Energy Generation Apparatus and methods based upon magnetic flux switching.
Looks to me these guys are quoting a working unit or is it wishfull thinking.
EDIT ok saved a copy here
[pdf]http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1044.0;attach=5799[/pdf]
You may wish to save a copy of that one ;)
One of the better reads, looks like they did some homework. I'm surprised the patent was granted. Will have to check the prior art referenced. These things look good on paper, the proof would be a working unit. This should be simple to replicate. More interesting than a lot of patents out there.
Here's the patent referenced as continuation-in-part of application
[pdf]http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1044.0;attach=5800[/pdf]
Here's some information about Ted Annis
http://arborwiki.org/city/Ted_Annis
and
J Patrick Eberly
http://www.eqmresearch.com/contact.html
I think the most important part of these patents is the methods shown for redirecting the magnetic force.
They are known to actually work and are not related to methods used by some well known (and many not well known) OU researchers. Yes, these folks did there homework. They understand that a flux link cannot be severed or broken(at least in common practice). It must be redirected. They understand that a flux path entering or exiting a loop must be at right angles and right angles cause the exit of flux.
Look at the methods of redirecting magnetic force connections by using a control coil penetrating the main flux path.
They also seem to understand that a well balanced system may have by-stable flux paths. Unique :)
I am wondering what sort of power is required to run the device versus what comes out.
It's very interesting how the output power jumps with increased switch on transistion times or sharp switch transition
The rotating flux switcher is interesting. Should cogging become an issue, several phased units can operate on the same shaft to cancel the cogging effect. Solid state switching might be best, though. Here is an area that is ripe for the OU forum, has an easy to grasp principle of operation, and is well within the reach of the home experimenter. We should be jumping on this, at least to get a yay or nay on the bench.
Sounds good ION
I knew those ratiometric hall sensors would come in handy, now it's as easy as pie to measure reluctance switches.
I am getting a bit disheartened with the Rom replication anyway, just need to publish my motor drive circuit and software just in case someone else can make use and then try some of this stuff.
OK I checked the other patents referenced by both. Big red flag. Pat#6362718 is assigned to Tom Bearden and a few others.
If this worked Tom could drop out of the free energy carnival and just count his money, which would take a long time.
Still these devices are interesting, maybe there is a way to make them work. It will take a very clever individual with a novel approach.
Oh no Tom Bearden that probably means is uses lead acid batteries LOL.
Maybe worth more investigation though, how could he differentiate between small power slow switch on or high power out with fast switch on time otherwise, maybe he caught something Tom didn't.
I imagine they referenced the Bearden MEG as an example of what not to do C.C
Tom wouldn't take the advice that reverse polarity control coils or forward polarity control coils over a gap was a waste of time, especially on a rectangular core !
As far as the rotating reluctance switch.... All that should be required is to design it so the total amount of flux never changes - or - the magnet never sees a change in the magnetic connection between the poles. That may be very difficult and would need to account for the Lenz action of the coil seeing redirected flux.
On further reading I see they also caught the fact that an established flux path tends to remain the preferred path unless reluctance is increased over 10x.
It sounds like these guys could make a working pair of the magnetic space boots ;D
They also referred to Flynn? So I would guess they know there can only be one path (100%) at a time. I think this is where most mess up. None to date have actually made the flux path switch completely.
I wonder if these folks are still alive or suffered some kind of reputation attack.
Anyone know if they ever proved anything on a bench with public photos and data?
It was only just over a year ago the patent was granted, i did post information about them both including how to get hold of them on post 4 on this page
Information on the "Ted Annis Foundation":
http://www.manta.com/c/mttvpdr/ted-annis-foundation
They have funded some of Myron Evans' work (theoretical physics).
I came across an email contact: ted@annis.com
Quote from: DeepCut on 2011.08.06, 19:35:13
I woudln't stop being interested just because they reference a Bearden patent, even if it is for the MEG.
I'm still interested, but see a few conceptual problems with the idea of efficient flux switching. Maybe these can be overcome.
Perhaps these patents are just pre-emptive in case someone does develop a very efficient flux switch.
The lucky one who cracks this will indeed have something very novel.
