Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor  (Read 300947 times)

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #315 on: February 09, 2007, 12:51:22 AM »
Quote
this is the 3rd time I kindly ask you for this.

Hi Gyula, have a look at pic 3 on reply 278.

Hi Albert and Ergo,

Albert, Thanks for this, I was aware of that picture but wanted to see the simulation with the same size gap (you used wider gap in reply 278 than in the latter 3 simulations) but now it does not matter if you also agree that there is no force in the gap at all in either case, right?

Quote
So is Jacks valve better than when the magnet is replaced with iron? Why is it better or more efficient? can you tell me that?
You say yourself that increasing the cross sectional area of the core increases the resultant force. So you have to sacrifice cross sectional area to make room for Jacks magnet.

Yes, Jack's valve is better than when the magnet is replaced with iron  because (as I explained) you actually make its cross sectional area bigger by filling up the space that was earlier occupied by the perm. magnet.

No, you do not have to sacrifice cross sectional area to make room for Jack's magnet, I did not mean that. I emphasized the effective area if you would read it again in my previous letter, and for me it means that if you could take out the sleeve and reshape it into a normal cylinder core of the same length the sleeve has had: this would mean an equivalent cross sectional area in my understanding. And if you increase this area with the cross sectional area of the magnet, you will naturally have a stronger electromagnet than with the sleeve's original cross sectional area. But then you cannot compare this latter result to that of the perm. magnet + electromagnet flux result because you must compare apple to apple.

Quote
The case as I see it is that you always have to sacrifice some cross sectional area of an electromagnet to fit in a magnet to turn it into Jacks valve. If the insertion of the magnet doesn't result in an increase of force, then it is pointless. just leave it as an electromagnet.

No, you do not have to sacrifice some cross sectional area of an electromagnet to fit in a magnet to turn it into Jack's valve.

Let's think from backwards and you could make simulations too.
Suppose we need 3200 N attractive force in Jack's valve.

Step 1: no perm. magnet, no sleeve shape core but a normal cylinder core i.e. we have to convert mathematically the cross sectional area of a sleeve of 1" ID and 2" OD (as Jack indicated in his drawing in reply 287) to be an equivalent area of a cylinder shape core with the same height or length. This way the core of the electromagnet will of course be thinner than the bars width they are attached to.

Step 2: apply an excitation current into the coil that is wound around this cylinder core till you receive 800 N  (yes, 800 N please) in the airgap and note the current or the input power to the coil.

Step 3: replace this equivalent cylinder shaped core with the sleeve from which we started out in step 1 and apply the same input power to get (more or less) the same 800 N force in the same airgap. I can only hope this will come out in the simulation without changing the input power too noticable (within 5-10% maybe?)

Step 4: insert the permanent magnet into the sleeve, apply the same input power into the electromagnet as in step 3 or 2 and now you will have to receive 4 times as much force i.e. 4*800=3200 N.

You may use your setup you used when reported simulations in your reply 295.

If Rob (MeggerMan) could also afford his time to run such simulations, it would be also great to see his results in the setups above.

Ergo, I hope you also understand now the problem of the cross sectional areas and maybe you see now it differently?

Regards

Gyula

JackH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #316 on: February 09, 2007, 04:44:24 AM »
Thanks gyulasun
« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 05:12:10 AM by JackH »

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #317 on: February 09, 2007, 07:55:01 AM »
Step 5, replace magnet with iron, observe practically same result as step4.

If the valve behaves in the same way in real life (I hope it doesn't) as in the simulations then there is no chance of overunity with Jacks valve.

By the way, I think Honk made some very interesting experiments that could be applied to motors. Great work Honk.


regards

Albert


gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #318 on: February 09, 2007, 10:10:25 AM »
Step 5, replace magnet with iron, observe practically same result as step4.

Albert, I hope you replace magnet with iron with physical sizes I kindly suggested.

Why are you not willing to consider the cross sectional area/mass/volume difference which is created by your replacement?  These factors do count in the performance of an electromagnet. There is no point to continue this series of arguments because you prefer ignoring my suggestions.  Debunking?

