Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: nwman on August 20, 2008, 06:35:51 AM

Title: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 20, 2008, 06:35:51 AM
Thanks for taking a moment to read this thread. I'm just looking to increase my knowledge of how electromagnetism works. I'm not trying to prove any idea in this thread but to get help understanding how a certain electromagnet configuration would perform in a certain configuration. I'm going to try and keep this as simple as possible. I do consider myself a novice in this field so please forgive my ignorance. Ok, on with the idea.

Below is simple graphic of the configuration of the electromagnets. There are two A and B. The electromagnets' core is made of grain oriented laminated steel. The polarity alignment of the two are opposing (N to S).

There are two connecting bars (C and D) that have induction coils wrapped around them. These are made of the same Material as the cores and have small air gaps between them.

So, please point out any misconception I have about how this would work. Say both electromagnets (EM) are off (A and B). Now lets say you started to energize (pulse) A and B at opposite times thus making an alternating current relative to the C and D coils.

-At this point would you receive two separate and opposite wave length AC currents from coils C and D?
-Would there be back EMF in the system or would it continue to function normally?
-Is there a way to combine the two separate / opposite AC currents into one AC current without great loss?
-The main question I had, if it would operate as I imagine, is what would be a "conservative estimate" of the amount of ?loss? from the power put into A and B to the amount of power that could be collected at C and D? Would it be 10% 20% 50% etc....
- Any other comments or questions?

Thanks for your help.

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2008, 08:39:24 AM
It's an interesting question. Some points come to mind:
First, there isn't any way to estimate the efficiency based on the description, because so much depends on the materials and the exact geometry.
Second, whatever the efficiency, those air gaps will decrease it. I don't understand why you think they are needed.
Third, as soon as you begin pulsing one or both the coils A and B, the coils C and D will begin responding with a sinusoidal voltage swing, i.e. AC.  Just hook the coils in series if you want to "combine" them.
Fourth, there is BEMF whenever you "turn off" an electromagnet coupled to a coil.
Fifth, there will most likely be a resonant frequency of pulsation of the A and B coils that will give the maximum power transfer or even an actual resonant voltage rise in the "secondary" formed by the C and D coils.

By the way, what you have described is pretty darn close to being a transformer, but they usually take pains to omit the air gaps in transformer design.
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Honk on August 20, 2008, 09:29:59 AM
Winding a coil around a permanent magnet will give you no output what so ever, simply
because you cannot affect the "hard" magnetism of a permanent magnet by a surrounding coil.
This is the difference between "soft magnetics" vs "hard magnetics".
http://www.arnoldmagnetics.com/products/index.htm
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 20, 2008, 11:23:55 AM
@Honk

Dear Honk,  would you mind reading Tim's description on his setup again,  there is no permanent magnets involved but all the cores are made from laminations. The poles indicated in the picture are from the electromagnets in one moment I think.

@Tim

I tend to agree with TinselKoala's opinions  [except his Third statement: the waveform of the output coils will be also pulse-like shapes like at the  input, sinusoidal waveforms can only come out when you tune the output (or the input) coils into resonance with the pulse frequency].
So basically your setup seems a normal transformer. When you switch on one of the EM's coils say A (the other coil, B is off as you mean), flux can flow through the closed magnetic path (assuming small air gaps): this corresponds to  the situation of a normal AC transformer primary coil excited with AC and the half periode of this AC wave sends flux through the core in one direction. 
Next, you switch off  A and switch on B with polarity as you showed, this corresponds to the normal transformer's primary coil excited with the other half periode of its AC waveform that sends the flux through the core in the other direction.

Do you mean on back EMF the pulse that is created when you switch off the current in any inductive coil?  If so, I prefer calling it flyback pulse, and of course those flyback pulses appear across your EM coils whenever you switch their current off.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Honk on August 20, 2008, 12:00:06 PM
Opps, sorry. I've never encountered a drawing on a regular transformer device using dedicated N/S polarization.
In all cases there has always been pemanent magnets inserted and the N/S show direction. Like the MEG.
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 20, 2008, 11:40:17 PM
@TinelKoala

Thanks for the input. In regard to your comment about materials and geometry, and without compromising the basic arrangement, is there a way to greatly optimize this ?relative? transformer? Also given that the air gaps would be razor thin (they may not be needed). I?m just hoping for something that would have less then 20% loss given professional construction.

In regard to the BEMF or ?flyback? how, if at all, would this hinder the transfer of power through this configuration? Would simply having something drawing power out of the C,D coils remove the BEMF? I?m still fairly green to this concept.

Also, is the graphic config2.gif what you mean about ?hook the coils in series??

@Gyulasun

Thank you as well! I agree with how you described the flux pattern to operate in this configuration. I mentioned before that I?m new to the bemf idea so I?m not sure how it would effect this configuration if it would have no positive or negative effect? I?m just trying to get an idea of how this would affect the transfer of a DC current through it and if it would transfer it into an AC current and the amount of loss in the process roughly?


@All

Let me ask another question with a slightly different simpler approach. Take Config3.gif. Let?s say I pulse this electromagnet A with a DC current without changing the poles. By simply wrapping coils around the pole could I pull this DC current straight through without great loss [Under 10% given optimal construction]? Or how could this be done? Now let?s say I want to convert this DC current into AC. Could you simply run it into an AC to DC converter? How much loss would you expect to get from a decent AC to DC converter?

