Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81962
  • *Latest: kobus

  • *Total Posts: 491865
  • *Total Topics: 14475
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 113
  • *Total: 116

Facebook

Author Topic: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg  (Read 196168 times)

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2008, 12:13:29 PM »
Hi Rossen,

I assume the scope shot you ask refers to a loaded output voltage waveform and not to an unloaded one, right?

Although it shows a long and flat near zero level area, it has very little Lenz with respect to the input current... This should come from the construction of the input coil+core: using a closed core in itself for the input is the great idea here, right?  This way the counter flux by the load current cannot really have much effect on the input but it surely has on the permanent magnet flux (but it is free once you bought the magnet...)
And then using resonant output circuit to make the output waveform more sinusoid and higher, this is another good  solution, right?  However, due to the missing airgaps the waveform shows DISTORTION because of starting some saturation already in the output cores.  Saturation is shown by the small tilt/break in the upcoming linear ramp reaching the positive peak.

Are these main questions you have thought of?

I wonder if you agree on my push-pull like modification of your earlier gif animation principle shown here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.msg135576#msg135576  I believe it could also work and I wonder if you also think the addition of extra flux from the two extra magnets can increase the output power?  (OF course I do not claim originality with that modification... :D)

Thanks,  Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2008, 12:13:29 PM »

Offline Getca

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2008, 01:18:53 PM »
Hi Gyula,

There is some questions for You:
  - Why did the voltage picks have an opposite polarity...
  - What happens if there is a curent in the output circuit. I mean, is there a Lenz effect to PM's flux or not...
  - Is it neseccary to use air gaps and resonant circuit and why could it be usefull...
Please see carefully GIF animation. Think about the whole switching process and try to get how to work the output circuit, flux switching synhronized.
If You guess the answers I'll be ready to discuss about Push-Pull magnetic sheme. In addition I use a rectangular, but not sine control pulses. The output load was a linear resistor, without air gaps and resonant circuit.

Wish You success,
Rossen


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #77 on: November 03, 2008, 03:46:00 PM »
Hi Rossen,

Somehow I thought the setup on which the scope shot was made on the output voltage included the output capacitor... sorry for this, but it was not a 100% obvious what the exact setup was when you made the scope measurements...  The input current frequency is also different from the output voltage frequency in the two scope shots.  :o  but this is not a problem of course.

Now that a little bit clearer from your above letter what your setup was I may answer your questions  :) :

1) - Why did the voltage picks have an opposite polarity...  Because when the input current suddenly is switched off the flyback pulse across the output coil appears immediately with opposite polarity.

2) - What happens if there is a current in the output circuit. I mean, is there a Lenz effect to PM's flux or not...  The magnetic field caused by the output current surely works against the PM flux, so yes there is Lenz effect.

3) - Is it neseccary to use air gaps and resonant circuit and why could it be usefull...  Yes it is neccessary to use airgaps as the simple means to control the amount of the flux of the PMs. I do believe there is an optimum airgap for any particular setup to find where you can obtain the maximum flux for the given core cross section area without starting core saturation. Using resonant output circuit has the benefit of increasing the output voltage by a certain amount and also to help receive a cleaner sinusoid output waveforms.

rgds,  Gyula
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 04:46:37 PM by gyulasun »

Offline Getca

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #78 on: November 03, 2008, 09:24:59 PM »
Hi Gyula,

Sorry if I used a lot of questions and was boring... :D I just want You get a right answer yourself... ;)
Did You see GIF animaton carefully? If You do that, You could be able to realize when an EM induction occurs in the output coil. There icn't a flyback pulse from input to output, but there is a magnetic flux change dФ/dt there. Yes, You are right it is a Lenz effect or Back ElectroMagnetic Field against the flux of PM. So, the question is how to decrease it and get the full magnetic energy... ??? ;) It's the main obstacle to build a MEG replicaton with COP>1. I can only say one of the ways to solve this problem is using a resonant circuit and air gaps. Forming a sinusoidal output wave is the least of all that the resonance does. Don't think about MEG like a switching PS, it's a big mistake. It seems the MEG is simple device, but it's quite complicated.
I'm happy to see people are intereted in MEG building and I believe we could succeed in it together.  :)

Regards,
Rossen


Offline Nali2001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #79 on: November 03, 2008, 10:54:35 PM »
One thing I never found a real solution for (yet) is this:
Once you switch-on the input coil so it switches away the field of the magnet to the output, it will return once you turn-off the input coil. Now... it should be possible to somehow recover this returning field of the magnet. Not sure what the best method is. But the returning field should hold considerable potential power. And due to the airgap it is returning on its own, so it is 'free' for the taking. Only thing is how do we take it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #79 on: November 03, 2008, 10:54:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #80 on: November 03, 2008, 11:00:30 PM »
Hi Rossen,

