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.
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.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83480
  • *Latest: Qimoya

  • *Total Posts: 513433
  • *Total Topics: 15280
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*  (Read 14117 times)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Sorry, I must be overlooking something,
but where exactly is this "free lunch"?
I see a description of a 'normal' transformer?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Janus20

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Sorry, I must be overlooking something,
but where exactly is this "free lunch"?
I see a description of a 'normal' transformer?


You are missing everything. Look again at red coil input = 11.5 Watts and green output of 117 Watts.
Free lunch ratio of impedance/resistance. You disappoint me greatly. You do not put in time, thought and effort.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that
Quote
"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"
and
Quote
"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.
:)

Oh, and by the way, I did read all the theory on http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk/
and although it seems very interesting, I do not see any actual proof in the form
of actual physical tests...
There are quite some vague statements on that page as well;
for example, let us take the statement
Quote
THE SINGLE AND MOST VITAL DEFINITION IS ?..
- Centrifugal force ? an INCREASING radial value of CIRCULAR MOTION.
- Centripetal force ? a DECREASING value of CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.
and compare it to a more commonly accepted definition of centrifugal force:
Quote
centrifugal force, noun, (physics): The apparent force that seems to
draw a rotating body away from the centre of rotation; it is equal and opposite
to the centripetal force and is a consequence of the body's inertia.
It is slightly different, in that according to Cresswells definition centrifugal force
seems to be taken as merely a value indicating rotation, while in the other
it is clearly a force resulting from this rotation. Slight difference, but a difference.
Another example is the "non-newtonian lenz condition" Cresswell presents.
What exactly does he mean with that picture 3B? that is not explained anywhere...
Up to a point he seems to have intereting ideas, but I find his explanation and
supporting argumentation severely lacking.
Perhaps you can fill me in?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 01:18:37 PM by Koen1 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Janus20

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that
Quote
"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"
and
Quote
"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.
:)
I did not mean to be insulting.

The questions have never been asked because transformers and motors etc make fast money for the purveyers of these things.

Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

PHYSICISTS ARE A SUPPORATING ABCESS ON THE ARSE OF THE WORLD TAXPAYER.

Know this and change your life.

Offline M@rcel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that
Quote
"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"
and
Quote
"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.
:)
I did not mean to be insulting.

The questions have never been asked because transformers and motors etc make fast money for the purveyers of these things.

Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

PHYSICISTS ARE A SUPPORATING ABCESS ON THE ARSE OF THE WORLD TAXPAYER.

Know this and change your life.
yes maybe, but what about koen1's questions and remarks?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline aether22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
Yes, to be honest.
I just don't see what you're getting so terribly excited about...

Now it may be that I just fail to see what is so spectacular about the laminated cores and
lengthwise split cores and all that stuff you babbled about
What is so spectacular is that while they are highly effective at suppressing eddy currents in closed magnetic circuits, they are extremely ineffective at suppressing eddy currents in open magnetic circuits.
And if you have eddy currents, well it's like having a shorted coil, it's not good for efficiency.

Therefore since most FE devices use open magnetic circuits and since OU hopes to be not just highly efficient but over unity it would be a poor idea to have a huge source of waste.
Quote
, and that in the area that
concerns itself with such things this may be some type of great insight,
but I just don't see what you're so hyped over.
Well it applies to probably the majority of Free Energy devices, is that not significant on a forum about overunity?
Quote
Perhaps if you try to state clearly, calmly, one step at a time, what exactly is so funky
about Eddies in relation to the cores, and why that gets your panties in a bunch?
;)

Ugh, if you do not know the first thing about the electricity or magnetism and do not 'concern yourself' with magnetic free energy devices why are you here, why are you asking?
Anyway what is so important is that it is like adding an extra coil to every Free Energy device, one that is shorted and wasting power to a huge extent.

IMO the realization that the majority of the FE effort could be improved by using more suited cores, that's important, but I am increasingly feeling only I feel that way.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
What is so spectacular is that while they are highly effective at suppressing eddy currents in closed magnetic circuits, they are extremely ineffective at suppressing eddy currents in open magnetic circuits.
And if you have eddy currents, well it's like having a shorted coil, it's not good for efficiency.