Which of the two designs would be ?potentially? more efficient for transferring and converting the DC input into an AC output?

I know it may seems I?m trying to make it more complicated then it needs to be but I?m trying to imagine the behaviors of these ideas for a larger idea. Or maybe I am making it too complicated!

 Thanks,

Tim


Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 21, 2008, 03:04:13 PM
... I?m just trying to get an idea of how this would affect the transfer of a DC current through it... 

Hi Tim,

I think the best answer for your above question is Tesla's patent on Coil for electromagnets,  see this link: http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/coil.htm  He solved the natural opposition of coils self-inductance (i.e. inductive reactance) to current change by increasing the coils self capacitance with using a second parallel led wire and connect the two coils in series. This way he got a coil setup in which the self inductance is compensated (at a certain frequency called resonant frequency) by the distributed capacitance received between the two coils and there will be no other resistance to the resonant frequency current than the coils combined DC resistance. 
To utilize this for your case: you have to find the resonant frequency of your parallel wire flat or slightly flat coil setup and excite it with the pulsed DC current of the same frequency. Of course other shapes of coils are possible, with cores too, but you have to find its resonant frequency...
Notice: I think the correct term is pulsed DC current in your question instead of DC current because you will probable switch the DC current on and off into your electromagnet with certain periodicity, right? If so, then you excite your EM coil with pulsed DC current, due to the regular and consecutive on and off periods.

@All

Let me ask another question with a slightly different simpler approach. Take Config3.gif. Let?s say I pulse this electromagnet A with a DC current without changing the poles. By simply wrapping coils around the pole could I pull this DC current straight through without great loss [Under 10% given optimal construction]? Or how could this be done? Now let?s say I want to convert this DC current into AC. Could you simply run it into an AC to DC converter? How much loss would you expect to get from a decent AC to DC converter?
Which of the two designs would be ?potentially? more efficient for transferring and converting the DC input into an AC output?
I know it may seems I?m trying to make it more complicated then it needs to be but I?m trying to imagine the behaviors of these ideas for a larger idea. Or maybe I am making it too complicated!

If I compare your Config1 to Config3, the big difference is Config3 has no closed flux path possibility due to lack of core B. This causes a big reducement in induced currents in coils C and D, compared to Config1.

If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)   

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 21, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
@ gyulasun,

Notice: I think the correct term is pulsed DC current in your question instead of DC current because you will probable switch the DC current on and off into your electromagnet with certain periodicity, right? If so, then you excite your EM coil with pulsed DC current, due to the regular and consecutive on and off periods.

I agree.

If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)

I assume you are referring to the Config1 design? Depending on how you pulse the DC current between the two EMs I would guess you could make it a square wave or a sine wave. Isn?t a normal AC current a sine wave?

@All

I was trying to keep my questions uncomplicated but I think I should post my full idea [next post]. I was just trying to confirm the behaviors of the current through this core design before complicated it. Honk was not too far off when he commented about permanent magnets. They are cool and I like them so I figured I would add them just for fun! [joking] Please read the post below and let me know where I went wrong. As most of my ideas this has probably been tried and I just haven?t ran across it yet.

Thanks

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 21, 2008, 07:55:44 PM
I have to admit that my knowledge in this area is again very novice. All I know is that I was reading another thread on this forum and in the process saw an experiment that made me questions a few things. The video linked below [11.7Mb] is one of the videos demonstrating the technology. The technology is based off of a lot of peoples work from Flynn to Hilden-Brandt and people before them. It?s a way to collapse and expand a permanent magnets field inside a core and pulse it by using an electromagnet. You have probably read the threads. Nali2001 or ?Steven? has been actively working on Jack Hilden-Brandt?s magnetic valve motor idea. Steven has replicated some of Jacks valves but in a slightly different manner. The video attached is a demonstration of how it works. After talking with Steven I consider him to really know what he is talking about and do not believe he is over looking anything simple in is evaluation of the test in the video.

So this is what I thought from the video. From what I understand an electromagnet using the laminated steel core should be in the ball park of 90%-99% efferent when it comes to power input vs. attraction force potential. So in the video you see that when he put the two cores together with the EM off they don?t attract. Then when he turns on the EM the two cores attract with just enough force that he can wiggle them fairly easily. Then he attached the magnets and cross bar which when combined collapses the permanent magnets? fields inside the core. Again with the EM off and the PM on, the two cores still don?t attract meaning the flux is collapsed. Now when he turns the EM on and connects the two cores the attraction force is much greater then that of just the EM. If the EM by itself is roughly 90%-99% of its potential attraction and it increases by 2 and some say 4 times then you should get over 100% of the potential magnetic attraction. As shown in the video. Is this correct [roughly]?

They are trying to incorporate this idea into an electric motor but my first thought was that if this would at all work in an motor then it should also work in a solid state. I guess its more of what they call a MEG. I probably should have posted this in that topic. It seems to me that if you can increase the magnetic flux by a factor of 2-4 times then you would be creating a magnetic field that is larger then the potential magnetic field of the electromagnet. Thus OU.? From the video it looks like that field is quite stronger. How much I am in the process of replicating and testing.