More info on Ted Annis:
http://www.xavier.edu/magazine/read-article.cfm?art_id=364
Has worked with Defense.
Check out the "acknowledgements" at the end of the paper ( a 14th paper) attached to this post.
Now where have we heard of "Craddock Inc." before?
Quote from: ION on 2011.08.07, 00:28:41
Check out the "acknowledgements" at the end of the paper ( a 14th paper) attached to this post.
Now where have we heard of "Craddock Inc." before?
Ok. I'm done with this one.
I'll admit the descriptions are more advanced than Bearden's MEG but some things were red flags. The last red flag is the Craddock connection.
Higher strength magnets make it feasible?
Better metals for cores now make it feasible?
At least newer patents are indicating folks are trying to know more before making claims.
This one still has a better chance of resulting in something special over ideas like Bearden's MEG or Bedini's blathering.
It looks more like a fishing expedition. >:(
I used to be very excited about patents like this, but not anymore because I learned something about the fundamental physics.
The MEG device, Gunderson, Flynn, and other such "switched flux" devices seem to suffer from the same serious deficiency that I suspect their inventors are not even aware of.
Here's the Problem:
The permanent magnet's that are usually seen placed in these circuits, and assumed or claimed to deliver energy, do not get cycled along their B-H curves. They just operate in the circuit at a constant MMF, and also see a constant reluctance. This is like having a constant Voltage and a constant resistance so a constant current flows all the time, regardless of how you direct the current here and there through various paths that all have the same resistance. So, when I see this typical device arrangement I automatically become very cautious, because I know the magnet is not generating any excess energy per cycle. In order for it to do so, it would need to have it's B-H curve cycled in some creative fashion, and I don't see any of these "inventors" realizing this fact and exploiting it. All they are focused on is this idea that switching the magnet's flux is somehow like a transistor that controls lots of current with little current, and it's not a valid comparison at all, and it does not represent energy either.
I'll give you guys a very simple example how a magnet outputs more energy from the molecular realm. We've done it hundreds of times I'm sure.
Take a magnet and approach it to a ferromagnetic material and it will attract to it. That's it! The magnet has now produced free energy! There is a force of attraction towards the ferromagnetic material and displacement in that direction, which equals positive energy delivered. This energy can either be absorbed by your hand, as it slowly opposes the force and lets the magnet approach the material, or it could go into increasing the magnets kinetic energy and it will slam into the material creating a loud sound or shattering, etc.. but the fact is the magnet has produced excess energy, or free energy.
So what happens to the magnet as it produced this energy? Well, the B-field inside of it has gone from a low value to a high value, and also the ferromagnetic material is now magnetized, so all sorts of energy was created in the materials as well. Free energy for everyone!
But there is a problem.
Sooner or later we're going to run out of magnets and ferromagnetic materials to mate together to get a boost of free energy, and we will have to start SEPARATING some of these magnets from their ferromagnetic partners, i.e. develop a CYCLE of sorts, and that's where we run into problems.
Magnetic fields are CONSERVATIVE, that's the problem.
This means that as I pull the magnet away from the ferromagnetic material that it had attracted to, I now have to "put back" the energy I took in the first place. More scientifically, no matter what path I take from a point A to a point B and than back to A, the net energy gain or loss will be zero. In other words, field potential is path independent.
However, there is a ray of hope, a loop hole that can be exploited, for example, weaken the magnets field prior to pulling it away from the ferromagnetic material. After all, if you bring it to zero there won't be any force on it, but later when we try to magnetize the magnet back up, we might find that we require the same energy input, but maybe not, it all depends on the material and the process used for this. This would than be a dynamic magnetic field, but these devices here utilize the permanent magnets in a static configuration, just biasing their magnetic circuits.
Anyway, this discussion is really to convey how these "switched flux" devices don't cycle the magnets at all, hence they can't be expected to deliver any extra energy.
EM
Quote from: ION on 2011.08.06, 01:56:53
One of the better reads, looks like they did some homework. I'm surprised the patent was granted.
I don't think it has.
This document is an application. That's all.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.07, 07:32:57
Magnetic fields are CONSERVATIVE, that's the problem.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2011.08.07, 13:39:38
I don't think it has.