Thanks for the answers.  In the meantime I realised I gave a misunderstandable answer for your question 1 but by then it was not possible to edit my reply for the second time.  So on the appearing flyback pulse I meant it created from the already induced output voltage under load on the output coil and I did not mean a flyback pulse created in the input coil from the input pulse. I should have written it more clearly.  But it turns out from my reply# 75 this morning that I am aware of the good input-output coil isolation from the mutual induction point of view, simply coming from the arrangements of the cores.  8)

By the way, am I correct in assuming that the flux from the permanent magnets shifts the magnetic operating point from the zero point of the B/H curve in the input core to a (chosen) direction and this way the input power needed for the input core saturation may get reduced by a certain amount because the distance on the curve is less in the PM biased case towards the saturation state than moving from the zero point?  Logic says so for me... ;) 

Cheers,  Gyula

PS: I started to collect some ferrit E and C cores from some junk boxes... ;)

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #81 on: November 03, 2008, 11:26:45 PM »
One thing I never found a real solution for (yet) is this:
Once you switch-on the input coil so it switches away the field of the magnet to the output, it will return once you turn-off the input coil. Now... it should be possible to somehow recover this returning field of the magnet. Not sure what the best method is. But the returning field should hold considerable potential power. And due to the airgap it is returning on its own, so it is 'free' for the taking. Only thing is how do we take it.

Hi Steven,

If I may chime in with my thought on your question:  in case of the Bulgarian MEG I found the input core was assigned to be always a closed core either a toroidal shape or two rectangular E facing each other, through which the flux equally divided on the two or three legs.   
So whenever the flux goes through fully between (say) the top and bottom parts of the core, induction does occur in the coils wound on the legs but these voltages are with the same polarities in the coils and so their difference is very low. In other words this a needed property we expect from the input coil as isolation (I mean separation) to the rest of the magnetic circuit, actually this deliberate construction greatly helps in separating input from output. 
However, if we were to use further coils on the input core that are not used for saturating the input core at all AND would connect them in the correct phase either parallel or in series then the returning flux of the PM surely could be utilized.  However we also have to think about the separation between these extra coils and the output coils: they may have a mutual effect on each other...  PERHAPS making the extra input coils also resonant by capacitors can help here too. ;) And yes, air gap is also useful here.

rgds,  Gyula

Edit: I am aware of the above assumption of more or less equal induction in case of the E cores legs is a simplification from my part because the central leg usually has got a bigger cross section then any of outer legs but I think this should be taken into consideration at the number of input coil turns on the legs for the correct saturation to happen.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #81 on: November 03, 2008, 11:26:45 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Getca

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2008, 09:36:43 AM »
Hello, Gyula...

It seems to me You begin to get the right answers... :) There are two important things to get - the output circuit and shunt principle of work.
The shunt...We have to get its core saturation and maximum magnetic resistance decreasing using a minimum energy. Think about its working area over B-H curve and the PM flux dependence. Also there is an acumulated energy in the shunt core as the saturation result, but how can we use it?
The output circuit...Think about the flux changes and the voltage induction dependence. Please see the GIF animation...The control core saturates, the flux goes in the output coil, the control pulse is switched off and... You could continue... ;) So, here is the key to minimize the LENZ reaction. Think how does LC-circuit work, what's its voltage and current in the circuit and the phase difference...The resonsnt circuits are used in the switching PS too, but there is an electrical control. However what happens in the MEG?..We have a magnetic control of this LC circuit, because there is only a magnetic flux switching.
I hope my brief thinking would be usefull for You... ;) :)

Regards,
Rossen
 

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2008, 11:26:45 PM »
Hi all,

good question Steven. I have to ponder on this on.

Now please find attached a diagramm of the permeability of pure iron in dependance of flux-density ( Aw/cm = Ampere-Windings / centimeter ). This is an old physics-book ( unfortunately in german ) dated 1940.

The topic :

Permeability in Fe ( pure iron ) is not constant.

@getca :  if you read this diagramm you will find the answer to your output-voltage-scopeshot. The horizontal part of the voltage-curve is the area in the attached diagram where permeabilty-change is strongest ( the steep rise on the left ) Before this steep rise flux-change is quick ( an so is voltage-change at output ) but once you enter the steep part of the  permeabilty-curve  most of the energy ( dB/dt ) is first  absorbed by the alignement of the tiny elemtary-magnets in the Fe-metal-grid. Now at the peak of the curve ( most of the tiny-magnets are aligned) any flux-change again reflect itself in steep rise of output-voltage.

