I saw this on on JLN Labs. If true, this could be staggering.
"The LaFonte Group has found a way in essence to turn off a permanent magnet in a generator without having to do any work. It has been demonstrated on video, but we are building a fixture that exposes the internal workings in a very simple and graphic way. The only aspect of the design that is a unique requirement is that the stator needs to be of a material that is near zero in it's eddy current potential. A special ferrite is being used at this time that works and even better materials are available. A video will be on YouTube when Mark, a group member has completed the fixture. Self running with no battery or energy storage device will be next step".
What do you think?
I thought that Quinn the Australian showed the beginnings
of a true ferrite based "magnetic amplifier". Where
"magnetic amplifier" is not meant in the the same
way as the official electronics definition of this phrase.
LaFonte Group was also showed some promising work.
Since LaFonte left the overunity.com web board, we
probably don't know the latest news.
An official version undoubtedly says; "That electret
electric fields can't be shielded and magnetic fields
can't be amplified."
:S:MarkSCoffman
There is a video promised within a few days. If they really can turn off a "N" pole
quickly and without the expenditure of work, then the impact will be massive.
It would be good if the method can be extended to turn a N pole into a S pole.
I will post a link to that video on this thread as soon as it turns up.
"LaFonte Group can turn off permanent magnet without work"
Turn them off? I would think that by now, they'd know that turning them UP, not off, is more beneficial.
TS
Quote from: TechStuf on March 04, 2010, 07:35:48 AM
"LaFonte Group can turn off permanent magnet without work"
Turn them off? I would think that by now, they'd know that turning them UP, not off, is more beneficial.
If you want to "turn them up", then buy more powerful ones.
The breakthrough will come when the "sticky spot" is removed by turning off the magnet which did good work half a revolution ago, but now is in a N - N position, causing problems.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 08, 2010, 12:33:51 PM
If you want to "turn them up", then buy more powerful ones.
The breakthrough will come when the "sticky spot" is removed by turning off the magnet which did good work half a revolution ago, but now is in a N - N position, causing problems.
---
Also the breakthrough will come when the "sticky spot" is removed by
turning off the magnet which did good work most of a revolution ago, as
it climbed the gradient from weakest to strongest but the strong ones now
don't want to release it across the sticky spot to the weak ones again...
:S:MarkSCoffman
These videos have just been posted:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup
Wow and double wow
That is frikin genius It makes perfect sense and 110% believable. Zero doubt.
There probably will be a slight attraction to the cores leading out, but I fully see the on and off thing being way more done than what is put in.
This IS the Holy Grail for such a generator. I am just stoked
I looked at the femm anim first, but the live demo below is key to getting what they are doing.
Love it
Magluvinit
That is pure GENIUS !
Penno
Oh please let this work! Should be pretty easy to turn it into an inputless electric engine. Like the Romanians hint they accidentally made in the 70's or so.
Is that the voice of Batgold in the picture with the proto build in progress?
Being mechanically challenged - I am not seeing how this will be used - sorry
Any description greatly appreciated - anyone
Regards, Penno
Imagine one magnet on a wheel. One bit of steel, or a magnet, out side the wheel, fixed (stator). The magnet on the wheel will feel the stator, and pull towards it. Just as it arrived at the nearest point (highest speed and torque) the magnetic pull is turned off momentarily. The wheel holds it's speed, the magnet is reset to normal, and again feels the stator, and speeds up some more. Etc.
Pull this off, turn a magnetic attraction on and off at will without great losses, and you can take the battery out of an electric car. Increase the engine's size. Go faster, and still not use any input.
That is the holy grail of searched for magnetic motors as I understand it, being challenged more than just mechanically. The trick is, that manupulating the manetic interaction on the way out, costs at least exactly as much as is to be gained on the way in. If this is designed around, we have pure magnetic power working fonly or us, never against.
Thanks for that Cloxxki,
So, I think you are saying that if a rotor was mechanically connected to a stator that could rotate a few degress to turn on or off the attraction - have I got this right ?
Regards, Penno
Without work? But it takes work to rotate that thing 90 degrees...
But gravity can input that work!
Quote from: Rapadura on March 11, 2010, 08:19:25 PM
Without work? But it takes work to rotate that thing 90 degrees...
@rapadura
They are getting this wrong...This is a generator...I think work is done
where magfield lines are broken - that occurs in the
non-rotatingferrite ring. The magnet rotates but feels no reaction forces as no lines are
broken between it and the ring. The arms of the device support generator
windings - not fully shown. The induced current could power the rotating
magnet if there really are no reaction forces, just friction. How does
nature conserve forces in this case - I have no idea. Ferrite materials
don't allow eddy currents to flow or build up as they have particle based
electrical insulation.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Do you think that idea of my last animated GIF (the idea of the weight of the ball making the wheel rotate) should work???
Because if it work, it's not difficult to put the ball back in the initial position again. A curved SMOT can do this. A curved SMOT like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPLILn3sCdQ
We just need the atraction force on the wheel to be stronger than the atraction force of the last magnet of the SMOT, so the wheel can "steal" the ball from the SMOT:
I think people are not realizing the importance of this thread.
I think they didn't find the videos that matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOwK9D2rmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO-9H6IpJTE
Someone could watch the videos and try to understand what is really happening?
Guys,
How certain are we that it is a ferrite ring and not simply iron ?
Penno
I can't believe that no one is giving attention to this thread!
Hellooooo!!! Someone is listening? There's a guy claiming he created a device that can rotate freely, and when the device turns 90 degrees it loses all its magnetic force of attraction!!!!
When people will stop trying to use electricity to generate more electricity, and will surrender to the evidence that, yes, you can generate electricity with a device that is permanent-magnet-only?
Why nobody is concerned about the implications of the existence of a device that can rotate easily, and when it rotates a few degrees it completely loses its magnetic force of attraction?
Hi Rapadura
I have the utmost respect for Butch and his team,but, turning the mag. off,with no work and letting the ring drop,is one thing, turning it on again,without the ring being there,will take work,equal to the work gained from the ring being attracted back.
I reserve the right to be totally wrong.
peter
If that thing can really rotate freely, with no much effort, there's no need for a ring, just a ball is needed. If the device is lying in a side position, gravity will rotate the device, and therefore release the ball. After the ball is released, a counterweight can pull the device to the starting position. All this, of course, only can be possible if the device can really rotate freely.
*Important Announcement*
I have just had a word with Butch about his development, and he mentioned
that some people should know this:
"Please tell the people that the switcher is a AC generator not a motor. The only
moving part is the rotor magnet and it has a constant air gap. They are going in
the wrong direction". Butch.
Hi Paul-R
Is Butch saying Lenz's Law doesn't apply,when used as a genny?
peter
Hi Paul,
Thanks for that.
I have been racking my brain (ha-ha) trying to visualise some configuration.
So, as MS says, are we looking at a highly efficient AC generator that could possibly self run ?
Is this not a motor ???
I think (ouch), I am still confused.
Regards, Penno
I think it could work as a motor with commutator and brushes or optical and such to cause ac to the coils in sync with the rotor. If 1 pole is centered with a gap, of you apply current to the coil, the magnet will be attracted to 1 shell of the stator and repelled by the other. I can see it.
So there just might be a resistance to the rotor due to a load on the pickups wanting to reverse the field.
i had good thoughts about this before the pickup coils came into play. Showing an iron ring lock then drop, will not show what happens with the loaded pickup coils.
Will have to see it.
Mags
I think a motor like this would be bad because at partial load there
would be no back emf...and the magnetic field internally would be
unidirectionally increasing.Motor are already near 100% eff. A motor
actually benefits from back emf.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Like I said, UP not off.
One may as well attempt to tap the Coriolis force with such compartmentalized imagineering.
TS
Quote from: Paul-R on March 11, 2010, 10:43:01 AM
These videos have just been posted:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup
Wow, Butch and friends, really cool principle.
This should definately work !
Please don´t build it too small otherwise you will have too many losses.
But this should really violate the Lenz law and be a dragless generator ! Well done !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: petersone on March 13, 2010, 02:57:33 PM
Hi Paul-R
Is Butch saying Lenz's Law doesn't apply,when used as a genny?
peter
Err ... um...he won't mind me quoting:
"The lenz reaction still takes place, but it does not effect the rotor. No drag is induced on the rotor...Please tell those guys to look at ALL the switcher videos. There is one that shows what effect the coils being loaded has on the rotor, absolutely none".
Some extra material:
http://fdp.nu/shared/manager.asp?d=files\ButchLaFonte\Switcher\
Hi Paul,
From those extra pics and videos, can you possibly explain what is the importance of the 7 or so amps coming back slightly to 6.9?? something. (I viewed these early this year as well).
The final avi, showing 220 ac with the thumbs up as well. I am obviously missing the point.
Regards, Penno
Quote from: Magluvin on March 13, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
I think it could work as a motor with commutator and brushes or optical and such to cause ac to the coils in sync with the rotor...
As a second invention, anythng is possibe but Butch is adamant:
"The switcher is a AC generator not a motor. The only moving
part is the rotor magnet and it has a constant air gap. They
are going in the wrong direction".
"When a load was put on the generator coils by closing the circuit of the coils, the current going through the drive motor went down instead of up. That is just the opposite of what it does with a conventional generator. The greater the load on a conventional generator the greater the amp draw on the drive motor. We were shocked to see the drive motor amps go down. We were hoping that at best they would just stay the same.
The 220 AC was just a test to see the output voltage of the generator. We were pleased to see it so high."
When bare naked mags are used with ceramic structure yadyada i can only
Quote from: penno64 on March 14, 2010, 05:44:25 PM
Hi Paul,
From those extra pics and videos, can you possibly explain what is the importance of the 7 or so amps coming back slightly to 6.9?? something. (I viewed these early this year as well).
The final avi, showing 220 ac with the thumbs up as well. I am obviously missing the point.
Regards, Penno
The point is that when a load was applied, you would expect
the current to increase. It didn't. It went down instead.
Butch said: "It dropped from 7 to 6.9 amps. It should have gone up,
but it went down. That's never been see before with a generator drive motor".
Hi Paul,
Thanks for that.
I have an idea in mind that I would like to test for a magnet only motor using Butch's switcher. I am still uncertain whether the first ring with the slits is simply a metal ring or as someone earlier mentioned, it was a ferrite toroid core.
Kind Regards, Pennno
@Penno,
Butch Lafont seems a very reasonable fellow, So maybe just e-mail and ask.
I say it is ferrite because you can't create Lenz eddy loss currents in the
appropriate ferrite. In the arms of device, you would not need those iron
layers with ferrite, because each particle is electrically insulated from
it's neighbors. That means no lenz loss current in any flux direction.
You can use this BLF concept to create more efficient motors, it is just that
they would probably require electronics controls and some of their total
flux path would have to be devoted to running themselves. So economics
would be a problem. A motor can't buffer energy when it's lightly loaded
to play it out when it's heavily loaded (much) without additional externals.
Energy saved would have to be in input cycles skipped. - Having the drive
coils turned completely off during various AC input cycles would work.
Very large generators would be a problem, because once they are synchronized
to the utility grid, they switch between running as motor or generators
based on how much thermal energy is gated into their turbines. So utilities
"overdrive" them - overrun their rotors - to send out power. This is called an
AC synchronous alternator. With this the BLF solution one would halve their
output and have them run without any input. 8)
:S:MarkSCoffman
Howard Johnson's 90 degree principle is not far from a working solution. Although it proved to be of marginal output, it was quite close to overcoming the problem. One may build a rudimentary arrangement similar to Johnson's and see for one's self, quite readily, that there are many field changes with astonishingly little friction in the system.
It is my guess that any system with magnets in such close proximity, that can be made to turn with such little resistance, is ripe for copious energy production with a little creativity in coil shape and placement.
Johnson was, perhaps, so focused on getting his PM system to turn of itself, that he may have underappreciated the fact that it turned so freely at all....
This same condition exists in many of his would be succesors.
Why seek to 'turn magnets off'. The stronger the better.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
Hi all,
Well bugger me -
I walk into the Fitting & Machining section of the college I teach at and begin to describe the magnet switch I wish to replicate, hoping to have a student or someone bore the 19mm hole needed to house the neo magnet - the store man looks at me and says, we have those here already.
He proceeds to show me a MAGNET BASE as used in the trade to lock down work pieces or hold precision gauges while marking or while using the lathes.
He was even kind enough to give me an old one that had the post broken off.
Sure enough, turn the knob, and the base grips with a very strong force. return the knob to off and it releases with ease.
I must admit, it takes a bit of effort to turn the knob the 90 degress from off to on, though it easily springs back to the off position. This appears more force than Butch is using to turn his switch.
I am keen to pull this unit apart and see just how it is working.
Anyway, I will get the shaft I have drilled and continue with a replica of Butch's unit, cause I want to try the switch to power a magnet only motor.
Kind Regards, Penno
Quote from: penno64 on March 17, 2010, 03:16:17 AM
I must admit, it takes a bit of effort to turn the knob the 90 degress from off to on.
I've heard of these devices.
This could be poor mass production machining. Try taking it to
bits, clean up the mating surfaces with emery cloth, and put it
back together with light machine oil.
