Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !  (Read 73927 times)

jake

  • Guest
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2006, 02:02:31 PM »
Quote
I opened one up and was disappointed that all they were was a ferrite core about 4 inches ID and only one coil about 18 guage wound around the core.  This explained why there were only two leads instead of 4.

Don't throw 'em away yet!

Current transformers require the primary to be looped through the hole in the core.  If yours is 800:5, you take your primary wire and loop it through the hole 5 times.  You can effectively get different ratios by changing the number of times you loop your primary through the coil.

Note that to put one turn on the primary, you must stick the wire through the hole two times.  If you put the wire through only once you don't have a complete "turn" on the primary.  You must have one loop through the device to have one turn.  So, to get 5 turns you have to go through the hole 6 times with the primary lead.

I have only ever seen this type of transformer used to sense motor current in large ac motors.  The motor lead is directly wound through the device to form the primary.

Offline tishatang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2006, 08:30:41 PM »
Nali2001 and Jake

Thanks for the info.

Tishatang

Offline multi_dimensional

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2006, 05:53:22 AM »
Hello Everyone,
This my first post here at Overunity.com, I have been developing a version of the Gunderson solid state generator for personal research purposes.  I'm very excited about this generator, and yes Tao, I feel that THIS IS IT! too.   

I have built a linear 'proof of principal' of the Gunderon generator. Consisting of a linear silicon steel laminate core containing 5 magnets and 2 input coils the output wire is a single pass of insulated braided copper wire. The magnets are 7mm x 3mm neo's I had. The core is a stack of 21 11mm laminates from a 12v 4amp charger transfromer and the input coils are wound from the primary windings of that same tranformer. I only ha to drill 3 holes in the laminates since they already had one at each end. I used cyanoacrylate glue and a vice to make the stack, solid.

(http://timeisart.net/free_energy/multi_dimensioanl_gunderson_linear_test.JPG)

The purple and green wires are for input.  Only the two copper coils nearest the center of the device are hooked up, I wound all 4 input coils then I realised that the 2 outer ones would heat up because they were just pushing against the end magnets which are unable to shift there flux  because they lack a "balancing magnet" because this is a linear  device not a ring .  Sure enough when I powered it up the outer coils got hot quite quickly while the inner two remained cool. So I disconnected them. The use of 5 magnets is nessesary to allow the device to have a functioning middle section with magnets that have their flux divided equally in two.

(http://timeisart.net/free_energy/multi_dimensioanl_gunderson_linear_test1.JPG)



I have meassured 184mV RMS from the output of this device when excited with .6v AC 50Hz. Small output I know. However I could make consistant voltage spikes of 3 to 4v when I rapidly connected and desconnected the input power and occasionally higher spikes in the 14v range. Despite what may seem like a tiny output I am encoaraged.  I made these measurments on a quality digital ossciloscope at a freinds house using only a AC/AC transformer at 50Hz to excite the input coils.
Since then I have used a small audio amp to power the coils. Connected to the soundcard on my PC and a tone generator to generate a square wave at different frequencies. Unfortunatly my multimeter is not accurate enough to get a reading. But I have had a alot of fun testing the resonant frequencies of the device. I am able to feel the magnetic field occilations by holding a magnet near the device. Or sticking a laminate to the magnets to get a audiable feedback of the vibation. The qualitative sence of vibration strength of the magnet I was holding seemed to peak around 200hz, at least on the level I could feel. Then there were overtones at heaps of frequences up to over 64 0000Hz that seemed to peak the vibration and or sound output. All I can do without proper equipment is make qualitative observations and work on instinct ;)

My linear proof of principal device has many inheirent flaws, Yet I am seeing an output.  I used magnets that are far too small based on the ratios I could determine from the patent diagrams and the silicon steel laminates that make up the core seem to block the field so much that the flux is barely noticeable when I place an iron nail in the holes that carry the output wire. Also the linear configuration means that only the middle 3 holes and magnets are functioning as they would in the toroidal device as the magnets at the ends  have no balance magnet and thus their flux dose not so easily shift.

The vibrating magnetic field that can be felt when one holds a magnet near the operating device is very large for such small input coils. In fact, if the input coils are excited without the magnets in place. The field that can be felt by holding a magnet near them is miniscule. Demonstrating to me that this configeration is very efficient for shifting a large perminant magnet flux with small input.

