Electromagnet power transfer question.

[nwman]

@TinelKoala

Thanks for the input. In regard to your comment about materials and geometry, and without compromising the basic arrangement, is there a way to greatly optimize this ?relative? transformer? Also given that the air gaps would be razor thin (they may not be needed). I?m just hoping for something that would have less then 20% loss given professional construction.

In regard to the BEMF or ?flyback? how, if at all, would this hinder the transfer of power through this configuration? Would simply having something drawing power out of the C,D coils remove the BEMF? I?m still fairly green to this concept.

Also, is the graphic config2.gif what you mean about ?hook the coils in series??

@Gyulasun

Thank you as well! I agree with how you described the flux pattern to operate in this configuration. I mentioned before that I?m new to the bemf idea so I?m not sure how it would effect this configuration if it would have no positive or negative effect? I?m just trying to get an idea of how this would affect the transfer of a DC current through it and if it would transfer it into an AC current and the amount of loss in the process roughly?


@All

Let me ask another question with a slightly different simpler approach. Take Config3.gif. Let?s say I pulse this electromagnet A with a DC current without changing the poles. By simply wrapping coils around the pole could I pull this DC current straight through without great loss [Under 10% given optimal construction]? Or how could this be done? Now let?s say I want to convert this DC current into AC. Could you simply run it into an AC to DC converter? How much loss would you expect to get from a decent AC to DC converter?

Which of the two designs would be ?potentially? more efficient for transferring and converting the DC input into an AC output?

I know it may seems I?m trying to make it more complicated then it needs to be but I?m trying to imagine the behaviors of these ideas for a larger idea. Or maybe I am making it too complicated!

Thanks,

Tim

[gyulasun]

... I?m just trying to get an idea of how this would affect the transfer of a DC current through it... 

Hi Tim,

I think the best answer for your above question is Tesla's patent on Coil for electromagnets,  see this link: http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/coil.htm  He solved the natural opposition of coils self-inductance (i.e. inductive reactance) to current change by increasing the coils self capacitance with using a second parallel led wire and connect the two coils in series. This way he got a coil setup in which the self inductance is compensated (at a certain frequency called resonant frequency) by the distributed capacitance received between the two coils and there will be no other resistance to the resonant frequency current than the coils combined DC resistance. 
To utilize this for your case: you have to find the resonant frequency of your parallel wire flat or slightly flat coil setup and excite it with the pulsed DC current of the same frequency. Of course other shapes of coils are possible, with cores too, but you have to find its resonant frequency...
Notice: I think the correct term is pulsed DC current in your question instead of DC current because you will probable switch the DC current on and off into your electromagnet with certain periodicity, right? If so, then you excite your EM coil with pulsed DC current, due to the regular and consecutive on and off periods.

@All

Let me ask another question with a slightly different simpler approach. Take Config3.gif. Let?s say I pulse this electromagnet A with a DC current without changing the poles. By simply wrapping coils around the pole could I pull this DC current straight through without great loss [Under 10% given optimal construction]? Or how could this be done? Now let?s say I want to convert this DC current into AC. Could you simply run it into an AC to DC converter? How much loss would you expect to get from a decent AC to DC converter?
Which of the two designs would be ?potentially? more efficient for transferring and converting the DC input into an AC output?
I know it may seems I?m trying to make it more complicated then it needs to be but I?m trying to imagine the behaviors of these ideas for a larger idea. Or maybe I am making it too complicated!

If I compare your Config1 to Config3, the big difference is Config3 has no closed flux path possibility due to lack of core B. This causes a big reducement in induced currents in coils C and D, compared to Config1.

If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)   

rgds, Gyula

[nwman]

@ gyulasun,

Notice: I think the correct term is pulsed DC current in your question instead of DC current because you will probable switch the DC current on and off into your electromagnet with certain periodicity, right? If so, then you excite your EM coil with pulsed DC current, due to the regular and consecutive on and off periods.

I agree.

