Electromagnetic device to create the energy

[activ25]

I think the device is easier like the image shows. It is like the mechanical device I think.

I think I need only one generator G1 for C1 because the inductance is proportional to the aire and the aire is link with the radius at square exactly like the mechanical device, the energy of the mass is mr²*w.
I don't think for now there is necessary to rotate around 'z' C2 or even the part of C1 around C2. But maybe.

I don't move C2 so maybe G1 gives the power but C2 gives a power to G2. The efficiency of the mechanical device changes with the method, I think it is the same here.

[activ25]

Be careful, in the mechanics device the energy created is small in comparaison of the potential energy in kinetics rotation: maybe 1% maybe more it depends of the geometry, so the losses in mechanics are always greater than 1%, it not possible to measure outside a lab under low pressure and especially because there is gravity the friction on the rolling element can't be ignored. Here, it is the same, but I think the energy in C1 is only reactive, just take care of the resistance of C1, the magnetisation of the air is reactive. The energy created is small, so don't use high frequency, nor high current, nor high voltage, nor core even ferrite give non linear shape so it is transformed in high frequency in Fourier decomposition and the oscilloscope/multimeter won't measure well, even the values would say the energy is created, it is not possible to conclude, use low frequency, so the voltage from electric utility is the better if you have a good transformer, don't recover any power from the device more than it can create (I mean the device I  think it can create the energy) like that the transformer works at low power and it is better for the linearity inside the magnetic of the transformer.  I think the pure sinus from a converter DC->AC is not pure and will give high frequency harmonics or unless you use a filter, but the filter can change the reactive power in the device it depends of the current absorbed by the device. Like that the measure even small is detectable and the bandwidth of the oscilloscope can't be in default. If the energy created is small but all the device is linear, it is easy to calculate it after to verify. Trace the energy created in function of the frequency, add the decomposition in Fourier to see the shape of the frequencies. Be careful where you pose your device: not under metallic, far away from metallic source, even the DMM, it will change the result. The oscilloscope or a frequency analyser must be used to verified the bandwidth of the frequencies of the input and out signal, after it is possible to use a multimeter with a good precision, 1% maximum. Take care of frequency input, to prevent radio losses, a low frequency is required, in the contrary a lot of energy is lost (it is not a lost but you can't measure the power of the radio signal so it is a lost in the measure and if the energy created is small, it could be lower than the RF power because it is essentially C1 that gives the power). To prove the device works, it is necessary to create the energy. And to prove it, it is necessary to have an energy created more than 3 times higher than the sum of all the precisions: basic error, temperature, aging electronic. Make differents measures with different input can eliminate some problem of measure but not all.

Note: I think the G2 must be replace by a resistor (recover an energy by heating) because if I compare with the mechanical device, I don't move C2 and in this case if I use a generator I destroy the energy. So, it more easy to verify. R must be small, maybe put the coil C2 in short circuit, just to try the value of the current. The wire to measure the power from R or G2 must be fixed on the device, like that the measure is not changed by the path of the wire of measurement.

After, it is important to test again with a Faraday cage around the device, like that, it is not possible to recover an energy from the outside (radio, wifi, 4g, etc). The cage don't be to close to the device at least half meter around.

I drew only a wire for C1 or C2 but it could be severals wires, 1000 or more. It is better for the measure of the power. Maybe it is possible to test with an iron core but with a good core: composed of thin layer of pure iron and separated by a thin layer of isolation. A good material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal

If you understood  the mechanical device, the energy recovered when the spring push exist only a transcient time ! so here, it is the same, but I think I don't need any interrupteur because the current is positive and negative the half period after. So, it is a good thing to use an alternative current. It is not possible to do that with the mechanical device: imagine to change the direction of rotation. It is great because an interrupteur will give problems with signal and G1 would need to recover an energy, the signals would be with high harmonics, and I don't want to test.

That device is a transformer.

The violet triangle C2 must receives a flux from C1 to give a power, if you look the VIEW1, the violet triangle has no flux from the area of the red triangle if it is build with that goal. With my analogy with the mechanical device, the bolt don't turn around itself, so the sum of flux inside the red triangle in the direction oz 'z' can be at 0 (the flux from C1 not C2), for that I need to adjust with the outer red wire of coil: maybe I don't need the 2 last external wires of C2. I think it works with the flux at 0 or not but the efficiency is affected. But in the VIEW1, in the direction of 'z' it is possible to see not all the sum of flux from C1 to C2 is not 0, because the orientation are like I drew.

When I cut the interruptor T, the potential energy stored in C2 will go to C1, so the electronic circuit is easy to build. The circuit C1 must recover that energy, not so easy with a generator. So, I think the best is to build a core (not for C1) between C2 and another coil C3, that coil C3 will recover the energy from C2. I will think about that.