I think that a critial aspect of this design is in the way that the magnets are posistioned relative to each other. Each magnets flux is equally divided between 2 other magnets on the other side of the core, so that the 2 rings of magnets are effectivly balancing against each other and only a small nudge from the input field makes one flux path FAR MORE favorable so the flux is effectivly on a see saw that can be actuated with a small input.

Given this reasoning the Torroidal configeration is nessesary to allow all magnets to be balanced.

Hartiberlin; my inital feeling and answer to your earlier question is number 2  One big hole for output, diameter of 1/3 the height of the core. but with an output wire that makes many passes around the core untill the hole is filled. I am not skilled in transformer coil calculations. Perhaps someone can help. I want to make input coils of 4 to 8 Ohms so that they can be driven through an audio amp for inital testing untill the resonant circuit can be implemented. I figure that multiple passes or turns in the output coil will improve power out as more copper and or turns  is present to collect EMF. The permiabilty of the core seeems to be a major factor. I belive the patent talks about resin bonded iron cores because the core needs to be less dense then solid iron to allow the magnetic flux to extend into the output coil holes and not be effectivlly shielded.


I intend to build a actual torroidal device with 25mm neo cubes and an epoxy resin/iron powder core. With 8 ohm input coils to be excited with an audio amp with sound frequencies from a tone generator on my PC.

I have some questions, perhaps someone can help.

1    I want the input coils to be efficient at creating a magnetic field. I want them to be 8 Ohms and operate at power levels from a 50 watt RMS audio amp at full volume. What thickness and length of wire should I use.

2    Is it true that a coil with fewer turns will be able to operate at a faster frequency then a coil with more turns? / if so why?

3    Where can I get Iron powder in Australia. I have purchased Iron Oxide powder for coloring concrete, it is very magnetic, am I correct that ferrite cores are made from iron oxide?

4   Dose ferrite saturate at 20 000 gauss? / or dose saturation relate to mass of material ect.


Thanks very much in advance, I'm so glad I have found this forum. Good work Overyunity.com

-Christo



« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 01:09:49 PM by multi_dimensional »

Offline Overtone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator is not simple to build!
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2006, 08:46:20 PM »
Hi,

Please be aware that this device will not be Over Unity unless a key factor is present.  Since we are filing a Continuation in Part on the pending patent application, I cannot reveal it.

It will not be Over Unity with ferrites.

It requires a very special component.  That is all I can say about these issues until the patent process is further along.

A working device was constructed prior to filing the patent application.  It far exceeded unity.

More than two dozen prototypes are part of our present laboratory development program. 

The published photographs are of a different invention.

Mark

Offline energyman8

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2006, 02:36:21 AM »
Christo

That is too cool. 8)
Thanks for posting the pictures, great visual of the patent. 



Mark

It's got to make you feel good that these guys are trying.  Has Hal Puthoff (ETI) started the testing yet on your device?
 Hope all is well and godspeed.

Joe

JackFrost

  • Guest
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2006, 08:14:47 PM »
Joe,

Nice to see you on a better forum.

Offline Marcel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2007, 11:12:48 PM »
Here is my prototype of Gunderson's device.
Many magnets shapes and sizes have been tested.
One outpout loop or several turns change nothing.
Frequency input from 1Khz to 100Khz.
Power supply 12V
Input coil up to 12v square, sinus.

No usable power to output coil. Only EMF kicks.
Does anyone have an idea to make it functionnal?

Marcel.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2007, 05:48:39 PM by Marcel »

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2007, 09:48:46 PM »
Congratulations to Marcel for his excellent and obviously time consuming attempt at replication. The key as I see it is having a resonant circuit at the input, and keeping its frequency to say,50 to 100 hertz. higher frequencies would demand a fancy core composition. Instead of trying to match the frequency of the square wave generator to that of the resonant cicuit, why not build an oscillator with a feedback coil wound on the core over the input winding. My computor skills are limited so I cant do a diagram . Circuit is as follows. Use a 9 volt battery. Use a npn transistor eg a BFY51. Connect battery to a pos and neg rail. Emitter to neg rail. Connect a potential devider accross pos and neg rails,say a10k and a 1k resistor, with the 10k to the pos rail. wher the 2 resistors join, connect one end of the feedback coil.[2to5 turn] the other end of this coil goes to transistor base. connect the input coil of the input transformer [ see US patent application number 20060163971] between the transistor collector and the pos rail . connect the output side of transformer via a cap [10mfd?] to the input coil of the device. Use a frequency counter if available to check output frequency at device input coil. If its too high, increase value of cap . If it wont oscillate, try reversing ends of feedback coil. Well worth trying ifyou have come this far. Why can we not have more details, Overtone? We cant steel your invention now, and everyone incluiding you would benefit by its duplication. Best of luck, Neptune

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2007, 09:58:48 PM »
Hi Marcel,
user Neptune is right,
you must use resonance to couple the most power out of it and into it.

