzless generator. Only difference I can see is the
position of the magnets in reference with coils.
2.The magnets are interacting with coils with both N and S poles or just with upper part of them (with one pole facing the coils) and the other pole being
bellow of the core?
3.The magnets must interact between them via steel shaft(?) or this is no necessary ?
4.Can be used rectangular magnets (SSG Type) and staked them to have the surface necessary to interact with coils?
If somebody have a better understanding of this invention by reading the patent, please post here ,to help me ,(us) to understand in deeply this type of generator ,and start to make some experiments.
Mike
I hope this tread are not died
would be easier if you corrected the links to the patent or at least give the patent number ;]
the patent involved is US 6946767
The first missing Rapidshare link included it:
http://rapidshare.com/files/363992008/Alternating_curent_generator_lenzless.pdf
The 2nd not working link is:
http://avalonra.altervista.org/sections/03_Downloads/Occhio_di_Ra/Tesla_Documents/Tesla%20-%20a%20working%20radiant%20free%20energy%20system.pdf
Third link is:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3062-radiant-free-energy-ossie-callanan.html
Hi folks, im replicating a small model based on this youtube video that seems as though it can work around lentz, so that it does not reflect back to prime mover. I'm filling the holes in my ceramic ring magnets with epoxy right now since they are large holes. If the periphery rotatable disc magnets are able to be influenced to rotate and relieve pressure from lentz effect of coil then it should work, he has other videos that appear to show an actual speed up of main rotor when coil is loaded. I will know soon enough once mine is put together.
peace love light
Tyson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y&feature=related)
Quote from: sinergicus on March 17, 2010, 05:11:50 AM
n my seeking to find a way to obtain easy end cheap free energy, I found this patent in PJ book
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting
This was very interesting to me ,because seems to be very easy to replicate.
My ideea is to put this generator in conjunction with Osiie Calanan free energy unit
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...TYd5jc3ndQJ03w
You can find discussion about this, Here
Radiant Free Energy By Ossie Callanan
Excerpt from patent:
"This unique way of generating electricity allows generation of more electrical power, e.g. anywhere in the
range of 4 to 137 times more power, than prior, conventional means. It also has the advantage of obtaining
unity power with very little effort. "
With this type of generator,no need shaft torque to fight against lenz force.
We can recover entire energy from Ossie Callanan motor-generator section
and in the same time,we will have common power usable directly from this lenz less generator.
I want to give it a try and make replication but I have some misunderstanding
about this .Seems the information are not complete .For example the fig 4 are not explained.
My unclarity regarding this generator are:
1.Cannot see the difference between , interaction of magnetic field of magnets with coils in common generators with lenz force and interaction of the magnetic field in this lenzless generator. Only difference I can see is the
position of the magnets in reference with coils.
2.The magnets are interacting with coils with both N and S poles or just with upper part of them (with one pole facing the coils) and the other pole being
bellow of the core?
3.The magnets must interact between them via steel shaft(?) or this is no necessary ?
4.Can be used rectangular magnets (SSG Type) and staked them to have the surface necessary to interact with coils?
If somebody have a better understanding of this invention by reading the patent, please post here ,to help me ,(us) to understand in deeply this type of generator ,and start to make some experiments.
Mike
I hope this tread are not died
Sorry for missing that links.I opened an topic on energeticforum.com with the same subject.I put here the same words (with copy -paste) ;D
Seems the links was missed ...
Here is :
http://rapidshare.com/files/363992008/Alternating_curent_generator_lenzless.pdf
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1868.0;attach=5087
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3062-radiant-free-energy-ossie-callanan.html
@Tyson,
Thanks for the link, haven't seen that one yet. The idea makes sense though. In a normal generator the coil and magnet are fixed. As they get near since neither one of them want to budge the EMF/Lenz sets up a resistance which induces drag. Now if the magnet is just able to be spun/rolled (wrong term, more like pulled by Lenz pushed by EMF) away it will greatly reduce the drag.
