Since I didn't want to distract the on going Steorn thread I decided to make a new thread about this subject. Since I don't build much I can spend more time thinking, and this is what Steorn led me to think...
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm (http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm)
It's almost self explanatory but here's a summary. Basically it's a system where an inductor changes inductance during a certain time period. But the energy gain that comes with this is unexplained as the mechanical energy loss is in comparison very small. This system is based on two facts, core saturation and seemingly small mechanical forces. When you combine these two energy might get created in big quantities. In the presentation every rotation gives about 800 Joules. This is considering ideal conditions like giving the current enough time to rise during the small period where the magnet is at TDC.
As a side note I should add that hysteresis losses plays a big role too. The smaller the remnant magnetic field, after collapsing it, the better.
I hope this will make people think.
Broli, that is a very good analysis indeed. Thanks for sharing this insight.
I had a look at the effect of the changing permeability of magnetic material under the influence of magnetic fields. Below a graph of this effect which you described.
Zooming into Naudin's experiment to determine the current lag and what may be the reason for his findings that may seem a contradiction to this theory, I think Naudins findings may be explained as follows:
If the magnets Naudin is using are not strong enough to saturate the core of the toroid, he is measuring at the left hand area, before umax in the graph, so too weak magnetic field strenght.
He should place his magnets even more close to his toroid to achief the required effect.
This may then lead to too weak induction values of the toroid to get the motor going with the maximum current he has available.
In my view, it's very important to have a good balance in the magnet strenght, coil value and the permeability value of the toroid core. So, it's not so simple to obtain the perfect situation.
[edit] additional remarks:
Instead of decreasing the distance of the magnet to the toroid there are two alternatives to obtain a saturated toroid coil while having too weak rotor magnets:
1) mount a strong enough magnet to the (back)side of the toroid with the proper polarity facing the rotor magnets
2) use bifilar windings and use one set of the winding to add DC current to the coil. This one is very useful to do measurements on the core saturation
The measurement method of Naudin is very useful to optimize the setup anyway.
Quote from: broli on January 04, 2010, 04:53:52 PM
Since I didn't want to distract the on going Steorn thread I decided to make a new thread about this subject. Since I don't build much I can spend more time thinking, and this is what Steorn led me to think...
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm (http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm)
It's almost self explanatory but here's a summary. Basically it's a system where an inductor changes inductance during a certain time period. But the energy gain that comes with this is unexplained as the mechanical energy loss is in comparison very small. This system is based on two facts, core saturation and seemingly small mechanical forces. When you combine these two energy might get created in big quantities. In the presentation every rotation gives about 800 Joules. This is considering ideal conditions like giving the current enough time to rise during the small period where the magnet is at TDC.
As a side note I should add that hysteresis losses plays a big role too. The smaller the remnant magnetic field, after collapsing it, the better.
I hope this will make people think.
Hi Broli,
Last night I saw your drawings in your link but now they disappeared... :o ??? :o
Anyway I understood and agreed on your first two drawings but the third puzzled me much and I did not get it. It would be best to see it again for my question.
So what's happened I wonder.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 05, 2010, 05:35:20 AM
Hi Broli,
Last night I saw your drawings in your link but now they disappeared... :o ??? :o
Anyway I understood and agreed on your first two drawings but the third puzzled me much and I did not get it. It would be best to see it again for my question.
So what's happened I wonder.
Thanks, Gyula
The link should still be operating, try again.
Basically in the third diagram the current in the coil is keeping the core saturated as the magnet moves away. But the magnet is being pulled back as it moves away, this is an energy loss. I estimated this energy loss by saying that on average the magnet wil be pulled back by a force of 5N during the entire 90°. This is not really correct since we know the magnet will have a big force close up and very fast get down due to the 1/r^2 nature of the force, this is why I just took the average to keep things simple.
While that is happening though there is no flux change in the coil since the current is holding the saturation. I will include a very ideal hysteresis to explain why flux doesn't change.
Hi,
I am still in office where I do not see the pictures but a fully empty page (I meant the link works but with no pictures seen). Last night I saw them from home, there was no problem with seeing the pictures and hopefully from home I will be able to see them again.
Ok on your explanation for the third picture I understand it now but it needs a practical test and it is difficult to measure.
As the flux of the permanent magnet moves out of the core the question is how much input power is needed to keep the core in saturation (or in near saturation) so that a minimal loss should occur from the attraction momentum. Present science says that the same flux should be needed to keep it in saturation like the permanent magnet established in it at the facing position moment and I hope that hysteresis and / or viscosity of the core may modify it to the ou area...