This document is an application. That's all.
Yes, those are patent applications, however the three patents they reference by Flynn, Beardon et al and Pederson apparently were granted and are very similar ideas.
I have no reason to believe the patents will not be granted based on the granting of the other three patents. The patent office does not require proof of operation anymore, just a theoretical possibility even when based on a lot of "if's".
I'll stand by my statement that the idea has merit if and only if a very efficient reluctance switch can be developed. In that regard, I believe the inventors have been somewhat vague in their description of such an ideal switch, hoping someone else will invent it. In that case they will be "covered".
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.07, 07:32:57
Magnetic fields are CONSERVATIVE, that's the problem.
I say that is not the problem. Yes, magnetic force is conservative, at least in these cases (don't forget far-field EM - radio, etc.).
In fact, a conservative field should be a requirement for any flux switching device.
The real problem is all we know is energy is stored in the magnetic field and the only way to get at it is - exactly as EMDevices describes.
Do we really understand the energy stored in a permanent magnet's field? Since that field is conservative why not use it to extract energy from elsewhere?
I'll repeat myself.... The magnet must see little to no change in the force of the connection between it's poles. Discussing the intricacies of the B/H curve is not relevant. It really doesn't apply here very well anyway. What we are calling the 'B/H' curve is not just a B/H curve when it comes to a permanent magnet.
We don't want to use the energy stored in a PM field (even if there is energy there). We just wish to alternate the direction of the field flow(?). The energy<?> level should not change so none need be returned.
And... It IS very much like a triode or UJT. The transistor analogy isn't as accurate unless you equate a PM to some aspects of an SCR.
The best analogy is to a magnetic amplifier used as a bi-stable latch or two magnetic base sets for dial-indicators. These perform flux switching perfectly well with very little effort.
I think ION is right. They are doing a little CYA but don't have anything to show for their ideas. A single penetration in the flux path won't cut it anyway ^-^
The "H" bridge configuration has a lot of merit. The magnet will not see any change in flux, so it will not be demagnetized. The external flux switch will act like a "keeper".
Creating a bistable magnetic structure for the flux switch can be an interesting design problem but is not impossible. Consider how the overcenter bistable element of a microswitch works. Now think about how that might be done magnetically and without moving parts.
I intend to try a few ideas out as time permits.
The bi-stable magnet function is quite real and when used COE becomes questionable.
The first use coming to mind is that of the very large circuit breaker operating mechanism. The amount of energy needed to operate the breaker is only a fraction of the work being done.
I'm sure I posted a link or copy of the document here before.
I am partial to this breaker mechanism because I have used that very breaker in many of my designs.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.08, 20:40:11
The bi-stable magnet function is quite real and when used COE becomes questionable.
The first use coming to mind is that of the very large circuit breaker operating mechanism. The amount of energy needed to operate the breaker is only a fraction of the work being done.
I'm sure I posted a link or copy of the document here before.
I am partial to this breaker mechanism because I have used that very breaker in many of my designs.
Could you expand a bit on that. I remember downloading and reading the CB mechanism, but have misfiled it somewhere.
We need to toss around a few ideas that could be easily tested.
Here it is...
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot235.nsf/veritydisplay/5e750b2ecc5b760ec1256ad4002d2c00/
The method of redirecting the magnetic connection is well proven in the above example. The big difference is a metal plunger is moved (with a great deal of force) by redirecting the flux in a bistable operation.
WW,
I like the current breaker you posted, it's similar to a bistable switch and we can make an oscillator out of it.
I wonder how much energy it takes to get it to switch states, and how much energy the permanet magnet delivers afterwards. If more, than chi-ching! we've got free energy from the magnet!
EM
Thanks for the repost, now I remember having read the main info about the bistable relay actuator.
I believe there are small relays that are magnetically biased, and I have a few large old telephone relays that have a magnetic bias.
I'll post a picture of one when the batteries for the camera charge up.
I remember looking into the force applied by the magnetic actuator. It was on the order of 24,000 lbs of force after a very short stroke.
The circuit needed to supply control power was rated at 110VDC (not a typo) and fused for 3 Amps.
The TELCOs were the masters of magnetized relay devices. I may have a few of the different types in a junk box somewhere.