It looks like from the video that the more load it speeds up, could be that the magnet is forced/rolled away at a greater velocity. Would have to build to see real measurements of what is going on.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Th3Generat0r#p/u/2/_9ktD7kAI7Y
Hi dreamthinkbuild, thanks for reply to my post. Yes the second i saw this video, i said this has to work, drilling center holes in my magnets today and i have to build a wood mounting setup for it all. If i were to take a guess, i would say that as the disc magnet is leaving the generator coil and since it is spinning in opposite direction to main rotor, it may be generating a repulsive force similar to what normally happens when a magnet approaches a coil, but in this case its spinning so repels away from coil as Wendell Ray Walker pointed out in his video i posted. Now if it is generating another similar pole as it leaves it may not quite be AC but more like an almost pure DC, but that doesnt matter much, since we generated current on approach and get a free repulsion kick on departure from coil which would explain the speedup, so if it works this way, it's a beautiful machine.
peace love light
Tyson ;)
Free Energy Generator- The real deal!
its really interesting... just began replicate it.
hello
i have been thinknig why not to switch magnet pole when we about to leave the coil ?
will it cancell lenz force? i think it would and even push away from the coil right?
what you guy think?
cheers from poland
wojsciech
Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on March 18, 2010, 10:55:17 AM
@Tyson,
Thanks for the link, haven't seen that one yet. The idea makes sense though. In a normal generator the coil and magnet are fixed. As they get near since neither one of them want to budge the EMF/Lenz sets up a resistance which induces drag. Now if the magnet is just able to be spun/rolled (wrong term, more like pulled by Lenz pushed by EMF) away it will greatly reduce the drag.
It looks like from the video that the more load it speeds up, could be that the magnet is forced/rolled away at a greater velocity. Would have to build to see real measurements of what is going on.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Th3Generat0r#p/u/2/_9ktD7kAI7Y
That video and the other two...absolutely BRILLIANT thinking! That is what I have been talking about... Figuring out ways to USE Lenz to our advantage, and this fellow may have figured out a way...
This may indeed be the long sought after solution... elegant in it's simplicity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y
Cheers,
Bruce
When you short the output leads of any generator the first thing that happens is the stator field starts to collapse.
When that field collapses the voltage falls almost completely to zero. How many Watts are you putting out if the volts are zero and the amps are [anything you want]?
Of course the rotor increases in speed. This is because the generator is shorted and is no longer a generator. It is a flywheel.
This is a very common mistake made by folks of every technical level.
A short circuit is not a load when the generator is so weak the voltage collapses to zero. If they wish to load it they should load it with a light or resistor. Then it will slow down, if the field isn't caused to collapse completely.
I've performed short circuit tests on 2 megawatt diesel driven alternators and generators. It is a rather strange thing to see the engine speed surge near a dangerous sounding level when you close that 6000 amp 3 pole switch, shorting the generator.
I do love the man's style and getting the kids involved in such fun.
I have no idea if this is doable but if the current in your output coil is delayed then the magnetic field it produces still follows lenz law it is just ill timed. I know in an electric motor that insertion of a capacitor in series with a winding causes the magnetic field of that winding to manifest sooner than the magnetic field produced by what is called the main winding. This causes a split phase motor to operate. The magnetic field then shifts from auxillary winding to main winding. The main winding consists of usually twice as many turns of larger diameter wire than the auxillary winding. I have seen cases where it takes as much as a second for current to flow in a coil after being fed voltage and continue to flow after being disconnected from the line.
Quote from: BEP on April 24, 2010, 10:14:19 PM
When you short the output leads of any generator the first thing that happens is the stator field starts to collapse.
When that field collapses the voltage falls almost completely to zero. How many Watts are you putting out if the volts are zero and the amps are [anything you want]?
Of course the rotor increases in speed. This is because the generator is shorted and is no longer a generator. It is a flywheel.
This is a very common mistake made by folks of every technical level.
A short circuit is not a load when the generator is so weak the voltage collapses to zero. If they wish to load it they should load it with a light or resistor. Then it will slow down, if the field isn't caused to collapse completely.
I've performed short circuit tests on 2 megawatt diesel driven alternators and generators. It is a rather strange thing to see the engine speed surge near a dangerous sounding level when you close that 6000 amp 3 pole switch, shorting the generator.
I do love the man's style and getting the kids involved in such fun.
I still believe the man's idea to be valid and the idea simple enough for some to experiment with.
For all we know, if a light were used as load perhaps it would accelerate, if lenz simply forces the magnet in the opposite direction.
So many here simply read and never build anything, well here is an opportunity.
Hi Folks,
Has anybody considered testing this idea from Tao?