Cores with rectangular hysteresis do exist but I wonder if the B-H curve needs the rectangular shape with a narrow area in between, I tend to believe such feature is needed for the curve, what do you think?
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 05, 2010, 08:42:21 AM
Hi,
I am still in office where I do not see the pictures but a fully empty page (I meant the link works but with no pictures seen). Last night I saw them from home, there was no problem with seeing the pictures and hopefully from home I will be able to see them again.
Ok on your explanation for the third picture I understand it now but it needs a practical test and it is difficult to measure.
As the flux of the permanent magnet moves out of the core the question is how much input power is needed to keep the core in saturation (or in near saturation) so that a minimal loss should occur from the attraction momentum. Present science says that the same flux should be needed to keep it in saturation like the permanent magnet established in it at the facing position moment and I hope that hysteresis and / or viscosity of the core may modify it to the ou area...
Cores with rectangular hysteresis do exist but I wonder if the B-H curve needs the rectangular shape with a narrow area in between, I tend to believe such feature is needed for the curve, what do you think?
Thanks, Gyula
A rectangular hysteresis is probably the worst shape you can have with this. What you need is a shape that has very little remnant magnetic field after the current is removed.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/1740250114012.png (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/1740250114012.png)
Edit: I also attached an idealized hysteresis for this setup. This shows a constant permeability all the way to the saturation current where it very suddenly becomes 1 (air). In our setup the magnet first provides I_sat, then the coil is energized with permeability = 1 to I_sat. From the core's point of view all you did is double the current so the flux is not going to increase which means no induced EMF. Then as the magnet moves away that 2* I_sat current becomes I_sat again, not changing the flux thus no induced emf, until you discharge it now with the constant permeability. I guess I could simplify this whole thing by saying:
The magnet charges the inductor mechanically and the coil discharges it electrically. But the electrical gain overshadows the mechanical loss.
Ok, I stand corrected for the rectangular shape, your explanation sounds good to me now. I hope your explanation holds in practice too, I really wish.
Thanks, Gyula
When you collapse the field you get huge amounts of energy but for a very very very small amount of time t=0.0001 seconds. But the amount of power you put in your coil for the time needed for the other magnet to move away is some watts x maybe 1 second! Do the math it doesn't add up. (Maybe just at very very high rotation speeds)
Quote from: danmarius7 on January 08, 2010, 02:32:14 PM
When you collapse the field you get huge amounts of energy but for a very very very small amount of time t=0.0001 seconds. But the amount of power you put in your coil for the time needed for the other magnet to move away is some watts x maybe 1 second! Do the math it doesn't add up. (Maybe just at very very high rotation speeds)
I advise you to go over the presentation again. The coil isn't energized to allow the magnet to leave easily it's the contrary. You should redo your math and logic. You can do this experiment step wise but you'll need a super conductor so current keeps flowing without a voltage source.
step 1: Let magnet attract to core => mechanical energy
gainstep 2: Add current to already saturated core due to magnet => inductive energy
loss, but is little due to low inductance
step 3: Move magnet away => mechanical energy
loss, is more than the gained in step 1 since coil field is constant as magnet moves away
step 4: Discharge coil => inductive energy
gain, at first sight this is a lot more than the mechanical loss and inputted inductive energy
You see, there's no time variables.
So, you say the current you put in the coil at 2 just hangs around there for a couple of seconds until the step 4 can take place ? I hope you know current isn't just laying around in buckets.
Yes if you use the concept of super conductors, if you don't then the energy is heat.
one of the things that interest me is Ultrasonic magnetic fields, take one large flat Ultrasonic transducer and glue a very strong NEO on its driver face, build a driver circuit that can vary the Hz, test field inductions with generator coils in close proximity to test input to output watts.
Quote from: broli on January 09, 2010, 09:48:46 AM
Yes if you use the concept of super conductors, if you don't then the energy is heat.
Now, that's more like it.
Quote from: broli on January 04, 2010, 04:53:52 PM
It's almost self explanatory but here's a summary. Basically it's a system where an inductor changes inductance during a certain time period. But the energy gain that comes with this is unexplained as the mechanical energy loss is in comparison very small. This system is based on two facts, core saturation and seemingly small mechanical forces. When you combine these two energy might get created in big quantities. In the presentation every rotation gives about 800 Joules. This is considering ideal conditions like giving the current enough time to rise during the small period where the magnet is at TDC.
