The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[lumen]

Luc:

Try putting the keepers tight on the core to see if you can keep the entire flux loop in the core and test the load and output.
The output should be near zero since no flux is moving to the C core and the load should drop to about the same no device load of 120W.

I noticed in the static hand rotation that the C core does not attract to the gap. The core should attract into the gap with about the same force as when on the separate core ends.
It should increase the output but probably won't make it more efficient.

The flux retention in the C core may be the entire load and the coil prevents some flux from entering the core when under load. So in a sense the concept is working.
The Lenz in the coil pushes back on the field loop as it tries to exit the coil and lowers the flux in the C section and with less flux the changing flux is less and the loss is less.

So in the end, the best path may be to use the same concept but move less iron and possibly increase the time in the neutral zone between coil cores.
It may require some major changes but wait until your convinced of the issue and solution.

[l0stf0x]

Hi guys,

My experiments with syairchairun setup showed low output no mater what you do, which is actually right!!. If you do the math or the experiments, you will see that the output will be at 5-15% of what you expecting. And its perfectly logical.

I think Syairchairun give us wrong diagrams. Well I am 100% sure now..  Because I think I got it 

After days and days of thinking and reading and experimenting, as most of you guys do here, just yesterday night I came up with a new idea..

At my first experiments of this new idea I notice: 1)Great power output!, 2) no braking effect with shorted coil! 3)easy to rotate.

It will be at a new thread. I am building a prototipe... I ll be back

[Jimboot]

Hi guys,

My experiments with syairchairun setup showed low output no mater what you do, which is actually right!!. If you do the math or the experiments, you will see that the output will be at 5-15% of what you expecting. And its perfectly logical.

I think Syairchairun give us wrong diagrams. Well I am 100% sure now..  Because I think I got it 

After days and days of thinking and reading and experimenting, as most of you guys do here, just yesterday night I came up with a new idea..

At my first experiments of this new idea I notice: 1)Great power output!, 2) no braking effect with shorted coil! 3)easy to rotate.

It will be at a new thread. I am building a prototipe... I ll be back

Looking forward to your update

[MileHigh]

120w just turning the C core with I core away
140W with I cores in position and coil not on load
135W with coil on 1 Ohm load and delivering 5W to load.

So there's 10W which is not accounted for and it's hard for me to believe that so much power is being wasted in such small cores as Eddy currents and heat losses.

Did you also factor in the losses in the coil itself when you say 5 watts going to the load?

Can you explain how you get 10 watts not accounted for?

[gotoluc]

Luc:

Try putting the keepers tight on the core to see if you can keep the entire flux loop in the core and test the load and output.
The output should be near zero since no flux is moving to the C core and the load should drop to about the same no device load of 120W.

Yes lumen, when I add the keepers the output is next to nothing. Could this mode be used to calculate core losses?

I noticed in the static hand rotation that the C core does not attract to the gap. The core should attract into the gap with about the same force as when on the separate core ends.

Now that's interesting!... the only way the C core could stick between the magnet gap between the I cores is if the C core was thinner. I asked you that question at the beginning of the build. Anyways, it's not too late I can make it thinner. Now it overlaps a little on each I core and I guess that's why it doesn't lock in between. Let me know if you understand.

The flux retention in the C core may be the entire load and the coil prevents some flux from entering the core when under load. So in a sense the concept is working.

What if the coil was on the C core? what would be the difference?

The Lenz in the coil pushes back on the field loop as it tries to exit the coil and lowers the flux in the C section and with less flux the changing flux is less and the loss is less.

Interesting!

So in the end, the best path may be to use the same concept but move less iron and possibly increase the time in the neutral zone between coil cores.

Maybe it would be better to increase the distance between I cores.?... if I add another magnet it would double the gap. Do you think that would be too much?... see pic of present gap and C core width.

Thanks

Luc