But maybe I don't need T, because the inductance change the sign of its voltage when the current is reducing ! so it is like I change the type of the spring, when the device is accelerating it is a push spring and when it is decelerating it is a pull string. If it is really like that, it is better, no electronics is needed and the signal will be without any harmonics.

[activ25]

It is not because the inductance changes its sign of voltage. It is like the mechanical device rotates in the contrary direction. I will study that case in mechanics but like that, I would say I need to take in account the rotation of the bolt around itself. I done the calculations in mechanics for a small angle of rotation and until the bolt rotates around itself. It is enough to prove the energy is not conserved. But here, I need more to have a difference of power in the circuit not only for one half period because it is difficult to measure: the coil have a lot of energy inside them and it will be necessary to use an integrator, I'm not the measures could be good enough to notice something.

So, When the bolt reached the angular velocity around itself equal to the angular velocity of the bolt around A1, then I reverse the torque because my generator reverses the voltage. In that case, I need to change the type of the spring (if the spring pull it must pull, and if it pull it must push). My spring store potential energy, for my circuit, I the energy is converted in heating (or to an electric power if it is needed) and the resistance doesn't care about the direction of the current, that point is good. But there is the direction of the forces from the springs. For the mechanical device I study there is a movement of the spring to keep the angles constant, just because I would like simplify the calculations. Here, it seems it is not necessary, the geometry keeps constant the angles. But there is the forces of the springs... so if I use only the force that will give the torque around A1, I think I need to change the direction of the voltage on C1 but for that I need to change the direction of the flux, so the direction of the current ... so maybe I need a function like a motor, I'm not sure.

I found without a motor: I use 3 others open coils around C2, I use transistors to open cut what I want, like that the flux is reversed.

I think I would like to built the device without any core but it is not possible for the flux. I gave the image with the cores previously. Finally, open C2 and gives the energy to the core is better. A coil on the core can recover the energy. But I need the resistance on C2 to have a current.

I need an electronic circuit to open C2. The energy recover from the optional core C4 (blue color) can be adjust with a variable resistance to equilibrate the input energy.

To do the continuous mouvement for the mechanical device: I breaked the bolt in rotation around itself from the disk (A1), so here, I think I can do the same: I cut C1 and I recover the energy from C2 or C3. But I need an electronic circuit. I gave the on/off of the transistors T1 and T2. It is not a big difficulty because the power from C2 will go to another coil so the voltage is not high. But the signals will be altered... for the measure it is not good but for the real device a core is better, I hope the energy is not so small.

[activ25]

There are a lot of solutions... the transformer is the better to have an electric power. The shape is not unique.

Like any transformer, that device can use any conductor, copper, aluminium, etc. and any magnetic core, iron, ferrite, etc. The geometry is the only key. But anyway, if the efficiency is not good, it is only the power-to-mass and the power-to-volume that can be affected by that problem, or maybe the problem from the colling.

That transformer is like any other transformer in terms of construction: prevent losses from copper, from magnetic core, current of Foucault, laminated the core, isolated the sheet of metal. What else ? maybe the electronics if it is needed for control the coil C4.

The core is not so easy to build than that.

People know where to buy sheet of metal for transformer ? in Alibaba it is only for 3 tons...

I drew circles for the shape of C1, but it is possible to use any other shape, square, triangles, etc. the coil of C1 must have a part where the flux is cancelled by itself (area where small radius R2). So, a lot of shapes can be used.

[activ25]

In the mechanical device the energy created in comparaison with the potential energy in the kinetic rotation. But, in the electromagnetic device the potential energy is reactive. So the energy created is not small compared to the potential energy stored in the device. Two standards cores for transformers and standard copper is enough to prove that the device creates the energy. The most important is a good geometry and maybe the control of the signal. Maybe because I'm not sure the transformer changes the signs correctly alone. I think G2 changes it sign like C2 so C4 must receive the good sign. I will test my geometry. The geometry, so the efficiency is not so important than that, it is just the power-to-mass and the power-to-volume. A geometry that allow a high frequency is important too. So, for that the material of the magnetic core is very important. A big inductance so a big relative reluctance is needed. And a high frequency so a small amough of losses from the core, even without a core it could work.

So, I remember something I read here about a guy who verify with a University a device, and even the device didn't create the energy, the University said the magnetic core was used like there is no magnetic field inside. Someone knows ?


Even a metglas is good : https://www.hitachimetals.com/materials-products/amorphous-nanocrystalline/documents/magamp_opt.pdf

80 W of losses by kilogram at 300 kHz