Hi guys,
I haven't had a chance to pull the MAGNETBASE apart, but I can tell you that what I was going to try was on my rotor, place just washers or blocks of metal and drive Butch's switcher with a cam. No having enought time to check this out tonight, I simply placed this BASE next to my rotor with 19x28mm neo and with a very small movement of the dial, I was able to manually get the rotor to turn.
What caught my eye with Butch's design was, as soon as you moved the slotted ring just a few degress, the magnet would attract. That is what I was hoping to setup.
Anyway, this gives me hope, and I will post a pic soon.
Kind Regards, Penno
Quote from: penno64 on March 17, 2010, 03:16:17 AM
Hi all,
...
He proceeds to show me a MAGNET BASE as used in the trade to lock down work pieces or hold precision gauges while marking or while using the lathes.
...
Regards, Penno
My father had one of these device in his workshop...I estimate they
were first used during WWII when folks needed machining done, asap.
And yes, the knob was somewhat hard to turn. But if we use
blf's idea...we would insert a ferrite ferrule inside where the knob is
and use a smaller magnet. This should eliminate the back force
and make it easier...The ferrite ferrule wouldn't turn with the magnet,
plus it would be sized using a magnetic simulator software to create
the "lighthouse" effect of field lines when it is turned. The backforce
is then stress inside the ferrite, and not felt by the knob. I guess I'm
forgetting the small gaps. Neo magnets can approach 1.0T Tesla in
strength. Even if the magnetic field disrupted the ferrite eventually
in this application it should be ok.
Anyhow that would be an interesting first test.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Here's a new variant from Butch's stable. It is a two magnet version:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup
This is really a great new design.
I guess it will be a winner
and it is a real good dragless generator.
Looking forward to see it realized in real hardware.
Don´t build it too small, so the magnetic losses
and hysteresis losses will not kill all the output.
Maybe one could use an old bigger motor
to modify it and see, how it works then ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
But look at this one; This *is* real hardware.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup#p/u/1/LNoVe4U9Bj8
This is by far easier to turn then previous magnetic
machining mounts. I detect a conspiracy. They
would of had to have known about this! This is
the apparent beginnings of a true back emf free
generator-alternator.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote
This is really a great new design.
I guess it will be a winner
and it is a real good dragless generator.
Looking forward to see it realized in real hardware.
Don´t build it too small, so the magnetic losses
and hysteresis losses will not kill all the output.
Maybe one could use an old bigger motor
to modify it and see, how it works then ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
The most amazing thing about this machine is that you can power the coils up with an external power supply and run large amp rates through them and the magnetic field that developes in the stator does not effect the rotor with respect to cogging. It turns as though there were no power be supplied to the coils. We used this method of testing early on to make sure that no motor action could effect the rotor during operation.
Mark is building the 8 magnet rotor (4 stacks of 2 magnets) at this time. We are looking for soft Ferrite powder for the stator, but having a very hard time finding it.
We have to have near zero eddy current in the stator to assure self running.
Regards,
Butch
Great work Butch LaFonte & Group,
Quote"It turns as though there were no power be supplied to the coils."
The implications are staggering. How many magnets and coils could one shaft drive per horsepower? If you make the spaces between the 2 part ring wider can you generate a high current pulse in the output coil? Much like an impulse generator?
Hi Butch,
get yourself Ironoxid from a painter´s shop.
It is a dark black powder, which is pretty magnetic , BUT
non conducting ! Mix this together with water and an acrylic binder
you also get at a painter´s utility shop or an epoxy glue and you have the
best selfmade ferrite core you can build
which will have almost no eddy current losses...
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
I can't answer that question to honest with you at this time. We still have a lot of testing to go, but I can say that with no eddy current drag and no aerodynamic drag to speak of on the rotor, bearing drag is the only loss with respect to rotor operation. It's output should be limited only by the strength of the materials in the rotor to with stand rotational forces. Yes the system can produce AC pulses, but the current output will vary with the type of load, resistive or capacitive or a combination. Electronics will come into play to get the most out of it then.
Hope I understood your question and answered it for you.
Butch
Quote
Hi Butch,
get yourself Ironoxid from a painter´s shop.
It is a dark black powder, which is pretty magnetic , BUT
non conducting ! Mix this together with water and an acrylic binder
you also get at a painter´s utility shop or an epoxy glue and you have the
best selfmade ferrite core you can build
which will have almost no eddy current losses...
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Thanks Stefan, that will move this project ahead. We were almost at a stand still.
Thanks again,
Butch
Great,
yes, you can get this powder in shops were they sell selfmixable
colors for painters.
There they have many different color powders and also this
nice IronOxid powder.
You can probably also get it cheaper directly from
any chemical supply distributor.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetite
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28II,III%29_oxide
but in my case of the color pigment it is non conductive..
You can probably also get it from black sand at the beach for
free.,
Just go with a big sized neodym magnet to the beach and try to
pick it up there via the magnet.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S:
Uses: Fe3O4 is used as a black pigment and is known as C.I pigment black 11 (C.I. No.77499)
But better go to the beach and pick it up there with a magnet and you will
have it for free, maybe not so pure, but this should still be okay, if you grind
it some more to get smaller particles.
Isn't F3O4 basically rust? could we not get a load of rust and crush
it up to get it in powder form?
Is there another item, readily available, that could be removed from
its assembly and crushed to a powder? (For instance, specialist toroid
manufacturers make their stuff in a very wide range of peculiar
materials. Would one of their products, duly powdered, serve us?).
This is still a work in progress, but I decided to show it now, as an easier alternative design, but would still work as a Lafonte Switcher.
On the left top is a transformer core where a section on each end has been removed, changing the EI to an H. It came from an old PS and is 2 1/2"L X 1 3/8"W X 2 1/4"H.
The top middle is a toroid core made of band wound silicon steel, so that the lamination's can be seen on top. It does not have the slots cut yet. It is 2 1/4"D x 3/4"H. This was a toroidal transformer from All Electronics for $9. They also have a larger one for $25.
The top right is a rotor with holes to attach the North South magnets.
The bottom middle has the rough design. Basically the H core lamination's will be against the Toroid core lamination's at top and bottom 90 degrees away from the toroid slots. Then the external rotors North South magnets will produce the same effect as the internal rotors that Lafonte has.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
looks great, but better make these designs at least 3 to 5 times bigger in size
to overcome all the losses cause a bigger unit will put out more power
and thus the maybe 10 Watts of losses will not count anymore so big,
if you have over 100 Watts of output.
But if you only have with these smaller units around in the 10 Watts
output, then 10 Watts losses will not make your circuit go overunity.
Good luck.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 24, 2010, 06:46:26 AM
Isn't F3O4 basically rust? could we not get a load of rust and crush
it up to get it in powder form?
Is there another item, readily available, that could be removed from
its assembly and crushed to a powder? (For instance, specialist toroid
manufacturers make their stuff in a very wide range of peculiar
materials. Would one of their products, duly powdered, serve us?).
Yes, you could also crush a few ferrite cores to get the powder,
but the black sand from the beach collected via a magnet is probably the cheapest
source.
Here is a quote from:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061224141352AAyrywl
Red Rust is not ferromagnetic (what we typically mean with the term "Magnetic") .
Ferrous Oxide
(black rust) IS magnetic.
Hi, Butch;
Any chance that this could be retrofited into an existing
automobile alternator coil and body for experimenting?
---
I think it will have less energy density per weight and
unit volume then normal generators...but with a
distinct advantage.
Where is Mr. Tesla in all of this...He said there was another then
current unknown "wheel" in electrodynamics, one that could enable
free energy...But he didn't say one could achieve it by adding
a metal ring into the rotor position of one of his generators.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi guys, I will be back in about three or four hours to answer any questions and reply to comments, But in the mean time I wanted to mention something. The switcher is a product of 5 people's work, Myself, Mark, Nicolas, Lawrence and Bruno. It's being referred to as the LaFonte Switcher but it is really the LaFonte Group Switcher.
I don't want all the credit to get attached to me. We work as a team and everyone has stuck with me through all the designs that did not work and I am very lucky to have such a great team. We don't know how many machines we built that might be overunity because we ran out of money before R&D could be completed. Mark has a storage trailer full of our prototypes. Maybe someday we will have the funds to complete the R&D on all of them. There are close to 2000 designs on paper. Maybe with the success of the switcher we can build them all.
Back in several hours,
Butch
Hi Butch,
I have a little different way than Stephan. Simply leave out the activated charcoal.
My iron oxide was purchased on Ebay...very cheeply! LOL
I hope this helps:
DIY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnY1Zbi7sgM
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 24, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
Hi Butch,
I have a little different way than Stephan. Simply leave out the activated charcoal.
My iron oxide was purchased on Ebay...very cheeply! LOL
I hope this helps:
DIY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnY1Zbi7sgM
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce, Could I ask a favor of you? Could you put the leads of an ohm
meter about an inch apart into a pile of iron oxide to see what the
resistance is? This is without the charcoal.
Thanks, Butch LaFonte, The LaFonte Group,
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on March 24, 2010, 10:16:43 PM
Bruce, Could I ask a favor of you? Could you put the leads of an ohm
meter about an inch apart into a pile of iron oxide to see what the
resistance is? This is without the charcoal.
Thanks, Butch LaFonte, The LaFonte Group,
Hi Butch,
It oscillated between 10 and 11 M ohms.
I hope that helps you out.
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce, did they give you any info on the exact type of black iron oxide they sold you?
I believe there are 3 maybe 4 different compositions.
Thanks so much for the test. Thats a lot of resistance.
Butch
the problem is quite congruent, if you are not using superconductive material then you will have losses. simple as that!
[
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 23, 2010, 03:30:51 PM
This is really a great new design.
I guess it will be a winner
and it is a real good dragless generator.
Looking forward to see it realized in real hardware.
Don´t build it too small, so the magnetic losses
and hysteresis losses will not kill all the output.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
The Perminvar alloys have constant permeability and
almost no hysteresis up to flux densities of 1,000 Gauss. Even at still higher flux densities,
residual magnetization and coercive force remain practically zero. The permeability of Perminar, however, remains constant only as long as high magnetization is avoided. Other materials which have constant permeability are Conpernik, Isoperm, and powdered irons. These materials have a near 0 hysteresis loss
The above information can be found on the 12th page of the "Survey, Characteristics, and Evaluation of High-Performance Magnetic Core Materials" by the United States Airforce,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=381GB
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on March 25, 2010, 12:40:01 AM
Bruce, did they give you any info on the exact type of black iron oxide they sold you?
I believe there are 3 maybe 4 different compositions.
Thanks so much for the test. Thats a lot of resistance.
Butch
Hi Butch,
No, simply Black Iron Oxide Powder. It is very fine. If I recall, there were some that were larger grain. I tried to find the finest particulate. I hope that helps.
Hey folks, this is where I got mine from :http://shop.chemicalstore.com/navigation/detail.asp?MySessionID=84-264881176&CatID=28&id=FE3O4M1 (http://shop.chemicalstore.com/navigation/detail.asp?MySessionID=84-264881176&CatID=28&id=FE3O4M1)
@Butch,
I'm sure you've seen the single magnet rotor Bedini's. Lidmotor has a gang of videos on youtube. A reed switch and tiny bobbin pulse coil are real simple to assemble, and different shape and size diametrically polarized magnets are cheap and easy to come by. There are numerous examples of stationary positions, from a divot below to attractor magnets suspended overhead. Lidmotor demonstrates a levitating cylinder in his latest video. This would give you the frictionless bearing you're searching for. The power from the demagnetization provided by your ingenious stator slots should energize the two side output coils enough to loop the power back to the pulse circuit for a self runner.
Quote from: Loner on March 24, 2010, 07:59:33 PM
Just commenting, as it may still be worth a try. What do I know???
This still makes me go back to the original "Impossible" designs where
the flux was re-directed via spinning Mu-Metal between different
magnets for flux control. This setup, with the magnets spinning in
a flux containment "Shroud", should be MUCH more efficient than that
and should be operable with less than 1 watt of power, with good
bearing selection, etc. (Thinking back to RC Car racing. Did a LOT
of work saving input power as the only requirement for the class
was the battery size. You wanted it to die as you crossed the
finish line. The more you saved, the more you could put into drive,
etc. I'm sure you understand.)
Yeah, I am still trying to get my brain around this. What are the parameters
of what needs to be accomplished to apply this method? You will notice
there are very few permanent magnet alternators listed on the web.
So ok..they are harder to regulate. They would to some extent compensate
for energy density problems coming from inserting nonmagnetized metal
into the rotor area. At least the rotor of the alternator is the field.
If people have the computational resources I recommend they get access
to femm free magnetic simulation software. I am especially interested
in solid state designs but few people have the knowledge required
for injecting rotating mag fields into toroids, seeming requiring precision
control electronics at speeds near C.
It seems a mechanical vibrating arrangement like a tuning fork
might be an interesting intermediate choice between a rotating
rotor motor and absolutely stationary electronics.
---
@Loner
I find it amazing what people can accomplished when the rules
stay fixed... As the "impossible" designs that you talk about.
Good luck and I will be watching what you come up with
renewed interest based on the explanation of methods that you
have discussed. Thanks.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: phoneboy link=topic=8852.msg234433#msg234433 A=1269520730
Hey folks, this is where I got mine from :http://shop.chemicalstore.com/navigation/detail.asp?MySessionID=84-264881176&CatID=28&id=FE3O4M1 (http://shop.chemicalstore.com/navigation/detail.asp?MySessionID=84-264881176&CatID=28&id=FE3O4M1)
Phoneboy,
Have you made a core yet with this powder using some type of resin?
If so, have you checked to see if it has any residual magnetism after you remove it from a magnetic field?
Thanks,
Butch
Thanks for the info. I would really like to eliminate the bearing drag.
Butch
Hi Butch,
I really like your new PM flux gate design. I wish you and your team all the best with the build.
Thanks for always sharing work work.
Luc
Wow.. this is very cool.. just now noticed this thread! Awesome!
4Tesla
Not yet, I'm still gearing up (tools/materials), but I don't think that would be much of an issue with your design as the fields will be alternating rapidly. By the way congrats on your discovery, unfortuanately it side tracked me even more as I ended up modifying one of my designs as I think we could also use this to motor.
The trick is to find a ceramic bearings that are 100% ceramic (balls, race, and retainer (( I said balls, chuckle)), http://www.bearings-china.com/main-products/Ceramic-bearings.htm, then use less than zero weight oil.
Full Ceramic Ball Bearings are available on eBay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130261048429&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
Luc
A magnet or electromagnet can be turned ON AND OFF with pretty much no NET energy consumption.
However, if you try and extract energy from this changing magnetic field you will inevitably see it reflected on the input.
The concept presented here runs into trouble when a coil is placed and loaded on one or both arms of the "switcher". When that happens, the magnetic path of these legs has changed it's apparent AC reluctance and the flux will not prefer to "flow" that way, once that happens the magnetic fields/flux configures itself such that the rotor will experience a torque, and if you fight that torque in order to to rotate the rotor, you're imputing energy into the system.
The software used to simulate the "switcher" should be used to simulate the WHOLE problem including the output coils under a load, and then it will become apparent why it is unfortunately NOT overunity.
So remember, a MAGNETOSTATIC simulation will only get you excited and then into trouble and wasted time when you try and extrapolate the results to a dynamic problem.
EM
Hi EM
I was waiting until someone mentioned that,I didn't like to say anything,for me Butch can do no wrong,but,normal Lenz's law applies,as I see it.
peter
[A author=EMdevices link=topic=8852.msg234740#msg234740 date=1269636362]
The concept presented here runs into trouble when a coil is placed and loaded on one or both arms of the "switcher". When that happens, the magnetic path of these legs has changed it's apparent AC reluctance and the flux will not prefer to "flow" that way, once that happens the magnetic fields/flux configures itself such that the rotor will experience a torque, and if you fight that torque in order to to rotate the rotor, you're imputing energy into the system.
[/quote]
So EM, I guess you didn't see the video where the input amps drops when the output is shorted.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=LaFonteGroup#p/u/10/AXmcsDUyzeU
Regards, Larry
I have to say it is a very cool discovery, but I agree with EM that I don't see how it can be used to get OU.
4Tesla
Hi 4Tesla
As I said,normal Lenz's law applies,as I see it,the amp draw when the coils are shorted needs to be compaired with the amp draw of the motor when it is free running,nothing on the shaft.It could be just canceling the iron loses,as I have found myself,and got excited over nothing!!Butch is still a hero.
peter
[A author=EMdevices link=topic=8852.msg234740#msg234740 date=1269636362]
A magnet or electromagnet can be turned ON AND OFF with pretty much no NET energy consumption.
However, if you try and extract energy from this changing magnetic field you will inevitably see it reflected on the input.
The concept presented here runs into trouble when a coil is placed and loaded on one or both arms of the "switcher". When that happens, the magnetic path of these legs has changed it's apparent AC reluctance and the flux will not prefer to "flow" that way, once that happens the magnetic fields/flux configures itself such that the rotor will experience a torque, and if you fight that torque in order to to rotate the rotor, you're imputing energy into the system.
The software used to simulate the "switcher" should be used to simulate the WHOLE problem including the output coils under a load, and then it will become apparent why it is unfortunately NOT overunity.
So remember, a MAGNETOSTATIC simulation will only get you excited and then into trouble and wasted time when you try and extrapolate the results to a dynamic problem.
EM
[/quote]
We attempted to create a torque on the rotor to simulate a lenz reaction or so called motor action. We did this by using an external DC power supply to run large amp rates through the coils in an attempt to get the generator to operate as a motor. The rotor was unaffected by the coils magnetic field and could be rotated with ease and with no cogging. It was so interesting to see the device unable to be operated as a motor, but when the rotor was rotated it operates as a generator. I defy you to find a generator that you can run current through the coils and not get a reaction to the coils magnetic field by the rotor. The air gap in this design remains constant and there is no torque effect on the rotor, but the rotation of the rotor causes a complete reversal of the magnetic field every rotation. Run current through this generator's coils and try to run it like a motor and you will get nothing, but run it light a generator by turning the rotor and you will get electrocuted.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Regarding your last video (LoadTest2.mov ) the fact that the magnets are so close to the shaft or inside the shaft itself gives this idea great potential simply because of minimal counter leverage under drag. The further the magnet would be from the shaft, the greater leverage you would have to counter under a drag condition. Now, with the magnet in the shaft, the drag would have to be soooo strong to stop the motor. So that is a very good idea.
About the amperage drop, I would have to say that the drop was really minimal compared to the 7 amps draw. Those DC motors are amp hogs to start with.
i did not see your coils in the video If you have one or more output coils, I recommend you find the positive output lead of each and put a diode on each coil, then put them all in parallel. But do not put them all in parallel, then on only one diode. You need to make sure each coil is not influenced by the others.
Bruce, I had the same idea to embed magnets in an alternator rotor on each one of the pie extensions that carry the north and south fields coming from the center rotor field coil. Also to modify the stator coils by cutting out the bridge rectifier and bringing out each stator coil individually, then dioding each one before they are paralleled.
Very good work and always good to see and learn from your videos. Thanks.
Quote from: Loner on March 28, 2010, 04:27:11 AM
I fully understand that this type of setup could never be looked at as a motor. (Who in looking at this could even think that way?)
Nobody.
We all see it as PART of a motor. Take the Yasunori Takahashi spiral motor, for instance. The first magents do a good job repelling and thereby give the shaft torque. But when the rotor comes round again, these first magnets need to be switched off to let the rotor fly past, and then switched on again to let them repel.
Applied to the correct design for the Adams motor (viz Patrick's Chapter 2), the result stands to be even more amazing. As the rotor magent is attracted to the stator core, work is made available; then instead of neutralising the stator core as the rotor magnet cruises past, it may instead be"switched off" with butch's device. (The Adams motor will need a bit of a re-design).
The main hold-back will be that of available RPM.
Let's say the shaft was 1.5 inches diameter. That would give a radius of .75 inches. At 3600 RPM, compare the speed of travel on the surface of the shaft, to the speed of a standard rotor of 4 inches, or 6 inches, or 8 inches. The larger the diameter of the turning rotor, the more speed you will have at the edge where the magnet is at the same working RPM.
But if there is any drag, it will be multiplied proportionally to the wider diameter rotor. So there is a very good give with this idea, but the take will be with the RPM. There is no other variable but RPM. Well there is another variable to play with. Shaft length. You would need a shaft loaded with magnets and I would say a good 1-2 feet long given at 3600 rpm the speed of the magnet on the outer coils will be relatively slow.
Quote from: Loner on March 28, 2010, 04:27:11 AM
...
Butch, I am not trying to take anything away from your application, but
I have (Yesterday) learned that this is actually common knowledge in
the field of gauge clamps and even more in magnetic hold-down tables.
(If you can believe it, I told this to a manufacturer of the tables and he
quickly modified one to allow full rotation of the "Switch" handle. It was
easy for him, as he makes them. Just throwing ANYTHING on the table
makes no difference to the force required to turn the handle, but just
putting a coil on it with a open core touching on both sides does put
out a lot more current than I thought possible. He was amazed too.)
...
Excellent input Loner.
Oh...so he's just getting around to trying this now huh?...Oh my electric bill.
What's taking Butch so long to test this.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on March 27, 2010, 12:42:24 PM
We attempted to create a torque on the rotor to simulate a lenz reaction or so called motor action. We did this by using an external DC power supply to run large amp rates through the coils in an attempt to get the generator to operate as a motor. The rotor was unaffected by the coils magnetic field and could be rotated with ease and with no cogging. It was so interesting to see the device unable to be operated as a motor, but when the rotor was rotated it operates as a generator. I defy you to find a generator that you can run current through the coils and not get a reaction to the coils magnetic field by the rotor. The air gap in this design remains constant and there is no torque effect on the rotor, but the rotation of the rotor causes a complete reversal of the magnetic field every rotation. Run current through this generator's coils and try to run it like a motor and you will get nothing, but run it light a generator by turning the rotor and you will get electrocuted.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Hi Butch,
So this is a very efficient generator, that is so efficient that it may be able to achieve OU by using a small motor to run it? Do you have a self runner?
4Tesla
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Lidmotor#p/u/2/Otz-C-q_RwQ (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Lidmotor#p/u/2/Otz-C-q_RwQ)
@Butch,
Here's a hyperlink to Lidmotor's ¨Mag Lev Bobin Motor¨; Levitating Reed Switch Pulse Motor. The motor consists merely of a Reed switch in series between the tiny copper wire air core coil and the double A battery. His unit has a power potentiometer in series as well. Simple as pie! Take notice of the levitation axle.
The following scope shot is the test of the toroid, transformer design shown in reply #53. A 100 Ohm resistor is placed across the primary coil (10 Ohms). The rpm is 2,997 and the input wattage to the AC induction motor is 26. With just the rotor along, the input wattage is 20.
The trace is a little weird and could be due to the fact that the magnets are not centered on the toroid, only about 65 percent as the rotor is larger than the toroid. Also, the magnets should be larger as they do not cover 50 percent of the arc, only about 30 percent. I have a smaller rotor on order so that will improve.
As Butch said there is insignificant clogging and no effect on the input wattage or rpm when the load is open or closed. Lenz is in the system, but the rotor does not see it.
I see this as an improvement over Flynn's PPMT generator as it requires input to the coils to switch the flux flow.
The second picture shows magnets for a wind turbine. These plus Lafonte Group switcher technique, but using the design that I showed in reply #53 ;D
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
Thank you for this, very very interesting.
Could you measure the self inductance of your output coil and based on that could you connect a series capacitor of the same reactance the coil has at the above loaded RPM? This cap would make the waveform much more sinusoidal, thus true effective value of the AC output could be had.
Alternatively, would you use a full wave bridge (if you agree) and then drive a load, the loss of the FWBR could be counted in.
What if you would use a 10 Ohm load resistor instead of the 100? It would be good match to the coil, together with a series resonating capacitor at the loaded RPM?
Thanks and sorry for the several wishes...
Gyula
PS: IF the inductance of the coil changes as the rotor moves you could use an averaged L value of course.
Quote from: gyulasun on March 28, 2010, 06:08:05 PM
Could you measure the self inductance of your output coil and based on that could you connect a series capacitor of the same reactance the coil has at the above loaded RPM? This cap would make the waveform much more sinusoidal, thus true effective value of the AC output could be had.
Alternatively, would you use a full wave bridge (if you agree) and then drive a load, the loss of the FWBR could be counted in.
What if you would use a 10 Ohm load resistor instead of the 100? It would be good match to the coil, together with a series resonating capacitor at the loaded RPM?
PS: IF the inductance of the coil changes as the rotor moves you could use an averaged L value of course.
No inductance meter. Did do the FWBR test, and it showed steady voltage close to the V rms shown by the scope. About 1.5V lower due to diode loss.
Really liked the 10 Ohm resistor test.
In the first pic you can see that with a Vmax of 2.40 and Vmin of 2.36 gave a Vrms of 1.55. This is a high percentage for rms. In my other test with the 100 Ohm resistor the rms was around 8 with a Vmax of 20 and Vmin of 20.
In the second pic you can see the full wave form showing the voltage staying high and low for a much longer period of time.
Regards, Larry
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup
Thanks guys,
Butch
Got the smaller rotor in, which fits the toroid shape closely, and tested. With the same 10 ohm load, the wave looks better and the voltage and amperage has improved.
I believe these results can be improved with a smaller air gap. It is currently at 3 MM but it needs a much sturdier toroid support to reduce it further. I'll look into building a better support unit.
Also, LC meter has been ordered.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
looks nice.
Are these waveforms already after the Full Wave rectifier graetz bridge ?
Did you try to power a load with it yet ?
Can you put a large electrolytic cap behind the graetz bridge and power
a lamp with it and compare input power into a motor to turn it to output DC power ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin link=topic=8852.msg236258#msg236258 A=1270420827
Are these waveforms already after the Full Wave rectifier graetz bridge ?
Did you try to power a load with it yet ?
Can you put a large electrolytic cap behind the graetz bridge and power
a lamp with it and compare input power into a motor to turn it to output DC power ?
