THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*

[aether22]

Yes, to be honest.
I just don't see what you're getting so terribly excited about...

Now it may be that I just fail to see what is so spectacular about the laminated cores and
lengthwise split cores and all that stuff you babbled about

What is so spectacular is that while they are highly effective at suppressing eddy currents in closed magnetic circuits, they are extremely ineffective at suppressing eddy currents in open magnetic circuits.
And if you have eddy currents, well it's like having a shorted coil, it's not good for efficiency.

Therefore since most FE devices use open magnetic circuits and since OU hopes to be not just highly efficient but over unity it would be a poor idea to have a huge source of waste.

, and that in the area that
concerns itself with such things this may be some type of great insight,
but I just don't see what you're so hyped over.

Well it applies to probably the majority of Free Energy devices, is that not significant on a forum about overunity?

Perhaps if you try to state clearly, calmly, one step at a time, what exactly is so funky
about Eddies in relation to the cores, and why that gets your panties in a bunch?

Ugh, if you do not know the first thing about the electricity or magnetism and do not 'concern yourself' with magnetic free energy devices why are you here, why are you asking?
Anyway what is so important is that it is like adding an extra coil to every Free Energy device, one that is shorted and wasting power to a huge extent.

IMO the realization that the majority of the FE effort could be improved by using more suited cores, that's important, but I am increasingly feeling only I feel that way.

[Koen1]

What is so spectacular is that while they are highly effective at suppressing eddy currents in closed magnetic circuits, they are extremely ineffective at suppressing eddy currents in open magnetic circuits.
And if you have eddy currents, well it's like having a shorted coil, it's not good for efficiency.

Therefore since most FE devices use open magnetic circuits and since OU hopes to be not just highly efficient but over unity it would be a poor idea to have a huge source of waste.

Ah. Now I see what you think is so huge about it.
Indeed, if you assume that an OU device needs to be as efficient as possible in its non-OU operation or non-OU part of the cycle,
then it seems you have a good point. If the OU device on the other hand relies on interaction with the environment and is supposed
to get its excess energy from that, then it seems an open magnetic circuit may be desired in certain designs, in which case
you still may have a point that using laminated coils to minimise eddies is apparently useless. But what if these Eddies
somehow contribute to the devices operation? I'm just speculating here, but some coupling between Eddies and the Heaviside component
might be possible, perhaps?

Ugh, if you do not know the first thing about the electricity or magnetism and do not 'concern yourself' with magnetic free energy devices why are you here, why are you asking?
Anyway what is so important is that it is like adding an extra coil to every Free Energy device, one that is shorted and wasting power to a huge extent.

Calm down, I am asking simply because your post was not at all as clear as this one is.
Do not jump to conclusions. I never said I do not "concern myself with" magnetic FE devices, and your remark that I do not know
about electricity and magnetism is false as well. I merely said I am not a specialist in core lamination and its effects on eddies,
and that without additional clarification from your end I did not understand the extreme excitement in your post.
And again, yes, if you get unwanted eddies they would be a waste of energy, but like I said some designs may need the open flux path,
and some might even use the eddies. But in designs where core lamination is intended to minimise eddies, it seems you are right.

IMO the realization that the majority of the FE effort could be improved by using more suited cores, that's important, but I am increasingly feeling only I feel that way.

Well perhaps if you would more clearly state your concern and attempt to start a discussion about it, that might change?
What, for example, do you consider to be "more suited cores"?
And which FE devices do you have in mind? It sounds like you have some specific designs in mind,
but there are tons of designs, so which are you talking about? The MEG? The Bedini motors? The Adams motors? The Newman motors?

[aether22]

If induction is wanted it is amost waways better carried out in a coil, it is very unlikely that eddy currents would be desired.

Also please realize that it will be placing a huge drain on the device severely limiting useful output.

I am not saying open flux paths are bad, just that different methods should be used to stop eddy currents.

I gave the designs that will work in earlier messages, mainly insulated steel coiled, insulated particles (iron power/black sand? ferrite).

And as for devices, well Thane's generator, Adams motor, Bedini motors, Mullers generators etc.....

I thought everything I have said was laid out in my first few posts, but it is good to have at least one other person understand what I am saying and at least partially appreciate that almost every OU pulse motor and generator built has a huge flaw possibly standing in it's way from being OU.

[PulsedPower]

@Janus1  I do not see the problem with 3% of the current in the primary winding being used to produce magnetic flux, 0% would be even better. Core flux is a useless by product of producing changing flux that is why transformer designers try to minimize it. This current is usually known as magnitizing current, it is a total waste as it produces heating in the primary winding and reduces the power factor of the transformer while producing no secondary voltage.  Look at air cored inductors and see how much cooling they need to achieve flux denisties comparable to ferrmagnetic cores, they are wound in copper tube with water flowing though the centre.

Your diagram shows an aluminium spacer inserted across the core for the purposes of reducing the effective permeability of the core, I have never seen conductive material used for this purpose, it would have severe eddy current heating being perpendicular to the changing flux.

Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

What a crock, physicists have been challenging the laws of physics ever since there were laws of physics, the amount of effort which goes into designing and building experiments to test the laws of physics is enormous, Things like Gravity probe B were put up to test for predicted effects of Einstiens theory of general relativity, CERN and FermiLab exist to test the Laws of physics. Whenever one of these experiments comes up with unexpected results there is a flurry of activity to reproduce the results then explain it both by adapting existing theories or creating new theories.  Often the so called questions are based on a poor understanding of the relevant laws of physics the other thing is the language of physics is mathematics and an understanding of that would eliminate many of the questions.