Electromagnet Question

[Xaverius]

@ Xaverius.

Excellent.  That fills in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge. 

Very kind and generous of you to spell it all out.  I realy appreciate it.

Thanks again,

M.

Sure, glad to help out.

X

[gyulasun]

@mscoffman  Wow, great answer!  A lot for me to digest in that.  I look forward to your future posts.

@Gyula  I don't believe there is a need for the attraction.  I believe it could possibly help to an extent, but also the perminant and electromagnet will never actually come into contact.

The idea here is to use pulsed electromagnets as the stators in the patent design.  If the electromagnet stators can be pulsed and fire the mass switch magnets instead of perminant magnet stators there would be no approach wall that creates a negative torque.  If the BEMF can be captured when the electromagnet is turned off (ala Bendini) then the only power needed to fire the mass switch (minus losses) is that of energizing the electromagnetic field.

I am trying to understand if the mass switch perminant magnet will fire to it's maximum height due to the energy of the electromagnet current AND the perminant magnet's force.  If the resulting PE of the raised magnet is equal or less than the energy used to energize the electromagnet this is also a loss.  If the PE is greater (due to the perminant magnet field) then we have captured that energy.

Thanks again for the great input.

M.

Hi M..

Thanks for the answer. The reason I asked is that there is known "trick"  or idea to defeat the attraction between the core and the permanent magnet so that you can even get a benefit of not using extra input power to defeat it.
About 2 years ago I mentioned this idea here, see:  http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1621.msg16347.html#msg16347  and the link to that old patent is here, the old link mentioned there now needs log-in, this one is not: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat3670189.pdf
(explanation in Page 12, Column 2,  from line 31 and onwards)

With some tinkering of the size of the air gap between the bottom part of the electromagnet's core and a permanent magnet placed under the core and maybe using a slightly stronger permanent magnet there than the permanent magnet to be lifted above the electromagnet, you could reduce or totally eliminate the natural attraction between the core and the upper magnet and increase the 'tossing hight'  further upwards, with the same current into the coil.
The patent is rather long and needs patience to go through but may be worth studying from other aspests too, with respect to your gravity motor.

I agree, the energy in the flyback pulse (I prefer calling it flyback pulse instead of back emf) can also be regained when the electromagnet is switched off  (ala Bedini or by others) so this is another possibility to reduce input power.

rgds,  Gyula

EDIT: here is a test I made on this idea then: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1621.msg16889.html#msg16889

[fritz]

From my point of understanding:

Just use an idealized model:

Driving the (superconducting) electromagnet with a current source -
you invest certain energy to establish the magnetic field.
If you do that in the presence of a permanent magnet you need more -
or less ( depends n-s configuration) energy to establish this field.
You get the same energy back if the field collapses (back emf).

As long as you dont change the mechanical issues (move coil, magnet)
there is no extra energy needed to maintain that field. ( in principal you can
(have to)
short-circuit the energized superconducting coil now - means the current
goes on forever)

This means: it totally depends on the losses from copper (current),
and iron (flux) - how much energy you need. (after the field is established)
(in realworld)

If you move permanent (repelling) magnet away from the superconducting
electromagnet - (does some physical work) - you extract energy out of the
electro magnet(field) - the current goes down, the collapsing field has less energy
to offer.
If you energize the electromagnet - and move the permanent magnet repelling
near the em - you strengthen the energy in the field, the current goes up - and
the work you performed on moving the p.m. close to the e.m. adds to the flux
and can be found as extra energy in the collapsing field of the e.m. on "turning
off".

Thats at least how it "should" work.

As long as you use idealized models - everything is quite simple.

In real world - the energies involved are dominated by losses in copper and
iron. The work to establish the field or the back-emf happens "on the way".

BTW: good question

[fritz]

if you take the formula n(windings) x phi (flux) = L(ind) x I (current) -
a changed flux results in different current (if the permanent
magnet would?t effect the inductivity of the e.m.)
In real world there would be 2 extrem scenarios -
1.) The p.m. increases the ind. in a way where the current is
the same or lower
2.) The p.m. doesn?t effect the ind. at all  and the curren goes up

In an attracting situation, the current x ind. product will go down,
repelling situation: product will go up.

pls. feel free to correct me - but this should make sense.

[gyulasun]

if you take the formula n(windings) x phi (flux) = L(ind) x I (current) -
a changed flux results in different current (if the permanent
magnet would?t effect the inductivity of the e.m.)
In real world there would be 2 extrem scenarios -
1.) The p.m. increases the ind. in a way where the current is
the same or lower
2.) The p.m. doesn?t effect the ind. at all  and the curren goes up

In an attracting situation, the current x ind. product will go down,
repelling situation: product will go up.

pls. feel free to correct me - but this should make sense.

Hi Fritz,

When I recall my earlier tinkerings with permanent magnets' effect on air and ferrit core coils' inductances, I can say the followings: 

There is no or only negligible effect of a pm magnet placed near or inside of a air core coil's  inductance (this is simply because the permeability of any permanent magnet is pretty near to 1, max up to 1.2 for ceramic magnets.

In case of ferrite or laminated core coils (any cores with ferromagnetic properties) the effect of a permanent magnet on such coils' inductance is the same as if you apply a DC bias current through the coil: it shifts the operation point on the core's B-H curve towards the higher or lower B value (depending on the direction of the DC current or in case of pm magnet it depends on which pole you place closer to one of the ends of the core and how strong the magnet is), hence the coil's inductance changes accordingly. The limits in both cases are core saturation.

IF these can be of any help for your above thoughts, then please ponder further on with these data.

rgds,  Gyula