Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: aether22 on March 07, 2008, 07:20:30 PM

Title: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 07, 2008, 07:20:30 PM
Whoa!

Ok, THIS IS BIG!

It needs it's own thread! it's freaking HUGE.

I just woke up and still had eddy currents on my mind and I realized that for open path magnetic systems EVERY SINGLE METHOD EVERY USED TO DIVIDE THE CORE IS USELESS OR NEARLY SO! (there are few conventional devices that have open magnetic paths)

The ONLY way to do it is to have a cut ring, or a coil with or without breaks in it. (but obviously not shorted and must be insulated as it is more vulnerable than normal laminates)

This impacts every Adams motor ever made, EVER, this impacts Thanes generator, this impacts the majority of OU electromagnetic designs.

This has either been hurting the efficiency of, or possibly even a hidden ingredient of every open circuit electromagnetic device.

Let me explain, with open paths the flux leaks out so the further you get away from the source the field is less strong and so is the induction from it if time varying.
And so currents induced in strongly induced locations will short through currents in poorly induced locations.

Now that piece I have already said, the amazing thing is that if you think about it, it matters not one iota if you cut the core up length wise, think about it, current will still flow just fine. (yes, it would be odd looking but it will still flow pretty much the same, the fact that the currents must pass each other in a long thin wire means nothing!)

If anyone 'get's it' and wants to make pictures to help others understand go ahead, I really need to get building.

Update: ok, made a pic.

reply to M@rcel: would rather not get any more off topic, but one difference is that the force between the 2 wires is on the matter (the protons) where the other is on the moving electrons. not sure how that makes a difference and I have not really looked into the skin effect much although it is strongly effected by frequency.

* - in open magnetic paths' (topic title too small to fit the whole sentance)
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ
Post by: M@rcel on March 07, 2008, 08:35:37 PM
Taking the risk of being ot:

Yesterday I was thinking:
- Electrons in a wire repel, therefore current runs at the outside of a wire.
- But if I suddenly cut the wire lengthwise into two simular smaller wires, they attract.

So, there seem to be two forces at work, the repelling force between the electrons (charge carriers) vs the attracting force of the induced magnetic fields.
But the only difference I see in the wire before and after the lengthwise split is an airgap.

.....
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 09, 2008, 02:54:13 AM
Bump.

With almost 200 reads and only one off topic reply, figure I might need to encourage reply.

Do you understand how this invalidates almost all methods for avoiding eddy currents in open magnetic circuit cores?

Do you Agree or disagree or are you unsure?

Do you agree that is is a reasonably important discovery since it effects most every magnetic Free Energy magnetic device and hence the word needs to get out? (very few employ a closed magnetic circuit)

Or do somehow think that it is of little importance somehow?

I wrote what I was thinking and feeling at the time, maybe the shouting and such put people off? But I think it would be a loss to the FE community to not have this info spread to help as many experimenters as possible.

I believe that other than making cores from a non conductive (or high resistivity) material there are only 2 ways to make a core for open magnetic circuits compatible with this realization, one is to have insulated (must be insulated) steel wire, the other is to have magnetic particles suspended in a resin.

Bill Muller made cores with black sand that sound suitable.

Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: one on March 09, 2008, 05:28:23 AM
Bump.

With almost 200 reads and only one off topic reply, figure I might need to encourage reply.

Do you understand how this invalidates almost all methods for avoiding eddy currents in open magnetic circuit cores?

Do you Agree or disagree or are you unsure?

Do you agree that is is a reasonably important discovery since it effects most every magnetic Free Energy magnetic device and hence the word needs to get out? (very few employ a closed magnetic circuit)

Or do somehow think that it is of little importance somehow?

I wrote what I was thinking and feeling at the time, maybe the shouting and such put people off? But I think it would be a loss to the FE community to not have this info spread to help as many experimenters as possible.

I believe that other than making cores from a non conductive (or high resistivity) material there are only 2 ways to make a core for open magnetic circuits compatible with this realization, one is to have insulated (must be insulated) steel wire, the other is to have magnetic particles suspended in a resin.

Bill Muller made cores with black sand that sound suitable.



Sense   no one else is replying   

I see some lines  in a simple drawing and a few comments on  eddy currents and cores.

So far  I don't have enough  information to even be sure of  exactly what  you found the  answer to . 


gary



Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: allcanadian on March 09, 2008, 06:07:38 AM
@one
Permanent magnetic field accelerated electron drift in closed conductors----- I think
Hmm?
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 09, 2008, 06:22:02 AM
I have made and attached another image to illustrate it. (annoyingly I seem limited to 50KB sized attachments and that is making the image really ugly, tried jpg2000 (.jp2) and it looked great for the same size but was not allowed)

Anyway here is what it is about.