Gyula
Quote from: tao on November 22, 2008, 11:47:36 AM
I see three ways to interact with Lenz and his Law:
1. It is there in its full glory, lets not forget all the devices that we use everyday that use this Law.
2. You effectively disable it, and hence take it out of the equation, in ways similar to BEP stated, among others.
3. You sit down and have a talk with Lenz and he decides to help you, thereby reversing his Law just for you because you were so nice to him :P
I am quite sure, that out of the three, you guys might want to know more about number 3? Or are you thinking it is just a joke?
Let me just give a quick example of how this can be done, and has been done, perhaps unknowingly in many devices, heh.
1. Ok, take a simple low remanence core and wind two coils on it. Call one a power coil, and the other the pickup coil. Both coils should be OPEN.
2. Have a rotor with magnets on it's outer edge. Spin the rotor slightly.
3. Now, what will happen? The nearest magnet on the rotor is going to be highly attracted to the low remanence core material and provide you with essentially free motive power.
4. When that magnet gets at just about TDC to your low remanence core/coils, you fire a pulse into your power coil. This pulse should create a magnetic field that 'zeroes out' the magnetic field from that magnet on the rotor such that the magnet on the rotor doesn't 'see' the low remanence core anymore. Leave the pickup coil OPEN at this time, so there is no Lenz effect from coil to coil.
5. The magnet on the rotor now maintains its momentum and continues around and easily passes TDC. Another thing to remember is, the magnetic field of the rotor magnet is no longer in the low remanence core, it is bend away from the low remanence core because of the pulse from the power coil.
6. So, it is at this moment that the next key thing happens. The power pulse shuts off abrubtly, re-OPEN-ing the power coil. At this same instant, or slightly before, the pickup coil is CLOSED, preferably with a load of some sorts.
7. What happens when that power pulse shuts off? Well, lets look at the situation. We have the rotor's MAGNET moving AWAY from the low remanence core and we have that rotor's magnet's FIELD moving TOWARD the low remanence core. Did you get that? The physical magnet is moving away from the core and WITH MOMENTUM and the magnet's FIELD is moving TOWARD the low remanence core. Remember, the rotor magnet's FIELD was bend and expelled from the low remanence core during the power pulse, so, now that the power pulse is gone, the FIELD is trying to move TOWARD the low remanence core.
8. What happens now? Well Lenz's Law happens! But, this time Lenz helps us. The FIELD enters the low remanence core, and since the pickup coil is CLOSED, Lenz's Law will kick in and the pickup coil will create current flow in the pickup coil and the magnetic field that results from that current flow will OPPOSE the INCOMING FIELD from the rotor's magnet. Did you just see what happened?
9. What happens then is this, the rotor's magnet is moving along with it's built up momentum, and it's field tries to get back into the low remanence core, but Lenz's Law kicks in within the pickup coil and opposes the rotor magnet's field. So, this means that the rotor's magnet will be PUSHED AWAY from the low remanence core BY LENZ'S LAW that is occurring in the pickup coil, this means that the momentum and speed of the rotor and it's magnet WILL INCREASE, and at the same time that is happening, we have POWER FLOWING INTO the pickup coil, all thanks to Lenz's Law.
10. More later, if so desired...
Thanks Lenz...
With proper geometry and design, you CAN have Lenz's Law WORK FOR YOU! It is possible.You might have to 'pay for a single pulse' (and this in many setups might make everything under unity), BUT the fact remains, you CAN make Lenz's Law HELP YOU...
Peace guys...
Hi gyulasun, thanks for posting that quote.
I think that would be a great idea, why, because Robert Adams was doing that very thing in at least some of his motor/generators and now that i ponder this.
magnacoaster is probably doing the same thing, only he has boosted the effect by placing the large neo magnet stack at the back of his coil/core.
In magnacoasters case, the departing rotor magnet will snap back to the core with much greater velocity because the coil/core is already polarized to attract the neo magnet.
Just a matter of tuning and timing as someone pointed out i think.
Definitely this has to be tested, though switching would be key here, unless some more automatic and simpler method can be used.
peace love light
Tyson
Quote from: BEP on November 21, 2008, 09:38:54 PM
Multi layer spiral coils start at one end of the form and stay at that same spot until the maximum diameter of the coil is reached and then begin a second layer by winding in an ever decreasing diameter toward the coil form center, reverse-create another layer and continue until the length of the coil form is covered.
Difficult to describe but think of a rod with a bunch of washers stacked and slid onto it.
Then think of each washer as a separate flat spiral coil. All of these coils have the same handedness BUT one half of them have their winding start from the inner diameter and the other half start from the outer diameter.
The matter of spiral construction above is ambiguous.