Here's a photo of an old bistable from my junkbox (box of treasured old items). Notice the horseshoe magnet close to the base and the reed is biased at the center or null point of the magnet.
The large knurled adjustment knobs set the distance from the reed to either pole. The smaller adjustments are the contact points. There are two coils wound on the spool, 130 Ohms each. A beautifully crafted device.
Back to the switched flux:
I'm thinking we can use a resonant circuit L-C in the H bridge as in a ferroresonant transformer to force the flux switching without dissipating power, as the voltage and current will be 90 degrees out.
QuoteI'm thinking we can use a resonant circuit L-C in the H bridge as in a ferroresonant transformer to force the flux switching without dissipating power, as the voltage and current will be 90 degrees out.
If Romero had used bias magnets on his drive coils, and tuned each drive coil with a cap and then drove these tuned coils in series at resonance, don't we then have exactly what you are describing, except the rotor magnet is the reed.
EDIT beautifully engineered device, would cost a pretty penny these days
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.08.09, 13:08:20
If Romero had used bias magnets on his drive coils, and tuned each drive coil with a cap and then drove these tuned coils in series at resonance, don't we then have exactly what you are describing, except the rotor magnet is the reed.
EDIT beautifully engineered device, would cost a pretty penny these days
Yes.
As you have described it (with the addition of resultant radial fields) the drive coil arrangement would then meet one of my three ways to avoid Lenz. Thus my enthusiasm for the motor design and my early mistake on my diagram. 8)
worth a try anyway to see how it affects the efficiency of the drive circuit running at resonance.
I am currently working on a mechanical flux switching oscillator, a bit simpler design than what is shown in the patents.
The flux does not have to reverse, just change in intensity switching from one side to the other generates about 40 volts in each of my coils. There is a pulse on make and pulse on release for each coil.
I will be using a spring steel and weight to help generate the 90 degree phase shift for switch assist with a little release assist by way of a spike of current from the voltage generated. The weight and steel spring will act as a tuning fork, and convert some of the "make" energy into "release" assist by way of phase shifting the energy.
Later, I will convert the device to purely electronic flux switching.
Here's a rough sketch of what I have built. It is truly bistable. The prototype in soft steel snaps very nicely from one position to the other.
Also a picture of the incomplete device, will be mounted to a plexi housing.
I understand in principle that this is probably no different than a stepper motor or other PM motor with cogging, I just wanted to experiment with a bistable device.
I have other simple designs on paper that do flux reversal, but this does not seem necessary and would increase hysteresis loss in the soft steel I am using. Flux change without reversal seems to work nicely.
Looks great ION, how are you going to gauge efficiency or should it self run :)
ION,
Very nice.
Yes, indeed. Stay away from flux reversal. Using reversal you are facing twice the hysteresis losses. The best always seemed to be where the magnet saw very little flux density change and almost no hysteresis loss.
@Ion
I have built many devices like this and you are going to notice a few issues that need to be corrected.
First the top iron bar which teeters when touching the vertical electromagnet iron pieces will stick. If you place a thin piece of tape over the electromagnet iron end then the teeter won't stick however the peculiar sharp HV spike when two magnetized pieces of iron come into physical contact will not be present.
Another issue is the magnet placement, If you take a compass or a small pin on a thread you will find a majority of the field from the magnet has simply turned 180 Deg and re-entered the bottom of the magnet. This is because a piece of soft iron is not a magnet even though magnet poles have been induced in it, it is the same reason many thin magnets stacked on top of one another will have much weaker poles than a single magnet of the same height and diameter. A magnetic field will take the shortest route which in your case is through the air space around the magnet. This can be corrected by having a magnet at the top and bottom of the center iron piece or the best solution is to have a single long magnet in the center. It is important to remember that a "magnet" is not what we see, not the object we see, every single part of the magnet is the magnet acting together to form the whole.
I know some like to state it is all the same and it really does not matter how this is done however in theory and practice I have proven that all these little details do matter more than most realize.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.08.12, 14:16:15
Looks great ION, how are you going to gauge efficiency or should it self run :)
The theory is that the attractive force will store some energy in the spring and weight to be released on the back stroke helping with the required release. This won't do it all and will need an extra push. I'm hoping to take a little of the output energy to provide a momentary kick to help force it to the other state.