Regards

Gyula

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #319 on: February 09, 2007, 10:43:14 AM »
Hi Gyula, there really is no need to acuse me of debunking.  If it's not possible to raise a question (which in my opinion has not been answered) regarding a claim of free energy without being accused of debunking then I think we can end the discussion right here.

I do not see the need to perform anymore simulations as per your suggestions as I believe the simulations allready provided are sufficient.  I also believe your reasoning is flawed. If someone would perform the test in real life of the valve with the magnet replaced with the iron then we will know how it stands as being a feasible energy source.

Regards

Albert

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #320 on: February 09, 2007, 11:59:29 AM »
Hi Gyula, there really is no need to acuse me of debunking.  If it's not possible to raise a question (which in my opinion has not been answered) regarding a claim of free energy without being accused of debunking then I think we can end the discussion right here.


Hi Albert, no, sorry for this, I did not mean that,  but I do mean you tend to ignore physical facts that change the original parameters of the electromagnet.

Of course you can always replace the magnet with iron but if you do so, my opinion is that then,  if you wish to compare correctly the force received with the core to that of the magnet, you have to increase the cross sectional area of the sleeve with the amount of that of the iron core (you inserted) towards the outside direction of the sleeve (to preserve the possibility of inserting again the same sized magnet into the sleeve for correct comparison). This may sound strange to you but I think this is where the point is if we wish to make justful comparison.

Why is my reasoning flawed?  Why is it wrong if I want electromagnets with equal cross sectional areas in the comparison first? 

Is it not a physical fact that the moment you insert iron core to fill up the empty hollow of the original sleeve core then you just create an electromagnet which is much stronger in itself, independently from the valve setup, than the electromagnet with the sleeve core and no permanent magnet involved in either case yet?

And why is it stronger? Because it contains more ferromagnetic material than the sleeve does, simply because you filled up the sleeve's so far magnetically empty volume with permeable core; you multiplied  the magnetic conduction of the air-filled inner volume of the sleeve  by permeability times of the iron core.

And in Jack's valve you wish to ignore this when comparing the performance thus gained to that of the magnet case.  I do not think this is a technically correct comparison if done your way, not correcting for the unequal cross sectional areas in the electromagnets.

Regards

Gyula

Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #321 on: February 09, 2007, 12:26:40 PM »
Hello.

I have been wondering if 100% of the input power to the magnet valve
is being converted into a magnetic field.
Yesterday I did some calculations in this matter using this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/solenoid.html#c3
Please see the attached picture.

It acctually turns out that it is possible to get very high flux in a
solenoid electro magnet with an iron core using just 7 to 8 watts.

I did calculations on a core that is 4cm long and has 654 turns of flat
enamelled copper wire with the iron permability of 200.
The flat wire is 0.035mm thick and 6.4mm wide. I used this size because I will
soon recieve it to a project I'm working on.
The calculated resistance of the 654 turns of copper wire is 7.35 ohms.
This magnet is totally realistic to make in real life.

It turns out that 7.35W of power at 1A to this coil will create 4.11 tesla.
Well, this is inside the center of the iron core and the total flux at the
ends of the solenoid is probably somewhat lower but still it gives me a
feeling that not all electricity is converted into flux in the magnetic Valve?

When lowering the permability parameter to 100 I get only half the flux.
I did lower it to simulate removing a portion (50%) of the core.
This indicates that removing iron will lower the efficiency in creating
electricity into magnetic flux.

If this is the case, then all the magnet does is replacing the missing
permability and this indicates that we will not get any overunity...
Sadly enough. :'(

I do hope I'm wrong on this because I really want an overunity motor. ;D

I have completed a Motorcontrol electronic schematic based on the on
the Coil Delay Remover I posted a couple of days ago.
It is acctually easier to implement than I thought.
It will be completly self adjusting and it will not consume any more
power than compaired to a conventional design.
It also recycles the energy from the back EMF to enhance the efficiency.

Later on, if Jacks Motor turns out good, I'll post the complete schematic here. 8)

/Honk
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 02:13:40 PM by Honk »

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #322 on: February 09, 2007, 01:16:48 PM »
Hi Honk,

Interesting work, I too hope that Jacks valve shows better performance than an electromagnet. At any rate, Jack is a great craftsman.

Is that solonoid calculator you posted a pic of from the web? If so would you post a link to it?

Thanks


That pic Jack posted of the mechanical version of his valve reminds me of magnetic stands for dial guages we used to use when I worked in industry. You could place it on a metal table and either push a small button or twist a knob as in Jacks version, and it would then be stuck with great force to the table. pushing the button the other way would enable you to release the entire magnetic force, in order to take the stand of the table again.  I can't remember how hard one had to press the button to activate the magnetic force ( the button in the blue square in the image)

(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5018/standrt6.jpg)

Regards

Albert

Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #323 on: February 09, 2007, 01:55:27 PM »

Ergo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #324 on: February 09, 2007, 03:42:51 PM »
Why is my reasoning flawed?  Why is it wrong if I want electromagnets with equal cross sectional areas in the comparison first? 

Regards
Gyula

Because you really need to find out if there is any gain of power in Jack's valve.
If a valve with an iron core is equally as strong as the valve containing the magnet
at 10W then we don't make use of the energy within the magnet to get more power.

When we talk about over unity we need to test our inventions the scientifically way.
We must keep an open mind and try to find out where the extra energy is coming from.
And when we use the Iron Core Valve it doe's not occupate more space than the
original Electro Magnet Valve in Jack's motor.
I see the risk of fooling ourselfs that we get free energy. But if we can't prove that
Jack's valve acctually is better than an equally sized electro magnet at 10W then we
will not get any free energy from the magnet valve. We have just replaced the energy
with static energy from a magnet that takes the same 10W to release.
This means "no gain" of free energy, thus no self runner.

Hey I have a question.  I have a valve made out of a three inch magnet, now this valve will pickup and hold 3,524 lbs when inergized with only 10 Watts.  I have tested it at a feed store at 3,100 lbs.   It totally turns loose of the load when the power is turned off.

Now my question is.   If you were to wind an electrical coil to make an electric magnet(not using any permanent magnets), how much could you get 10 watts to pickup and hold?  You could wind the electro magnet any way you like.  Just how much will 10 Watts pickup and hold?

Thanks,,,,,,Later,,,,,Jack W Hildenbrand

Hi Jack.

You said I could wind the electro magnet any way I'd like.
Then I choose to wind it exactly as you have made your valve but I would use a solid
iron core. Could you please test this and report the result here, Jack. Please, Please!!!
Before we have tried it this way we will never get an end to this discussion.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 04:29:00 PM by Ergo »

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #325 on: February 09, 2007, 04:01:39 PM »
I'll second that,
 
Please Jack, do as Ergo suggested and then we will really know if there is anything to be gained from your valve. This really is a fair test, in fact it's the only test. If your valve can hold more than the version with the magnet replaced with iron with same electrical input, then you really are onto something interesting.

Best regards

Albert

JackH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #326 on: February 09, 2007, 06:20:05 PM »
Hello Albert,
« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 05:09:26 AM by JackH »

Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #327 on: February 09, 2007, 06:40:21 PM »
Jihaaaaaaa...... Overunity here we come......Really good news, Jack. ;D

It seems like the simulation capacity of FEMM is flawed and can't calculate
real world situations where people try all things possible with magnetism.

This is in fact the best news so far regarding the Electro Magnetic Valve. ;D
Now we wait impatiently on the self runner video from you, Jack.
Nice Work..... :D

This means I can continue my Controller design for High Speed Hilden-Brand motors. ;)

Free Energy mmmmmmmmmmm ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #328 on: February 09, 2007, 06:51:00 PM »
Great Jack, Glad to hear your valve really is the business.

Best regards

Albert

MeggerMan

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor
« Reply #329 on: February 09, 2007, 08:07:22 PM »
Hi Honk,
There is an "e" in pulse.
I do like your idea for reducing the flux build up time, fantastic.
 
Femm is not flawed, its the gap that causes the problem, you need no gap or a very tiny tiny gap.

Hi Jack,
Can you redo your above experiment, but this time place a 1mm sheet of plastic in between your field poles and the keeper.

I will re-run the simulation and see if I can get a very tiny gap.

Regards
Rob