Hi Stefan,
The waveforms shown is across a 10 Ohm resistive load only, no bridge.
I will try your your test tomorrow, but please note in the shot with the data display that the Vrms is 2.56 (middle column, second row) and it has proved pretty accurate in the past. So that along with the 10 Ohm load gives a good idea of the output.
You have stated previously that with my small setup that I would be losing about 10 watts. I agree, but since I only had these parts available, I continued on to see how best to optimize.
But for those who wish to do further testing without a lathe to make the Lafonte group rotor, check out this diametrically magnetized cylinder magnets at http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_133&products_id=652
Regards, Larry
Okay, I see, with a RMS-Voltage of 2.56 Volts and 10 Ohms
you have about 0.65 Watts output at the 10 Ohms resistor
and your power input was 26 Watts with the load and 20 Watts without the load ?
Hmm,
so you have probably many magnetic losses there.
Could you please show the coils and the rotor ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
@Butch
You tried the switcher as a motor and you did not see any torque? I hope you realize that you won't see a torque except when the angle theta is close to zero, in my drawing below. Did you try it in this configuration?
EM
[A author=hartiberlin link=topic=8852.msg236281#msg236281 date=1270433455]
so you have probably many magnetic losses there.
Could you please show the coils and the rotor ?
[/quote]
In the first picture the H shaped transformer is backed away from the toroid and the toroid slits can be seen. Both surfaces have been planed down to make a tight fit when placed together.
The second pictures shows the 1" diameter neos.
I did notice that the clogging at the slits, which is very slight normally, is stronger when the H transformer is backed away.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your earlier answer and the latest photos too.
Would you mind telling the unloaded rms value of the output voltage in this latest setup? (maybe 15-20V rms?)
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: EMdevices on April 05, 2010, 11:59:34 AM
@Butch
You tried the switcher as a motor and you did not see any A? I hope you realize that you won't see a torque except when the angle theta is close to zero, in my drawing below. Did you try it in this configuration?
EM
EM,
We did our torque tests with a slot free Switcher stator and got no torque. Our simulations show no torque to speak of with 1/16" slots. What amazed me was the voltage we were able to produce with a slot free stator ring, 220 VAC.
The smaller the gap of the slots the smaller the cogging force, very little gap is needed to get the switching effect.
How we got it with no gaps is still being looked at. Very interesting things going with the fields in that stator during high rpm operation. It could be a whole new behavior we have not see before. I do know this, I have never see such a work free means of reversing a field and the power produced by that reversing having so little effect on the cause of the reversing.
It must sometimes look like a DNA spiral with that stator rotor interaction. Really fun stuff here.
Butch
@All,
Wanted to present another simple reciprocating concept of the Lafonte group generator in the attached picture.
@Gyula,
Will have to get back to you on your request. Reduced the air gap between the rotor and stator and getting some weird results with your test. My AC induction motor is very responsive to slight changes in torque.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: gyulasun on April 05, 2010, 01:12:41 PM
Would you mind telling the unloaded rms value of the output voltage in this latest setup? (maybe 15-20V rms?)
Okay, setup back to original, Vrms is 27.2 unloaded.
Regards, Larry
Larry,
You know, this would work in a rotary fashion. Also, if you put a stator on each side of the rotor magnets you would take the thrust load off the rotor bearing.
I will make a drawing of a 16 (two eight stator rings) stator, 16 magnet rotor for future reference.
Butch
[A author=Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg236503#msg236503 date=1270573433]
You know, this would work in a rotary fashion. Also, if you put a stator on each side of the rotor magnets you would take the thrust load off the rotor bearing.
I will make a drawing of a 16 (two eight stator rings) stator, 16 magnet rotor for future reference.
[/quote]
Agreed and understand your comment, I'm sure my watt lost, between no stator and with stator, is due to frictional loss, because the AC motor is not meant to be pulled out by the strong magnets parallel to the AC motor rotor.
Please check out the attached concept, as displayed, it shows four nodes and four slots with an internal magnet rotor. This can easily be increased to any multiple number of nodes, slots for commercial size generators.
Regards, Larry
I wonder if you could have a mechanical setup by replacing the coils with one of Butch's other concepts, the separating plates?
[A author=Blainiac link=topic=8852.msg236598#msg236598 date=1270628305]
I wonder if you could have a mechanical setup by replacing the coils with one of Butch's other concepts, the separating plates?
[/quote]
That is a very interesting idea!
Butch
Quote from: LarryC on April 06, 2010, 06:07:40 PM
[A author=Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg236503#msg236503 date=1270573433]
You know, this would work in a rotary fashion. Also, if you put a stator on each side of the rotor magnets you would take the thrust load off the rotor bearing.
I will make a drawing of a 16 (two eight stator rings) stator, 16 magnet rotor for future reference.
Agreed and understand your comment, I'm sure my watt lost, between no stator and with stator, is due to frictional loss, because the AC motor is not meant to be pulled out by the strong magnets parallel to the AC motor rotor.
Please check out the attached concept, as displayed, it shows four nodes and four slots with an internal magnet rotor. This can easily be increased to any multiple number of nodes, slots for commercial size generators.
Regards, Larry
@LarryC
If your stator has many individual winds, I suggest you put a diode after each one individually, then put them in parallel, and not, in parrallel then all on one diode. This will cut out themutual drag that is devellopped and shared amonst the coils. This way, once the magnet passes the coil, the energy is taken out and cannot re-effect the coil.
Quote from: wattsup on April 07, 2010, 02:54:12 PM
If your stator has many individual winds, I suggest you put a diode after each one individually, then put them in parallel, and not, in parrallel then all on one diode. This will cut out themutual drag that is devellopped and shared amonst the coils. This way, once the magnet passes the coil, the energy is taken out and cannot re-effect the coil.
Not sure what unit you are talking about. My current unit is shown in reply 99. I'm using the primary on the H cut transformer. There is several secondaries, but the primary has the best windings for the output. Use of any of the secondaries just reduces the power in the primary in an attempt to balance.
If you are talking about the concept that I showed in reply 105 that you quoted, then I don't have it built and will probably not be able to build it. The arc magnets are available, but the rest of unit would be very difficult to build.
I am including another picture of the reply 105 concept with more information to clear up the concept. The red is the flux, yellow is the stator slots, and blue is the pole. The drawing shows three positions of the rotor and the flux at each. Sorry, no simulator, but hoping Butch would show. Large commercial generator use many rows of coils, this concept, if it works, would allow that to happen with as many rows as needed.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: wozlzl on April 07, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
Looking at wow power leveling (http://www.toppowerlevel.net) a girl from a distance wow power leveling (http://www.ygscn.net/PowerLevel.php?gid=1) intently and not looking away aion power level (http://www.ygscn.net/PowerLevel.php?gid=21) even when she sees you can be very sexy and thrilling aion powerleveling (http://www.ygscn.net/PowerLevel.php?gid=21) to her. It tells her aion powerleveling (http://www.toppowerlevel.net/powerlist.php?fid=7422) that you desire her and that you cheap aion power leveling (http://www.toppowerlevel.net/powerlist.php?fid=7422) are so confident that you wow power leveling (http://www.ygscn.net) will prevail. Keeping a steady gaze during a conversation tells her that you are interested in what she cheap wow gold (http://www.ygscn.net) is saying and that you are listening to her. Because of this, you will be perceived by her to be honest and sincere.
hey WOW, you power your leveling wow gold. lol ;D
Mark did an amazing job on this.
Butch
WoW Butch! looks great ;)
Just drop in the coils and it's spin time ;D
Really wishing you great results
Thanks for taking the time to share your work
Luc
Hi Butch and Mark,
looks great.
What material did you use for the outer rod,
there where the coils will sit ?
Is this pure Iron ?
Hopefully the eddy currents will not be too big..
Regards, Stefan.
Butch and Mark, that is a work of art. Hope it ends up in a museum showing the Lafonte Group Switcher OU breakthru prototypes.
If it is iron, maybe you could you add some calorimetric results to the output.
Regards, Larry
PS: Stefan, thanks for removing wozizi's comment.
Can't iron powder cores be used instead of pure iron? We use such cores in crossover networks when making loudspeakers. Those cores does not suffer from eddy currents but have still very high permeability. I can offer a few at no cost except shipping if someone would like to test it.
Quote from: Low-Q on April 10, 2010, 04:20:18 AM
Can't iron powder cores be used instead of pure iron? We use such cores in crossover networks when making loudspeakers. Those cores does not suffer from eddy currents but have still very high permeability. I can offer a few at no cost except shipping if someone would like to test it.
Hi Low-Q, I was also wondering if iron powder could be used for this. I have not experimented with it yet, I just keep hearing about it and that it has next to no eddy currents.
So you been making cores with it. Is it polyester resin you use to hold the Iron powder together? Have you measured the permeability u value?
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on April 10, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
Hi Low-Q, I was also wondering if iron powder could be A for this. I have not experimented with it yet, I just keep hearing about it and that it has next to no eddy currents.
So you been making cores with it. Is it polyester resin you use to hold the Iron powder together? Have you measured the permeability u value?
Thanks
Luc
I really don't know what holds the powder together, but there is something none conductive. Our cores are piston shaped, but on some coils we also use a "hat" and a "foot". See these links as reference: http://frequence-shop.dk/upload_dir/shop/025-025.jpg (http://frequence-shop.dk/upload_dir/shop/025-025.jpg) and http://frequence-shop.dk/upload_dir/shop/045.jpg (http://frequence-shop.dk/upload_dir/shop/045.jpg)
They are heavy, and rock solid, but are not conductive - infinite resistance.
I dont know the permeability on them, but I will take a 0.47mH air coil and put a core in it and see the difference in inductance - maybe that will tell something.
You will know my findings on monday when I'm back at work.
Vidar
@Low-Q
Thanks for your kind offer, but I don't know if your jpg shown shapes would help with this replication. But please explain if you know how.
@Bruce-TPU
You have experience with casting iron powder plus nanoparticle cores. Can you help here, with a summary of how you got it done.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: LarryC on April 10, 2010, 07:52:44 PM
@Low-Q
Thanks for your kind offer, but I don't know if your jpg shown shapes would help with this replication. But please explain if you know how.
@Bruce-TPU
You have experience with casting iron powder plus nanoparticle cores. Can you help here, with a summary of how you got it done.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry and ALL,
Step by step instructions here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnY1Zbi7sgM&playnext_from=TL&videos=f_rOcR_rcHA
black iron oxide powder is available on Ebay...
Fiberglass Resin is available at Lowes Hardware (USA)... In the paint department.
Do not add the activated charcoal...LOL for this project, so increase the amount of iron oxide.
Hope that helps!
Bruce
It's possible to use iron oxide as well, but we do not use that in our loudspeaker applications because they are noisy. They in fact create electric noise in the coil as the flux density change. The same happens in ferrite magnet motors in loudspeaker drivers.
Iron powder have very low noise and I think it is has a higher permeability than iron oxide.
Btw, I have no experience in making these iron powder pieces. We buy them from a manufacturer I do not remember the name of at the moment. The pictures I linked to was from another loudspeaker dealer in Denmark. I work in Norway, for dynaBel (www.dynabel.no) as a loudspeaker constructor/builder. And we have also LOTS of magnet rings in different sizes.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on April 11, 2010, 05:06:26 AM
It's possible to use iron oxide as well, but we do not use that in our loudspeaker applications because they are noisy. They in fact create electric noise in the coil as the flux density change. The same happens in ferrite magnet motors in loudspeaker drivers.
Iron powder have very low noise and I think it is has a higher permeability than iron oxide.
Btw, I have no experience in making these iron powder pieces. We buy them from a manufacturer I do not remember the name of at the moment. The pictures I linked to was from another loudspeaker dealer in Denmark. I work in Norway, for dynaBel (www.dynabel.no) as a loudspeaker constructor/builder. And we have also LOTS of magnet rings in different sizes.
Vidar
Black iron oxide powder... it can be purchased in differant size grains. It is so cheap, those wanting to can simply buy the powder and ingredients as I describe in my video from my last post and try it. The whole thing is less than 20 dollars. It should work just fine.
I like Larry's drawn out idea. He can simply mold his design, either using wood as I did, or using clay. Allow the clay to harden, smear it with lots of vaseline and pour in the mixture. It is not difficult at all...
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 11, 2010, 09:28:11 AM
Black iron oxide powder... it can be purchased in differant size grains. It is so cheap, those wanting to can simply buy the powder and ingredients as I describe in my video from my last post and try it. The whole thing is less than 20 dollars. It should work just fine.
I like Larry's drawn out idea. He can simply mold his design, either using wood as I did, or using clay. Allow the clay to harden, smear it with lots of vaseline and pour in the mixture. It is not difficult at all...
Cheers,
Bruce
I think too this is the way to go. When everything is molded, tested, and approoved, one can allways go to the next level with better (and more expensive) materials. Experiment costs is the main factor that prevents people from experimenting with ideas - therfor I think the development has gone very slow for most "kitchen hobbyists" out there. But cheap materials is a must. Epoxy is quite expensive though. Maybe stearin or other wax that melts when heated can be used as well. Then it is possible to recycle the whole thing - even easily cut in it, ot heat it locally to alter shapes where needed.