Hopefully it will self run at some point, otherwise it will make a nice tick-tock art object / noisemaker.
There are numerous variations on this theme. I want to keep it simple and start with something very basic, then move on to more exotic all electronic designs.
The addition of Hall sensors or optical means to determine the exact timing point when the spring steel and weight are delivering maximum torque for the opening will be required as this progresses.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.08.12, 15:37:48
@Ion
I have built many devices like this and you are going to notice a few issues that need to be corrected.
First the top iron bar which teeters when touching the vertical electromagnet iron pieces will stick. If you place a thin piece of tape over the electromagnet iron end then the teeter won't stick however the peculiar sharp HV spike when two magnetized pieces of iron come into physical contact will not be present.
Another issue is the magnet placement, If you take a compass or a small pin on a thread you will find a majority of the field from the magnet has simply turned 180 Deg and re-entered the bottom of the magnet. This is because a piece of soft iron is not a magnet even though magnet poles have been induced in it, it is the same reason many thin magnets stacked on top of one another will have much weaker poles than a single magnet of the same height and diameter. A magnetic field will take the shortest route which in your case is through the air space around the magnet. This can be corrected by having a magnet at the top and bottom of the center iron piece or the best solution is to have a single long magnet in the center. It is important to remember that a "magnet" is not what we see, not the object we see, every single part of the magnet is the magnet acting together to form the whole.
I know some like to state it is all the same and it really does not matter how this is done however in theory and practice I have proven that all these little details do matter more than most realize.
Regards
AC
Yes, I already played with gapping using thin layers of tape, then I decided to use non ferrous gap adjusting screws. There is a reduction of output when using a gap, I hope not to have to do this, and rely on the energy storage (inertia) of the steel spring blade and weight to provide the greater majority of the unsticking force, but not all of it. Some will come from a pulse injected from the stored emf of the coils.
I would love to see some of your designs...can you post them? No point in me beating a dead horse if you've done all of this already. Maybe a picture or sketch and theory of your most exotic unit?
Very nice ION, I'll be following this closely. I'm curious how well it will work.
Here's something that I've always wondered about these kinds of devices.
The force of attraction is nonlinear, and increases from zero at the balanced point to a maximum as the gap is closed. The spring and weight is certainly a good step in the right direction, but I've always wondered, could we design a mechanical spring and cam force restoration system to perfectly oppose the gap force at every angular displacement? If we can do this than we have a net force of zero in any position of the magnetic bar. I think this is possible, I've taken a kinematics class in school and I remember all sorts of links and cams and path profiles that produce nonlinear forces.
So once we have nullified the magnetic attraction force, by opposing it with a spring force that matches it's profile (analogous to reducing cogging in a Muller dynamo,) we can now rotate the top teetering iron piece with no force input, and hence no mechanical power input! At this point, we might be tempted to think that now we have a Free Energy device.
However, if we start to consider the electrodynamic side of this device, there are extra forces that start to develop as current flows in the solenoids, and these would upset the perfect force balance and we end up having to put Mechanical energy into it to account for the Electrical energy generated.
To make a motor analogy: Cogging is not the obstacle to a free energy generator, it's Lenz's law!
EM
@Ion
QuoteI would love to see some of your designs...can you post them? No point in me beating a dead horse if you've done all of this already. Maybe a picture or sketch and theory of your most exotic unit?
I was never one for show and tell however I can explain the issues you and everyone else must resolve. First when the teeter approaches one of the solenoid legs the changing magnetic field induces a changing current in the solenoid which will produce a field which will oppose the changing magnetic field which induced it aka Lenz Law. It is widely held that this is a repulsive field but in reality we should consider it as a dampening field because the effect is the same as trying to poke a stick into a pail of jello. The same effect occurs when we try to drop a strong magnet down a copper tube and all motion is resisted.
The issue is that the leg of the teeter approaching the coil contains a magnetic field thus is a part of it and when this changing field induces a current in the coil the coil produces a dampening field which acts not on the teeter but the field within it which is intrinsic to every part of the teeter, there is no fooling mother nature here we can only understand it.
