Here is a thread to start discussion and testing on the Unidirectional Transformer of Paul Raymond Jensen as presented by Orthofield here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3748.msg73799#msg73799.
Thanks ION and Fred for this thread.
Quoting from Paul Jensen's write-up (I like his attitude):
"A Free-Energy Device
by Paul Raymond Jensen
I have built a transformer which supplies more power to its load than is drawn from its primary source.
I named this device The Unidirectional Transformer (UDT), because the magnetic reaction of the load current does not affect the magnetic action of the primary circuit.
The UDT is composed of a parallel LC resonant primary, a split secondary, a gapped magnetic core, and a "feedback winding."
... [lots of details ]
I have invented and developed the UDT on my own, without benefit of any knowledge of other free-energy devices, if they exist, which utilize
the basic principles of UDT operation.
Please feel free to use this information as you desire. However, I hope that no one will attempt to patent and control this type of transformer. The time on Planet Earth is 15 minutes before midnight; there is no time left to waste. Free-energy technology is not meant to be controlled by vain and greedy parasites who wish to use a gift from God to exploit their fellow man. Free-energy technology represents a spiritual transition of the human race. Free-energy is not meant to be owned, period!"
Fred - can you tell us - where did you see Paul Jensen's write-up on his invention?
And what is the date on that?
Also, do you know of anyone who has tried to replicate the UDT, to date?
Thanks!
Steve
Hi Steve,
The Jensen UDT was I believe developed in about 1994. I first saw it in 1996, in a conference proceeding (International Symposium On New Energy 1994). Jensen has passed away now.
There is an early replication mentioned in the UDT file itself, from a group in Key Largo, but I know nothing more than what is shown there. As is typical of that enthusiastic time they derogate the effort as 'only' 120% efficient :-)
The UDT files containing scope shots, etc, are from a researcher I worked with much more recently, and that was the closest to a straight replication. As you can see, he did a detailed power and loss accounting, and was very scrupulous about all factors. Still, as I mentioned earlier, if you create an OU effect in a transformer with inherent 30-60% inherent efficiency, then the OU effect is hidden in the weeds. Aside from exact replication, new attempts I believe should look directly at how to use standard toroids with no gaps to elicit the same principle. The recent William Alek patent attached shows one way to do this, although I don't think it is ideal, because some of the secondary flux still interacts with the primary.
And then in 2016 I was involved with another set of similar projects with two researchers, one of whom is on this list. This was a project I called the flux nullification transformer, and I'll get some material up on that after I figure out how to extract it from a larger document. That attempt did show a no-load transformer effect, as other versions have, but had a large magnetizing current because of the immense gap that existed in the primary circuit. I thought we could get around it with resonance, but it was way too big a gap, I see now.
Regards,
Fred
Thank you sincerely for your open sharing in this, Fred.
Agreed:
"Aside from exact replication, new attempts I believe should look directly at how to use standard toroids with no gaps to elicit the same principle." - as in the Alek patent, it appears.
A few years ago I had an idea similar in the principle to Alek's, even simpler than Alek's. All it takes is two ferromagnetic cores side by side, with a primary winding that encircles a single core, and a secondary winding that encircles both cores. Thus, all the flux created by a current in the primary crosses the secondary winding, but only half of the flux created by the current used in the secondary crosses the primary winding, thus opposing only half of the primary flux.
As we can take cores of different sections, there is not even a limit, for example with a core of section 10 times the other, it is only 1/10th of the flux created by the secondary which will oppose the primary. Lenz's law is pulverized, alleluia, I get the overunity!
Unfortunately, in reality, things are a little more complicated. The fact that the ferromagnetic core around which the secondary is wound does not pass completely through the primary winding means that the impedance seen from the primary, when the secondary is connected to a resistive load, is very inductive. The setup becomes equivalent to an ideal conventional transformer, whose primary is connected to the source by an external inductance in series, which is equal to the secondary inductance multiplied by one minus the ratio of the core section crossing the primary to the one crossing the secondary. For example, if the ratio of sections is 50%, the primary will see the load at the secondary with an inductance in series equal to 50% that of the secondary (assuming the same number of turns in the secondary and primary, otherwise also take this ratio into account).
The idea then comes to cancel the inductance by a capacitance, so that the primary sees the load really resistive. I confess as an idiot and to my great shame that I really tested this configuration, and that of course the only thing that happens is that the primary sees the resistive load of the secondary, but then the coupling between secondary and primary becomes perfect like in a conventional transformer, and therefore the primary is loaded for the same power that we take in secondary!
Let's go back to Alek's patent. Alek cancels the serial inductance in a more subtle way, by dividing the secondary winding into 2 parts whose fluxes are opposed in the outer core, see fig.3 the opposite fluxes mmf sec1/mmf sec2. This cancels the part of the inductance that is not shared with the primary. It's as if this external core doesn't exist, and as in my setup, we end up with a conventional transformer whose core is the one of small section, the rest is useless.