(Sorry for being such a Johnny-come-lately, but this topic has just become of interest.)
In my Figure 1 below left, the first coil (yellow) continues to the second spiral, which is wound from the outside to the center, as described by BEP. But wait, the handedness reverses.
In Figure 2 on the right the coils are wound with the same handedness (left) but the wires of adjacent pairs of coils reverse direction where they would interconnect.
So which is the correct way? Remove the ambiguity (someone, BEP?).
Winding from the outside toward the center in, of course, impossible, but if each layer is wound from the center to the outside periphery, and then the coils are joined by some means, constructing a stack should not be difficult. Wind each pancake separately with epoxy, let it harden before removing it from the winding spindle. Two thick hubs with an adjustable gap, covered with some mold release agent (Teflon), should work.
Quote from: zuvrick on August 13, 2012, 08:27:52 AM
The matter of spiral construction above is ambiguous.
Not to me.
Quote
(Sorry for being such a Johnny-come-lately, but this topic has just become of interest.)
In my Figure 1 below left, the first coil (yellow) continues to the second spiral, which is wound from the outside to the center, as described by BEP. But wait, the handedness reverses.
No, it doesn't. Point your thumb along the wire from start of the first coil, slide your hand along the wire from start to finish, you will see that your thumb and fingers always point in the same direction and you don't have to break your wrist where the first coil joins the second one. It's a continuous wire in the same direction, spiralling out then in smoothly without reversing direction.
Quote
In Figure 2 on the right the coils are wound with the same handedness (left) but the wires of adjacent pairs of coils reverse direction where they would interconnect.
If they are of the same handedness in Figure 2.... why is one wound clockwise, and the other counterclockwise, reversing direction at the outer edge where they are joined? Maybe we are using different definitions of "handedness"?
Quote
So which is the correct way? Remove the ambiguity (someone, BEP?).
I think he's describing the first way.
Quote
Winding from the outside toward the center in, of course, impossible,
For certain rather limited values of "impossible" perhaps. But not for these kinds of coils.
Quote
but if each layer is wound from the center to the outside periphery, and then the coils are joined by some means, constructing a stack should not be difficult. Wind each pancake separately with epoxy, let it harden before removing it from the winding spindle. Two thick hubs with an adjustable gap, covered with some mold release agent (Teflon), should work.
Pancake coil winding: with this system you can wind flat coils in multiple layers, from out to in, or in to out however you like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-rW9hlIljY
I agree that we appear to be using different definitions of "handedness". I look at the coils or spirals as they turn outward from the center, and that is what I saw as right- or left-handedness, i.e., clockwise or anti-clockwise direction. Intuitively I would find the left figure where the wire keeps going in the same direction to be correct, but it was observed to violate my definition of same-handedness. So ambiguity can exist in the definition. Thanks for your observation and comments.
Quote from: zuvrick on August 13, 2012, 08:34:58 PM
I agree that we appear to be using different definitions of "handedness". I look at the coils or spirals as they turn outward from the center, and that is what I saw as right- or left-handedness, i.e., clockwise or anti-clockwise direction. Intuitively I would find the left figure where the wire keeps going in the same direction to be correct, but it was observed to violate my definition of same-handedness. So ambiguity can exist in the definition. Thanks for your observation and comments.
You are welcome.
You must imagine yourself travelling along the wire like an electron. If you take your right hand and call it the electron, point your thumb along the wire in the direction of travel (or actually in the "conventional" current direction, backwards) then your fingers will "curl" in the direction of the magnetic field induced by the motion of the electron. If you then compare the two coil drawings you will see just where the change in handedness occurs-- in the righthand drawing, the first outwardgoing spiral makes a field that comes "out" of the center, whereas the second ingoing spiral makes a field that goes "in" to the center (or vice versa, I get confused too). The second arrangement will actually result in cancelling fields and small inductance -- it is effectively a "hairpin" style bifilar winding -- , whereas the first will result in reinforcing fields and larger inductance. There is yet another way to do it and that is to take the outer end and not wind but just bring it to the center straight, and then continue winding outwards in the same direction as the previous layer. This is closer to a Tesla bifilar winding, but in adjacent layers instead of in the same layer.
I hope I've got this right... it's been a long day and it's very hot in here, my brain is fried! Corrections welcome....
:P
Hi All,
This patent application looks like it has potential:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100194227
"A power generator produces electromotive forces in the same direction on all windings to prevent lowering of rotational forces of rotor plates due to magnetic fields."