Let's look at it from another perspective, the attractive force of the teeter to the coil leg is perfectly balanced by the spring so that we can move the teeter freely with almost no force, well it does not matter because this is not the force we need to be concerned with. The force which requires us to input an equivalent amount of work relates to a field which envelops every single part of the teeter not the teeter itself as an object and this teeter field when inducing a current in the coil is intimately tied to the dampening field produced by the coil thus action and reaction are relative to one another. So if the teeter field is not present or does not change then we have no induction and if it does then the coil field must couple to the teeter field and effect the field which induced it --catch 22.
As well if you apply an external current to the coil then you first invoke charge neutralization then self-induction another form of Lenz Law which produces opposition as does a change or aligning of domains to produce a field in the presence of an external field which will also oppose the change. It would seem the task is impossible however we could apply a simple logic here --- "Fat people cannot fly" ---and it is obvious why they cannot fly however by understanding all aspects of the problem of why fat people cannot fly we have produced technology so that they can, the airplane, thus understanding all aspects of a problem and asking the right questions is the first step in finding a solution.
Regards
AC
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.12, 17:36:13
To make a motor analogy: Cogging is not the obstacle to a free energy generator, it's Lenz's law!
Lenz's law is not a problem when the induction is at right angles.
I don't see it much anymore.... when did folks drop the angular relationship between the magnetic field and the loop of wire as part of the math for induction?
QuoteLenz's law is not a problem when the induction is at right angles.
WW, what do you mean by "induction at right angles" ? If it can violate Lenz's law, I'm interested.
EM
To respond to a few comments:
AC:
I have not noticed a dampening effect even with one coil shorted, the rise time and amplitude of the other coil remains the same. With both coils shorted, the action is just as snappy as no coils shorted.
Quote: Let's look at it from another perspective, the attractive force of the teeter to the coil leg is perfectly balanced by the spring so that we can move the teeter freely with almost no force, well it does not matter because this is not the force we need to be concerned with.
Second, the spring and weight is the reactive element, mechanical equivalent of a coil or capacitor. It's purpose is different than what you stated. It is used to store some of the magnetic attractive force in the spring and weight to be used as an aid in opening the gap. It will not do the whole job, however.
The unit I proposed and am building can be first modeled using a spring overcenter mechanism instead of a magnet and coils. This will run as a mechanical oscillator for a few cycles when perturbed. When you replace the overcenter spring with the magnets and coils, you get a bonus that can be used to further kick the system.
Quote: I was never one for show and tell however I can explain the issues you and everyone else must resolve.
Have you resolved these issues? Still would like more show than tell. Alluding to having the answer doesn't cut it.
Respectfully
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.12, 21:31:36
WW, what do you mean by "induction at right angles" ? If it can violate Lenz's law, I'm interested.
EM
When you have two close inductors on a circuit board and you wish to minimize inductive coupling between them, what do you do?
You align one perpendicular (to a right angle) to the other.
When this is done between an approaching magnet and a coil you aren't really violating Lenz's law. It just doesn't apply as much. The same for the laws of induction.
If you have a conducting loop that encloses an area in the presence of a changing uniform magnetic field current will be induced in that loop.
If that field is perpendicular to the loop you will have maximum induction. Induction decreases as the angle decreases.
There are four ways to create induction:
1. Change the magnitude of the magnetic field with time.
2. Change the area enclosed by the loop with time.
3. Change the angle between the magnetic field and the normal to the loop with time.
4. Any combination of the above.
As a side note: The Rom motor, I believe, uses all of the first three. This is why the coil voltage output is higher than expected by many folks.
In a solid state generator, ideally the only Lenz law action is between the core and the coil.
<EDIT>...
And that doesn't matter to the magnetic field activities of redirection. ION already mentioned that Lenz has no effect on the motion of the pivot bar(at least that is how I understood it).
It shouldn't. Lenz only matters between the core and coil and that action is at 'right angles to' the magnetic flow<?> in the core. So, there will be no effect upon that 'magnetic flow' in the core.
What if the pivoting bar's connection to the core is varied, but always in contact? This would vary the inductance of the core by varying it's cross-section, but never have a gap.