What kind of core are you using ?
If it is just iron you should stay below 100 Hz because of eddy current losses.

If it is ferrite, it could be, that it just does not work with ferrites..
It probably also depends a lot of the core material !

Please keep us updated and try to use at the input an LC circuit
in resonance, so you need less input power.
The L is the driver coil for your device and the C must be added
to get the right resonance for a frequency below 100 Hz.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2007, 11:16:02 PM »
Hi Marcel,
Nice setup, looks very professional, I like it!
One small comment, how can you get any of the magnetic field to pass through a hole in a piece of steel?
Answer: with great difficulty.
Have you tried some steel garden wire?
You could simulate this in Femm 4.0 or I could do it for you and you should see the field will happily skirt around the hole but not cross it.
If you fill the hole with iron filings or something then you may better success.
Or if you use some iron core garden wire.
Or mix of stripped iron wire pieces to re-direct the field and inter-spaced enameled copper wire for the output coil.

Heres a simulation of the setup I did last year, I will dig it out and put some holes in it to show you what I mean. I think it works similar to the MEG so I am keen to help you out.

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/Rob_magnetic_power_inc_b_rev1.jpg)


Regards
Rob

Offline MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2007, 12:42:44 AM »
Hi Marcel,
Just completed two simulations:
1. showing an air filled hole
2. showing partial steel filled hole.

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/ExampleGeneratorRobRev4.jpg)
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/ExampleGeneratorRobRev3.jpg)

Regards
Rob

Offline Liberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
    • DynamaticMotors
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2007, 01:53:52 AM »
Just guessing here, but I would think that it would be important in this design to not magnetically saturate the core of the ring by using too many or too strong of a type of magnet.  Perhaps weaker ceramic magnets would be useful towards  leaving some room for a rotating magnetic field to possibly have an effect.  Limited amount of output power might be an issue too, due to core saturation/magnetic strength issues within the toroid core?  As I recall, wasn't it reported that this device worked with gain at low power levels?

The coils and ring were very nicely made.  Well done. 
I would try using about a couple of magnets at a time and just see if you can get an output out of part of the ring.  Then when that works, "magnetically" space far enough away from that and add another pair of magnets and replicate the magnetic circuit that worked all around the ring.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 02:14:53 AM by Liberty »

Offline Nali2001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2007, 02:57:06 AM »
You guys seem to forget that the "open ends" of the magnets will "dive directly down" into the core. Which you do not want. So you need to close loop them back to a opposit polarity. See the crappy drawings I made. Also I think that there is only one imput coil needed not one for every magnet. The output coil though needs to be many more turns.
Maybe It's of use to some.

Offline MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2007, 09:42:09 AM »
Hi Nali,
Yes, I agree with that, the magnetic circuit needs to be closed to allow more flux to flow into the core.
Although if you look at my simulations, even a weak magnet may suffice without closing the circuit.

Another suggestion is to put the holes through where the centre of the input coils are.  This is where the flux density is at its greatest and lowest.
Or have two holes, one either side of the magnet and use two output windings.

Hi Marcel,
Check the output windings have not shorted out on the sharp corners of the core holes.
You may need to countersink the holes slightly and paint some varnish on the metal around the hole to protect the copper wire enamel from being damaged.

Regards
Rob

Offline Nali2001

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2007, 01:38:21 PM »
Hi there Rob, Nice femm simulations you have. Altough I must point out that simulations are so rough that they only act as generals idea's of what the flux will do in reality. This has been said before. But it's true. Other thing is, when you are drilling the holes too near the imput coil's field, and so plan to put the output coils there you are in a sence going to power the output coils dicectly with the imput coils and have not much more than a regular transformer. And so the imput draw will increase accordingly with the output load. Coupling between input and output must be minimal. Imput coil should only act as a mean to push or pull the field of the magnets to a certain direction. And so the magnets will do the 'cutting of the coils'