Looks like a sideways Gramme ring with switching circuit to cut or reduce the C-EMF.
Hi all.
I've been reading your posts and I have a question.
I am attaching a file, that shows a coil and 3 magnet positions (A, B and C). A is when the magnet approches the coil, B is when the magnet is parallel to the coil and C is when the magnet leaves the coil.
As far as I understand the Lenz law, the induction creates two magnetic fields, one when the magnet approaches the coil (and builds up as the magnet gets closer and closer to the coil) repeling the incomming magnet, and one when the magnet is leaving the coil, where the coil tries to hold back the magnet from leaving.
I've seen that under load my rotor comes to a complete stop due to Lenz law. I've been experimenting a bit and I was just curious to know if I could build a circuit that disconnects the coil right after position B, or maybe just before.
Electronics is not my strong side, so I do this for hobby only. Therefore I wonder, whether this even would make any difference? In my mind this would reduce Lenz by 50% as the second Lenz magnetic field would be zero (at least I think).
I've tried to do something with a transistor that gets the base current from the Bedini circuit, and it seems to slow down the rotor, but not completely stop it. Therefore I am hoping that someone can show me a circiut diagram or something that I might try to experiment with.
Quote from: zogorean on January 17, 2013, 04:24:44 AM
....
... I was just curious to know if I could build a circuit that disconnects the coil right after position B, or maybe just before.
... I wonder, whether this even would make any difference? In my mind this would reduce Lenz by 50% as the second Lenz magnetic field would be zero (at least I think).
....
Hi zogorean,
Have you considered: when you disconnect the load from the coil right after position B (or a tiny bit earlier) then you will have no output power? Sure you will not have Lenz after position B but just because you will not have useful output power for the "after position B" part of operation.
Regarding some schematics on timed switching, see this link, member Hoptoad has it: http://www.totallyamped.net/adams/ IT may be a long read, just take your time and I think you can learn from it.
rgds, Gyula
Wow, such a long thread! I'd gone cross eyed by page 7 of replies. Apologies if my answer is in the replies I skipped. Has anyone tried / made a iron closed loop core with multi wound coils? I'm thinking / picturing a solid iron / ferrous ring as a core with no join, multi wound with magnet wire. I'll try to explain myself.....
Say you wanted 10 seperate windings on the iron ring, 360 degrees divided by 10 equals 36 degrees. so at an angle of every 36 degrees around the ring you have a starting point for each winding. You will need 10 rolls of magnet wire to follow thorough this idea, one for each winding. Winding clockwise or anti clockwise, wind from starting point to next next starting point and then carry on winding over the next first winding etc, etc, etc over as many layers of windings as required to build up enough winds per coil.
Um... worried I'm not explaining what I'm thinking to well, possibly it would look simular to this link http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/rcoil.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/rcoil.htm) but using 10 windings not just 2 around an iron loop. Any thoughts on this? Has it been tried already? Does this idea still have lenz drag problems with the windings inter-wound?
My idea of a lenz-free generator, inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jilzmRnfYFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jilzmRnfYFI)
Magnets on both sides of the E core induce current in the coil but the counter EMF is trapped inside the core - No more drag!
Here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySId1F9YKvM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySId1F9YKvM) is a similar concept with an alternate route for the CEMF inside the core.
Is anyone willing to test it?
Hi kEhYo77,
You nicely solved the cogging problem what attract forces cause when rotor magnets and stator cores have equal numbers.
The principle seems good to me: the counter flux from the load current is supposed to remain inside the core provided there is still enough permeability left for the cores during induction, so that core saturation does not yet start.
You may have noticed Butch's setup here: http://www.overunity.com/14425/lafonte-pseudo-solid-generator-rotary-linear-reciprocating-ultra-simple/msg393691/#msg393691 where he shows a similar principle i.e. the counter flux is also hoped to remain in the core but his setup has a linear reciprocating rotor magnet movement. There is a good animation for his setup by member Blainiac here http://i60.tinypic.com/256ai5f.gif (http://i60.tinypic.com/256ai5f.gif)
And Butch also arrived at a rotary version here:
http://www.overunity.com/14425/lafonte-pseudo-solid-generator-rotary-linear-reciprocating-ultra-simple/msg394277/#msg394277
I hope someone will be able to replicate any of the setups, this is an interesting principle.
