Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: hartiberlin on July 27, 2006, 10:45:33 PM

Title: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin on July 27, 2006, 10:45:33 PM
Hello,
for those of you being a few years already in the free energy scene and being
on my old Yahoogroups list, you probably remember Graham Gunderson,
who did a lot of research in strange coils setups and who claimed to have
invented a dragless generator.

It seems he joined Magnetic Power Inc. and now here is his
patent about his dragless generator, that seems to violate LENZ law.

Pretty clever Graham ! Congratulations !

Hope to seen your gadget being produced and introduced worldwide !
Here is the patent with a lot of drawings and circuit diagram:

http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/mpi-patentapplication.pdf (http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/mpi-patentapplication.pdf)

Regards, Stefan
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin on July 28, 2006, 12:23:27 AM
I now had a closer look at this design and I was wrong, it is no a mechanical
generator, but a solid state overunity type transformer...!

It seems it is required that all 3 fields,
input coil field , Permanent magnet field and output coil
field must be in 90 degrees orthogonal relationship to each other,
so 2 of them can cancel out, which is the output coil field with the
permanent magnet field, so the input coil?s
field is not much affected and thus no drag is put onto the input coil?s field.
Is this correct ?

It is pretty complicated to grasp.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Liberty on July 28, 2006, 02:16:21 AM
Interesting patent application.  Wonder if the patent guys will frown on the Lentz law violation?  ???

Comment:  It appears to me that the magnets are on top of the ring and also in attract on the bottom of the ring.  (Flux flowing vertically through the ring from Permanent magnet to Permanent magnet).  Then the coil that weaves in and out horizontally through the center of the ring between flux flow points collects the magnetic flux change caused by the input 'push coil' of the other vertically wound coil around the ring.  The collector coil receives the "pushed/deflected" magnetic flux, causing an induced current in the horizontal looped winding for output.  Apparently more power is able to be collected in the output coil than is expended in the excite 'push' coil.  It also appears that one can stack these devices, making better use of the magnets.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: mark australia on July 28, 2006, 07:35:48 AM
Dear Liberty, Tao's post goes along the lines of recent communications i have had with you re the demag issue on other devices..
Kind regards
mark
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin on July 28, 2006, 07:45:28 AM
I think, as the counter field from the output current will stay inside the core, the permanent
magnets from Graham?s patent will not demagnetize as the field will never
go to the level of -Hc which would be required to weaken the magnets...
So I guess this is a very safe unit which will not demagnetize the magnets in our live-time.

I think this is the smartest design of a solid state free energy device I have seen so far
and indeed I always trusted Graham to be a genuine inventor with all his very clever
ideas and smart thinking and experiments.

He also had a real mechanical dragless generator already a few years back, which was
a mechanical design, but had too many losses in the gears he was using, he told me at this time..
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: jake on July 28, 2006, 01:40:40 PM
It's interesting.  Wouldn't be too hard to build a prototype to test the principle.

Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Liberty on July 28, 2006, 02:53:19 PM
All I has to say is, wow.

Read this page describing the patent posted above by hartiberlin:
http://magneticpowerinc.com/patent.html

Mark Goldes says " Following construction of a successful prototype, a U.S. patent application was filed covering this advanced electrical generator."

To me that means that the device indeed works, and if the device does indeed work, then this is IT.

My ONLY QUESTION for Mark Goldes would be:

The patent states that the magnets can become demagnetized, was this a necessary addition for trying to get the Patent office to pass the Patent, or do the magnets really become demagnetized?

AND
If the magnets become demagnetized, how long, or, how much energy could be used from a given setup before the magnets lost thier magnetization?



It would be interesting to see output figures per module (to know how many modules are needed to produce a given amount of power) and approx. cost per module.  Also Tao's question about magnet life would be nice to know the answer to. 
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: FredWalter on July 28, 2006, 03:06:42 PM
It's interesting.  Wouldn't be too hard to build a prototype to test the principle.

It wouldn't be to hard... for someone with access to CNC machining equipment.

If your prototype works, can you make the CAD drawings available here, along with a material list, and photos of your prototype?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: jake on July 28, 2006, 03:45:53 PM
Quote
It wouldn't be to hard... for someone with access to CNC machining equipment.

