Hi Esa,
many thanks for the nice pictures.

Could you speak with the Steorn stuff there ? Is it right, that the display Orbos still
use Reed relay switches for the coil current
switching ,but the bit different  Dec. 19th Demo unit did use optocoupler-transistor switches
for the coil switching ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

tachoman used the words "reed" and "switch" when he was talking about  the orbo demonstrations.
didnt speak to any staff, just asked tachoman what he was doing, and listened to him answer other people's questions.
i'm a bit not sure if i should upload video of him talking, but i'll upload it for myself for archiving purposes and see who else i should give it to. lets see. (im not sure if its allowed to just randomly film someone and push him  online, to be seen by steorn skeptics and antiskeptics -- would i get into trouble? i guess i'm allowed to show it to like a friend i know, or something..)
either way, im still uploading.

You only need enough permeability to contain most of the flux in the core.  A stronger magnetic field will require a higher permeable material.

A higher permeable material will require more amps from the pulse to eliminate the magnet from being attracted to the core in order to eliminate the CEMF.  This is the reason to keep the permeability as low as possible according to the strength of the magnetic field.

This is what I suggest:

1)  Find out what the maximum attraction force is for the least permeable material.  If there is no maximum attraction force, then find the best ratio ( I doubt this will be the case though).

2)  Match this permeable material with a magnet with a field strength that saturates this core, but not to the point where there is stray flux outside this core ( we want nearly all of the flux to be contained within the material).

3)  Find the distance the magnet is no longer attracted to the core.  This distance will be the radius we will need to wind our toroid.  This will also affect the decision we make in step 1.  We want maximum attraction force with the least amount of distance before it starts to attract. This allows our pulse to be shorter while gaining the most momentum.

4)  The smaller the surface area is for the core, the shorter the pulse will need to be.  The surface area of the core will need to be taken into account in step 1.

5)  Send a quick pulse to the coil with the least amount of amps to cancel the magnet from being attracted to the core.

6)  Correct and improve on the above

7)  Stop reading and do it!


Edit:  Wings, those links look interesting.  Thanks


GB
 

You only need enough permeability to contain most of the flux in the core.  A stronger magnetic field will require a higher permeable material.

A higher permeable material will require more amps from the pulse to eliminate the magnet from being attracted to the core in order to eliminate the CEMF.  This is the reason to keep the permeability as low as possible according to the strength of the magnetic field.

This is what I suggest:

1)  Find out what the maximum attraction force is for the least permeable material.  If there is no maximum attraction force, then find the best ratio ( I doubt this will be the case though).

2)  Match this permeable material with a magnet with a field strength that saturates this core, but not to the point where there is stray flux outside this core ( we want nearly all of the flux to be contained within the material).

3)  Find the distance the magnet is no longer attracted to the core.  This distance will be the radius we will need to wind our toroid.  This will also affect the decision we make in step 1.  We want maximum attraction force with the least amount of distance before it starts to attract. This allows our pulse to be shorter while gaining the most momentum.

4)  The smaller the surface area is for the core, the shorter the pulse will need to be.  The surface area of the core will need to be taken into account in step 1.

5)  Send a quick pulse to the coil with the least amount of amps to cancel the magnet from being attracted to the core.

6)  Correct and improve on the above

7)  Stop reading and do it!


Edit:  Wings, those links look interesting.  Thanks


GB
 

Right on GB, Now I know at least one other person understands what is going on!!! With neo 48's, my lowest u torroid attracts from about 3/4" away and with a u over 200, about 1.5" on my synthetic clock bearings....something has gotta give. I have 6 different toroids and all in the 40 to 200u + range,  Need to get some with a u in the 1-10 range, will take about a week or so to get.  its a delicate balancing act.  We don't have to totally shield the core but the better, the more output.  Too much inductance and it won't switch fast enough, too little, and not enough shielding.  I give Stoern kudos on his simple motor, ingenious.  There doesn't appear to be much back emf due to dual magnets and wiring of coils, but there certainly is inductive kickback but it just adds to the total shielding effect.  Have the basic electronics to switch with hall effects/FET's or IGBT's.  Just have to get the coils right.  Will be most interested in the No-Lenz generator section, hope they don't dwell too long on the motor.