Off topic: Have you other guys seen that some words in the post is replaced with an "A" when editing posts?
Vidar
I did some research on the web and called one guy who sold iron powder and he told me that any powder had high resistance even copper powder if it is just in a lose pile. He said to think of it as large copper spheres in a pile and only the area where the spheres touch each other is the place where current could flow. But he also said that the more you compress the powder toward resembling a solid the electrical resistance drops. What do you guys think about his comments? It seems to me that the ideal material is soft ferrite in powder form, but I have not been able to find it yet. The Switcher needs as close to zero eddy current in the stator as possible. I would really appreciate it if you guys that are making the different powder based stators could take some resistance readings after the resin has cured and is in solid form. I'm very concerned that builders are going to get rotor drag from eddy currents in the stator and get discouraged because they think it is the Lenz effect doing it when it reality it is eddy current drag.
Thanks guys,
Butch
@butch;
My view is that the particle domains of ferrites are to magnetic fields,
sort of like antennas are to emf. The smaller the domain the less amenable
they become to having lenz induced eddy currents. In my view the adhesive
binding agent plays an important role by creating resistivity between
metal particle domains. The more you compress them the higher the
ferrite density, but also the higher the leakage conductivity can become.
You can use the old stamped iron "layers" if the frequency is low and
the magnetic field always comes in from the same angle because of
the right hand rule. But when frequencies become RF and magnetic fields
can come in from different angles that is when the domain isolated
ferrites are required. While ferrite's all probably reduce eddy currents
the ferrite magnetic parameters of inductance, historysis, and remnance
probably vary all over the place in various metallic compositions. Don't
forget that many applications of ferrites have RF frequency ranges in
the megahertz or gigahertz regions and I don't think this application is
in those frequency ranges yet. For the frequencies you are dealing with
standard stamped armature iron probably has near optimal characteristics
but would be difficult to make for an experimental version. There is the
open question of what happens in the "mixer" ring as the rotational
frequency increases. It could be that reaction forces act inside this
ring material.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg237222#msg237222 A=1271003438
I did some research on the web and called one guy who sold iron powder and he told me that any powder had high resistance even copper powder if it is just in a lose pile. He said to think of it as large copper spheres in a pile and only the area where the spheres touch each other is the place where current could flow. But he also said that the more you compress the powder toward resembling a solid the electrical resistance drops. What do you guys think about his comments? It seems to me that the ideal material is soft ferrite in powder form, but I have not been able to find it yet. The Switcher needs as close to zero eddy current in the stator as possible. I would really appreciate it if you guys that are making the different powder based stators could take some resistance readings after the resin has cured and is in solid form. I'm very concerned that builders are going to get rotor drag from eddy currents in the stator and get discouraged because they think it is the Lenz effect doing it when it reality it is eddy current drag.
Thanks guys,
Butch
It is true what you have been told regarding compressed DRY powder. However, if you put resin in there, there will allways be a given space between each metal sphere, so they dont touch. Because it is litterally impossible to make a resin-powder mixtrure that has a mixdure ratio that make each metal particle collide and make a conductive path all the way through. Yes, some of the particles will make small chains of conductivity, but it will be litterally impossible to make the piece of compressed powder-resin mixdure to be conductive all the way.
Vidar
@Bruce, thanks for the build info.
@All,
Lots of interesting posting. But, I liked Mark's comment 'For the frequencies you are dealing with standard stamped armature iron probably has near optimal characteristics but would be difficult to make for an experimental version'. That is what I am currently using but it is limited to certain configuration where the lamination's can be edge to edge.
The other day when I was testing a request from Gyula, I noticed a rotor speed up in switching from the 10 ohm load to unloaded. I was using a different magnet configuration from my original and had to go back to the original to get rid of the speed up. I retried the new configuration test today, which has four 1" diameter magnets instead of the two that I showed in my last pictures. So 2 N poles and 2 S poles and because of the predrilled holes they are 3/8" apart. Not the best setup as this causes more peaks in the waveform and got the following results:
AC input
Ohm Watts RMS
100 37 17.4
50 35 11.3
10 28 2.78
unloaded 24 31.9
I use a variac to adjust the input voltage to the AC induction motor, so that a speed of ~2950 rpm is maintained, so that is why the Watts varies.
@Gyula, LC meter is in and the primary coil is 172 MH.
Not sure what is causing this speed difference, but I am ordering 2" X 1" X 1/2" magnets to eliminate the 3/8" gap. Those results should be more conclusive, if there is a problem.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: Low-Q on April 11, 2010, 03:49:30 PM
It is true what you have been told regarding compressed DRY powder. However, if you put resin in there, there will allways be a given space between each metal sphere, so they dont touch. Because it is litterally impossible to make a resin-powder mixtrure that has a mixdure ratio that make each metal particle collide and make a conductive path all the way through. Yes, some of the particles will make small chains of conductivity, but it will be litterally impossible to make the piece of compressed powder-resin mixdure to be conductive all the way.
Vidar
That is correct! There is zero conductive path through these homemade black Iron powder bars.
[A author=Bruce_TPU link=topic=8852.msg237266#msg237266 date=1271027221]
That is correct! There is zero conductive path through these homemade black Iron powder bars.
[/quote]
I can not emphasize enough the importance of eliminating all eddy current drag in the switcher stator.
Does anyone have an idea for a simple test fixture that a sample of a material could be placed in and the sample be free floating and rotate a field across the sample and try to find a material that would not move due to eddy current drag. The problem here is the fixture design would need to be designed so the pull of the magnet did not move the sample, but at the same time the filed lines would be cutting through the sample.
Any ideas? Mark could build it I believe and we could test everyones samples. Mark has a motor that rotates at 20,000 RPM. We could come up with a standard size and shape for the samples. Just think, we could find a truly eddy current free, cheap to make, home made magnetic material not in theory, but practice.
Thanks,
Butch
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 11, 2010, 07:07:01 PM
That is correct! There is zero conductive path through these homemade black Iron powder bars.
Not only for black iron powder, but also for metal powder as well - when mixed with resin.
I have btw. made black iron powder myself by using clean water and 50V applied to two iron plates in it. It bubbles from one plate and make black powder from the other. I picked up all the powder with a neodym magnet untill the water was again clear and pure. These iron powder particles I believe is quite small - nano particles?
Vidar
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 12, 2010, 12:02:34 PM
Quoteauthor=Bruce_TPU link=topic=8852.msg237266#msg237266 date=1271027221]
That is correct! There is zero conductive path through these homemade black Iron powder bars.
I can not emphasize enough the importance of eliminating all eddy current drag in the switcher stator.
Does anyone have an idea for a simple test fixture that a sample of a material could be placed in and the sample be free floating and rotate a field across the sample and try to find a material that would not move due to eddy current drag. The problem here is the fixture design would need to be designed so the pull of the magnet did not move the sample, but at the same time the filed lines would be cutting through the sample.
Any ideas? Mark could build it I believe and we could test everyones samples. Mark has a motor that rotates at 20,000 RPM. We could come up with a standard size and shape for the samples. Just think, we could find a truly eddy current free, cheap to make, home made magnetic material not in theory, but practice.
Thanks,
Butch
Hi Butch,
I think if you could find an induction cooker near to you then just placing the sample ferrite material over the cooker surface you could test how much it warms up if any. The shape could be as needed for the application. Most induction cookers work around 25-27kHz frequency, not at 60 or 50Hz.
If there is no any induction cooker in the neighbourhood, you may find one working on display at the kitchens department stores?
Another possibility is using an induction heater but it must be built unfortunately (see here one: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html )
It is also possible to rotate the sample ferrite in the air gap of two facing strong Neo magnets in attraction, at a given rpm. If the sample is conductive, will heat up.
For making a suitable ferrite based material, I think you could grind normal off the shelf ferrite cores of high permeability and then mix this ferrite powder with a binding material like Bruce showed in his video. There would be no problem if the grinding left some rough grained mixture because the ferrite already was manufactured earlier, just from fine grindings to minimize eddy current losses, you would just bring it into a new shape with the resin. I know ferrite is very hard to grind though.
@Larry
Thanks for the measurements. Well, if you could connect a 61uF capacitor in series with the 172mH output coil, then your "generator" output would be a real, non inductive 10 Ohm impedance and would match perfectly to a 10 Ohm resistor load at the 49.16Hz output frequency (i.e. at 2950RPM).
It maybe is not easy to find a 61uF non electrolytic cap, motor run capacitors could be an option.
Thanks to you all,
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on April 12, 2010, 05:32:21 PM
I can not emphasize enough the importance of eliminating all eddy current drag in the switcher stator.
Does anyone have an idea for a simple test fixture that a sample of a material could be placed in and the sample be free floating and rotate a field across the sample and try to find a material that would not move due to eddy current drag. The problem here is the fixture design would need to be designed so the pull of the magnet did not move the sample, but at the same time the filed lines would be cutting through the sample.
Any ideas? Mark could build it I believe and we could test everyones samples. Mark has a motor that rotates at 20,000 RPM. We could come up with a standard size and shape for the samples. Just think, we could find a truly eddy current free, cheap to make, home made magnetic material not in theory, but practice.
Thanks,
Butch
Hi Butch,
I think if you could find an induction cooker near to you then just placing the sample ferrite material over the cooker surface you could test how much it warms up if any. The shape could be as needed for the application. Most induction cookers work around 25-27kHz frequency, not at 60 or 50Hz.
If there is no any induction cooker in the neighbourhood, you may find one working on display at the kitchens department stores?
Another possibility is using an induction heater but it must be built unfortunately (see here one: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html )
It is also possible to rotate the sample ferrite in the air gap of two facing strong Neo magnets in attraction, at a given rpm. If the sample is conductive, will heat up.
For making a suitable ferrite based material, I think you could grind normal off the shelf ferrite cores of high permeability and then mix this ferrite powder with a binding material like Bruce showed in his video. There would be no problem if the grinding left some rough grained mixture because the ferrite already was manufactured earlier, just from fine grindings to minimize eddy current losses, you would just bring it into a new shape with the resin. I know ferrite is very hard to grind though.
@Larry
Thanks for the measurements. Well, if you could connect a 61uF capacitor in series with the 172mH output coil, then your "generator" output would be a real, non inductive 10 Ohm impedance and would match perfectly to a 10 Ohm resistor load at the 49.16Hz output frequency (i.e. at 2950RPM).
It maybe is not easy to find a 61uF non electrolytic cap, motor run capacitors could be an option.
Thanks to you all,
Gyula
Brilliant, Gyula!! Great Idea for Butch to test the black iron oxide powder or another mixture....
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Low-Q on April 12, 2010, 12:16:26 PM
Not only for black iron powder, but also for metal powder as well - when mixed with resin.
I have btw. made black iron powder myself...
Are we talking about iron powder (i.e. iron filings) or iron oxide
like this UK link:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BLACK-IRON-OXIDE-High-grade-material-500g_W0QQitemZ370364347806QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_BOI_Medical_Lab_Equipment_Lab_Supplies_ET?hash=item563b6f759e
Are both equally good?
Quote from: gyulasun on April 12, 2010, 05:32:21 PM
@Larry
Thanks for the measurements. Well, if you could connect a 61uF capacitor in series with the 172mH output coil, then your "generator" output would be a real, non inductive 10 Ohm impedance and would match perfectly to a 10 Ohm resistor load at the 49.16Hz output frequency (i.e. at 2950RPM).
It maybe is not easy to find a 61uF non electrolytic cap, motor run capacitors could be an option.
Gyula
The closes I could come to 61uF was 72uF using two 142uF in series.
Ac Input
Ohms Watts Vrms
10 28 2.78 No Cap
10 48 5.40 With Cap
Double the output, but at an increase in input torque.
Tried running it at 45Hz, which would be a match for the 72uF, but the torque curve on the AC induction motor won't allow the rotor to stay in that range.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the measurements. Something would need to be mechanically reconsidered and redesigned I guess, there is too much interaction between the prime mover and the load. I think you are aware of this.
Just out of curiosity, have you considered creating a parallel resonant output circuit by connecting the same resonating 72uF caps in parallel with the output coil? This time you would have to use a normal mains transformer like the ones in wall plugins, the primary could come in parallel with the parallel output tank and the secondary AC output would be terminated with the 10 Ohm load (here you may have to change the value of the load slightly up or down, depending on the turns ratio of the mains transformer just at hand). Also you may have to change the RPM a little to get resonance. If you have no any mains transformer (with any output between 6 to 24V secondaries) for this test, no problem of course, theoritically it should perform the same matching like in the series resonance case, where there is low impedance involved.
Have you found a more sinusoidal output waveform with the caps?
Thanks, Gyula
Hi Butch,
I think if you could find an induction cooker near to you then just placing the sample ferrite material over the cooker surface you could test how much it warms up if any. The shape could be as needed for the application. Most induction cookers work around 25-27kHz frequency, not at 60 or 50Hz.
If there is no any induction cooker in the neighbourhood, you may find one working on display at the kitchens department stores?
Another possibility is using an induction heater but it must be built unfortunately (see here one: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html )
It is also possible to rotate the sample ferrite in the air gap of two facing strong Neo magnets in attraction, at a given rpm. If the sample is conductive, will heat up.