You could build a test device with an electric drill and a hack saw!

Cut off a short piece of iron pipe and drill some holes in it.  Stick the magnets to the sides, lace some wire through it, and presto!  There it is!
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin on July 29, 2006, 04:31:03 AM

I'd say the easiest way would be to buy a nice toroidal transformer core and drill holes in it.

Place the proper amount of NdFeb magnets on the core above the proper holes.

Wind the output wire(magnet wire) through the holes and wind the input wire(magnet wire) around the whole unit, magnets and all(as the patent suggests).

Power the thing with a series resonant circuit like the patent suggests and power a load indefinitely...


Yes, Tao,
this is the same, what I also just thought, how to do it.
The question is, how big in diameter the holes should be maimum
and if it is better to have many output coil windings going through the
holes with very small diameter wire or just lower turns with bigger diameter
wire, so if it is much better to go for more output voltage or more output current.
Normally you get the maximum output power out of a power supply or device,
if you use the same load resistance as the inner resistance of the device,
so if you want to get 100 Watts out, you would also heat the output windings
with 100 Watts too, if the impedances match !
So this is why normally you don?t match the inner resistance with the load resistance,
so less output power is drawn  but then also the wasted inner resistance power
is also much less.

But for the input coils I would use very big diameter wire and only use about 10 to 100 Windings or so,
to have a very low ohmic resistance and also low inductance, so the frequency could be put
into the Khz range.
If you use a higher frequency you will also get more voltage and thus more power out.
Thus with a matched capacitance at the resonance frequency of the input LC circuit
you would need very low input power and due to low ohmic resistance of the coil would
have low ohmic losses at the resonance frequency for the input current.

The question I still have, is, if it is better to
1. use many holes in short distances and thus
have more voltage at lower turn windingsnumbers and
use only smaller sized magnets ontop and onbottom of the core
or
2. have less holes in the core with bigger hole diameters and have
thus more winding-turn-numbers through them for higher output voltage
and have less and bigger magnets on them ?

What is better, 1. or 2. ?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: mark australia on July 29, 2006, 01:11:42 PM
Hi ,It would be a good idea if this group did buid one as I am sure they havnt got one working at the moment. Why dont you email them and ask them if they surrently have a working prototype producing continuos power?.
I have seen so many projects in this and many other forums where people asume it works because they have a patent application.
What I live for is any device with ou claims that has been made availabel for independent testing and evaluation. Just have a look at the current forums here, Torbay? Hilden? Steven Marks device? Cycclone? Lutec? Gravity Wheels?
and the list goes on. Have any of these devices had independent validation?
This is a great forum for exchanging ideas and developing them.  However please dont make any assumptions about any working devices until they have passed independent scrutiny.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin on July 29, 2006, 09:02:13 PM
Mark,
have a look at this page,
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Magnetic_Power_Inc

there you can see their test bench with the device
on there probably the one after the 2 scopes.
You can see there the core of a transformer...
I wonder what the most right thing is ?
Maybe the output load ?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: joule on July 29, 2006, 10:28:45 PM
As with most patents (applications) you don't have to give away the secret and it appears from reading the application that they do not. Why is this so different from the MEG? Special core material, yes they say soft iron, but I doubt its what you get at the scrap yard. The timing appears to be critical, you will not be able to just throw it together and get power, you will have to work out the math so it works as proposed.

My question is, was it on purpose that they did not indicate that the loop can be closed? They do say that Lenz did not apply, but so why not go all the way and say once it starts is self powers? Did not see mention in the application.

Additionally they are saying in the app that they are covering all forms (shapes) and methods, would this not if granted stop any one else from using perm magnets in a device?

Just some open thoughts.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: tishatang on July 30, 2006, 07:15:37 AM
Hi all,

About a month ago I won on Ebay three current transformers.  Stated that they had 800:5 current ratio.  I thought that they were a toroidal transformer with 800 turns primary and 5 turns secondary.  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.

I was disappointed and said to myself "well there goes $20 for something I will probably never use."

And now comes this thread and these ferrite cores and wire are exactly what I need to build this device!