If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)

I assume you are referring to the Config1 design? Depending on how you pulse the DC current between the two EMs I would guess you could make it a square wave or a sine wave. Isn?t a normal AC current a sine wave?

@All

I was trying to keep my questions uncomplicated but I think I should post my full idea [next post]. I was just trying to confirm the behaviors of the current through this core design before complicated it. Honk was not too far off when he commented about permanent magnets. They are cool and I like them so I figured I would add them just for fun! [joking] Please read the post below and let me know where I went wrong. As most of my ideas this has probably been tried and I just haven?t ran across it yet.

Thanks

Tim

[nwman]

I have to admit that my knowledge in this area is again very novice. All I know is that I was reading another thread on this forum and in the process saw an experiment that made me questions a few things. The video linked below [11.7Mb] is one of the videos demonstrating the technology. The technology is based off of a lot of peoples work from Flynn to Hilden-Brandt and people before them. It?s a way to collapse and expand a permanent magnets field inside a core and pulse it by using an electromagnet. You have probably read the threads. Nali2001 or ?Steven? has been actively working on Jack Hilden-Brandt?s magnetic valve motor idea. Steven has replicated some of Jacks valves but in a slightly different manner. The video attached is a demonstration of how it works. After talking with Steven I consider him to really know what he is talking about and do not believe he is over looking anything simple in is evaluation of the test in the video.

So this is what I thought from the video. From what I understand an electromagnet using the laminated steel core should be in the ball park of 90%-99% efferent when it comes to power input vs. attraction force potential. So in the video you see that when he put the two cores together with the EM off they don?t attract. Then when he turns on the EM the two cores attract with just enough force that he can wiggle them fairly easily. Then he attached the magnets and cross bar which when combined collapses the permanent magnets? fields inside the core. Again with the EM off and the PM on, the two cores still don?t attract meaning the flux is collapsed. Now when he turns the EM on and connects the two cores the attraction force is much greater then that of just the EM. If the EM by itself is roughly 90%-99% of its potential attraction and it increases by 2 and some say 4 times then you should get over 100% of the potential magnetic attraction. As shown in the video. Is this correct [roughly]?

They are trying to incorporate this idea into an electric motor but my first thought was that if this would at all work in an motor then it should also work in a solid state. I guess its more of what they call a MEG. I probably should have posted this in that topic. It seems to me that if you can increase the magnetic flux by a factor of 2-4 times then you would be creating a magnetic field that is larger then the potential magnetic field of the electromagnet. Thus OU.? From the video it looks like that field is quite stronger. How much I am in the process of replicating and testing.

Now if you look at how the videos configuration fits into my configuration shown above and in config4 below I wonder if it?s a possible deign to pull off the gained magnetic flux [if any]?

The reason I have the air gaps in the design is so that the PM field returns to its respective primary core when the EM fields is turned off.

So I now anticipate your comments on why this wouldn?t work? What are the misconceptions and what might prevent it from working?

Thanks,

Tim

Video: www.abcwag.com/MagnetExtraPower.wmv

[gyulasun]

...
If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)

I assume you are referring to the Config1 design? Depending on how you pulse the DC current between the two EMs I would guess you could make it a square wave or a sine wave. Isn?t a normal AC current a sine wave?

Hi Tim,

I referred to not only Config1 design what I wrote is true for any two or more coupled coils.  Unless you make deliberately a resonant LC circuit either at the input or the output coil, your pulse input will result in a pulse output, no way to get a sinusoidal shape directly.  Re on normal AC current: what is meant by a normal AC current? I do not know such term in science. We probably get used to sinusoidal waveforms in our enviroment, it comes from the mains or from any harmonic movement etc. It can be a convention to call a "normal" current to be a sinusoidal one. The best is to examine what a circuit is like and whether it is capable for changing the waveshape.  A resonant parallel or series LC circuit always oscillates with sinewaves (unless the iron core of the L gets nonlinear due to saturation etc).

rgds,  Gyula