Now if you look at how the videos configuration fits into my configuration shown above and in config4 below I wonder if it?s a possible deign to pull off the gained magnetic flux [if any]?

The reason I have the air gaps in the design is so that the PM field returns to its respective primary core when the EM fields is turned off.

So I now anticipate your comments on why this wouldn?t work? What are the misconceptions and what might prevent it from working?

Thanks,

Tim

Video: www.abcwag.com/MagnetExtraPower.wmv
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 21, 2008, 09:49:12 PM
...
If you introduce a pulsed DC into a coil, (the shape of this current will be more or less a square wave, right?)  the induced voltage in a second coil that has a magnetic coupling to the first coil will be also pulsed voltage (or more or less also a square wave) and once you have a pulsed voltage across the second coil it can already be considered as a kind of AC voltage, right?
(I mention this to clear: no need for introducing a DC-AC converter after the second coil, i.e. after your coils C and D, just because you want to get AC output because you get it anyway.)

I assume you are referring to the Config1 design? Depending on how you pulse the DC current between the two EMs I would guess you could make it a square wave or a sine wave. Isn?t a normal AC current a sine wave?

Hi Tim,

I referred to not only Config1 design what I wrote is true for any two or more coupled coils.  Unless you make deliberately a resonant LC circuit either at the input or the output coil, your pulse input will result in a pulse output, no way to get a sinusoidal shape directly.  Re on normal AC current: what is meant by a normal AC current? I do not know such term in science. We probably get used to sinusoidal waveforms in our enviroment, it comes from the mains or from any harmonic movement etc. It can be a convention to call a "normal" current to be a sinusoidal one. The best is to examine what a circuit is like and whether it is capable for changing the waveshape.  A resonant parallel or series LC circuit always oscillates with sinewaves (unless the iron core of the L gets nonlinear due to saturation etc).

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 22, 2008, 12:10:46 AM
Thanks gyulasun.

So what is everyone's initial thoughts about this concept?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 22, 2008, 12:18:33 AM

Well, my opinion is your Config4 has one (big) drawback: when you connect a load across coils C and D the flux created by the load current reflects back totally to coils A and B (normal Lenz law).  Putting it otherwise: if you excite coils C and D with any AC or pulsed DC, you will get output at coils A and B just like in the reverse/intended case.
Otherwise, your setup seems a good idea...

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 22, 2008, 12:39:24 AM
Steven was telling me something about that but I'm still not fully understanding the concepts. Is this what they call BEMF? Is this what is impossible to over come or is there a way to get around it? It seems that if a transformer works then this should work?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 23, 2008, 01:07:04 AM
Tim,  with my previous mail I meant the problem is a direct flux connection between input and output coils, just like in case of normal transformers.  And as such, the output power you wish to take out will include a certain part from the input power (say you make the same amount of flux by the EM like your permanent magnets have, then half of the the total induced power at coils C and D will come from your input power you furnished).  You may say who cares if it is still ou? 

But first you have to build this and test whether you can receive ou this way at all because up to now this is a theory from me...

So the reason I mentioned Config4 has that (big) drawback is that personally if I were you, I would not like to include my input power into the output power at all...  How would that be possible?

There is a Meg_builders yahoo group where I came across a link to a so called Bulgarian MEG that claims a measured COP of 2... 

And their solution differs very much at the output coils: they use a closed magnetic square or ring circuit in place of the straight core columns where the Beardan team or Naudin places the output coils. This means that the flux created by the load is able to find a closed magnetic path inside its own square or ring shaped core, separately from the magnetic path of the input coils, the two fluxes cannot "see" each other too much.   
I attached a picture grabbed from their site to see how their core looks like, (I drew green dots on where I mean).  The link with the pictures is here: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page5.html 

And this is their only English text page with some explanation: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html

They included a video from their measurements of the COP of 2, about 78MB in size: http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page8.html

Several MEGs have been built in Meg_builders group (censored by moderators) as per Bearden/Naudin but not any one of them achieved higher than COP of  0.85--0.9 during an active 4-5 years periode.  (Then came the link (last year) of the Bulgarian MEG with the claim of COP of 2. There has been silence in that group since then...)
I am 100% sure the failure in the group has had two reasons:
---they did not make the output coils on separated magnetic circuits
---they were not aware of a very important thing, the role of the small air gaps, you wrote after Steven's excellent video:
"The reason I have the air gaps in the design is so that the PM field returns to its respective primary core when the EM fields is turned off."   

Maybe there some more small (or not small) tricks embedded in the Bulgarian MEG to get that COP of 2 I do not know.  Perhaps Steven already knows one or two more I wonder?  Only tests can tell.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 23, 2008, 06:20:02 AM
gyula,

Thanks for your info.

Tim,  with my previous mail I meant the problem is a direct flux connection between input and output coils, just like in case of normal transformers.  And as such, the output power you wish to take out will include a certain part from the input power (say you make the same amount of flux by the EM like your permanent magnets have, then half of the the total induced power at coils C and D will come from your input power you furnished).  You may say who cares if it is still ou?   

We are on the same page. I totally expected that the input power would travel through the input coil and be collected by the output coils. It should be easy to loop that power [if there is ou] back around and self feed the input coils. Thats a small [ ha ha ] detail which can be dealt with if there is OU. For now I'm trying to justify spending the time and money on R&D. I have spent too much money on "ideas" in the past and I want to make sure I'm not over looking anything obvious and costly?

