Alberto Molina-Martinez principle (The Rotating Magnetic Field)

[Vasile]

Hello everyone,

There is this concept that has been pressing me for years now and because I have found extremely low information on it, I have decided to share it with you. It is about the principle of the rotating magnetic field being produced by an induction motors stator for example, but instead of inducing a current in the rotor bars it induces a current in a specially designed coil that is wound on a core and positioned where the usual rotor is supposed to be. I have attached the patent of Alberto MOLINA-MARTINEZ, which describes in detail the principle. I have been trying to build it and the simple way to go around it would be to take a 3 Phase induction stator and build basically only the "rotor" part. In order to build that part, I need laser cutting services for silicon steel sheets (0.3 - 0.5 mm thick), which I cannot find in my area. At the moment I am stuck with this project, construction-wise. Until I get moving, I wanted to discuss one main aspect of this machine and that is:
*Is the rotating magnetic field generated by the stator, inducing current in the secondary part by flux linkage or flux cutting? If it is flux linkage the whole thing would be a transformer, an inefficient one because of the air gap between the parts and the low frequency (50Hz). If it is flux cutting, then it is a generator and in theory, it should be very efficient mainly because we are not moving mechanically a piece of magnetized metal near an electrical conductor. The only thing that moves is the flux. Also, in the case of flux cutting, the stator input should be independent of the "rotor's" output as in the case of a car alternator (I have one car alternator laying around and to energize the electromagnet it is required 12V at 5A, but the output, when the electromagnet is mechanically moved of course, can be as high as 12V at 36A, so there is no electrical input power vs electrical output power "equality"). I am judging that this car alternator analogy would be the same for the device we are discussing here, but once again, we should have an advantage because we are not moving the flux mechanically.
I want to hear your thoughts on this, if you have more details about the device, maybe you have built it, etc.

All the best,
Vasile

[SolarLab]

Hi Vasile,

Thanks for posting this Patent.

Some similar work is being pursued in the "Holcomb" related threads both here (OU) and on the
Overunity Research Forum (OUR). The concepts appear to be the same.

Some good information is also found in the "Serious HES derivative project proposal" thread here
on OU, as well.

There is a lot of active development work going on at the moment relating to nearly every aspect
of your post. In particular; Laser Cutting and Soft Magnetic Materials (SMC) [magnetic powders]
and a Computer Processor with MOSSFET drivers as these aspects are key to the design and
development.

I did a series of posts regarding a so called "LinGen" which includes Professional CAE Simulations
of a sweeping magnetic field in a stationary generator based from a Holcomb patent. Start here
and work backwards:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg103602#msg103602 

The Holcomb (HES) website (Commercial R&D) also contains a bit of technical information:
https://holcombenergysystems.com/technology-breakthrough/

Welcome to the subject - hope this helps a bit and Good Luck!

Regards,
SL

[onepower]

Vasile

Is the rotating magnetic field generated by the stator, inducing current in the secondary part by flux linkage or flux cutting? If it is flux linkage the whole thing would be a transformer, an inefficient one because of the air gap between the parts and the low frequency (50Hz). If it is flux cutting, then it is a generator and in theory, it should be very efficient mainly because we are not moving mechanically a piece of magnetized metal near an electrical conductor. The only thing that moves is the flux.

I always found the concept of flux linkage or flux cutting strange.

I can move a permanent magnet or energized solenoid towards an inductor or closed transformer and a voltage is induced. This supposedly represents flux cutting and/or linking. We can also use a transformer within a motor or generator like the Alexander dynamotor patent, http://rexresearch.com/alxandr/alexandr.htm. What happens when we are supposedly flux cutting an element which is also linking?.

I found through experiment that Faraday was correct and it does not matter how the magnetic field changes only that it does. There is no difference between flux linking or cutting when viewed from the perspective of the induced element and they look the same.

Think of it this way, if you were the induced coil you would see an approaching magnetic field like a wave front. It does not matter whether the magnetic field source is moving or the magnetic field is expanding. The magnetic field gradient or layers of changing field strength approaching look identical. This is why the person who discovered induction, Faraday claimed it does not matter how the field changes.

What has happened is that many have confused magnetic induction with electromagnetic induction when iron cores were introduced. For example, do a search on "magnetic induction" and we get millions of hits on electromagnetic induction not magnetic induction, hence the confusion. Now do a search on "induced magnetism" or "Ferromagnetism" and we can begin to see where perceptual mistakes have been made.

For example, we use an inductor to induce a separate iron core with no windings which is moving. The inductor is considered electromagnetic or moving charges(electro) producing a magnetic field(magnetic). However one magnetized iron core inducting another iron core is considered as induced magnetism/Ferromagnetism not so much electromagnetic.

This is what happens when many start lumping together and averaging things and ignoring all the finer details. We cannot rely on mainstream science or the internet in this respect. I really like Faraday and Ampere's original work because they were as common sense as it gets. As if to say, this is exactly what we did and this is what we saw and measured. Anything else anyone what's to infer has no application and is conjecture.

Thus it's no so much a matter of discovering anything more so understanding where some have replaced certain facts with opinions.

AC

[kolbacict]

I carried out measurement EMF which is released in permalloy ring and then rotor of usual motor.
The source of the rotating magnetic field was not a three-phase current stator, but a true rotating permanent magnet from an industrial magnetic coupling. This barrel magnet from a magnetic coupling has four H poles and four C poles along its inner circumference. At least no one will say that this rotating field is not real. In the ring, the EMF developed several times less than in the three-rod rotor. Why ?

[Vasile]

I found through experiment that Faraday was correct and it does not matter how the magnetic field changes only that it does. There is no difference between flux linking or cutting when viewed from the perspective of the induced element and they look the same.

First of all, thank you all for engaging in this discussion with me.

OnePower, I agree 100 % with all that you say, but I have something to add. We still need to identify why is there a difference between the so-called flux linking and the so-called flux cutting. I like simple things, so, following simple logic, if we look closely, the only difference between them is that in a transformer, the inducer's (the primary coil's) magnetic field moves relative to the primary coil and the secondary coil, whereas in the case of a generator (let's take the example of a slip ring car alternator) the inducer's (the rotor electromagnet's) magnetic field moves relative ONLY to the secondary coil (the stator coil) and NOT relative to itself. That is the only fundamental difference I see.