I don't know what a ferrite core with a diameter of 4 to 5 inches would normally cost, but I got three of these current transformers for $20.  There might be others available?

Does anyone know how to drill a hole through a ferrite core?  They are probably very brittle and fragile?
I am thinking of getting diamond drills and starting with small holes first.

Tishatang
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Nali2001 on July 30, 2006, 11:01:44 PM
Yeah I worked on ferrite before.
You need some high speed drill like a dremel
http://images.google.nl/images?svnum=10&hl=nl&lr=&safe=off&q=dremel
and a diamond tool.
http://images.google.nl/images?svnum=10&hl=nl&lr=&safe=off&q=dremel+diamond
Works great. Good luck.

Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: jake 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.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: tishatang on July 31, 2006, 08:30:41 PM
Nali2001 and Jake

Thanks for the info.

Tishatang
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: multi_dimensional 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



Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator is not simple to build!
Post by: Overtone 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: energyman8 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: JackFrost on October 17, 2006, 08:14:47 PM
Joe,

Nice to see you on a better forum.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Marcel 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.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: neptune 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: hartiberlin 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.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Liberty 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.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Nali2001 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.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan 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
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Nali2001 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'
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson´s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan on January 26, 2007, 03:37:57 PM
Hi Nali,
Yes point taken, OK that just leaves putting two holes either side of the magnet, to pick up on that "sweet spot".
The input coils would need to be wound as many layers in a smaller area too, as drawn in the simulation.

Hi Marcel,
One more point, are you doing a push-pull on each pair of coils, so at any one time, one coil is energized and one is not?

I am not sure if it mentions how to pulse the input windings in the patent but this would seem the logical way of switching the flux.
You can use a TL494 IC and a couple of mosfets to perform this, and if you really want to get a nice clean square pulse use a power mosfet driver IC between the TL494 and mosfets like the UCC37324:
UCC37324P (http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ucc37324.pdf)

it's hip to be square ;o)

Regards
Rob
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: neptune on January 26, 2007, 08:11:39 PM
Hello again. Whilst I respect other peoples opinions, I disagree with Kingrs, About filling the holes with iron filings, or using iron wire. The patent states that the flux flows around the holes like the thread flowing around a bolt. Overtone says this device will not be overunity with a ferrite core. This is puzzling because the patent is for a GENERATOR. If it is not overunity, it becomes an inverter, converter, or transformer. Yet the patent actually calls for a ferite core!
         Also, why use a square wave input. If you apply a square wave to a tuned or resonant circuit, the net result is a sine wave . Sometimes I feel that patents are not worth the paper they are written on. The patent has little or nothing to say about input /output ratios. If this device has any merit , we are now reduced to "wait and see " just like the 10 million other ideas. Sadly, wishing doesnt make it so. Sorry, feeling cynical tonight, neptune.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan on January 26, 2007, 09:24:26 PM
Hi Neptune,
The iron filings was just an idea to try. I saw on page 2 another replication that look promising using a linear example. Good proof of concept.
I think generator windings are an odd thing, the flux does not really cut through them as such, its almost as if it has its own inverse field that reaches out into core and pulls in electrical energy.
But I stand by my square pulses, I have seen what odd shaped traces you get as output without a clean drive into the mosfet.
You need to start off with square waves and then allow the inductor to turn it into a nice curve.
If you think you can get a sine wave out of a mosfet then be my guest.
Its not efficient,i.e.wasted volts drop across the device to get the curve and serves no purpose.

Regards
Rob
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Nali2001 on January 26, 2007, 11:48:55 PM
The core material is highly likely a crystalline type core material like metglass suitable for high frequency and high permeability. Laminates have a permeability that might be suitable, but don't handle high frequencies (above 300hz or so) very well. So ferrite is good for the high frequencies but than again the permeability is lowww. Metglass takes the bests from both. High permeability and (very)high frequency. But you guessed it, very expensive. Maybe soma alloy is suitable. But expensive also because they probably have to custom make it for you.

Patents when fully open are actually quite handy. They are a worldwide free to get instruction Manuel. Unless they hide stuff.... But still patents give us many ideas to work on.