Is there any other problems you can foresee? Or does it simply come down to testing to see if the PM actually adds to the flux field of the EM?

What percent of increase in flux would be needed to determine a positive gain? 50% stronger, 100% stronger, 200%?
Again, from what I know an electromagnets field should be within 90%+ [given ideal construction] of its potential field so if a gain of 50% is achieved then it should have a 40% gain? Correct?

 So if I do a simple attraction force test with the EM and EM-PM and it shows an increase of over 50%[random #] then it could be wise to conclude that OU is achieved and full scale R&D is required? I know people that can professionally construct and refine this idea but I don't want to make myself look like a fool in front of them.

 
Any other comments or concerns?

Thanks again,

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 23, 2008, 06:30:43 AM
Of course I have another question.

Would it [if at all] be better to design it to produce an AC current like in config4 or to set it up to store the DC pulse in a battery and then convert it to AC? Would one be simpler to build/test then the other?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 23, 2008, 01:10:04 PM

Is there any other problems you can foresee? Or does it simply come down to testing to see if the PM actually adds to the flux field of the EM?


It does.  But Steven already showed in his video it does, no? My previous letter showed a step further in separating input power from output power by referring the Bulgarian MEG setup.
Any pitfalls that may occur from now on, can only come out by practice. I am presently not aware of any more foreseeable ones.  Of course the usual, so far not mentioned obvious pitfalls like core saturation and loss are assumed to be handled correctly.

Quote
Would it [if at all] be better to design it to produce an AC current like in config4 or to set it up to store the DC pulse in a battery and then convert it to AC? Would one be simpler to build/test then the other?

I think what could be done is to capture the flyback pulse at the input coils for further process to reduce input power comsumption and let coils C and D produce the AC, the frequency and the waveform of this AC may not be optimum for your load but I think they should be an optimum for the whole setup,  and solve the output AC to be favorable for you after that, independently from the setup.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 23, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
But Steven already showed in his video it does, no?

Yes his video is fairly conclusive. However, as you can see I try not to assume anything. I plan on ordering parts next week.

My previous letter showed a step further in separating input power from output power by referring the Bulgarian MEG setup.

 Given the language barrier I can't read that site and I'm not too familiar with the concepts.

I think what could be done is to capture the flyback pulse at the input coils for further process to reduce input power consumption...

I am also not familiar on how this can be done. Do you have any links to resources explaining how to do this?

Thanks for the help,

Tim

Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 24, 2008, 12:10:04 AM
I think what could be done is to capture the flyback pulse at the input coils for further process to reduce input power consumption...

I am also not familiar on how this can be done. Do you have any links to resources explaining how to do this?


Tim,   here is a member coming just in time: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5446.0.html

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 24, 2008, 02:46:31 AM
Gyila,

Thanks for the link. I'm still not sure how it works but I need to read into it more. Is capturing some of, if not all, BEMF "flyback" actually possible or is it still theoretical? I don't think it is nesisary in my design but if it would add to the effecincy then why not?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: bobo36us2 on August 24, 2008, 03:03:52 AM
@ Tim,

You may have already seen this, but there may be some useful
information for you here: http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter3.pdf
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 24, 2008, 09:24:05 PM
@ Tim,

You may have already seen this, but there may be some useful
information for you here: http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter3.pdf

Hi, I checked it out but most of it is hypothetical. And the ones that say they do work but only in a lab or with special materials are probably scams. If it works at all in a lab or anywhere the science world would be turned on its head. That's another topic though. There is some ideas I hadn't heard of and some really close to what I'm working on but that document only "talks" about them and doesn't really explain how they work.

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 24, 2008, 09:49:32 PM
I'm still looking into all the factors that this involves and I was just wondering if I could get more input on a few of the variable?

Is there certain shapes of magnetic cores that are more efficient? For example, do magnetic fields travel better through a curve or a sharp 90 degree angle or both equally?

In config4, I just want to double check that by simple turning the wire in opposite direction on C and D will combine the two poles to produce one pulse in the output coil?

I would assume it would be better to have the core be as small as possible to reduce resistance? Would I potentially run into problems if the input [primary] coil is right next to [but divided] the output [secondary] coil, or should I given them a little space?

I'm still a little fuzzy with the "flyback" concept. Does a simple transformer have flyback?

Is there actually a way to capture flyback that's tested and true and used in everyday technology?

Thanks,

Tim



Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 24, 2008, 10:06:56 PM

I'm still a little fuzzy with the "flyback" concept. Does a simple transformer have flyback?

Is there actually a way to capture flyback that's tested and true and used in everyday technology?

Thanks,

Tim 

Hi,  this seems ok:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_converter

2) http://www.dos4ever.com/flyback/flyback.html

Gyula


Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 24, 2008, 10:32:54 PM
Thanks Gyula,

Those links helped. I have no idea how to do the math but I feel a little more confident in the idea. If I understand it right the flyback shouldn't effect the over idea of my design but could be adapted to improve over all functionality?

Any opinions about my other questions?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Nali2001 on August 25, 2008, 12:14:31 AM
Hi there Tim and the rest,
Nice to see your are diving into the deep.
I have seen your 'with magnet' setup and a big issue in my opinion is, that regardless of the air gaps the fields of the magnets will just connect up with each other and remain in a magnet-to-magnet much preferred closed loop, and stay there. (see attached image) Building an ac driven system ala Hildenbrand valve with these concepts is really tricky. Essentially they are dc pulsed systems, and since we need a specific magnetic orientation each time the need for dc is obvious. But building an efficient power transferring system with dc is hard. You can not hammer the core with dc and expect to get ac like efficiencies. Easy to try, take an transformer and drive it with a 50%duty dc square wave and see what you get out, the train of dc pulses is not causing a big enough flux polarity change for good efficiency, you will be smacking amps in not time, saturating the core. That is why ac is the bomb for transformers.The Bulgarian system is way different since it does not really dc 'push' the magnets field out to the power output side, it works by saturating one O-core and so set up a barrier or a path of very heavy resistance. That is why the Bulgarian systems can be driven with an ac signal since it is the saturation that counts.

Anyway if you plan on testing your system, always use laminated steel from transformers and stuff. Your C-shaped cores can be found here: http://alphacoredirect.com/index.html?lmd=39634.474294 (http://alphacoredirect.com/index.html?lmd=39634.474294) They have a wide range of cheap cores. Only thing is that you need to machine them. That means you must have the means to take out that metal section seen then the MagnetExtraPower video. But this is way more difficult than you think since the metal laminations are only held together with glue and will just fly apart when machined without knowing what you are doing.

Regards.
Steven
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 25, 2008, 01:15:19 AM
Steven, Exultant point about the magnets! Plus, this is all "diving into the deep" for me so I might as wall go all the way.

One thought I had to fix the magnet problem is to do something like whats shown in the picture below. This may open up other problems but its an idea.?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 25, 2008, 02:20:03 AM
"The Bulgarian system is way different since it does not really dc 'push' the magnets field out to the power output side, it works by saturating one O-core and so set up a barrier or a path of very heavy resistance. That is why the Bulgarian systems can be driven with an ac signal since it is the saturation that counts."

Looking closer at the Bulgarian's work it really is the same thing as Jack's valve but instead of using a simple coil electromagnet as a shunt they use a o-core [toroid]. That make a lot of since to me now! Being a novice, how does the power transfer of the toroid work?

So does the AC used to power the toroid not saturate the core?

Is the idea that the toroid consumes less power while providing enough flux to divert the PM flux path, or is it that there is a way to recover some of the energy used to run the toroid? I'm not sure about this.

Does the toroid act the same even if its in contact with the rest of the system?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Nali2001 on August 25, 2008, 04:42:52 AM
Hi Tim,
Well I would not call the Bulgarian system the same as the other know systems. It works on a 'novel' different approach.
Simply put one O-core side is driven into (near) saturation and so the core is 'full' and will not support any more magnetic fields. So the magnet see this as a no-go area and has to find another route.

So you see the O core acts as a resistor or a blockade for the field of the magnet. This can be done with Dc or Ac.

Well you have to find an optimal input level since you want near saturation so one can use a variac to tune the ac input.

Well I have not seen any references with the Bulgarian system that they have some kind of input recovery. Only that it is highly likely that the input is a high Q resonant system as well.

But my opinion is that you should start simple. With a static Jack valve for testing at first. Since although the Bulgarian system is in my opinion a very good idea, it is not all that plug and play.

Regards,
Steven

Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 25, 2008, 06:32:36 AM
"Well I have not seen any references with the Bulgarian system that they have some kind of input recovery. Only that it is highly likely that the input is a high Q resonant system as well. "

When you say "high Q resonant"  do you[they] mean it might take less energy to saturate the o-core then the gain produced by the switching of the flux?

Going back to jacks valve and the saturation due to the DC pulse at high frequency, could you not simply just pulse it at 1Hz or as fast as you can and capture the output in a cap? I'm not too concerned with making it stream lined but just to see any kind of a gain. You can charge a cap with just a dc pulse can't you?

What lit my fire on this tech is seeing your [Steven] demonstration of the increase in holding force. It seemed to be a visual confirmation of potential.

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 25, 2008, 11:58:21 PM

 If I understand it right the flyback shouldn't effect the over idea of my design but could be adapted to improve over all functionality?


Right,  it does not affect anything but helps increase overall efficiency by regaining some part of the input power you already furnished in,  this way the input power consumption can be reduced.  For this early time in the development, no need for it.

Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 26, 2008, 12:14:21 AM

Is there certain shapes of magnetic cores that are more efficient? For example, do magnetic fields travel better through a curve or a sharp 90 degree angle or both equally? 

I am not aware of any such problem this may cause I do think it can be disregarded. Flux follows its guide by all means, be it curved or rectangular.

Quote
In config4, I just want to double check that by simple turning the wire in opposite direction on C and D will combine the two poles to produce one pulse in the output coil? 

Not sure on this question but assume you mean the turning sense of windings on either C or D coils can be made to get the sum of the two induced voltages, like you connect two 12V batteries to get a single 24V voltage source?

Quote
I would assume it would be better to have the core be as small as possible to reduce resistance? Would I potentially run into problems if the input [primary] coil is right next to [but divided] the output [secondary] coil, or should I given them a little space? 

If you mean if it is a problem for the input and output coils to magnetically couple into each other due to being very close to each other, then letting a certain space is better.  What do you mean by "to reduce resictance"  wrt the core size / smallness?? What resistance?

Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Nali2001 on August 26, 2008, 01:09:46 AM
Right,  it does not affect anything but helps increase overall efficiency by regaining some part of the input power you already furnished in,  this way the input power consumption can be reduced.  For this early time in the development, no need for it.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Well I have to disagree with you on this one.
Capturing the 'flyback' is not at all without consequences.
In this video you see a core with a coil being powered with a 50%duty dc square wave.
http://www.krystyna.nl/Machine/ClampCore.wmv (http://www.krystyna.nl/Machine/ClampCore.wmv)

(Also note that the used circuit has no diode on the fet to protect if from the flyback spikes.)
But anyway, you can see that without the flyback capture the core is experiencing 'soft attraction'. Since the core can "relax" or loose its magnetism between the 50% off cycles of the square wave. Well, then in the video the diode and bulb-load is attached and the light you see is from the captured flyback. But now there is a change in the core to core attraction. You can now see that the cores are dead solid attracted which means that although the coil is only on for 50% of the cycle the cores are experiencing a 100% full 'on' magnetic field. What is happening is that the capture diode and bulb is preventing the core to 'relax' or in other words prevent to core to naturally get back into a near zero magnetic level in between each dc pulse. Well you understand that this effect is only really working in a close looped core condition. But other then that you might say 'so what' when the core is full magnetic all the time.. But one must understand that this now eliminates the core to be used as a dc pulse transformer since there is now (almost) no change in field strength anymore. And the shown systems above are just that.., dc transformers. I have found that flyback capturing is not always a plus. Since in close looped single polarity pulse situations it just "locks up" the core. Which is not what you want in these meg like systems... You want the core to self reset its level of magnetism in between each dc pulse. Since it is obviously not wanted that the core still has 90% of the remaining magnetism from the last pulse, since then there will only be 10% field change at max.

(Tim, these things are for example what I mean when I say 'there is more to it' and 'not that simple')

Regards,
Steven
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 26, 2008, 07:49:28 AM
Steven,

I know its all over my head and really complex. In-spite of doing back to school for a few years to learn this specific tech all I can do is push in a direction and learn everything I can as I go along. I also wish not to spend any money testing ideas that I can simply learn the results and ideas from others [that are willing to share]. Thanks by the way.

I just wanted to get something on here that I heard from a guy that works at the University in my town. I'm not sure of his credentials but he works with people at the U that are working on things like this. He was trying to tell me something about how a large factor that gets over looked is the gases that are around the magnets while they run can effect the performance. Talking about "a lot to it"! I just had to nod my head and say "ok... sure". I have never heard of this.

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: gyulasun on August 26, 2008, 11:51:06 PM
Hi Steven,

Thank you for bringing this up,  unfortunately I forgot to consider the cores are closed in Config4 of course and the created current by the flyback pulse makes a flux stream that magnetizes the core in the off input periodes with a magnetic polarity that adds to flux made by the on time part periode of the input current, hence a continuous attraction.  Sorry for this, in my mind I concentrated on flyback current capture of a 'normal' pulse motor where the cores are mainly open, not closed.

I think if you modify the flyback capture by first charging up a capacitor through the diode by the flyback pulse, then you discharge the capacitor through a second switch to the lamp and this discharge would be made under the off time of the input square wave, (when the first switch is off) then you could reduce the full magnetization of the core by the flyback current during the off time  because in this case the magnetizing current will be the charging current going into the capacitor only ( which is an exponentially decreasing current so its energy content is also decreasing, unlike to the full 'normal' flyback current).  I have not tried this yet, this is theory at the moment, and I do not feel a very good solution for the problem though.

Thanks for the excellent video too.

Regards,  Gyula
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 27, 2008, 06:14:21 PM
I'm currently researching the properties of a toroid and I was wondering if you could help me answer a few questions that I have. So from that I have found a Toroidal magnetic field travels in a loop inside the circle of the core and is relatively self shielded. Meaning that if you touches a piece of metal to the side of it while it was on, that piece of metal would not be attracted to it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjcdJ1wSQJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edqGNOrW1GM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_inductors_and_transformers

Also, a toroid is another type of transformer correct? So if you have two windings on a toroid or primary and one secondary you can input/output power with minimal loss just like a normal transformer?

The last question I have is if you have a toroid that's powered would a magnet be attracted to it or what might be the interaction?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Nali2001 on August 27, 2008, 07:35:13 PM
Hi Tim,
Yes a Toroidal core or O-core is for transformers and such. It has better characteristics than the 'normal' E I type "square" transformers since there are less losses and the geometry is optimized. Normal transformers are made or 2 parts welded together. This introduces a small airgap loss and due to the weld you also increase the eddy current losses. So normal transformers are more leaky then O-core transformers. Another advantage is that O-core transformers are made wound from a long grain aligned strip of transformer steel. This also causes them to have a higher saturation limit. But.... they are hard to wind then therefore not used very often.

If a piece of metal is interacting with a working transformer it means that the transformer is leaking.

Yes a magnet will still be attracted to a ('any type') transformer even if highly saturated since the steel is still attracting and also there is a less known thing about transformers/magnetism and that is that they can have a magnetic field independent in all 3 axes (X Y Z) due to the spin theory of magnetism. That means you can wind on a suitable core in each axes a transformer coil arrangement and have them working independent from each other. So independent transformers on one core. As long as there is only one transformer per X,Y, or Z axes. Therefore a core is only really saturated when saturated in all the 3 axes. With normal transformer windings they are only magnetized in one dimension/orientation. To learn more about this you could see this patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=nDA3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4210859#PPA1,M1 (http://www.google.com/patents?id=nDA3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=4210859#PPA1,M1)

Regards,
Steven
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 28, 2008, 03:34:40 AM
How can the Bulgarian system work [theoretically] if the magnetic field of the magnets are still attracted to the toroid? I thought the idea was that the saturation of the toroid blocked the field of the PM so the PM field would go a different rout?

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: Nali2001 on August 28, 2008, 02:16:49 PM
The field of a magnets must always close loop and follow the path of least resistance. Although the material might still be 'attractive' for the magnet it can not 'host' the field of the magnet. It is already 'full' of magnetism and can not support more. Hence the term saturated. So in the saturated state, it is not a 'path of least resistance' Don't confuse magnetic attractiveness with the ability the support the fields. A paper clip is also attracted to a magnet but can not support the fields.
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 28, 2008, 07:14:21 PM
Thanks Steven! That's what I had thought but I wasn't sure. I appreciate your time and input.

So now what about the problem of the core touching the toroid at the top and bottom? Would this have a large effect on the loss from the toroid? [I do plan to test these ideas for myself but I just want to see what I can find out in advance.]

Could you run the toroid like a transformer and collect the AC back out with minimal loss while still saturating the core?



It seems that if you can use the toroid like a transformer with two separate coils [primary/secondary and recover 90%+] and the toroid would saturate the core enough to cause the PM flux to divert and jump the air gap then this would be a better design. A little more complicated but like you said it could run off AC. Compared to Jack's valve it would have less flux field generated since Jack's is estimated at up to 4 time increase and the Bulgarians would only be the strength of just less then the PM field. Correct?

What other problems would there be?

Thanks,

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: spinner on August 28, 2008, 11:05:04 PM
Good thread and discussions!

Please, consider this:

The only energy transfer/exchange mechanism in magnetics  is a rate of change of mag. flux (dFIux/dt) which enables the induction (and all the consecutive effects...).

"Static" magnetic fields (like PM) cannot "transfer/exchange energy", unless there's another (external) energy source introduced, e.g. a mechanical energy (motion!), which is (so far) still a CoE dependable process...

So if you include permanent magnets in your's EM circuit (like MEG transformers, etc), the end result is just a magnetically "biased" inductive coupling... Which still means you cannot get out more than you put in originally despite the PM's "FE" involvement....

Anyway, such experiments are rather easily reproducible (coil(s), different cores and types of PMs & bacic measuring equipment (scope!))... Do not forget about correct measurement methods...
According to physics definitions, an alleged "OU" self-induced (closed system) EM circuit (like transformer) should work if output is feed back to input with a possibility to "drain" out the surplus of energy....
That would be nice, eh?
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on August 29, 2008, 07:08:17 AM
Spinner, thanks for your input. What does '"FE" involvement' mean?

What are your thoughts on the video posted at the beginning of this thread? Does the increase of around 2 times the attraction force not lend itself to conclude that with the same power input [as an EM that should be 95%+ efficient] you get 2 and possibly 4 times the magnetic attraction [field density]?

The test I want to run at some point would go something like this.

I would start off with a primary cap. that is empty. I would charge it to a level of 1 unit [generically speaking]. Then discharge that cap into the coil on the c-core EM [primary]. This should produce one pulse which would cause the PM/EMs field to jump through the alternate path which is wrapped with a induction coil [secondary]. The field density at the secondary coil should be equal to 2-4 times the density of the primary coil? Thus you should be able to pull off 2-4 times the voltage as the initial pulse? Then some how capture that charge into a few caps. Then with 2-4 units of energy stored you should be able to transfer 1 unit of energy back to the primary cap and recharge it thus setting it up for another discharge while having additional power in the secondary caps left over?

Sorry for the bad terminology, its late. I know its a gross generalisation.

Again from the video it seems you should be able to achieve one full pulse with an increase of flux density greater then what should be expected?

good night,

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: spinner on August 30, 2008, 10:55:19 AM
Spinner, thanks for your input. What does '"FE" involvement' mean?
Thanks! ... Ah, never mind... I was just trying to point out one of the more "popular misconceptions" about magnetics (PM), namely, that PM's are a source of 'Free Energy'.... So far(!), they're still just a source of a magnetic Force.... Like gravity,... A Potential (!!!) Energy.
A permanent magnet, if observed as a "thermodynamic system" from the "outside", has a ZERO sum of ALL the (vector) potentials. No energy  without changing other parameters like a movement (NEWTONIAN! mechanics))....

Quote
What are your thoughts on the video posted at the beginning of this thread? Does the increase of around 2 times the attraction force not lend itself to conclude that with the same power input [as an EM that should be 95%+ efficient] you get 2 and possibly 4 times the magnetic attraction [field density]?
An EM can be >95% efficient. But that's (so far) all about it... You should not mix "OU" with a "field concentrating" mechanisms like a geometry & substance dependable ones (core types, etc).
If you look, for instance, at the parabolic antennas, they're not the "OU".. They can practicly concentrate an  EM field/energy, still, no OU....
In the same way you can look at the magnetic flux concentracing methods (cores with a higher ur than that of the the empty space, the geometry implementations (toroids), etc,,etc...)