First I have not 'found the answer to' anything, rather I have found that eddy currents, the enemy of efficient electromagnetic devices are not stopped almost at all by the same methods that work for closed magnetic systems when applied to open magnetic systems.

A closed system means a flux path enclosed by iron, steel or other ferrous material and because flux does not (with a decent design) spill out into the air much then systems such as laminations or bundles or wires/rods work just fine.

But in an open magnetic system there is not a complete steel path back to the opposite magnetic pole and flux will actuallya exit the steel rather than all conduct to the end of it, and as the magnetic field weakens so does the inductive field which means that strongly induced voltages short through weakly induced voltages and this makes every method ever devised of dividing a core (expect for iron powder) useless on open math magnetic devices! (not counting the method I personally devised in the 1st post)

This means that MOST EVERY MAGNETIC SYSTEM DESIGNED TO BE OU HAS A HUGE LOSS THAT CAN BE FIXED BY BETTER CORE SELECTION!

The only ones not effected are air core, high frequency (where nonconductive core materials are used such as ferrites), those with some unusual cores (choosing high frequency cores for low freq work, making orgonite or black sand cores) or closed loops, and very few are closed loop!

It is also possible that in a strange way maybe cores induced by eddy currents are a key to the success of some OU devices, but it's a huge waste of energy unless things are working backwards (as with Thanes or Hoptoad's devices).

This needs to be verified/acknowledged and spread around the OU community!

note: An Eddy Current is an unintentional induction of electrical current in a magnetic core or other nearby metal not including coils although it is the same as induction in a coil except for being intended and useful
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Groundloop on March 09, 2008, 09:02:32 AM
@aether22,

One way to avoid eddy currents is by using air core coils. One need thicker wire and more turns to compensate for the weaker magnetic field, though.

Another idea is to use insulated soft Iron wire and make a Iron core coil. Then one wind normal magnet wire on the outside of the Iron coil. That way the
eddy currents is kept in the Iron coil and can be used in your circuit and not wasted as heat. (New idea, have not tried it yet.)

Groundloop.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: armagdn03 on March 09, 2008, 03:52:36 PM
Whoa!

Ok, THIS IS BIG!

It needs it's own thread! it's freaking HUGE.

I just woke up and still had eddy currents on my mind and I realized that for open path magnetic systems EVERY SINGLE METHOD EVERY USED TO DIVIDE THE CORE IS USELESS OR NEARLY SO! (there are few conventional devices that have open magnetic paths)

The ONLY way to do it is to have a cut ring, or a coil with or without breaks in it. (but obviously not shorted and must be insulated as it is more vulnerable than normal laminates)

This impacts every Adams motor ever made, EVER, this impacts Thanes generator, this impacts the majority of OU electromagnetic designs.

This has either been hurting the efficiency of, or possibly even a hidden ingredient of every open circuit electromagnetic device.

Let me explain, with open paths the flux leaks out so the further you get away from the source the field is less strong and so is the induction from it if time varying.
And so currents induced in strongly induced locations will short through currents in poorly induced locations.

Now that piece I have already said, the amazing thing is that if you think about it, it matters not one iota if you cut the core up length wise, think about it, current will still flow just fine. (yes, it would be odd looking but it will still flow pretty much the same, the fact that the currents must pass each other in a long thin wire means nothing!)

If anyone 'get's it' and wants to make pictures to help others understand go ahead, I really need to get building.

Update: ok, made a pic.

reply to M@rcel: would rather not get any more off topic, but one difference is that the force between the 2 wires is on the matter (the protons) where the other is on the moving electrons. not sure how that makes a difference and I have not really looked into the skin effect much although it is strongly effected by frequency.

* - in open magnetic paths' (topic title too small to fit the whole sentance)


There is indeed a difference when cores are split, the space in between causes an increase in reluctance (which is the ohmic equivalently for magnetic  circuits) This is why on transformers such as Flybacks in tv's they have a core physically split into two pieces with small spacer in between to create a gap, increased reluctance also increases the amount of energy that can be stored in the field, thus bigger voltage spikes off of the secondary.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: mscoffman on March 09, 2008, 07:06:27 PM
Hi;

Overunity system use totally open magnetic circuits allright, but this in general is due to their experimental
nature and poor design. Open core systems for compact power systems can not be allowed, except for systems
that intentionally intend to intercommunicate. Totally open core systems can induce power transients into other
systems, bypassing line circuit fusing protection standards. They can write magnetic poles into metal cabinets
metal structures of building and can induce transients in metallic wire communications circuits. So those
plastic encased experimental motors you see can never be actually be built into products. You need to
ask the experimenters why they have open magnetic circuits if they don't intend to communicate, or
intend to steal power from utility averaging circuits. And if they say they have ready to go products their
claims can be readily discounted. Power systems need to live in the racks with other equipment and
need to play by the rules...We don't have a king of the hill approach to power systems and don't want it.
So if someone has ideas that open magnetics systems in products are the only way to go they need to
think again.