Where's a napkin?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.12, 22:41:52
What if the pivoting bar's connection to the core is varied, but always in contact? This would vary the inductance of the core by varying it's cross-section, but never have a gap.
Where's a napkin?
I think ION was going to start with the basics.
ION,
Did you say you had the magnetic latching part of that device working? i.e. apply a pulse to one coil - the bar connects the middle to one side of the core - the bar then acts like a 'keeper'.
I suppose you could call it a double barrelled and alternating perpetual motion holder ??? (I think there are still peeps thinking that was magic ;) )
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.12, 23:38:42
I think ION was going to start with the basics.
ION,
Did you say you had the magnetic latching part of that device working? i.e. apply a pulse to one coil - the bar connects the middle to one side of the core - the bar then acts like a 'keeper'.
I suppose you could call it a double barrelled and alternating perpetual motion holder ??? (I think there are still peeps thinking that was magic ;) )
Tests thus far were observing the coil output with a scope and forcing the latching from one side to the other
by hand. The switching action of the bistable element is very quick and with considerable force. No pulsing of coils yet. I will expand on this later.
It is not a perpetual magnet holder, as the permanent magnet is integral to the device and results in the bistable action.
The coils are output devices only at this point. When the coils are shorted there seems to be no change in the quickness of latching to either side as stated in my earlier post. So where is Mr. Lenz?
I'm taking baby steps here, at some point I will evolve the design further, but it is necessary to fully understand the action of the spring and weight as shown in the earlier drawing (not shown in the photo).
Tomorrow or as time permits, I hope to finish adding the spring and weight part of the design.
For now I am trying to determine if Lenz Law is a visible effect when the coils are shorted or open.
WW, so basically what you are saying is: induction at right angles = no induction at all ... that's great! :o
I'm looking at ION's drawing and I think it will oscillate for some time, because the spring and mass should have very low loss, mainly air friction, and hysteresis losses should be very small because we are avoiding flux reversal, and the screw contacts should not be dissipating much impact energy because of the slow velocity of impact.
Nice design ION, I like it. You can start it by pulling back on the weight and letting go. It will than go Tick tack tick tack .... back and forth for many cycles until the energy imparted initially to the spring is dissipated. O0
I also have hope for this design as a free energy device because at first glance it meets my FE criteria from Permanent magnets, which is: the magnet must be cycled along it's B-H curve, as a precondition. It does because when the moving iron piece is perfectly horizontal, both the left and right sides have a low reluctance path for magnetic flux. The magnet then operates at a particular point on it's B-H curve, call it U_high. Than, when the gap is closed on one side, the reluctance drops and flux increases and now the magnet is at a different B-H point on it's curve, call it U_low. The only thing that I need to verify by calculation is how the flux gets divided between the two parallel flux paths, when one increases and the other decreases, does it decrease in the same proportion TO KEEP THE FLUX IN THE CENTER CONSTANT? I hope not, than it wouldn't be cycling, but if it does, than the criteria is met and the energy levels are shifting inside the magnet, and in the whole circuit.
QuoteSo where is Mr. Lenz?
You killed him, shame on you! LOL ;D :D
EM
Here is a mechanical system that seems pretty analogous to the magnetic bistable latch presented by ION, as far as the force behavior is concerned.
When rotated from the horizontal just slightly, the spring and roller will shift and begin to add torque about the lower pivot point further forcing the bar in the direction it started, until the bar hits the ground, or a stop. It's also symmetrical so either side will behave the same. To get it to switch states you have to put in the energy the spring delivered from the horizontal state. This will get it back to horizontal and than it can snap the other way with the slightest offset.
Just something to think about.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.13, 01:01:41
WW, so basically what you are saying is: induction at right angles = no induction at all ... that's great! :o
Not exactly. The result is much like an antenna performance change when one end is the opposite polarity...... ~30dB down. When the coils are close to each other you cannot totally block one inducing current into the other(without shielding, etc.).
The reason is the weakest form of induction only requires a changing flux density or changing coil area - even when the coils/loops are perpendicular to one another. When this is true the current induced is considerably smaller but the orientation of the coils prevents Lenz from producing that nasty opposing field.