Power conversion and generation is a curious thing if you think of it. Lots of time magnetism does not really 'cut' any wire and still it generates of transforms good power. Look at the attached picture. Here you see a toroid transformer and a 3phase transformer.  These are proven devices. And keep in mind that the flux will stay 99% inside the core material, never comes out to cut the wires of the secondary (?output?) coil. And of course the works like 80% efficient. How?  The flux never ?comes out? of the core material. So there are many devices where the flux does not really 'cut' the coils and yet work?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson´s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan on January 27, 2007, 12:55:17 AM
Hi Nali,
Metglas you say, expensive you say, do you mean like this:
AMCC-320?

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/DSCN4765.jpg)

or this

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/DSCN4733.jpg)

Sorry, permission to look smug sir....?

Regards
Rob
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Nali2001 on January 27, 2007, 01:05:49 AM
Nice one. No need to tell you they are not cheap I think. So with that core you could test this Graham Gunderson system. Just start drilling those holes... ;) and hope it works.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan on January 27, 2007, 01:28:13 AM
Hi Nali,
They are not that expensive, about 107 GBP including courier charges.
No I will not be drilling holes in this core, mainly because this is for my MEG replication project and secondly it is very delicate.
Regards
Rob
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: neptune on January 27, 2007, 08:07:55 PM
Hi all. I must confess that I have never tried to get a sinewave out of a mosfet. Per haps the square wave is best. but, I still stand by my idea of having an oscillator with feedback[see erlier] to ensure that the input waveform stays synchronised with the resonant frequency of the input resonant circuit. Perhaps one of you computer whizzkids could post a diagram based on my erlier description of this cicuit please?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Marcel on January 27, 2007, 10:08:08 PM
@Kingrs

Thanks for your tips.
The input coils are serialy connected.
I will try a new Mosfets driver, and a new Iron core I have purchased on Ebay.
Micrometals T400-26.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent applcation
Post by: Overtone on January 28, 2007, 05:10:02 PM
I posted back last October that the application has been superseded. A new patent application will cover factors we discovered are necessary for this invention to exceed unity.

Cores that will work are, as some have suggested, expensive. They must have little known characteristics. They must be processed using very costly equipment. This invention cannot exceed unity otherwise.

Therefore, sad to say, it is extremely likely that any attempt to build the device by individuals is almost certain to fail. (Error posted previously in this line is now corrected.)

To repeat, the first prototype worked and exceeded unity.

Commercial variations are under development.

For reasons of international patent law, such as Taiwan and South Korea, where publication instantly negates patentability, we will not reveal the critical additional information until the second patent application is published.

Mark Goldes
Chairman & CEO
Magnetic Power Inc.

Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent application
Post by: Overtone on January 28, 2007, 07:10:52 PM
Whoops. Error.

I meant to say that given what we have learned since the original patent application was filed, any attempt to build this device, by an individual, is extremely unlikely to succeed!

Should have had more coffee before previewing my earlier post :).

Mark
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: acp on January 28, 2007, 07:24:39 PM


Quote
I posted back last October that the application has been superseded. A new patent application will cover factors we discovered are necessary for this invention to exceed unity.

Cores that will work are, as some have suggested, expensive. They must have little known characteristics. They must be processed using very costly equipment. This invention cannot exceed unity otherwise.

Therefore, sad to say, it is extremely unlikely that any attempt to build the device by individuals is almost certain to fail.

To repeat, the first prototype worked and exceeded unity.

Commercial variations are under development.

For reasons of international patent law, such as Taiwan and South Korea, where publication instantly negates patentability, we will not reveal the critical additional information until the second patent application is published.

Mark Goldes
Chairman & CEO
Magnetic Power Inc.


Ha ha ha,  you are so funny..........
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson´s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: MeggerMan on January 28, 2007, 08:00:43 PM
Hi Marcel,
Could be the inventors are getting twitchy about people replicating their baby?
I have just done the simulation again in Femm to check my comments I made previous to you and it looks like I gave you the wrong info or not all the info.

The coils can indeed be connected in series, but the pulse does need to be AC.
To achieve this requires a "H" bridge of mosfets to allow the coil supply to be AC.
This will give the greatest flux change.

Saying that though, to simplify things you can do as I suggested before and use a push-pull DC pulse applied to the two sets of coils to the right and left of each magnet.