Open cores I'm are OK for really low cost experimental systems but those systems will need to be redesigned
before becoming products. Formal experimental demonstrations of new systems should not have them either
because the become confusing sneak paths for energy input, think of magnetic motors. Something snake-oil
sales types seem to find these desirable apparently.

MarkSCoffman

 
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 09, 2008, 07:53:49 PM
If anyone is having a hard time understanding this here is another way of looking at it.

Look at illustration 1, imagine that the coil pictured is producing a north pole up.
Now see that before the flux gets to the other end mach will leave from the sides.
And if we now replace the lamination with a coil of the same shape (or cut the center of the lamination out and now call it a one turn shorted coil) we see that as the flux stength varies so does the level of flux threading our shorted coil and unless the laws of induction are on a break a voltage will be induced, and the critical part will not face cancellation from and other currents.
But in a closed path all the flux leaves through the 2 ends and none of it leaves out the side to induce our laminate coil.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 09, 2008, 08:07:03 PM
Having a hard time getting it?

Another way to look at it is like this, look at illustration 1, imagine that the coil pictured is producing a north pole up.
Now see that before the flux gets to the other end mach will leave from the sides.
And if we now replace the lamination with a coil of the same shape (or cut the center of the lamination out and now call it a one turn shorted coil) we see that as the flux stength varies so does the level of flux threading our shorted coil and unless the laws of induction are on a break a voltage will be induced, and the critical part will not face cancellation from and other currents.
But in a closed path all the flux leaves through the 2 ends and none of it leaves out the side to induce our laminate coil.


Mark, open magnetic systems can be shielded by being placed in a steel enclosure and indeed motors are to reduce leakage even more. (open simply means without an all magnetic flux path not that it is open to the environment necessarily)
The only difference is that the enclosure should give a bit more extra room so that more flux encloses through air. (If it created Free Energy most would think it worth while having a steel enclosed room in the basement if it came to that although the enclosure could probably be just a little larger than normal probably)

Or they can be used in unpopulated areas to generate power for the grid.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: lancaIV on March 09, 2008, 08:12:13 PM
eddy currents = Foucault currents
from Galilei 2 Huyghens 2 Foucaults "Pendulum" ,now:
How are the "Pendulum"-laws defined ? Which external/internal limitations/influences ? !!!

@  "gyulason": please give me , one time more ,the web-page info ,from Russia,about the used formula
by the inventor Wolfgang Klinsing for his e-Motor.

There is an image and I think that when somebody look for the Pearson- Conductor- Rotor-force lines, conductor with time-parallel condensator function:
but from above ("orbi" !) then this will be same -detailed- force field lines observation !
This is all the ambient of  "BIOT & SAVART- LAW" , I would say : the Vortex/Black Hole LAW !

CdL

p.s.: Wir sind dabei, wieder Traum-Zeit(Arbor-Religionen) und Raum-Zeit(Physik) zu vernetzen:
     
                                            T-RAUM -HAFT !
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Koen1 on March 10, 2008, 02:06:04 PM
Having a hard time getting it?

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, 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.

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?
;)
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: PulsedPower on March 12, 2008, 01:23:24 PM
Leakage in magnetic circuits can cause eddy currents in surrounding metal work so even with a ferrite core there can be losses, solution, design the magnetic circuit better, this is not a new problem it has been managed, the world is full of inductors with gaps especially in high power and high frequency applications,  low frequency applications tend to use higher field strengths and less gaps to avoid the problems that Mscoffman mentiones with regard to system size and the undesirable consequences of uncontrolled magnetic leakage. Though I think he overstates some of the problems many welders run with heaps of leakage, I used to have one with 80 turns of coper tape and a 20 square inch laminated slug to adjust the current running up to 300 Amps, every bracket on the top of the machine was on insulated bushings to prevent the voltage induced by the stray field from forming a current loop, not the best design but these machines were very popular once.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Janus20 on March 25, 2008, 02:41:50 PM
Very true. In fact 97% of a transformer output is by transfer of Eddy Currents. I will try to put up a gif. If it does not go. The full  info is at www.unifiedtheory.org.uk/ .......Diagram 25

This is a better Diagram with no site visit necessary.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Koen1 on March 25, 2008, 06:34:28 PM
Sorry, I must be overlooking something,
but where exactly is this "free lunch"?
I see a description of a 'normal' transformer?
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Janus20 on March 26, 2008, 12:12:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Koen1 on March 26, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
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?
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Janus20 on March 26, 2008, 01:15:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: M@rcel on March 26, 2008, 01:21:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 26, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: Koen1 on March 26, 2008, 11:57:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: aether22 on March 27, 2008, 02:42:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*
Post by: PulsedPower on March 27, 2008, 04:47:10 AM
@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.