Thanks, Gyula
Small but important correction on the updated pic. Cosequently this arrangement will have very small output, all covered by Lenz. Picture this arrangement in your head as hydraulic system with turbine in the middle leg of the core and magnets as flow source/sink. Immediately it becomes apparent that water/flux wont like going thru middle leg very much...
Winding HV bifi coil should delay CEMF above certain frequency.
Gotta try it using off the shelf transformers...
EDIT nevermind, I was wrong. Not my day...
:-X
Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on March 28, 2014, 12:35:03 PM
Small but important correction on the updated pic. Cosequently this arrangement will have very small output, all covered by Lenz. Picture this arrangement in your head as hydraulic system with turbine in the middle leg of the core and magnets as flow source/sink. Immediately it becomes apparent that water/flux wont like going thru middle leg very much...
Its not actually the magnets altering the cores field as shown.
As the 2 magnets are approaching a wound core as shown, the magnets fields are still bound to the previous core like rubber bands, then the flux fields kinda jump over to the new core from the previous core.
As that is happening, the sides of the cores where the windings are open, the magnets fields 'cut' the windings, inducing currents in the windings. It does so when the magnets field is leaving the previous core, and jumping to the next core. But the coils field is trapped in the core, having no direct link to the magnets fields, other than affecting the cores attraction to the rotor magnets when the coil is producing its field in the core.
Neat idea. ;) Probably best to have short cores, as in the rotor magnet wheels have as little spacing as possible. This way the magnets fields are stronger passing the cores and dense where the windings are being cut.
Mags
Whether or not it is possible to "cancel" Lenz's
Law or the difficulties it entails doesn't seem
likely.
There are ways to avoid invoking the Law,
however. Find a way to isolate the load
from the prime mover by means of magnetic
switching and the problem will be largely
solved.
The MEG was one approach but it is flawed.
The QEG or Zimmerman's Composite Generator
may offer the ultimate solution. Surely, some
innovation and modification will be needed.
Hi guys
This is my attempt for the E shape core.
I foto 1 there are 3 small transformers (220V primary; 2x12V secundary) with a 4 mags rotor.
Edy currents from the laminated E core were to big to spin it up over 1000 rpm (12V input;200mA).
Even so the output from the transformers were high in voltage and very low on amperage:
-35V from the primary
-6V from the secundary ( each transformer has a FWBR and they were in parallel)
The current that i measured over 1 ohm resistor was very low
-0.2mA from the primary
-3mA from the secundary
In dead short there was no effect on the rotor but also the output was very poor so I pased to the next config:
In foto 2 there are 2 coils that spin the rotor and a E shape ferite core with a coil that came from an 220V electromagnet.
Since now there is no edy currents, the rotor spins much faster around 2000rpm.
The output is around 7V at 1000rpm and again the amperage is very poor around 2mA.
In dead short there is a small decresing in rpm witch raises the input current with 10mA.
So I put some magnets on the core, trying different ones and the output went up 30V.
Didn't mesured the curent but it could spin only a 3V small dvd motor.
In this case lens was there decreasing a lot the rpm and the input curent increased with 40mA.
From this experiment I can say that lens is still there but somehow is a bit different.
I will experiment more with this kind of core, trying some thiker wire like 0.5mm
Wow, looks great.
Usually, low output is due to little coupling and small interaction volume. Your PMs seem rather small. They should flood the entire coil. normally the E Cores may be problematic for a big PM because they include a closed loop path, in simple terms, the magnetomotive force goes from south to north in the inside of the coil, and back to south on the outside. But maybe you did something really smart here: you are deflecting the back mmf. The magnet induces a current in the coil, so far so good, Lenz did not show up yet, all fine. But now the current in the coil causes a magnetic field in the core, and that would cancel out the PMs field in a normal motor. But with the EE core the Back mmf may just go trough the outer core and keep on circulating.
So you may have killed Lenz already, to some degree. It may be the nature of such devices to have relative small output, yet basicly at overunity. You may think about to buy 2 pounds of metglass and create yourself some similar E cores, featuring superhigh permeability,allowing for much better performence in such a design.
An other thing you can try is a cap in series with the driver (when it is AC), this will bring consumption 90° out of phase. Capacitance must fit, so the entire wave gets trough, even although with phase shift.
Regards
Hey Marius
Nice setup. ;)
I see the coil is in the middle of the center pole of the Ecore. Can you slide it closer toward the rotor and test? Its that open side exposure of the coil that gets cut by the magnets field. So the closer to the rotor the coil is, the more flux that is able to cut it. ;) Like if your core were say 6in tall, laying sideways as it is, the further out the coil is, the less output you should get.