So, I would say ' induction at right angles = no Lenz at all ... that's even better!' :o
That would be my real #4 method. The funny thing is that most folks think this is the way induction always works.
#5 and #6 for another day. They don't apply here anyway.
So, no. There will be no effect on the action of the seesaw until your build it with coil windings :)
Remember Peterae asking why the magnetic field strength didn't change when load was applied? The total magnetic force associated with a magnet doesn't change even when it is used in a generator or when the seesaw changes sides.
There is quite a bit not covered by the pioneers of this stuff.
More often... these details have been clarified or simplified from the original work and we just think it is new >:(
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.13, 01:24:55
Here is a mechanical system that seems pretty analogous to the magnetic bistable latch presented by ION, as far as the force behavior is concerned.
When rotated from the horizontal just slightly, the spring and roller will shift and begin to add torque about the lower pivot point further forcing the bar in the direction it started, until the bar hits the ground, or a stop. It's also symmetrical so either side will behave the same. To get it to switch states you have to put in the energy the spring delivered from the horizontal state. This will get it back to horizontal and than it can snap the other way with the slightest offset.
Just something to think about.
EM
I was thinking more along the lines of the steel spring blade in a microswitch, which assumes an "S" shape in the middle of it's cycle, but closes with considerable force when overcenter, assuming a "C" shape.
What you have shown is the classic toggle switch or old fashioned click=click wall switch design (before they went to silent type), spring and roller ball.
As I said, my aim is to harvest some of the output energy to aid kicking the oscillator to and fro. Since I cannot measure any change in velocity with coils loaded or unloaded, I will for now assume that harvesting a little energy will not stop the switch action.
It is really important to understand the spring blade and weight's function as an energy storage and phase shift device, totally different than what we are discussing here.
WW, EM thanks for your support.
ION,
Do you plan on operating the bar and weight assembly at a specific frequency? If so, you should be able to calculate the weight and the length of the spring steel.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.13, 14:32:04
ION,
Do you plan on operating the bar and weight assembly at a specific frequency? If so, you should be able to calculate the weight and the length of the spring steel.
Have no specific frequency in mind, will use trial and error. A length of hacksaw blade for the spring, a lead weight arranged to slide up or down and clamp to it in order to adjust frequency. If the blade is too stiff, I'll grind some away or use some clock spring material.
The real fun will be in trying to close the loop by adding a set of kick coils that will pull the spring blade at the appropriate time in the cycle. Then it's on to designing the pulse circuit for the kick coils.
Baby steps, one at a time.
Here's a few more photo's with the spring and weights in place, enclosed in some scrap plexi.
Spring is a hacksaw blade, teeth ground of (so as not to harm myself), brazed to attachment screw.
By perturbing the spring to one side about 2 inches I get about ten transitions. Frequency changes very nicely by sliding the weights up or down the spring.
Next step is to measure the millijoules generated per transition by integrating the current pulse into a capacitor.
Further tests will be: the required force to create a transition, ft/lbs or metric units.
Failure will be one or more of the following:
a) a poorly thought out idea
b) poor clockmaker and machining skills
c) Mr. Lenz is lurking somewhere.
Wesley Gary would be proud!
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.08.13, 22:16:11
Wesley Gary would be proud!
I built the Wesley Gary unit about 15 years ago.......no luck. slightly different operating principle there.
Wish I had a better shop and better eyes or an apprentice with good eyes. The accuracy level to which I can work is not very high at this point.
Output of my device is disappointingly low. Little over one volt per complete cycle into a 1488 uF capacitor (measured value) using Schottky rectifiers in a bridge configuration on each side. Not much energy there.
Edit: Coil resistance of 470 Ohms is soaking up what is generated. With 1uF cap 50 volts is obtained per cycle.
I'll stack some low resistance coils and see what happens.
Back to the drawing board.
Connect one leg of a HV DC power supply to the core. You just need potential and negligible current.
Francis Nipher found that connecting HV DC potential (either leg) increased the strength of magnets, and concluded that the permeability of air was increased around the magnet.
If the permeability is changed by the addition of the potential, you can change the permeability with very little energy by applying and removing the HV potential. It might also work by changing current in a coil with a core, but this requires more energy.