Ben

Paul,
I used Mechanical Desktop. I use that and NX all day at work so it only took me a few minutes to draw it up.

I think it may represent what is going on in the Steorn device, but with no moving parts.

@k4zep:  I think you're right about the balance being of the utmost importance in this system.

@lumen:  Excellent concept to possibly manifest a working toroid meg generator into existence.  This is interesting and I'll have to take a good look at it.

@broli:  Thanks for your circuit and the simulations on the permeability and the information you posted.

@esaruoho:  Nice high quality videos.


This is great stuff!


GB

lumen,

I just realized your meg design is similar to broli's "Constant flux DC motor/generator" thread, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8461.msg214777#msg214777

It's not the same, but I see some similarities between the two designs.  Instead of having it rotate, you replaced the rotation with every other coil being on/off and switching between them to simulate the rotation.  We may be on the right track here.  I like the concept.


GB

Hi Stephan,

I have been following the YouTube video #1 from Steorn but pulled my questions on that site as it seems that they give out very little technical information.  The video answers a lot of questions and I suspect your analysis is very correct.  There very obviously is BackEMF and little or no CounterEMF due to the toroidal coil construction. 

I had lots of problems with the design at first as I know that there is virtually no magnetic field external to a close coupled toroid coil and could not figure out how it could drive the rotor.  Finally realized it was simply a Adams motor (I assume everyone knows what a Adams motor is and how it works, if not Google it) with NO CEMF due to the toroid coil design.  It was also immediately apparent that you could recover most of the BEMF to a fast recharge the battery/supply with surprising results. 

IF you put a bridge rectifier across the coil network and drive the coils with a voltage low enough to not turn on the diodes during the pulse  (around 1.4V for a 4 diode bridge or higher if multiple diodes used in the legs of bridge) you then can recover the BEMF back to the battery.  You end up with resistive losses and very short BEMF pulses if diodes are fast enough and battery accepts a fast pulse recharge.  Thus you end up with a very efficient motor, Not powerful but super efficient in its own funny way.  Their estimate of COP around 3 for the power input vs. rotor mechanical output after all is accounted for is probably close and as seen in the Adams motor.  A standard pulse generator only has to make up for the actual resistive losses (10%?), charging losses (20-40%) air drag and bearing losses and you have a OU or super efficient device. A Super Cap should be much more efficient as a power supply than the battery used as there would be no recharging losses in the Cap. 

That they have not been able to utilize a solid state switching device is a puzzle considering the amount of money spend on this device.  There are many switches that have a very low ON resistance, are very fast devices for switching efficiency and fast recovery diodes that should work with no problem.  Anyway, I'm having fun working with this new twist.  It will take time to build one.  When you use NEO's with close coupled fields, the device must be robust to say the least. 

Happy holidays to all,
Ben

Hello,

I'm very interested in understanding one of the setups you mentioned on overunity.com about capturing flyback current. You stated the following. Could you please go into more detail and explain this setup to me? I would appreciate any help you can provide. I would like to build this circuit. I'm interested in powering an electromagnet from a battery and recapturing the flyback when the circuit opens.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
interestedinou

 

Lumen good work. I thought I was the only one thinking of that.

I've been doing equations for the past three days to try to show output. I'm having trouble with the output coil equations. I know standard coil equations. But how can I calculate the amps in the output coil if the toroid is saturating and un-saturating, in say 1/1000th of a second. If the magnetic field (0.46T) generated by a coil (in response to the external magnet) around a 2000u permeable material is created by 0.02 amps of current, is that saying multiply the amps times the frequency(1000 times per sec) to get amps in one second? I do get confused at times. I hope this question doesn't look entirely stupid.