For making a suitable ferrite based material, I think you could grind normal off the shelf ferrite cores of high permeability and then mix this ferrite powder with a binding material like Bruce showed in his video. There would be no problem if the grinding left some rough grained mixture because the ferrite already was manufactured earlier, just from fine grindings to minimize eddy current losses, you would just bring it into a new shape with the resin.
Gyula
[/quote]
Great idea Gyula, thanks so much.
Butch
http://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteGroup
Also I wanted to mention that we calculated that at 20,000 RPM the switcher rotor magnet poles are moving along the iron surface (.005" air gap) at 180 miles per hour. Now if there is eddy current drag in the stator just think of the drag on the rotor magnet. Think of holding the magnet in your hand out the window of a car and going 180 miles per hour with the magnet just .005" from an iron sheet.
Butch
[/quote author=gyulasun link=topic=8852.msg237450#msg237450 date=1271175990]
Thanks for the measurements. Something would need to be mechanically reconsidered and redesigned I guess, there is too much interaction between the prime mover and the load. I think you are aware of this.
Just out of curiosity, have you considered creating a parallel resonant output circuit by connecting the same resonating 72uF caps in parallel with the output coil? This time you would have to use a normal mains transformer like the ones in wall plugins, the primary could come in parallel with the parallel output tank and the secondary AC output would be terminated with the 10 Ohm load (here you may have to change the value of the load slightly up or down, depending on the turns ratio of the mains transformer just at hand). Also you may have to change the RPM a little to get resonance. If you have no any mains transformer (with any output between 6 to 24V secondaries) for this test, no problem of course, theoritically it should perform the same matching like in the series resonance case, where there is low impedance involved.
Have you found a more sinusoidal output waveform with the caps?
Thanks, Gyula
[/quote]
Actually, for testing this type of generator I like a lot of interaction between the prime mover and the load. You can easily hear the rotor Rpm increase or decrease when the torque changes due to manually changing Ohm loads. I run it around 2950 Rpm, because that is close to the best torque/current point on a AC induction motor single phase. Most DC motors don't respond much speed wise to changes in load torque, except for series wound DC motors. Of course, in production a totally different prime mover would be needed.
No, I haven't previously considered your new test request. But, I would like to take a pass, unless you feel it is really necessary. If so, please explain why.
Yes, as would be expected, caps have a smoothing effect on the waveform.
Looking forward to testing with the new ordered magnets to eliminate the 3/8" gap between the 1" Dia magnets.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
No I do not feel like the parallel resonance test is really neccessary.
On the interacion between the prime mover and the load I meant the cap tuning reflected back to the input power draw.
Thanks you very much your kindness and keep up the great work.
Respectfully
Gyula
We ran the new switcher and it turned cog free very easy by hand. When we connected a motor to it and got above 100 RPM the eddy current drag became so strong the motor would strain and stay at that RPM. the eddy current drag in the iron with the 8 magnet rotor was like hitting a brick wall. We got 390 volts AC at 700 RPM.
That's 3342 volts AC at 6000 RPM. So, if we had an eddy current free stator we would get 3342 volts out of a generator with no power needed to turn the rotor.
We will now take current readings and try different types of loads on the coils. We will also power the coils with an external power supply and show there is no effect on the rotor.
We are at a stand still at this point due to no funds for building a zero eddy current stator.
Will post videos on Youtube today of our tests last night.
Butch
Quote
We are at a stand still at this point due to no funds for building a zero eddy current stator.
Will post videos on Youtube today of our tests last night.
I wonder if Stephan will let you dip into the OU prize funds... since you're practically there. ;D
Hi Butch,
well done.
Looking forward to the videos.
Why didn´t you try to use the black sand from the beach ( black iron oxide)
yet ?
If you can collect it from the beach via a Neodym permanent magnet,
it is free and you only need a binder like hotglue or epoxy glue or simular to put it into a form.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 14, 2010, 07:15:17 PM
Hi Butch,
well done.
Looking forward to the videos.
Why didn´t you try to use the black sand from the beach ( black iron oxide)
yet ?
If you can collect it from the beach via a Neodym permanent magnet,
it is free and you only need a binder like hotglue or epoxy glue or simular to put it into a form.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Butch,
Below is a link to buy some Black iron oxide... Only $7.00 USD
It would be worth a try IMHO.
http://cgi.ebay.com/5-lb-Black-Iron-Oxide-Fe3O4-Used-in-Thermite_W0QQitemZ280351919842QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item414646cee2
Cheers,
Bruce
Testing through the night also. More to come.
Butch
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 14, 2010, 09:42:15 PM
Testing through the night also. More to come.
Butch
Hi Butch,
You may also use "rust", also known as "red Iron oxide" and is also available cheap on Ebay.
While iron possesses the necessary magnetic properties, it is also electrically conductive. Eddy currents are circulating currents in the core induced by a magnetic field emitted by your spinning rotor, as you well know. These electric currents are undesirable. The core is acting much like a shorted secondary winding. They are power-robbing losses that convert your magnetic switch to a massive cog.
On the other hand, rust (iron oxide) is a nonconductor of electric current. The high resistivity of rust reduces eddy current losses. Since iron is also a conductor of electric current and the goal here is to minimize eddy currents, which is why the construction of the core is made up of a stack of thin plates of iron (laminations) which are insulated from each other by an oxide (rust-like) coating. This confines the eddy currents and prevents them from circulating between the laminations. The higher resistance created results in a reduction of power losses within the core.
What’s this mean in plain English? Back in the early years, manufacturers of laminations intentionally exposed their iron to moist air to encourage rust to naturally form on the surfaces as an insulator! Like a fine patina on an antique bronze the rust on your transformer could be viewed as badge of honor. You can actually expect some improvements in output and lower losses as rust develops or is used.
If you are bothered by the cosmetic aspect of rust, never scrape off the rust to the point of exposing bare metal because you will bring back those nasty eddy currents. Instead, brush off the loose particles and re-paint the area with varnish.
Rust is your answer. Thinly sandwiched between laminates, or used soley by itself.
Cheers,
Bruce
Well Bruce,
but it looks like Mark did build the parts from solid iron,
so no laminates available as long as he can´t splice or saw the solid iron
parts up...
So it would have been much better if the core would
have completely been build from
black iron oxide from the start on.
( Red iron oxide is not magnetic, only the black one !)
I was at work when I thought of this configuration... Not very useful but it was fun tinkering with. Basically it's the same thing with two rotors (out of sync 180 degrees) sharing the two places you put the coils.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 15, 2010, 12:25:45 AM
Well Bruce,
but it looks like Mark did build the parts from solid iron,
so no laminates available as long as he can´t splice or saw the solid iron
parts up...
So it would have been much better if the core would
have completely been build from
black iron oxide from the start on.
( Red iron oxide is not magnetic, only the black one !)
I hate to say it, but they will need to rebuild their core. I would suggest building two differant ones...One with laminate, seperated by iron oxide, and the second one completely from black iron oxide, and testing them both.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Blainiac on April 15, 2010, 07:25:02 AM
I was at work when I thought of this configuration... Not very useful but it was fun tinkering with. Basically it's the same thing with two rotors (out of sync 180 degrees) sharing the two places you put the coils.
I wonder, does this even need the slots in the stator?
Butch
If you have a standing magnetic field in a permanent magnet and iron circuit and you rotate the magnet in the circuit so that the polarity in the iron reverses, does the original field have to collapse before it can change polarity? Note: When the magnet rotates to reverse the polarity the air gap stays constant.
Butch
Quote
I wonder, does this even need the slots in the stator?
Butch
I deleted the air gaps and it looks the same... better actually, no leaks (that was my bad FEMM designing skills mostly. ;D )
This magnetic switch - what is it used for? I will just mention that if you want to harness magnetic energy; Say you want to take energy out of a coil. If this coil is loaded, the magnetic flux will be stopped from building up a magnetic field - quite basic so far. But then it will take that amount of energy to rotate the magnet to actually build up that magnetic field. Unless the magnetic field can find an alternative flux path - but then no energy will be harnessed from the coil anyway. So at the end; the magnetic switch works without energy supply unless you try to harmess energy from a coil that is attached to it. So that means the magnetic switch is useless, or what?
So I wonder: What will this switch be used for?
Vidar
[A author=Blainiac link=topic=8852.msg237705#msg237705 date=1271357619]
I deleted the air gaps and it looks the same... better actually, no leaks (that was my bad FEMM designing skills mostly. ;D )
[/quote]
We just got some cogging, but took the air gaps out and still got good voltage and no cogging.
Will post test videos.
Butch
Quote from: Low-Q on April 15, 2010, 03:58:19 PM
This magnetic switch - what is it used for? I will just mention that if you want to harness magnetic energy; Say you want to take energy out of a coil. If this coil is loaded, the magnetic flux will be stopped from building up a magnetic field - quite basic so far. But then it will take that amount of energy to rotate the magnet to actually build up that magnetic field. Unless the magnetic field can find an alternative flux path - but then no energy will be harnessed from the coil anyway. So at the end; the magnetic switch works without energy supply unless you try to harmess energy from a coil that is attached to it. So that means the magnetic switch is useless, or what?
So I wonder: What will this switch be used for?
Vidar
See video's on lafonte group youtube site and read this thread from the start.
Thanks,
Butch
I have a simple change for the switcher I feel will make it the perfect ou generator. I will post drawing of change.
Butch
Quote from: Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg237724#msg237724 A=1271367149
I have a simple change for the switcher I feel will make it the perfect ou generator. I will post drawing of change.
Butch
The entire inter-ring acts as a slotted ring, but has no coging area.
See attached drawing and also new video being up loaded tonight of high voltage test results from slot free, cog free, stator.
Thanks,
Butch
Quote from: Low-Q on April 15, 2010, 03:58:19 PM
This magnetic switch - what is it used for? I will just mention that if you want to harness magnetic energy; Say you want to take energy out of a coil. If this coil is loaded, the magnetic flux will be stopped from building up a magnetic field - quite basic so far. But then it will take that amount of energy to rotate the magnet to actually build up that magnetic field. Unless the magnetic field can find an alternative flux path - but then no energy will be harnessed from the coil anyway. So at the end; the magnetic switch works without energy supply unless you try to harmess energy from a coil that is attached to it. So that means the magnetic switch is useless, or what?
So I wonder: What will this switch be used for?
Vidar
The basic idea is the switch has the effects of turning the magnet on/off with very little energy. This means it takes much less force to separate the ferromagnetic material and the magnets, than the force that brought them together, thus you have a net gain in the overall magnetic interactions. The magnetic switch is not useless, but is a very promising concept, and I think Butch is really close to getting this right.
Keep up the good work Butch! You're doing an excellent job.
GB
Common sense and the laws of physics dictate that when the rotor magnet of a basic magneto approaches the stator/coil when the coil circuit is closed that the coil generates a magnetic field opposite the rotor's magnetic field and the pull of the rotor to the stator is reduced and the pull of the rotor to the stator is lost as compared to the coil circuit being open during this phase. As the rotor leaves the stator the field produced by the coil attempts to keep the collapsing magnetic field constant causing additional work to be added to the rotor to produce a net gain in output over input. This is old news and everyone working in the electrical field knows of this basic behavior.
In the Switcher you can put a diode in the coil circuit and block any current flow during the exit phase of the rotor from the stator. This will leave only the period when the field is building up in the coil core when the Switcher is turning on the magnetic circuit in the stator coil. Due to the nature of the constant air gap design of the Switcher this has no effect on the stator rotation. Any chance of the rotor being effected by the switching off of the stator's magnetic field is eliminated by the diode. This makes the Switcher even more of an overunity candidate than ever before.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
This is getting good.
Again...great work Butch etal.
Regards...
Quote from: Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg237742#msg237742 A=1271375784
The entire inter-ring acts as a slotted ring, but has no coging area.
See attached drawing and also new video being up loaded tonight of high voltage test results from slot free, cog free, stator.
Thanks,
Butch
Butch
Here the simulation with the inner ring of iron without silicon
And external circuits with silicon steel magnetic
tell me if you want to change settings
Bruno
My unit uses a silicon steel laminated toroid and a EI transformer cut into an H shape, so eddy currents is considered negligible.
The first picture shows the new Neos 1" x 2" x 1/2". Had to keep a 3/8" gap between the Magnets and the toroid because of the high input load. Those results are shown in the spread sheet. All test were done at ~2950 Rpm by varying the input voltage. The waveform was much closer to the typical sine wave even without the Caps.
The input load was varying with the resistance which indicated to me some motor effect was occurring. So I tried the same test with the toroid removed, just the H cut transformer acting like a regular generator. The results are in the second half of the spreadsheet. A 5/8" gap was used to get similar results. One noted difference was the 50 and 100 ohm resistors got much hotter faster.
The Output % - 20 input column is calculated by subtracting 20 from the input watts and dividing into the Output VA column. 20 watts is what it takes to run the rotor at ~2950 with no stator.
Regards, Larry
@Butch,
I've noticed from the winding video, that you seem to be using high Ohm coils of an unknown value. Could you please post the ohm values.