Best Regards

Kator01



Offline khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2008, 11:54:14 PM »
Found interesting doc. - have not read it myself yet - seems like critique  ... poor Naudin  :'(
http://www.nuscam.com/pdf/garbage_physics.pdf
regards,
khabe

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2008, 11:54:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #85 on: November 06, 2008, 12:34:26 AM »
Found interesting doc. - have not read it myself yet - seems like critique  ... poor Naudin  :'(
http://www.nuscam.com/pdf/garbage_physics.pdf
regards,
khabe

Khabe,

This particular critique is well founded as we all know, or should... but as Shawn Bishop is closely
associated with and writes for and with Randi and Eric Krieg... one should consider the source.

If you read <http://www.phact.org/e/z/betavoltaic.htm> you will see that everything is a scam.
(according to them...)

Ron
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 01:17:32 AM by i_ron »

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #86 on: November 06, 2008, 04:21:53 PM »
Good point Ron!

Allow me to quote that critical "debunking" report (http://www.nuscam.com/pdf/garbage_physics.pdf),
chapter 6: "Comparing Power In to Power Out":
Quote

P(in)      = ... = 2.47 Watts
P(out)    = ... = 1.25 Watts (for one output coil)
Total P(out) = 2 x 1.25 = 2.50 Watt

"... which is in complete agreement with the Power input."

Right. So in their mind 2.47 Watt = 2.5 Watt, and the difference of 0.03 Watt is equal to zero?
Well, that proves it all then, doesn't it? ;)
Ok, it does show that perhaps Naudin was being a bit overoptimistic and slightly careless
in his input/output diagrams. But it also shows a little bit more output than input, doesn't it?

And though they do show how average power per AC cycle should be calculated,
namely using V(0)*I(0)/2, they do not use that calculation later on to calculate
power output. Instead, they take the resistor value and calculate fom there.
For guys who make such a fanatic point of doing things exaclty by the book
to get exact power calculations, I find it very strange that in this crucial section
of their critique they do not follow their own stringent guidelines of doing things
exactly by the book. Why don't they calculate the average cycle power like they
indicated they were going to do?
Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They like to insist that
Bearden and Naudin did not calculate the output efficiency correctly, they
tell us how it should have been calculated correctly, and then they don't do it
that way but they do it differently, and still claim they are the ones who
are being consistent? ???

Then, in the critique on Betavoltaic (http://www.phact.org/e/z/betavoltaic.htm) they
claim all kinds of information on the websites of Betavoltaic (http://www.betavoltaic.com/research.html)
which simply is not anywhere on that website.
They also give a url for "PlasmaVolt/Betavoltaic" as www.plasmavolt.com, but there is no such website.
Oh, there is a url, but that's not a site and certainly not one about betavoltaics or nuclear reactions.

I do know of a device called the "PlasmaVolt", which was invented by late inventor Arie M. de Geus,
was tested and found to work and produce output of 80 Watts with a 50 Watt input through fusion
of certain noble gases. Here's a picture and some more info on the guy: http://www.rexresearch.com/degeus/degeus.htm
If that is the device these debunkers are debunking, they must try a bit harder. The entire concept was
to use unconvnetional noble gas fusion induced in a plasma vortex, and so it is not at all surprising
that the theory behind it is also unconventional. Duh. But it did work.

Indeed it seems these guys are out to debunk anything. As long as it gets them publicity
(and money probably).
I find their attitude similar to that of environmental activists: they do fulminate against
the "bad guys" all the time and constantly oppose them shouting "this doesn't work!",
but they never come up with a good alternative that does work and is commercially
viable.

That said, I still haven't seen any working MEGs yet.
The development group appears to have gone silent,
the "closing the loop" can apparently not be achieved,
and there are also still zero "open loop" versions out there...
So there is good reason to doubt the validity of the MEG claims.


Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #87 on: November 08, 2008, 02:20:32 AM »
I was just scanning through the posts over here and it looks like the first few posts (the ones with the pictures) show the toroid coil to be the control coil.

Was it eventually found that the toroid is the output coil or does everyone still think it's the control coil ?


Offline Nali2001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #88 on: November 08, 2008, 03:38:36 AM »
The toroid is indeed the control coil/part of the device.


Offline Nali2001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #89 on: November 16, 2008, 11:05:27 PM »
Not much to report myself... but anyone here having new results/info?

Regards,
Steven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A truly overunity Transformer / Meg
« Reply #89 on: November 16, 2008, 11:05:27 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: