Nelson, well done my friend!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLC7684829E98CAD74&v=_u81edIeqIY

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.

Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Kinetic and potential energy of atoms result from the motion of electrons. When electrons are excited they move to a higher energy orbital farther away from the atom. The further the orbital is from the nucleus, the higher the potential energy of an electron at that energy level. When the electron returns to a low energy state, it releases the potential energy in the form of kinetic energy.

Chris,

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you comment that I have gone "silent".  I continue to post my work on OUR and if there are periods of time with no postings from me, it is because I have hit a wall in my research.  I'm also a little confused by what I am missing technically as you state above.  So, as an example to perhaps remedy your opinions above, I've attached a paper below which discloses one version of my MEI (Magneto Electric Induction) research efforts.  This was openly posted on the OUR forum under my MEI bench for all to see plus all the up to date results of this work as well.

As can be seen, this device has a negative input power of -21.17w or -33.24w referenced to the sinewave on CH1 depending on the source of current measurement.  The output power is a real 33.2w rms.  This is the type of POC that I referred to in my post.  This is fully documented and replicable by those knowledgeable in the art.  Is this device capable of self running?  At this point in time no, but that is the goal of course once certain technical difficulties are overcome.

In regards to Graham G, I openly provided all my work in attempting to replicate his device both on the bench and via simulation.  I personally concluded that no positive results were going to be seen by my efforts unless he were to provide additional info so I quit on the project. 

pm

In other words, an "EMJunkie" type arrangement. Am I thinking about this secondary winding arrangement correctly?

I'm somewhat familiar with EMJ's work but tend to think more towards the energy shuttling in these circuits myself.

Lets hope this doesn't stick, I would hate to see EMJ get credit for an age old non-inductive winding technique.

Chris,

The answer to your above question IMO is not a simple one.  It involves a complete analysis of Graham's device and I will give my opinions in the following which is a result of my tests and simulations and may or may not be correct.

Graham's MIT design yields poor coupling between the primary and secondaries resulting in a substantial leakage inductance in which energy can be stored and manipulated.  Events may therefore occur in the secondaries without affecting the primary depending on circuit conditions.  My analysis suggests that the secondaries are not in a bucking mode for most of the complete cycle of operation but only during a short period when the output mosfets are switching out of phase with each other producing the quick reversal in the output current.  This reversal is the result of a combination of factors including stored energy in the leakage inductance, PM flux bias in the cores, gap energy, complex power flows EXH, etc.  With the secondaries in a buck mode during this short interval, their influence on the cores is mostly not seen by the primary due to the cancelling flux flow directions with reference to the primary.

The following is taken from one of my posts on OUR.

"Below are three sim variations using different means to create a bucking condition between the secondaries L2 and L4 while using the H bridge as the front end.  The primary current I(L1) is shown reversed with a minus sign for comparison to Graham's scope trace. The secondaries are connected in parallel to the load with L2 being switched identical in all three versions and L4 controlled to produce the bucking conditions during the short "off" period pulse interval.

In the first version "A", M6 that switches L4 has zero volts on the gate and therefore acts as a diode using the substrate for conduction. Although not shown for clarity, this results in L4 conducting current to the load during the time the field in L2 is collapsing thus creating bucking mmfs between L2 and L4.  The result is seen as a reversal of current in L2 with less change seen in L1. L4 does collapse immediately following the collapse of L2.

In the next version "B", M5 and M6 alternately switch L2 and L4 respectively for each cycle. IOW, when one secondary is switched off for a brief period and allowed to collapse, the other secondary remains conducting and vice versa. This action creates the bucking mmf fields with the alternating current reversals in each secondary more pronounced with less affect on the primary.

In version "C", M5 and M6 are switched with the same timing on their gates. The collapse of L4 is delayed by the addition of C3 which effectively spreads the collapse over ~10us. IOW, L2 collapses rapidly while L4 slowly collapses which again creates bucking fields between L2 and L4. The other result of this design is that I(L2) recovers more slowly in an upward ramp which most resembles Graham's wave forms. IMO however, it is the presence of the PM bias in the cores that create Graham's output wave forms.

So, my conclusion is that Graham's device has bucking fields existing between the secondaries during the brief "off" period. Oddly enough, if the gate drive voltage to M6 is the inverse of the gate drive to M5, the results will be identical to version "A".

pm"

The sims referred to are attached and are self explanatory for the most part.  One must keep in mind that these particular sims use linear inductors with no PM bias and yet GG1_2SecC comes close to replicating Graham's waveforms.

I must say that having worked with Graham, Cyril Smith, Fred Epps, and others at MPI for a period, I have the utmost respect for the man and his accomplishments but until he releases more info, it is like shooting ducks in the dark to replicate his device. 

The problem with reactive to real OU converters like Graham's MIT and my MEI is that at some point one must be able to feed the negative energy portions of the cycle back to the dc supply feeding the sine generating means.  Otherwise they are only conceptual OU devices and not actual OU devices.  If the operating frequencies are low enough to allow efficient sine wave synthesis, then by using mosfets in both forward and reverse conduction modes, an actual OU device can be realized.  Current sine wave inverter designs that can handle reactive loads use such techniques.

pm

Hi PartzMan - You need not defend your work, I am not criticising anyone's work, I was appealing to the lack of direction that was very apparent.

The thing is, you reported good results, and also were heading in the right direction, you either had it working or were very close to it!

You see, Graham G's scope shots tell an odd storey, there is a lot going on in there, much is not apparent because of the lack of Probes on both Output Coils - But, I can tell you this, GG's device works the same, he uses a big Spike to do what we have looked at for a long time. You have, and others have already stated this over at OUR.com:



Logically, what is a Spike in Current?

Yes, its the Time Rate of Change of Fluxes, between two Coils. This is the "Synchronous Rectification" he was talking about. The "Synchronous Rectification" holds both Coils at the same state until TDC, he then drops the state of one coil, causing the Spike, the Time Rate of Change, and we see a massive change in Current on that Coil, it completely reverses its Sine!

Induction occurs all the way through the Cycle, but the Output Coils are in Reverse, Magnetic Fields Opposing for only part of the Cycle. The Field opposition only occurs at the Spike (Black Arrow) - It is at this point where the Magnetic Fields from the Two Output Coils Oppose, is where the excess Energy "Generation" occurs. This ends at the Red Arrow See below.

Please remember, many roads lead to Rome, this is not the only way!

I promise you, if you stay on track, you will succeed!

P.S: Of course, Time is increasing in the X Axis and Amplitude in the Y Axis as we would expect to see in the typical Cartesian Coordinate System.

I have to admit to being completely baffled by this waveform since it is showing current outside the load connected region. Without having access to the circuit and exactly what was measured I cannot take this any further.

You see, Graham G's scope shots tell an odd storey, there is a lot going on in there, much is not apparent because of the lack of Probes on both Output Coils - But, I can tell you this, GG's device works the same, he uses a big Spike to do what we have looked at for a long time. You have, and others have already stated this over at OUR.com: