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

[aether22]

I have made and attached another image to illustrate it. (annoyingly I seem limited to 50KB sized attachments and that is making the image really ugly, tried jpg2000 (.jp2) and it looked great for the same size but was not allowed)

Anyway here is what it is about.

First I have not 'found the answer to' anything, rather I have found that eddy currents, the enemy of efficient electromagnetic devices are not stopped almost at all by the same methods that work for closed magnetic systems when applied to open magnetic systems.

A closed system means a flux path enclosed by iron, steel or other ferrous material and because flux does not (with a decent design) spill out into the air much then systems such as laminations or bundles or wires/rods work just fine.

But in an open magnetic system there is not a complete steel path back to the opposite magnetic pole and flux will actuallya exit the steel rather than all conduct to the end of it, and as the magnetic field weakens so does the inductive field which means that strongly induced voltages short through weakly induced voltages and this makes every method ever devised of dividing a core (expect for iron powder) useless on open math magnetic devices! (not counting the method I personally devised in the 1st post)

This means that MOST EVERY MAGNETIC SYSTEM DESIGNED TO BE OU HAS A HUGE LOSS THAT CAN BE FIXED BY BETTER CORE SELECTION!

The only ones not effected are air core, high frequency (where nonconductive core materials are used such as ferrites), those with some unusual cores (choosing high frequency cores for low freq work, making orgonite or black sand cores) or closed loops, and very few are closed loop!

It is also possible that in a strange way maybe cores induced by eddy currents are a key to the success of some OU devices, but it's a huge waste of energy unless things are working backwards (as with Thanes or Hoptoad's devices).

This needs to be verified/acknowledged and spread around the OU community!

note: An Eddy Current is an unintentional induction of electrical current in a magnetic core or other nearby metal not including coils although it is the same as induction in a coil except for being intended and useful

[Groundloop]

@aether22,

One way to avoid eddy currents is by using air core coils. One need thicker wire and more turns to compensate for the weaker magnetic field, though.

Another idea is to use insulated soft Iron wire and make a Iron core coil. Then one wind normal magnet wire on the outside of the Iron coil. That way the
eddy currents is kept in the Iron coil and can be used in your circuit and not wasted as heat. (New idea, have not tried it yet.)

Groundloop.

[armagdn03]

Whoa!

Ok, THIS IS BIG!

It needs it's own thread! it's freaking HUGE.

I just woke up and still had eddy currents on my mind and I realized that for open path magnetic systems EVERY SINGLE METHOD EVERY USED TO DIVIDE THE CORE IS USELESS OR NEARLY SO! (there are few conventional devices that have open magnetic paths)

The ONLY way to do it is to have a cut ring, or a coil with or without breaks in it. (but obviously not shorted and must be insulated as it is more vulnerable than normal laminates)

This impacts every Adams motor ever made, EVER, this impacts Thanes generator, this impacts the majority of OU electromagnetic designs.

This has either been hurting the efficiency of, or possibly even a hidden ingredient of every open circuit electromagnetic device.

Let me explain, with open paths the flux leaks out so the further you get away from the source the field is less strong and so is the induction from it if time varying.
And so currents induced in strongly induced locations will short through currents in poorly induced locations.

Now that piece I have already said, the amazing thing is that if you think about it, it matters not one iota if you cut the core up length wise, think about it, current will still flow just fine. (yes, it would be odd looking but it will still flow pretty much the same, the fact that the currents must pass each other in a long thin wire means nothing!)

If anyone 'get's it' and wants to make pictures to help others understand go ahead, I really need to get building.

Update: ok, made a pic.

reply to M@rcel: would rather not get any more off topic, but one difference is that the force between the 2 wires is on the matter (the protons) where the other is on the moving electrons. not sure how that makes a difference and I have not really looked into the skin effect much although it is strongly effected by frequency.

* - in open magnetic paths' (topic title too small to fit the whole sentance)

There is indeed a difference when cores are split, the space in between causes an increase in reluctance (which is the ohmic equivalently for magnetic  circuits) This is why on transformers such as Flybacks in tv's they have a core physically split into two pieces with small spacer in between to create a gap, increased reluctance also increases the amount of energy that can be stored in the field, thus bigger voltage spikes off of the secondary.

[mscoffman]

Hi;

Overunity system use totally open magnetic circuits allright, but this in general is due to their experimental
nature and poor design. Open core systems for compact power systems can not be allowed, except for systems
that intentionally intend to intercommunicate. Totally open core systems can induce power transients into other
systems, bypassing line circuit fusing protection standards. They can write magnetic poles into metal cabinets
metal structures of building and can induce transients in metallic wire communications circuits. So those
plastic encased experimental motors you see can never be actually be built into products. You need to
ask the experimenters why they have open magnetic circuits if they don't intend to communicate, or
intend to steal power from utility averaging circuits. And if they say they have ready to go products their
claims can be readily discounted. Power systems need to live in the racks with other equipment and
need to play by the rules...We don't have a king of the hill approach to power systems and don't want it.
So if someone has ideas that open magnetics systems in products are the only way to go they need to
think again.

Open cores I'm are OK for really low cost experimental systems but those systems will need to be redesigned
before becoming products. Formal experimental demonstrations of new systems should not have them either
because the become confusing sneak paths for energy input, think of magnetic motors. Something snake-oil
sales types seem to find these desirable apparently.

MarkSCoffman

[aether22]

If anyone is having a hard time understanding this here is another way of looking at it.

Look at illustration 1, imagine that the coil pictured is producing a north pole up.
Now see that before the flux gets to the other end mach will leave from the sides.
And if we now replace the lamination with a coil of the same shape (or cut the center of the lamination out and now call it a one turn shorted coil) we see that as the flux stength varies so does the level of flux threading our shorted coil and unless the laws of induction are on a break a voltage will be induced, and the critical part will not face cancellation from and other currents.
But in a closed path all the flux leaves through the 2 ends and none of it leaves out the side to induce our laminate coil.