Quote
The test I want to run at some point would go something like this.
I would start off with a primary cap. that is empty. I would charge it to a level of 1 unit [generically speaking]. Then discharge that cap into the coil on the c-core EM [primary].
The cost of charging a cap is a well known, a "CoE" process. You can charge it (store the energy) to the nominal values, but there are always some losses involved....
By definition, you loose some (parts of ) percent(s) to charge a cap to a nominal value. (Ohmic & many other (dynamic) losses like EM/radiation, electro-chemistry,..)...
Discaharging a Cap to the coils bring another (CoE obedient) process... After all, the real LC circuits (in any situation) have never been recognised as a source of possible OU.... Which implies that active el. components (diodes, transistors,..) are even worst when it comes to this....
Quote
This should produce one pulse which would cause the PM/EMs field to jump through the alternate path which is wrapped with a induction coil [secondary]. The field density at the secondary coil should be equal to 2-4 times the density of the primary coil? Thus you should be able to pull off 2-4 times the voltage as the initial pulse? Then some how capture that charge into a few caps. Then with 2-4 units of energy stored you should be able to transfer 1 unit of energy back to the primary cap and recharge it thus setting it up for another discharge while having additional power in the secondary caps left over?
Sorry for the bad terminology, its late. I know its a gross generalisation.
Again from the video it seems you should be able to achieve one full pulse with an increase of flux density greater then what should be expected? ... good night,
Tim
The "jumping of an EM field"... is related to a Natural Law which is tending to acchieve the "path of a least resistance"  (this is a centuries old state of the fact when observing the Nature and IMHO, one of the most important ones), a Natural law to achieve minimal potential (energy) state... ... The releasing of a lightning, the wind/pressure../humidity../temperature... differences... They all tends to the state of a minimal potential energy possible .... Entropy is another mechanism to describe this.  Nature allways finds a way to "release" or relaxes itself in some way..

The balance (or even increase) of an energy in such mechanisms is... well... not easily defendable (it goes against classical understanding of Nature/physics...

At the end, if someone would introduce a concept which would successfully broke a current understanding of a CoE principle, then....

How about producing a working model? I mean, theories are good for our tinkering/mental training, yet....

What is wrong with a Bearden claims? His theory is indeed intriguing, but (you may have noticed), there's actually not a single MEG which would work as claimed...
Anyone who can indisputably show a "FE" working device (IN PRACTICE), would win...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on September 20, 2008, 07:15:48 AM
If anyone is still reading this thread I had another question. How does the size of a transformer core effect the energy transfer? In the graphic below you see a funny looking transformer. Two coils A and B. Both A and B have the same number of turns of wire however the core within B is larger. How would this affect the transfer if A is the primary and B is the secondary coil? Would this make any difference?

Another random question: Do the cores of transformers operate at, below, or near the saturation point of their core material?

Thanks

Tim
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on November 09, 2008, 12:25:25 AM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5425.msg123290#msg123290

Sorry it’s taken me so long to post these findings. In regard to Steven’s thoughts quoted above I have tested this concept and found that this configuration does indeed work. I don’t know if you can pull power off of it, but it does act the way I thought. Below is a graphic of the configuration.  Also I have attached a video showing this action.

Sorry Steven, I was mistaken about being wrong in my e-mail. At first I tried to connect the valve to another core that had the notch cut out where the coil goes. It didn’t attract as strong as a solid core. But then I realize that I should have had the magnets and connecting bar on it to simulate the actual configuration. This provided enough material for the flux to travel through. Not only does it attract as hard but it seems to even attract harder because the magnets on the other core are opposite polarity so when the valve turns on all the magnets attract.

Plus in the below configuration as one valve turns on it should send an opposite polarity through the other core which would help keep the cores from becoming polarized [not having enough time to lose there polarity].

If you put secondary coils at points C and D [connected] then I would think you should be able to pullout an AC current. That’s the idea anyways.

Video: http://www.abcwag.com/PC020029.MOV [9.4MB] It takes a while to down load and will play in your browser.
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on November 09, 2008, 12:40:58 AM
Also here is another design. Instead of the flux traveling through the other valve it passes through the center connecting bar. As you can see when the valve is on the bar it is attracted and when it’s off it falls off. If you pulse one side then the other the polarity of the bar [C] in the middle should alternate creating AC. However the core material inside the primary coils A and B will suffer from polarity saturation if the Hz are too high and don’t give them enough time to lose their polarity. See video attached.

Also check out this thread I started: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6010.0

Tim

Video: http://www.abcwag.com/PC020030.MOV [8.6MB] It takes a while to down load and will play in your browser.
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 10, 2008, 04:42:34 PM
You might be interested in Flynn's work, if you aren't already familiar with it.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology
Title: Re: Electromagnet power transfer question.
Post by: nwman on November 10, 2008, 05:25:17 PM
You might be interested in Flynn's work, if you aren't already familiar with it.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_technology

Thanks, I am familiar with his work and I'm currently working with his idea in this thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6010.new;topicseen

Tim