If such simple things were revolutionary, any engineer would have seen it before, and probably as early as the 19th century. Alek's patent doesn't hold water. :(
I'm afraid Jensen's paper is bugged for the same reason as Alek's, they're cosmetic changes of Thane Heins' idea of the bi-toroid transformer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2p58tWIxNc), they all have the same principle error.
I spoke many times with Bill .
he said his bench was always open to us to have a look ?? quite a few years ago.
Some felt his measurement protocols flawed , perhaps I will ring him again .
actually...[recently] I believe he visits some of these forums, can't remember his handle.
Dear F6FLT
you said:
QuoteIf such simple things were revolutionary, any engineer would have seen it before, and probably as early as the 19th century. Alek's patent doesn't hold water. :(
I tend to agree with this statement, especially regarding Alek.
I also find that the bi-toroid guys tend to miss the point (especially Thane) that they are sometimes shuttling energy from core saturation (no load) to unsaturated core (with load) and are amazed when they see no increase in primary current when the load is attached. It's the same old shell game, because they rarely consider the temperature of the transformer in saturated and unsaturated condition.
On another note, the video you pointed to is by a somewhat interesting guy, Naoki Kashima, he would find a good home here, don't know where he posts, but we should try to bring him into the flock. (Chet contact him perhaps?)
He may be going over some of the same old ground but seems to be a devoted fellow, although maybe lacking in good measurement protocol and theory, he would come "up to speed" quickly here.
His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOwpwGfrXCCs9bEgQG9vb3Q/videos
Regards
Hi Ion,
I agree. What is sad is his method of analyzing the results. For unconventional experiments, he either does not draw any conclusions (Barbosa) or he jumps far too quickly to a conclusion that he has probably seen elsewhere, and which is false ("longitudial wave" for single wire transmission) or irrelevant (his "Cold Fusion Replication" is not significant).
However, experimenters like him who have his enthusiasm and know the rules of the art to set up a whole bunch of electrical experiments are always valuable and would be welcome here.
Hi Ion, F6LT, all,
As I mentioned, I'd rather not focus on any particular version of this network of concepts as 'the one', because it leads to excessive disputation. This is exactly the situation I was referring to. It's easy to latch on to a specific example, and find holes in it, and of course some holes may exist, and that particular idea may not work. My focus is not "does this device work?" but "is there a principle here that can be applied to overunity?" These are not the same questions.
I've only just begun to proliferate examples. Each of them has elements that are different from the others, but each support the concept that secondary fluxes can be made to appear to be nullified so that they don't load the primary. Or another, and perhaps more fruitful way to think of it, reactive power can be converted to real power.
I included Alek as a recent example which MAY overcome issues of increased magnetizing current due to gaps, but he may not be correct, of course. I think Jensen is on solider ground. It doesn't appear that Thane Heins gets it, since without gaps, his device is a type of 'load sharing' transformer where all secondaries still load the primary. There appear to be a lot of variant designs, so I'm not sure about that.
I agree that an absence of loading in a transformer can happen because the core goes from more saturated to less saturated. It may also occur just because the transformer is so inefficient that the load is hardly detected. The situation in some of these devices is somewhat different from that. Take a look at JLN's test of the two secondary loading, without consideration of overall efficiency. I'm using this as an example because it is already on the net, but I've seen the same exact phenomenon in tests with four secondaries, where loading each successive secondary increases the power output while reducing, or maintaining the same, power input. There is also a detailed patent from inventor Jim Murray that shows this same effect in a rotary device. Etc. Etc.
http://67.198.37.16/mirrors/jnaudin.free.fr/2002.06.03/html/smep11.htm
In this example with two secondaries, with B1 having a 10 ohm load, and B2 open circuit, the power input is 124.04 W. When B2 is shorted, the power input drops to 114.38. It seems pretty clear to me that, whatever else is going on, some reactive flux from B2 is now active flux at B1.
The white crow principle of William James says, 'even if only one true example of something exists, then that thing exists'. If only one example where reactive power can be converted to real power exists, then that principle exists. If you find a problem with these particular examples, I can show you more if you want.
The argument that 'if something like this was true, people would have discovered it early on' although in many cases true, is not a scientific principle, any more than if I were to state, 'people have observed this over and over, so it must be true.' Neither one has anything to do with testing a hypothesis but are a priori arguments from common sense. But common sense can be wrong, and scientists do occasionally discover something in plain sight, for instance, the discovery in the last few years of a new organ in the human body, the interstitium.
Your own statements show that if this 'reactive to real power' conversion were to actually occur, most engineers would attribute it to reduction in core loss. "Seen it before, move on". And, as I've already mentioned, the efficiency of most small transformers does not reach the levels where the effect would stand out. Using three separated coils on a transformer is not common practice commercially because of increased leakage flux. Most of the patents (indeed from the late 19th century on) that use a gapped EI core are welding transformers where the center leg is controlled to control the current. There is no practical usefulness and some inefficiencies in such a design otherwise, so it is not really common practice that I've seen. So the idea that people throughout the history of transformers have been observing the power output from two secondaries on the legs of a gapped EI core looking for some anomaly is not part of the historical record. Jensen also points out that the gap must be very precise in order to avoid losing the excess energy in the gap. So, historical welding transformer inventors, without having Jensen's rationale, would not have been designing transformers with a specific gap tailored to the particular transformer at hand and, in any case, would not be driving the transformer from the middle, but from one of the legs to the opposite leg.