I only bring this up because I did a lot of previous testing with Thane Heins's generator. Basically a high ohm coil which puts out high voltage low amperage power, would cause the rotor to accelerate. This is due to the parasitic capacitance of a high ohm coil, which changes the normal motor effect from a negative to a positive. Whereas a low ohm coil which puts out low voltage high amperage power would cause the rotor to decelerate.
Thanks, Larry
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 15, 2010, 07:56:24 PM
The entire inter-ring acts as a slotted ring, but has no coging area.
See attached drawing and also new video being up loaded tonight of high voltage test results from slot free, cog free, stator.
Thanks,
Butch
@Butch;
In the following link there is an intesting way to build
a prime mover. If you combine it with the diagram
you show, there could be motor toroid coils at a
90 degree angle from the generator coils. Then
one could use one stack of magnets in the rotor
with two optical sensors to switch the drive coils
polarities. There has got to be some horsepower
in there somewhere. Just stand back when you
power it on. :o
Long Term detail reference link:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/04/16/holy-grail-part-numbers/
Full spectrum reference link:
http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: LarryC on April 16, 2010, 06:37:30 PM
My unit uses a silicon steel laminated toroid and a EI A cut into an H shape, so eddy currents is considered negligible.
The first picture shows the new Neos 1" x 2" x 1/2". Had to keep a 3/8" gap between the Magnets and the toroid because of the high input load. Those results are shown in the spread sheet. All test were done at ~2950 Rpm by varying the input voltage. The waveform was much closer to the typical sine wave even without the Caps.
The input load was varying with the resistance which indicated to me some motor effect was occurring. So I tried the same test with the toroid removed, just the H cut transformer acting like a regular generator. The results are in the second half of the spreadsheet. A 5/8" gap was used to get similar results. One noted difference was the 50 and 100 ohm resistors got much hotter faster.
The Output % - 20 input column is calculated by subtracting 20 from the input watts and dividing into the Output VA column. 20 watts is what it takes to run the rotor at ~2950 with no stator.
Regards, Larry
Larry, Are you saying you got over 200% overunity at times or am I reading it wrong.
Butch
Quote from: Butch LaFonte link=topic=8852.msg237932#msg237932 A=1271469631
Larry, Are you saying you got over 200% overunity at times or am I reading it wrong.
Butch
Larry, i just put my glasses on, I see it's .207
Sorry,
Butch
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 16, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Larry, i just put my glasses on, I see it's .207
Hi Butch,
Don't expect any OU with a cheap AC induction motor as prime mover, it is only good at detecting increases or decreases in rotor torque.
Actually, the results are somewhat confusing to me. The switcher has a small advantage, but the input watts, with toroid, no caps, went up as the ohms increased. The input watts, with no toroid, no caps, went down as the ohms increased. Maybe Gyula or others have some insight.
Regards, Larry
I can't help but still be amazed by this. I love how the newest design just happens to look like an infinity symbol. :D
So basically modifying the original design by making the outer part more susceptible to flux eliminates the need for the air gaps... That's so cool. I just modified my simulation and everything looks great. Again, I'm amazed at how you guys think of these awesome ideas.
Hello all, been following the thread and this just keeps getting better, had a suggestion pertaining to the rotor magnet, I'm working on something different but figured this could probably work with what you're doing. In addition to making the flux path out of a ferromagnetic/epoxy mix also make your magnet out of epoxy. Alinco, ferrite, & neos are just compressed/sintered magnetized powder. What if you took a c8 ceramic or a neo with the nickel coating removed and ground them into a fine powder, placed the powder in a form with epoxy, and placed magnets around the form so the particles aligned while curing, you could make whatever shape you needed for some small air gaps.
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 16, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Larry, i just put my glasses on, I see it's .207
Just noticed that my format is wrong. Since I had a % sign in the title, it should have been 20.7
Regards, Larry
Quote from: Butch LaFonte on April 15, 2010, 05:15:18 PM
See video's on lafonte group A site and read this thread from the start.
Thanks,
Butch
I have just seen to much Discovery Channel. "In the name ov science, question everything" ;D. I was not very contributing in that post, but I did not mean to fight the project, but there was a moment I couldn't see the use of the switch if it is impossoble to harness energy in an overunity way. I do indeed think this is a very interesting project, with an approach that is not very common. Keep up the good work Butch. Looking forward to the final product!
Vidar
Hi all.
Today I made an metal core out of very fine particles mixed with resin.
I get the material from the waste shute of a shot blasting machine in a foundry. It is almost like powder.
I sifted it with a magnet, then mixed one part of the resin in. After that I mixed the second part of the resin in, and packed the mix into the mold.
I also tested it for continuity and there is nothing at all. No buzz from the meter even with the probes at less than 1 mm apart!!!
That shows that all the particles are insulated from each other.
I made it all one piece so now I just have to cut the ends off and put some coils on, then screw the coils back in.
The core is very magnetic, and I only just coated the particles enough to bind.
Scotty.
Wow Scotty1, that's pretty gnarly dude! It's very magnetic and no continuity, awesome.
Sorry to double post, but what do you think about this design butch? It's the same concept as the new design you have, except the coil 'arms' extend along the rotor shaft instead of the sides. If you added another switcher unit 180 degrees further down the shaft, the flux through the coil would be attracted to the other magnet. I thought this might be easier and allow for more coils in a small space.
Hi Scotty,
Very, very good! Hopefully the iron in the mixture has a low remanent magnetism remained (like a normal ferrite core has) so that it would not retain much flux when you want to remove flux from it at will.
You can test this by trying to magnetize a small piece like a rod from your mixture with a very strong permanent magnet and then probe the rod with an office pin or with a needle. Because the only enemy here with home built cores is remanent magnetism.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: LarryC on April 17, 2010, 12:35:41 AM
Hi Butch,
Don't expect any OU with a cheap AC induction motor as prime mover, it is only good at detecting increases or decreases in rotor torque.
Actually, the results are somewhat confusing to me. The switcher has a small advantage, but the input watts, with toroid, no caps, went up as the ohms increased. The input watts, with no toroid, no caps, went down as the ohms increased. Maybe Gyula or others have some insight.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
I think in both cases the transformer lamination works in near saturation mainly from the strong Neos and the changing load current's (counter) flux either works against the prime mover when the toroid is there or works for it when the toroid is not present. Earlier you mentioned to Butch Thane's generator with its strange behavior in case of high or low Ohm output coils, I think a similar effect manifests here with your 10 Ohm output coil.
It is true your 10 Ohm coil does not sound a high Ohm value, nor does it give out some hundred Volts but still that coil may have enough self capacitance (as a multilayer mains transformer coil normally has) to cause those strange effect.
So, if the above reasonings are more or less correct, then core saturation somehow should be dealt with first (try using much weaker magnets), and your output coil ought to be redesigned.
There is one more notice:
In your earlier tests when you found input power demand increased for the 10 Ohm load wrt the 100 Ohm load, (either without or with the series resonating capacitor) how can the increase be explained in a setup like this? Maybe a mechanical revision is also in order if the laminations saturation could be excluded?
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on April 18, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
I think in both cases the A lamination works in near saturation mainly from the strong Neos and the changing load current's (counter) flux either works against the prime mover when the toroid is there or works for it when the toroid is not present. Earlier you mentioned to Butch Thane's generator with its strange behavior in case of high or low Ohm output coils, I think a similar effect manifests here with your 10 Ohm output coil.
It is true your 10 Ohm coil does not sound a high Ohm value, nor does it give out some hundred Volts but still that coil may have enough self capacitance (as a multilayer mains transformer coil normally has) to cause those strange effect.
So, if the above reasonings are more or less correct, then core saturation somehow should be dealt with first (try using much weaker magnets), and your output coil ought to be redesigned.
There is one more notice:
In your earlier tests when you found input power demand increased for the 10 Ohm load wrt the 100 Ohm load, (either without or with the series resonating capacitor) how can the increase be explained in a setup like this? Maybe a mechanical revision is also in order if the laminations saturation could be excluded?
I can try smaller magnets to reduce the saturation, but I do not agree that a 10 Ohm coil can have any significant parasitic capacitance. I've done a lot of testing with high Ohm coils. In the picture below is a 76 and 121 Ohm coil using 28 gauge wire. Thane has done 100's of test. 60 Ohm is close to the lowest that would cause the speed up effect.
My 76 Ohm coil seems close in size to one of those used by Lafonte group in earlier test, where they used four spools.
'In your earlier tests when you found input power demand increased for the 10 Ohm load wrt the 100 Ohm load' ??? Not sure what you stated here.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: Blainiac on April 18, 2010, 05:53:39 AM
Sorry to double post, but what do you think about this design butch? It's the same concept as the new design you have, except the coil 'arms' extend along the rotor shaft instead of the sides. If you added another switcher unit 180 degrees further down the shaft, the flux through the coil would be attracted to the other magnet. I thought this might be easier and allow for more coils in a small space.
I really like this layout, it just looks like it would have no other choice but to work!
Butch
Quote from: scotty1 on April 18, 2010, 04:06:41 AM
Hi all.
Today I made an metal core out of very fine particles A with resin.
I get the material from the waste shute of a shot blasting machine in a foundry. It is almost like powder.
I sifted it with a magnet, then mixed one part of the resin in. After that I mixed the second part of the resin in, and packed the mix into the mold.
I also tested it for continuity and there is nothing at all. No buzz from the meter even with the probes at less than 1 mm apart!!!
That shows that all the particles are insulated from each other.
I made it all one piece so now I just have to cut the ends off and put some coils on, then screw the coils back in.
The core is very magnetic, and I only just coated the particles enough to bind.
Scotty.
It looks like that is just what we have been looking for. Eddy current drag is our only obstacle at this point.
Butch
Quote from: Low-Q on April 17, 2010, 05:01:38 PM
I have just seen to much Discovery Channel. "In the name ov science, question everything" ;D. I was not very contributing in that post, but I did not mean to fight the project, but there was a moment I couldn't see the use of the switch if it is impossoble to harness energy in an overunity way. I do indeed think this is a very interesting project, with an approach that is not very common. Keep up the good work Butch. Looking forward to the final product!
Vidar
If we can over come the eddy current drag problem we have the real deal here. I always thought the layout that worked would be something simple like this.
Butch
I'm maxed out right now, but will read ever post and try to comment on as many as possible.
Thanks so much guys,
Butch
I feel at this point that the gaps are not the way to go and will cause cogging. I may be wrong here, but I see it that way at this point. Also, the rotor od and the stator id need to be as close to a perfect circle as possible and as small an air gap between as possible. .005" would be good, but hard to do with out CNC fabrication.
Butch
Quote from: LarryC on April 18, 2010, 11:37:21 AM
I can try smaller magnets to reduce the saturation, but I do not agree that a 10 Ohm coil can have any significant parasitic capacitance. I've done a lot of testing with high Ohm coils. In the picture below is a 76 and 121 Ohm coil using 28 gauge wire. Thane has done 100's of test. 60 Ohm is close to the lowest that would cause the speed up effect.
My 76 Ohm coil seems close in size to one of those used by Lafonte group in earlier test, where they used four spools.
'In your earlier tests when you found input power demand increased for the 10 Ohm load wrt the 100 Ohm load' ??? Not sure what you stated here.
Regards, Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your answer, and I stand corrected your 10 Ohm coil cannot have enough capacitance to cause the speed up effect. I simply thought your output coil earlier was manufactured to be the primary coil of a normal mains transformer and it may have insulation papers between its multilayer construction, this increases self capacitance.
I put my last notice you questioned otherwise: In your earlier tests you found the prime mover drew higher input power when your load was 10 Ohm instead of the 100 Ohm. I asked how can the input power increase be explained in a setup like that? (Because the setup seems to exlude or reduce the normal generator effect to a minimum; I refer to your setup shown in Reply #99.) And this is why I hinted at some mechanical revision in the actual setup, for the theoritical setup seems ok in this respect. Sorry for this.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on April 18, 2010, 05:01:12 PM
Thanks for your answer, and I stand corrected your 10 Ohm coil cannot have enough capacitance to cause the speed up effect. I simply thought your output coil earlier was manufactured to be the primary coil of a normal mains transformer and it may have insulation papers between its multilayer construction, this increases self capacitance.
I put my last notice you questioned otherwise: In your earlier tests you found the prime mover drew higher input power when your load was 10 Ohm instead of the 100 Ohm. I asked how can the input power increase be explained in a setup like that? (Because the setup seems to exlude or reduce the normal generator effect to a minimum; I refer to your setup shown in Reply #99.) And this is why I hinted at some mechanical revision in the actual setup, for the theoritical setup seems ok in this respect. Sorry for this.
Hi Guyla,
No need to think me for my answers, as I appreciate having someone with your knowledge and experience to bounce these concepts off.
I was able to lift up the plastic bobbin edge on the H transformer. Couldn't see any paper on the primary that I'm using, but there seemed to be a few paper partitions in the secondary. The secondary has multiple outputs so that seems correct.
Not sure which post you seen with higher input power with 10 Ohm instead of 100 Ohm. I'm still using the setup shown in #99 and in reply #126 with the old 4 magnet setup, the input watts went up with the Ohms.