Thats a big core. Try a smaller one if you can, where the core thickness is less between the magnet and coil. Or larger magnets for that particular core/coil.
Mags
As the rotor magnet approaches the core, the field of the magnet is attracted to the core, so as the mag gets closer to the core, the mags field bends more in that direction. So a lot of the flux from the mag may not even cut the coil because it is being absorbed by the part of the core that is closest to the magnet. ;) So a larger magnet or a smaller core/coil will ensure more flux cutting the coil producing more output.
Mags
Sorry. One more thing to try. Turn the core/coil, from the top view, 90deg so the coil is exposed closer to the rotor.
Mags
Hi guys!
Mags:
I did turn the coil as you sugested and there is voltage. More than before.
At 2000rpm there is 12V after the FWBR. A 450uF/50V cap charges up to 22V but not very fast (4-5seconds).
This is new to me:
-with a normal core-coil there is small difference at FWBR between the voltage with the cap or without the cap
-with the E shape core-coil the voltage doubles just by adding a cap.
My probe from the scope (mini-dso) is dead and cant see the waves.( Is more than a year that i'm looking for a new one but no one has it here in romania)
The bad news is that there is poor curent and lenz is still there, no mather what load is conected (even when charging the 450uF cap)
Dieter:
That's the only thing that I didn't try (the cap in series with the coil) but now is late and tomorow (like any normal working day) my weakup is at 4:45am >:( .
Things to try more:
-thiker wire
-bigger E cores (must buy first)
-stronger magnets
It will be nice if someone would replicate the E shape core-coil and see if the results match:
-relative normal output voltage
-really small curent
-and offcourse a bit of lenz :(
Magluvin,
The coil being near the PM is in fact a way to increase the efficiency. But with more efficiency comes also more braking lorentz force. Please revisit my prev. comment about the E core, deflecting the back magnetomotive force (being manifested as lorentz force), it is a fascinating thought! It does the same what the BiTT does, but in a motor! So, it's perfect, the coil pole facing the PM and the outer core legs far away from the PMs. The PMs may be a little bigger.
Gotta confess, I even don't know if this is driven by a pulse, like a bedini or adams motor, but for harvesting the output that doesn't matter, except maybe the PM arrangement: in a pulse motor it may be easier to use all PMs north pole outside, although alternating poles will increase the output and are standard for generators.
Anyway, you will bridge rectify the output and you should use schottky diodes (fast up to 1ghz switching, also low loss, low voltage drop). After them you should use a 100 to 200 v capacitor to harvest efficently any voltage peaks.
The reason why a Bedini motor is so effective is not the fwd current, delivered by the output coils, but in fact the rather high voltage back emf. The more sudden the pulse current stops in the output coil, the better the back EMF.
If pulse coils are separated from output coils then simply rectify the output. If the coils are used for both, you may use a schottky diode from the coil back to the source in parallel to your pulse trigger system, eg. reed switch or hall switch/Transistor combo.
If the system runs from a rechargable battery then these back feeded pulses may recharge the battery at runtime, although, in the Bedini system the charging battery and the driving battery should be separate units.
Anyway, thank you for giving me the inspiration for this E core Back mmf deflection, it's a fascinating concept. Have you been aware of it?
Regards
Just one more thing:
You have to prevent the magnetic field to avoid the middle core leg. This could happen when a load (like a amp meter) will reduce it's permeability compared to the outer legs. Then 90% of the flux would go trough the outer legs. result: low current induced.
The (unfort. rather complicated) solution may be: while the current is induced (PM passes by), have no load on the coil, but a load on two additional coils around the outer legs. Then, when the field collapses, switch them, so the middle coil has now current flow, although back emf only, and the outer coils have no load. Transistors may be used to switch.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more variables I see, so this allows for a lot of challenging experimentation.
PS. BTW. Neodym PMs don't work well, better use less strong ceramic, like barium-ferrite or similar, they have a better field spread. Bedini says so, and my experience with adams motors is the same.
Hey Marius
Lenz. So when the coil is loaded the motor slows down?