Yes, it is puzzling indeed. But the situation is much complicated than shown in your diagrams.
First of all the energy equation 0.5LI^2 is valid only for an inductor with constant L. For a variable L, also called VariInd (just like a VariCap), the energy is given by LdI/dt + IdL/dt. So the time factor comes into play when you vary the inductance while maintaining a current. The variation can be done by, say, inserting an iron rod into the coil.
This method has been in use for long and is called
Parametric Amplifier, used in low noise microwave amplifiers, satellites and antennas. It seems that it is not OU, simply because the tech exists since a 100 years and we all are still paying electricity bills. Some people have attempted building OU devices using such stuff (and it is shockingly similar to what you call steorn effect). Check out these links:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraconv.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraintr.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraform.htm
Quote from: Omega_0 on January 09, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Yes, it is puzzling indeed. But the situation is much complicated than shown in your diagrams.
First of all the energy equation 0.5LI^2 is valid only for an inductor with constant L. For a variable L, also called VariInd (just like a VariCap), the energy is given by LdI/dt + IdL/dt. So the time factor comes into play when you vary the inductance while maintaining a current. The variation can be done by, say, inserting an iron rod into the coil.
This method has been in use for long and is called Parametric Amplifier, used in low noise microwave amplifiers, satellites and antennas. It seems that it is not OU, simply because the tech exists since a 100 years and we all are still paying electricity bills. Some people have attempted building OU devices using such stuff (and it is shockingly similar to what you call steorn effect). Check out these links:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraconv.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraintr.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraform.htm
and this
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/largcoil.htm
Yes I have been pointed to those links. But the situation here is not the same. In this concept inductance and current do not vary at the same time! When current increases the inductance is constant at a low value. Then when the inductance increases the current is constant with no voltage applied (if it's a super conductor). So they do not change simultaneously. The crucial part is the nature of saturation. If materials didn't saturate then this concept would not work as you would end up with the coil sensing flux change and thus producing a back EMF as the magnet moves away.
You can do this test for yourself. First short the coil and rotate the magnet and note the back emf. Then apply a DC that saturates the core and rotate the magnet at the same speed, you will see the back emf to be much lower than the no DC test. Not zero of course since saturation hysteresis is not ideal. This basically means that the field of the magnet is not amplified by the core since the core is already saturated, thus the net flux change is also small producing way less back emf.
I would also say that you don't need strong magnets. Neo magnets cause over saturation at small distances so they have to be quite far from the core to saturate it just barely. So instead ferrite magnets could be used as well at closer distances.
Quote from: broli on January 08, 2010, 02:42:16 PM
I advise you to go over the presentation again. The coil isn't energized to allow the magnet to leave easily it's the contrary. You should redo your math and logic. You can do this experiment step wise but you'll need a super conductor so current keeps flowing without a voltage source.
step 1: Let magnet attract to core => mechanical energy gain
step 2: Add current to already saturated core due to magnet => inductive energy loss, but is little due to low inductance
step 3: Move magnet away => mechanical energy loss, is more than the gained in step 1 since coil field is constant as magnet moves away
step 4: Discharge coil => inductive energy gain, at first sight this is a lot more than the mechanical loss and inputted inductive energy
You see, there's no time variables.
This is EXACTLY what Shawn said in his Steorn Orbo new 2010 presentation. Care to tell us the secret behind theory to practice?
Quote from: danmarius7 on January 14, 2010, 12:46:28 PM
This is EXACTLY what Shawn said in his Steorn Orbo new 2010 presentation. Care to tell us the secret behind theory to practice?
A conventional motor has a BEMF induced that is in opposition to the EMF of the battery driving it. This leads to a loss in induction.
In an OU motor/generator such as the Orbo and the concept that Broli is talking about, the BEMF is a negative time flow of current. Since this negative time flow of current is flowing backwards in time, it then becomes an EMF that is not in opposition to the battery, but is with the EMF of the battery. This leads to an energy gain in induction.
Saen is right about manipulating the "time frames". The negative time flow of BEMF would be a positive EMF with the same polarity as the battery, which is a gain in energy and makes it OU. There are no time variables just like Broli said.
GB
Attached is a refreshed design of this dated thread. This is a more practical setup. With ideal core hysteresis placing 4 coils 4kW should be reachable. But we need to discuss most fitting cores. The most important thing is a low remanent field.