Did you notice my comment about the resistors got much hotter faster with the H transformer only. Plastic melting hot in several minutes, whereas with the switcher not even close. I'm thinking it has something to do with the voltage and current being more in line (power factor) with the H transformer then with the Switcher setup. I believe this is an important observation.
I did try some weaker magnets, but it only resulted in much less power output. I think the large air gaps (3/8 and 5/8), that I'm using is eliminating any saturation problem.
Regards, Larry
This really looks promising. All the problems people are running into look like they can be problem solved, so its all the more reason not to give up. Keep up the good work guys; i'm really liking this!
Butch,
I found a design that you apparently already made that looks exactly like what I had in mind, in January! Dang, thought I beat you too it. ;) How did that cog-free design work out (on a FDP website)?
Any new news about people's builds of the LG switcher?
Hi all.
I did some tests with my resin and metal particle core but it was not much good. :(
Because of the random structure of the particles, the flux did not want to run through it very well. Even though it's magnetic enough, it does not make a good path.
I used a stack of neo's on the end of a section of my core and after about 3 inches the flux is almost gone, and it could not even attract an alligator clip.
So in my core the flux wouldn't even make it to the coils!
Anyway....it was worth experimenting with just to see.
Scotty.
That's too bad Scotty. I think I missed the point, but would a normal ferrite toroid work? Well, two huge toroids with different permeabilities? I found some on a website that can be ordered up to 9" OD.
I was going to drill holes for ferrite rods as well, but I'm scared even with my carbide hole maker. Lol
I think this device may have some exciting possibilities. I'm thinking of doing a parallel path on the stators, doing the iron oxide with epoxy resin approach plus doing them with silicone steel laminations.
I've found several India/China sources that will do it all for you but seem to be more production oriented. I would like to just procure the steel and then have them laser cut locally but can't find any suppliers yet. It looks like silicone steel is available down to .014" thickness with varnish insulating coating but only in production quantities. Does anybody have a supplier for silicone steel in prototype quantities? Also known as transformer steel or lamination steel.
For the iron oxide/epoxe resin version, will experiment with magnetically biasing the oxide particles when the resin is poured. This hopefully will increase the permeability of the stators.
I'm wondering if the radiused end caps at each end of the magnets on the rotor should be done with laminations or resin. I would imagine unwanted eddy currents would be created here as well.
Glenn
Hi Glenn,
Member Nali2001 has referred to two links in other topics here where laminations and different cores are manufactured/sold. I found his posts and for laminations, see here: http://www.protolam.com/page3.html
and for different cores see here:
http://alphacoredirect.com/contents/en-us/d49.html
(His posts are here by the way, a useful read as well:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.msg216391#msg216391
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5425.msg123290#msg123290 )
I agree with your notice on the end cups, they should also be made 'eddy current' proof too, as much as possible.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: attack duck on May 03, 2010, 12:57:04 AM
I think this device may have some exciting possibilities. I'm thinking of doing a parallel path on the stators, doing the iron oxide with epoxy resin approach plus doing them with silicone steel laminations.
I've found several India/China sources that will do it all for you but seem to be more production oriented. I would like to just procure the steel and then have them laser cut locally but can't find any suppliers yet. It looks like silicone steel is available down to .014" thickness with varnish insulating coating but only in production quantities. Does anybody have a supplier for silicone steel in prototype quantities? Also known as transformer steel or lamination steel.
For the iron oxide/epoxe resin version, will experiment with magnetically biasing the oxide particles when the resin is poured. This hopefully will increase the permeability of the stators.
I'm wondering if the radiused end caps at each end of the magnets on the rotor should be done with laminations or resin. I would imagine unwanted eddy currents would be created here as well.
Glenn
I have lots of iron laminations....about 200 kgs.
I took them from an old induction furnace.
They are about 1 meter long and about 80mm wide.
Each lamination is very thin.
I stil don't think my wife understands why I NEED them... ;D
Scotty.
Quote from: gyulasun on May 03, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
Hi Glenn,
Member Nali2001 has referred to two links in other topics here where laminations and different cores are manufactured/sold. I found his posts and for laminations, see here: http://www.protolam.com/page3.html
and for different cores see here:
http://alphacoredirect.com/contents/en-us/d49.html
(His posts are here by the way, a useful read as well:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.msg216391#msg216391
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5425.msg123290#msg123290 )
I agree with your notice on the end cups, they should also be made 'eddy current' proof too, as much as possible.
rgds, Gyula
Thanks for the data Gyula, very helpful. My machinist and I are experimenting with biasing a 1" round tube 6" long, filling with resin matrix and sliding in a 2"x 1" cylindrical Neo magnet at each end to try and bias the particles. If that works then we will try fabbing the stators.
If no joy with that, I guess we will get a quote from Proto Lam for finished parts. With the laminated parts, there's no room for error as I'm sure it will be pricey and I'm assuming no machining would be possible on the finished rotor or stator as layers would then short together.
I don't really understand Butch's concern on the cogging with his design. Unless the cogging is severe it seems the pulses would even out. The real demon is the eddy currents, no?
Glenn
Hi Glenn,
Yes, eddy current is the greatest enemy here, cogging is far less I think.
However, I am not sure on the real advantage the magnetic biasing may have: would not the magnets at the ends of the tube attract too much iron particles towards the tube ends and its middle part will contain much less particles? So no homogen particle distribution could be had in the resin after it binds?
Why do you need to bias the particles at all, I wonder? I would think a normal and thorough mechanical mixing process is all what would be needed. I know this mechanical mixing is not easy to do, the mixing success depends very much on how "fluid" the resin is, how problematic its mechanical "mixability" and how quickly it bonds. These are my thoughts on this, unfortunately I have not made this in practice.
The goal would be to 'place' the particles very near to each other inside the resin, and all particles be isolated electrically from each other so that electrical resistance of this mixture should be several hundred kiloOhm or higher. The nearer the particles get close to each other (still remain electrically isolated from each other), the higher the permeabilty of the mixture will be. If you use the magnets for helping the particles going closer to each other, than it sounds ok but there is the risk I mentioned above.
Good luck with the mixture!
rgds, Gyula
Did the tests with two different mixtures of iron powder and iron filings from
shaving iron brake rotors mixed with West Systems epoxy with a couple of very strong Neo magnets in attraction at each end of a 4" pvc tube 1" in dia. Results were similiar to what Scotty reported with a very rapid loss of magnetism with distance. The laid up plug stuck to the magnet OK but transmitted the field very poorly to the other end. To me it seems to mainly be a matter of density of particles attained in the mixture.
We laid up as thick a mixture as possible that could still be poured into the
tube but there is still way too much separation between particles IMO. It's
possible that the very thick mixture we used prevented rotation of the iron
particles to allign with the induced field. Could try a very runny mixture to
see if theres any improvement but this would reduce particle density further.
The mixture with the iron filings worked better than the iron powder as a
steel washer was attracted weakly where the iron powder had none.
I can post pics if there's any interest.
I'm no expert but it looks like the silicon steel laminations are the best way to go.
Glenn
Sorry for my ignorance, but can someone point me in the right direction to find a manufacturer of silicon steel laminated toroids that have two different permeabilities? I've been looking everywhere, and the ferrite toroids I found were WAY out of my budget for the size... ugh.
If you want a toroid with the best magnetic properties with the least amount of eddy
currents and almost no hysteresis loss then please avoid laminated silicon steel cores.
The toroid core you seem to need is made from compressed MPP powder.
MPP = Molypermalloy.
Here's a link to a supplier of cores in various sizes.
http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206_218
Toroid's made from MPP is almost free of losses and does not tend to heat up in any way.
And as you all know heat is a product of an inefficient process.
So, any material becoming hot is less efficient and waste power.
It might be that your total input to the toroid is to small to heat up the core significantly but
nonetheless any power loss is unwanted when it comes to overunity research.
Quote from: Blainiac on May 13, 2010, 09:00:08 PM
Sorry for my ignorance, but can someone point me in the right direction to find a manufacturer of silicon steel laminated toroids that have two different permeabilities? I've been looking everywhere, and the ferrite toroids I found were WAY out of my budget for the size... ugh.
The silicon steel laminated toroid shown on page 7, reply 99 came from www.allelectronics.com for 9.00 as a 6V 5A transformer. A larger one is available for 25.00.
There was no noticable heat from the toroid or the H transformer, only the resistors, even with the much larger magnets shown on page 11, reply 160.
Regards, Larry
@Larry:
Okay! I remember seeing that. I also think I remember seeing a modification by you that took away the slots to have a full toroid? Is that correct? How did that test go? I'm just so broke here I get anxious to ask questions. :) Are you planning on adding additional coils or extending the shaft to see what happens with more goodies? It's so exciting!
I did do this simulation as well to check for cogging relative to the rotor in an 8-coil dual rotor setup, although it does look a little weird it's correct I think.
I think it's cool how the rotor sees basically no difference in torque. I can't wait to see someone's build possibly powering itself.
Hey Blainiac,
I have gone back and opened, and re-saved one of your previous links...for whatever reason I can view, but not save this one.
Is it possible you may have accidentally coded this one or something ?
Regards...
Quote from: Blainiac link=topic=8852.msg241423#msg241423 A=1273868524
Okay! I remember seeing that. I also think I remember seeing a modification by you that took away the slots to have a full toroid? Is that correct? How did that test go? I'm just so broke here I get anxious to ask questions. :) Are you planning on adding additional coils or extending the shaft to see what happens with more goodies? It's so exciting!
I did do this simulation as well to check for clogging relative to the rotor in an 8-coil dual rotor setup, although it does look a little weird it's correct I think.
I think it's cool how the rotor sees basically no difference in torque. I can't wait to see someone's build possibly powering itself.
I think Butch proposed the no slot toroid. So no test on my part.
I have no additional test planned. The clogging is very small. But, I find the constant pull of the magnet against the toroid core more of a issue. It is like strong gravity, but without the advantage of stored momentum as would be with a flywheel, so it is a constant torque restraint.
Honk's point about MPP opposed to silicon steel is good, but more at a much higher frequency then I'm using (50HZ). Also, I like the much higher permability of silicon steel in this situation to pass the flux from the toroid to the H type transformer.
@All, FYI, Honk is the top electronic circuit designer/builder that I've seen on this site.
@Blainiac, your simulation is interesting, but does not seem to have coils on the outside cores that would effect the torque.
Regards, Larry
Quote
Hey Blainiac,
I have gone back and opened, and re-saved one of your previous links...for whatever reason I can view, but not save this one.
Is it possible you may have accidentally coded this one or something ?
Regards...
Hmm, interesting. The gif is stored here, I think that's what you're looking for Cap-Z-ro:
http://nullium.fileave.com/relativetorotor.gif (http://nullium.fileave.com/relativetorotor.gif)
Quote
I think Butch proposed the no slot toroid. So no test on my part.
I have no additional test planned. The clogging is very small. But, I find the constant pull of the magnet against the toroid core more of a issue. It is like strong gravity, but without the advantage of stored momentum as would be with a flywheel, so it is a constant torque restraint.
Honk's point about MPP opposed to silicon steel is good, but more at a much higher frequency then I'm using (50HZ). Also, I like the much higher permability of silicon steel in this situation to pass the flux from the toroid to the H type transformer.
@All, FYI, Honk is the top electronic circuit designer/builder that I've seen on this site.
@Blainiac, your simulation is interesting, but does not seem to have coils on the outside cores that would effect the torque.
Regards, Larry
Ahh, yes. I understand what you're saying and I tried to simulate that. I didn't know exactly how I would introduce the counter-field produced by the coils in FEMM, but I'd love to figure out how to make a more accurate simulation. Also you said the constant pull of the magnet against the toroid is more of an issue. I think I read something you said earlier about if the magnet's closer it's less of a problem, correct?
Quote from: Blainiac on May 15, 2010, 02:40:14 AM
I think I read something you said earlier about if the magnet's closer it's less of a problem, correct?
No, the closer the magnet's to the toroid, the more torque required to turn the rotor. The LaFonte Group version would experience less torque, because of the shorter distance from rotor center.
It may have been this comment, that when the H cut transformer is against the toroid, the clogging at the slits is very small. When the H cut transformer is pulled away and the magnets only sees the toroid, then the slit clogging is higher.
Regards, Larry
We have a new design we will post in a few days. It uses no permanent magnets, no exotic materials, just copper wire and powdered hard magnetic steel or ferrite.
Butch
Sounds very interesting and creative as usual butch...can't wait to see what you've come up with.
Regards...
@Butch: Any luck with that PM-less design?
@everyone else: Anybody else still working on/designing this?
Quote from: Loner on November 07, 2010, 10:26:06 PM
What Happened? Or do I assume the "worst" and wait no more as it's
been "Buried"?
Anybody?
La Fonte group, Butch included, are on deserved vacations.
No wonder, anybody who contributed so many FE OU designs (at least 50-100 working concepts in just a few years), should be granted a "World sponsored pension" of some kind...
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 08, 2010, 06:51:09 AM
No wonder, anybody who contributed so many FE OU designs (at least 50-100 working concepts in just a few years), should be granted a "World sponsored pension" of some kind...
and where can one see a demonstration of these concepts in reality? i don't want to see all 50-100, just one would suffice... ::)