Therefore since most FE devices use open magnetic circuits and since OU hopes to be not just highly efficient but over unity it would be a poor idea to have a huge source of waste.
Ah. Now I see what you think is so huge about it. :)
Indeed, if you assume that an OU device needs to be as efficient as possible in its non-OU operation or non-OU part of the cycle,
then it seems you have a good point. If the OU device on the other hand relies on interaction with the environment and is supposed
to get its excess energy from that, then it seems an open magnetic circuit may be desired in certain designs, in which case
you still may have a point that using laminated coils to minimise eddies is apparently useless. But what if these Eddies
somehow contribute to the devices operation? I'm just speculating here, but some coupling between Eddies and the Heaviside component
might be possible, perhaps?

Quote
Ugh, if you do not know the first thing about the electricity or magnetism and do not 'concern yourself' with magnetic free energy devices why are you here, why are you asking?
Anyway what is so important is that it is like adding an extra coil to every Free Energy device, one that is shorted and wasting power to a huge extent.
Calm down, I am asking simply because your post was not at all as clear as this one is.
Do not jump to conclusions. I never said I do not "concern myself with" magnetic FE devices, and your remark that I do not know
about electricity and magnetism is false as well. I merely said I am not a specialist in core lamination and its effects on eddies,
and that without additional clarification from your end I did not understand the extreme excitement in your post.
And again, yes, if you get unwanted eddies they would be a waste of energy, but like I said some designs may need the open flux path,
and some might even use the eddies. But in designs where core lamination is intended to minimise eddies, it seems you are right.

Quote
IMO the realization that the majority of the FE effort could be improved by using more suited cores, that's important, but I am increasingly feeling only I feel that way.
Well perhaps if you would more clearly state your concern and attempt to start a discussion about it, that might change?
What, for example, do you consider to be "more suited cores"?
And which FE devices do you have in mind? It sounds like you have some specific designs in mind,
but there are tons of designs, so which are you talking about? The MEG? The Bedini motors? The Adams motors? The Newman motors?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline aether22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1005
If induction is wanted it is amost waways better carried out in a coil, it is very unlikely that eddy currents would be desired.

Also please realize that it will be placing a huge drain on the device severely limiting useful output.

I am not saying open flux paths are bad, just that different methods should be used to stop eddy currents.

I gave the designs that will work in earlier messages, mainly insulated steel coiled, insulated particles (iron power/black sand? ferrite).

And as for devices, well Thane's generator, Adams motor, Bedini motors, Mullers generators etc.....

I thought everything I have said was laid out in my first few posts, but it is good to have at least one other person understand what I am saying and at least partially appreciate that almost every OU pulse motor and generator built has a huge flaw possibly standing in it's way from being OU.

Offline PulsedPower

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
@Janus1  I do not see the problem with 3% of the current in the primary winding being used to produce magnetic flux, 0% would be even better. Core flux is a useless by product of producing changing flux that is why transformer designers try to minimize it. This current is usually known as magnitizing current, it is a total waste as it produces heating in the primary winding and reduces the power factor of the transformer while producing no secondary voltage.  Look at air cored inductors and see how much cooling they need to achieve flux denisties comparable to ferrmagnetic cores, they are wound in copper tube with water flowing though the centre.

Your diagram shows an aluminium spacer inserted across the core for the purposes of reducing the effective permeability of the core, I have never seen conductive material used for this purpose, it would have severe eddy current heating being perpendicular to the changing flux.

Quote
Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

What a crock, physicists have been challenging the laws of physics ever since there were laws of physics, the amount of effort which goes into designing and building experiments to test the laws of physics is enormous, Things like Gravity probe B were put up to test for predicted effects of Einstiens theory of general relativity, CERN and FermiLab exist to test the Laws of physics. Whenever one of these experiments comes up with unexpected results there is a flurry of activity to reproduce the results then explain it both by adapting existing theories or creating new theories.  Often the so called questions are based on a poor understanding of the relevant laws of physics the other thing is the language of physics is mathematics and an understanding of that would eliminate many of the questions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


 

OneLink