Here is a vid of using an ecore as the large inductance in Teslas "Igniter for Gas Engines that I did some time back. This was after my Orbo experiments. The ecore inductor acted like an orbo, while charging a cap for the drive coils, as in when the ecore inductor was conducting, the core would allow the rotor to pass the core after being attracted to it. Timing. ;) In my case anyway. Try the ecore in different positions around the rotor. Not sure if it will help here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2MwBg33D80
There are other vids of mine before and after this one that show more.
Mags
Hi
At the right distance, the coil is not seen by the rotor. The load is small but never happened this before with a normal core/coil. I will do that again with my ''one point touch shaft-rotor'' to eliminate the bearings and see the results.
Now we have this:
12V/118mA input
1.7V output over the led
2300 rpm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4hOlUzrY4I&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4hOlUzrY4I&feature=youtu.be)
Hi all,
These are very interesting videos about BUCKING COILS used to avoid the Lenz effect as exposed in hyiq.org site:
http://youtu.be/Z-V1z2TdQJA (http://youtu.be/Z-V1z2TdQJA) ( based in this pdf: "Guidelines to Bucking Coils" in hyiq.org --> http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf) )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcks2fcpHUk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcks2fcpHUk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM) (this video is just to get the idea. I think with this wiring the resulting voltage will be null, but I think with one coil CW and the other CCW with an intermediate wiring connection to extract the induced voltage. )
I hope to be helpful.
Surely all this was used by Garry Stanley in his anti-lenz coils ( http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5911-garry-stanley-pulse-motor.html ) (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5911-garry-stanley-pulse-motor.html)
There is the tendency to conserve the
magnetic moment of the magnetic field. It applies to situations where there are conductors.
http://www.capca.ucalgary.ca/wdobler/publications/preprints/MagneticMoment.pdf (http://www.capca.ucalgary.ca/wdobler/publications/preprints/MagneticMoment.pdf)
QuoteIt is shown that the magnetic moment (mu) is a conserved quantity not only in MHD, but also in general electrodynamics under certain not very restrictive conditions. The propagation of magnetic moment from a region D with an evolving current system (e. g. due to dynamo action) is discussed for the two cases of vacuum and a conducting medium, respectively, surrounding D. In the case of vacuum, the MHD approximation no longer holds and the weak electromagnetic wave emitted from D is important, as w as pointed out by Sokoloff (1997). In the case of an unbounded conducting medium, the classical denition of (mu) is generalised and (mu) is shown to propagate diffusively, undisturbed by the newly generated magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment)
QuoteThe magnetic moment may be considered to be a vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28mathematics_and_physics%29) having a magnitude and direction. The direction of the magnetic moment points from the south to north pole of the magnet. The magnetic field produced by the magnet is proportional to its magnetic moment.
Now, with Lenz' law, the idea is that the change of the magnetic
field, or in other texts, the change of magnet
flux, is resisted, rather than magnetic
moment. My wager that this is the key mistake resulting in the delay of discovering the underlying principle behind "Anti-Lenz" devices.
Consider the
S-Motor as an expression of the underlying principle:
http://www.overunity.com/15648/the-s-motor-mechanical-and-ac-power-generator-no-batteries-or-capacitors/ (http://www.overunity.com/15648/the-s-motor-mechanical-and-ac-power-generator-no-batteries-or-capacitors/)
The S-Motor consists of a magnet rotating inside a "rectangular coil" bent into an S shape. When the magnet rotates in the vicinity of the closed copper circuit, there is an induced magnetic moment which opposes the change of the magnetic moment of the magnet. But in the S-motor, unlike in other motors, the induced magnetic moment is split into three levels, upper, middle, and lower magnetic moments, corresponding to the upper, middle, and lower sections of the S, respectively. The magnetic moment in the middle is the reverse of Lenz' law, while the upper and lower magnetic moments follow Lenz' law. Note that all three arise from the same current which flows through different sections of the S-coil. Success of the design depends on the magnetic field of the magnet coupling most strongly to the middle magnetic moment.
Anything that one does in a motor that alters the BEMF constant identically alters the torque constant. Absent losses, the electrical power into a motor driving a mechanical load:
EIN = VIN * IIN = w*T*KBEMF/KTORQUE.
As long as KTORQUE = K1*KBEMF, you can design any KBEMF you like and the motor remains a motor, the generator remains a generator: under unity energy conveyances between electrical and mechanical power. Any motor-like or generator-like device that would result in surplus output over input would exhibit a KTORQUE that is not proportional to KBEMF. That means that one seeking a free energy motor-like or generator-like device has to find a circumstance where Maxwell's equations do not apply.