Core saturation and Lenz.

[broli]

I have been thinking about this and have concluded that it should make sense. Core saturation isn't talked about a lot in motors or generators, and if it is it's seen as a bad thing.

To cut to the chase. According to my logic when you take a core with long legs and saturate it, and then close or open a gap on the far side, the coil will be completely oblivious to it. Because closing the gap does not increase flux since the local core part has already been fully saturated. The reason why it's so far is to exclude raw interaction between the coil only and this new piece.

What this means is that the piece can enter the gap with no reaction from the coil, (and the coil can unenergize with more energy?) When the coil is unenergized the core piece is pulled out with little effort and finally the coil is energized again to reset the loop.

Does this make sense or is there some fundamental flaw in the logic?

[gyulasun]

Hi broli,

I think your logic on this setup makes sense, question is the supposed gain coming from the increased permeability core is enough for maintaining the movement for the core piece?

In a sense this setup may be considered the magnetic equivalent of the changing capacitor setup where you charge up a capacitor's plates at a lower capacitance setting and then mechanically turn the capacitor plates to get higher surfaces facing, hence a bigger capacitor value than during the chargeup. It is expected that in the increased capacitance value the previous amount of charge will somehow increase... 
Somewhere on the net there was an explanation that the original energy input into the lower capacitor plate setting does not get enhanced at the increased capacitor value, the stored energy in the cap remains more or less the same.
With this I do not mean your magnetic setup would not produce any extra at all, it needs experimenting. 

I think both your magnetic and its capacitor dual circuit belongs to  parametric circuit setups.

rgds,  Gyula

[lumen]

@Broli,

This looks to be very close to Steorn's theory of operation.

I wonder if by adding a core piece, if the additional field draw would not reduce the size of the saturated area around the coil and if this would change anything?

The idea sure seems worth formulating some type of test device.

[broli]

In textbooks an air gap supposedly stretches the hysteresis to the right, thus reducing the overall permeability and increasing the needed applied field to saturate it. But I believe this only counts for gaps near the coil. When it's close to the core, the piece you remove to make the gap had a substantial effect on the coil but not when you increase the distance between the gap and the coil.
I predict than when inserting or removing a core piece far from the main coil would change little in the hysteresis curve. In fact I think there would be a distance where inserting and removing a core piece will have no effect anymore on the hysteresis and thus inductance/permeability.

Of course this is all pure speculation  .

[Airstriker]

Hi broli. This is a parametric generator type. You can find some similar designs on JLN pages. He has done quite a few experiments on them. In your case the question is - can you get more, than you need, to make a parameter (permeability) change. Not so easy to do. Steorn seems to have done that, but note that he is also utilizing the rotor movement for "traditional" current generation.