Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

[gyulasun]

Hi BEP,

Thanks for the 'feet' explanation.

I'm not sure what you see with the 'averages' part. The first attempt had only one coil on the far left. Both stator arms were still there. The basic idea is to continue a path for flux connection but move that path in an alternating fashion, through one stator pole then the other and back.

Probably the 'average' for the flux is not the most fortunate but I meant the followings:

The highest flux value occurs in the stator leg on the right hand side (and at every part where the magnetic path is just closed) when the rotor is at standstill and one of its area is facing one of the stator feet.
And when the motor is started from standstill the facing areas move away for a half-turn time, so the flux in the right hand side leg should get reduced from its earlier value. 
Then comes the next facing rotor stator areas see each other so the flux increases towards its earlier (maximum) value (but cannot reach it already because the rotor-stator areas see less and less facing time due to the gradual speedup of the motor).
When the driving motor finally speeds up to a constant value, the flux in the right hand side leg (and in every other parts constituting the closed magnetic circuit)  will also be constant (provided the facing feet and oblique rotor areas are already fine tuned as you described) but this already constant value flux will be slightly less than the flux value referred to above at standstill. 
This is how I used the flux 'averages' to a certain and constant value.  At startup the flux is at the maximum and during the speeding up time it gets a little bit reduced from its maximum value (of course I mean but a small, practically not important reducement in flux strength).

Have you thought of going for the OverUnity prize money with this design? You would certainly deserve it!

Thanks,  Gyula

[BEP]

@gyulasun

It seems you have an excellent understanding of this device.

I'll not go for any prize. I've suffered through that before. Do not forget I am not claiming overunity.

Some details you may not be aware of:

1. At one end of the speed spectrum the flux shifting lags. Beyond a certain point it leads. I suggest you use the output to feed a PWM control to drive the driving motor. There is no 'runaway' scenario. None I've seen.
2. There are many improvements to this that I'm not sharing at this point. The inventors of the magneto deserve the highest credit for these.
3. Some circuitry is still required. This makes this device a problem for OU researchers because most think in terms of the circuitry and get lost in complexity. If it is complex then it is a joke. Then I am at fault.

The best application for this would be wind generators.

So make a wind generator! Or power your soldering iron or laptop from it. But be prepared to do a great deal of work before it is useful to you   

I'll continue on my other project.

[gyulasun]

Many thanks for the tips, I understand them. 

The PWM control sounds especially useful for the wind generator case where the RPM can always change by the wind.

I can understand your refraining from the prize for this device. And I hope you will disclose your other project when you feel like to and when it is appropiate, I certainly look forward reading about it!

All the best,  Gyula

[Nali2001]

Somewhat related?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qog8AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4780632

Lindemann's comments on the thing:
"Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks. With regard to your post about the Jim Murray Generator design, I have known Jim Murray for 20 years and we published this patent in Borderland Magazine back in the 1980's. All of the people I worked with in Santa Barbara, including Mike Knox, Eric Dollard, and Chris Carson, met with Jim Murray a number of times after I moved away in 1992. Jim and Eric subsequently solved the solid-state method for converting reactive power back to real power using Jim's methods applied to Eric's FOUR QUADRANT THEORY of electric waves. All of these things you mention have already been accomplished.

While Jim has built working models of this generator, getting all of the electrical and physical resonances in phase is tricky. The machine does NOT exhibit drag free operation until these conditions are all balanced and synchronized. Still and all, it does PROVE that electric motors and generators are NOT converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to properly built motors and generators. For those of us who know the truth, this is not a problem."

[BEP]

I became familiar with that patent about 25 years after I built the first one of mine.

About the only similarity is the rotor design. The best I can tell that patent describes just another generator basing its entire function upon the use of Lenz's law, as conventional generators should.

I can imagine problems with 'tuning' on that design. It probably had multiple speeds where it worked best but those probably changed with load and load types.

It is very likely that the patent shows a generator that could be used as a motor, albeit a poor one, or an electromagnetic brake. My design will not work as either. It will only generate, unless it isn't built correctly. Then all bets are off.

The only tuning I've used is to slowly shave/file the rotor to provide as little ripple as possible, on the stator just above the magnet. This was done with a temporary coil, not shown on the sketch.

Mine does prefer to run at certain speeds. If I remember correctly the speed preferred by the one I show in the sketch was between 450 and 500 rpm. So if you built it be prepared for it to shake itself to death until you perform some basic balancing (do not use ferrous weights!).

If you're not using good construction with 'real' bearings (nothing special just good basic construction) the thing may eat itself when you run it up to a speed that shows promise. I always try for no more than 2mm clearance between the rotor and stator. So the faces of the stator and rotor are not flat.

So other than the word 'oblique' being used there aren't many similarities, in my opinion