I think what Mark is trying to say is that the balance of current, magnet choice and core material are all critical to this working at over unity.
From my simulations, it can be seen that only a very tiny current and voltage is required to get the field to switch (20mA @ 0.5V) and anything greater will saturate the core.
Using a magnet too powerful for the core material, will yes, saturate the core.

Also try using ceramic 5 or ceramic 8 magnets to start with.
I suspect Neo magnets are too powerful for the core material.

The good thing is that Mark's company will be buying off the shelf cores just like you and I.  Metglass make them, we use them.

Hi Mark,
Given that you cannot give any details about the new patent, can you at least say what level of over-unity you have achieved?
Does the core material drop in temperature as per the MCE theory?
http://emwiki.info/MEMM
How long before you are ready for a production product?

Regards
Rob 
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: neptune on February 05, 2007, 08:31:15 PM
....and the silence was deafening. Can anyone else hear the crickets chirping ? Just yet another Bullshiner then......
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Overtone on February 10, 2007, 05:27:39 PM
Hi Rob,

Hard as it may be for folks here to believe, I hardly ever see this forum. We are extremely busy.

Sorry. No technical information will be released except in patent applications.

If all goes well, we will provide potential licensees with pre-manufacturing prototypes later this year.

We have no control over the time it takes them to gear up for production.

There are also parts required which are not presently mass produced as they have no existing market. That factor is also one over which we have no control and it may well slow up production, although I would think small quantities of self-powered generators might be in the market by the end of this year.

Since development is still much slower than it might be with additional funding, all estimates are subject to change. Adequate funds might be en-route. If, and when, they arrive we will be able to accelerate development.

At this point it is all engineering...

See the attached Press Release.

Mark
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: acp on February 10, 2007, 06:12:38 PM
Quote
Since development is still much slower than it might be with additional funding, all estimates are subject to change. Adequate funds might be en-route. If, and when, they arrive we will be able to accelerate development.

ha ha ha..................
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: modernsteam on November 21, 2007, 11:35:22 PM
Nice one. No need to tell you they are not cheap I think. So with that core you could test this Graham Gunderson system. Just start drilling those holes... ;) and hope it works.

Yepp!! US$105, plus shipping, plus US$41 UPS brokerage. I bought one for a replication I'm attempting.

Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: patentdude on December 01, 2007, 07:21:23 PM
If they are indeed real & independently verifiable, MPI's claimed developments are exciting.
But I do wonder if MPI's patent application is valid, since in my understanding to get a patent one must disclose sufficient information to enable one skilled in the relevant art to practice (i.e., make) the invention, but it appears that a lot of skilled engineers on this forum have been unable to reproduce the device and/or are uncertain how to do so based on the patent.

A patent is a type of quid pro quo:  the inventor discloses to the public how to make the invention in return for the government's grant to the inventor of a time-limited monopoly on the invention.  In the U.S., unless the inventor satisfies his part of the bargain by meeting numerous statutory (i.e., legal) requirements,  the patent won't issue or will be revoked on challenge: 

"In order for a patent to be valid, the requirements of 35 USC section 112 of written description, enablement, and best mode have to be met. . . . The written description requires that the inventors show full 'possession' of their inventions by describing them in words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. . . . To satisfy the enablement requirement, the description also has to teach how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation."  ((Biotechnology Law Report, October, 2003, p. 473-74.)  So, if skilled artisans can't create follow the MPI patent to create a working MPI device, I wonder if the inventor has satisfied the written description and enablement requirments?  (That's a question for an attorney to answer.)

In short, the MPI patent application must claim that the device does something.  The question is:  given the amount of apparently unsuccessful experimentation documented by those posting in this forum who have apparently tried but failed to create the device disclosed in the MPI patent, is the MPI patent valid.?  As one noted author said, "there's the rub!"
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Overtone on February 20, 2008, 06:06:37 PM
Hal, all,

The core is a special type of Metglas. The holes MUST be drilled electrically and the core then reprocessed by the manufacturer.

This first Patent Application on this invention will be followed by a second in the future. As shown, even when done correctly, it will only go to 99% efficiency. To exceed unity (the first prototype had an output more than 100 times the input at an extremely low power level < 1 watt) other, not yet disclosed, information is necessary.

