Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[SolarLab]

Hi, SolarLab!
I do not argue that the magnetic flux, even in dynamics, will be modeled very close to reality. I meant the simulation of an electric circuit and a magnetic circuit together in dynamics.
I encountered strong discrepancies between software calculation, engineering calculation systems (on paper) and reality.
Holcomb, I think it was not in vain that he complained about solving problems with reactance, when controlling the operation of magnets. I also encountered this.
Sincerely.

Hi Rakarskiy,

These "discrepancies" stem from the difference between Analytics (math formulas) and Numerics (CAE computer methods).

When professional CAE analyzes a 2D or 3D device (circuit) the CAD (Computer Aided Design) model is broken down into a huge
number of "Tetrahedra" - a.k.a. a "Mesh." A finer mesh (larger number of tetrahedra) gives a more accurate analysis but also takes
a longer time to compute.

This "mesh" engulfs the entire model, including the surrounding air or vacuum, with each type of element (air, copper, metal, etc.)
seperated by a "boundry" which accounts for the "boundry conditions" (e.g. air-copper interface and so forth). When the model's
"mesh" is solved using Maxwell's Equations (usually a matrix) all of the models characteristics, including shapes, materials and
proximities, ensure an accurate solution. 

Analytic (mathematical formulas) calculations would be near impossible to do accurately for even a modest complex device. 

For example, a distributed planar microwave layout can be analytically calculated pretty accurately but even a relatively simple
lumped element circuit (inductor, capacitor and circuit traces) can have widely varying results when done analytically. Numeric CAE
analysis of the same circuit can achieve a near exact solution (depending on mesh size) with respect to measured data.

This applies equally well to Electric and Magnetic fields in air or vacuum. 

It's rare that I have ever seen more than a 5% (usually <1%) discrepency between CAE and Measured results. Of course the model
has to be correct and the analysis set up properly with a fine mesh and small time steps!

As a bonus, for us at least, is Maxwell's Equations do not care whether the model is over unity (agnostic to conservation of energy)
- these simply give you the solved results with a variety of convient visuals, animations , graphs, charts and numbers. It's also quite
easy to vary any number of circuit parameters and observe what happens or to optimize the design. 

Non-linear characteristics of things such as the SMC ferromagnetic material's B-H Curve can also be taken into account insitu.

This is extremely important (critical) when developing an Excess Energy device.

SL 

[rakarskiy]

Dear  SolarLab!

I know what multi-way analytical calculations are, besides, at one time I was a developer of complex economic systems, where data collection was formed according to specified criteria.
I also do engineering calculations. My practice has always been based on repeatability and prediction. I adopted various calculation methods, while my methodology significantly reduced the material investment as for design.

If I say something, I know for sure. The magnetic circuit, you can very accurately calculate in dynamics, but this does not mean that you can quite accurately calculate the dimensionality of the EMF.
I will surprise you, but the EMF guidance system in the wire is very different from the one that is taught based on formula (1) [E=BLV] and the one that works in a generator and a transformer with a core, the so-called engineering transformer formula (2) [E=4.44kФNf].
I already know exactly how the static system of a transformer and a mechanical generator differ. Why Dr. Holcomb went by simulating the mechanical rotation of the magnetic poles in saturation in the stator core. The problem is solved more simply in a mechanical generator. A little more complicated with the switchable magnet system. And it's very difficult in the static system that I'm working on. By the way, I found a mistake in my modeling and got closer to a larger reality. It remains for me to check the controller system. It is definitely clear that there are two magnetic fields. There is a field in the core which is already independent. In a mechanical generator, it is enough to excite it to the maximum, taking into account the excitation source and phase current, and mechanically rotate it. In the system which I am working on, turning the flow through zero is not such an easy task as it turned out, and the first data simply baffled me.

The simple frame generator that I have discussed in this material ( https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/p/ampere-force.html ) is fully consistent with general educational theory. The only thing I specified was the AMPER POWER, and confirmed that part of the electric field of the primary EMF turns into CURRENT POWER, and as a result, into the Vortex magnetic field around the conductor.
What is the difference between a slotted stator generator and a transformer? I will answer with the amplitude of the hysteresis of the magnetic field in the zone of the phase wire.

PS
Perhaps I can now describe the work of Holcomb's pocket electromagnetic generator, in any case, on my discovery of the principle, this emerges into a general methodology. It remains for me to confirm or deny this.

[bistander]

...
The simple frame generator that I have discussed in this material ( https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/p/ampere-force.html ) is fully consistent with general educational theory. The only thing I specified was the AMPER POWER, and confirmed that part of the electric field of the primary EMF turns into CURRENT POWER, and as a result, into the Vortex magnetic field around the conductor.
What is the difference between a slotted stator generator and a transformer? I will answer with the amplitude of the hysteresis of the magnetic field in the zone of the phase wire.
...

Hi rakarskiy,
Looking at Mitch's generator, you (or he) measures 10.4 Volts output and 1.3 Amperes load current for 13.5 Watts using a 3 Ohm load resistor. Appears inconsistent with Ohm's Law, doesn't it?
bi

[rakarskiy]

I don't think Mitch got the measurements wrong. But all calculations with Ohm's law are consistent more than ever exactly.
He did not change the output voltage at idle, in any case, he did not provide me with such data.
Everything else agrees very well with applied formulas and concepts.
By the way, the concept of full power is of interest only to electricity sellers, in order to eliminate their losses in measurements in the circuit section.

https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/2022/06/static-electromagnetic-transducer.html

[bistander]

I don't think Mitch got the measurements wrong. But all calculations with Ohm's law are consistent more than ever exactly.
He did not change the output voltage at idle, in any case, he did not provide me with such data.
Everything else agrees very well with applied formulas and concepts.
By the way, the concept of full power is of interest only to electricity sellers, in order to eliminate their losses in measurements in the circuit section.

https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/2022/06/static-electromagnetic-transducer.html

Hi rakarskiy,
The diagram indicates 1.3 Amperes for load current. Load is 3 Ohms. Ohm's Law: 1.3A * 3 Ohms = 3.9V drop across load, but I0.4V is shown as the voltmeter reading and used in your power formula. Using 1.3A * 3.9V = 5.07W, or VA, depending on pf.
bi