Seeking a solution to the complexity of manufacturing this design happily led to the breakthrough family of generators that we now call GENIE (Generating Electricity by  Nondestructive Interference of Energy). GENIE is now patent pending. It so far appears much easier to manufacture various GENIE designs and therefore the design in the published Patent Application is on hold.

Sorry, beyond what appears on our website: magneticpowerinc.com no further details or information can be made available, except to qualified parties who sign a NonDisclosure Agreement.

Mark Goldes

Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent application
Post by: Paul-R on February 22, 2008, 04:06:14 PM
I meant to say that given what we have learned since the original patent application was filed, any attempt to build this device, by an individual, is extremely unlikely to succeed!
...unless, of course, that individual were to be smarter
than yourgoodselves, in which case he or she might develop
ideas that improved upon your work. And of course, this has
happened, as well we all know.
Paul.
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: Overtone on February 22, 2008, 11:49:47 PM
We welcome improvements.

The planetary energy crisis is serious enough, that anyone who can make a contribution is helping to solve important problems.

Feel free!

If you get something to work Over Unity and it can withstand serious testing, we might even be interested in assisting.

Mark

Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: ckreol1 on July 28, 2011, 02:17:47 PM
Hi,

I came across this old post from Graham that reminds me of his patent. There is an image of a spiral transformer with a unique design that, at least to me, looks like the solid state generator patent.

http://electropub.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/spiral-transformer-related-to-grahams-patent/

George


Hi all,

I’ve got a question, referencing the attached drawing.

This is a FEMM simulation of a harebrained idea I had.

The reversing spiral is defined in the simulation as silicon core iron.

The ends of the spiral wrap around copper conductors, each carrying current in opposite directions.

The surrounding media is air.

The original idea was that the permeable reversing spiral would ferry flux from one conductor to the other – causing a sort of magnetic paradox. (If you consider the field between two wires carrying opposite currents, the reasoning behind the reversing spiral may be clearer)

I was not expecting any paradox but I wanted to see why it wouldn’t work, or how the flux would leak out and maintain its inherent loops.

Even though it looks like the spiral core is carrying flux from one wire to the other (the metal’s “full of flux”, the actual flux (if you follow it with your eye) leaks out the side of the “core” at right angles, and circles back. You can see, if you look closely, that not a single flux line actually makes it through the whole spiral iron – there’s the appearance of that, but it’s an illusion.

It begs the question, then, what happens if we load this “illusion”.

What I’m curious about is, what’s the effect on this thing if we wrap a coil around this spiral iron and then energize the copper conductors that are shown in the drawing with AC? This places varying flux in the iron – so we get an emf we can power a load with.

But what’s the effect of the back emf on the wires in the drawing? Does it load their mmf at all, or is this nonreciprocal?

Remember – this is not the same thing as a toroid, it’s a different argument than if the iron were closed loops and not a spiral.

In a toroid, the flux loops are completely surrounded by windings. Here, the flux loops are never completely surrounded by windings – they slip out the side of the core, going through air to complete the circle. This “slipping out” means the EM situation here is fundamentally different than that for toroids (though it may remain as energy conservative as toroids are, who knows).

We don’t have a closed path, like a toroid. The core, if it has output windings on it, is just a curvy solenoid.
 
I’m just having trouble seeing how back emf (from a coil around the spiral iron) could induce back into the “field conductors” in the drawing. It probably does somehow but I’d like to know how. Does anyone have some comments?

(It seems that if a coil were wound over the whole length of the iron spiral, that energizing it would show quite the same field that we see here – that’s a reciprocal reaction again, and nothing special. But is this really what happens?…)

 
Graham
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: jfilmmusic on September 21, 2011, 11:09:52 PM
The 2nd Patent is now published and available:

7830065
http://www.pat2pdf.org/

Anybody interested in continuing replication?
Title: Re: Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !
Post by: verpies on May 27, 2012, 05:23:11 PM
The 2nd Patent is now published and available:
7830065
http://www.pat2pdf.org/ (http://www.pat2pdf.org/)

Did any new information appear in this patenet compared to what was available in 2005 ?