But these are all a priori arguments too. Only tests would show.
Finally, the situation is not as simple as it seems. What is 'flux nullification' or cancellation, for instance? Obviously when two opposing fluxes are superimposed in a high mu core, there will be a portion that leaks out of the core, and a portion that remains in the core. Half way between those coils, a test coil that does not intersect leakage flux will not show (much of) a voltage. But is there an absence of magnetic energy in the core? No-- in a simplified model, each domain is subjected to equal and opposite MMFs and thus don't align with either flux, but the magnetic energy is still there, as 'stress'. You can DC power two opposing coils on a core, and when you shut off the power, there will be a back emf spike from both coils. The energy that was invisible before can now be partially recovered.
These are all basically interference phenomena, and the cases of 'total positive interference' and 'total negative interference' are not covered well in the literature on these things-- the assumption being that positive and negative interference must balance out in any particular situation. However there are concrete examples where this is not true, for instance in nano optics, where light shining through micro holes that are less than a wavelength apart has an increase in light intensity on the other side. I believe all these phenomena are the same, whether flux or light. But that is just a belief.
I could go on (and on :-) but if there is no consensus that these devices could be gainful, I'd be happy to move on to parametric devices, which have enough complexity for anyone :-) My brief is not to defend any particular device, or concept, -- or even the concept of 'overunity'!-- but to increase efficiencies and reduce losses in electrical equipment by using little known historical data. That is certainly doable.
Regards,
Fred
Orthofield;
You make many good arguments which I also agree with, so the proof will be in testing here at O.U.R.
I currently have a small backlog of tests I want to run but will keep this on the list also.
Regards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGpE6AXDUI&t=27s I agree with this man but not with the proposed transformer. What do you think ?
Quote'flux nullification' or cancellation
There is no flux nullification or cancellation. This a misconception caused by "extensive" use of math.
Take two coils and simple field sensor, you will easily see it. Opposite fields repel each other like two "bubbles".
Edit: see https://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/8/8.02T/f04/visualizations/magnetostatics/24-coilsopposed/24-coilsopposed320.html (https://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/8/8.02T/f04/visualizations/magnetostatics/24-coilsopposed/24-coilsopposed320.html)
Hi Forest,
Let's leave out the gaps that he has, and make the output core a square core with output coils on top and bottom. Now have the sides of the core pass through the poles of a permanent magnet, so flux passes from N through both output coils, then to S on the other side. The whole thing looks like the start of a rotary form of the UDT transformer. To the extent that the mu of the core is high, the fluxes will tend to stay inside the core and 'cancel' each other, and that would reduce drag forces. You should be able to get an increment of output that doesn't drag the magnets. But if the mu of the core is low, the fluxes from both sides of the core will buck out and the usual drag forces prevail. So a lot depends on the core design.
I saw a demonstration of this principle one time, where the inventor passed a toroid through the gaps of a magnet with two output coils in series connected to a resistor. There was no appreciable difference in the 'feel' of moving the toroid, whether it was loaded or not. Hardly a good test, but that's what I got :-)
Jim Murray has a generator patent on something similar to the UDT (Transforming Generator, GB2013043) and he told me that it was not overunity in itself, but that under some conditions the two output coils would dephase, and the generator would go into a runaway condition, where it was actively rotating due to the output currents. This is a factor I was going to bring into the UDT discussion-- in two similar gadgets, one of them Murray's, the output coils only showed excess energy when they were not fully in phase. That's easy to do by putting a few extra windings on one side, or possibly a cap.
Regards,
Fred
Hi Fred and All,
You said " My focus is not "does this device work?" but "is there a principle here that can be applied to overunity?" These are not the same questions." "
I agree 100% with this method.
However, I am much less so on how you apply it. Consider the example of multiple secondary transformers that would cancel each other's flux so that the primary would no longer be impacted.
Where did this idea come from? From guys like Thane Heins who claim or suggest to have succeeded in an overunity device and provide this explanation. But what are the facts? Do we have a single example of OU with such a device?! Not to my knowledge.
Indeed, the effect of charges moving in relation to each other is always reciprocal, for the reason that only one mechanism is at play, it is a relativistic effect of charges that influence each other. The charges cannot know if they are primary or secondary, their mutual effect is the same. It should be noted that relativity is 100% compatible with Maxwell's electromagnetism, and therefore a principle such as the non-reciprocity of the effects of charges would invalidate both theories, which requires solid experimental facts to support it.
That's where we have to filter. Rather than saying "Heins or Alek have not shown OU but let's keep the principle and try differently", we must say "this principle is supposed to explain facts that we do not observe, and it is incompatible with what we already know and that past experiments have shown, so let's reject it and move on to something else".
I can see that many of you are reluctant to use relativity to explain electromagnetism. Yet it is the effort to avoid going in circles. Electromagnetism is fundamentally reduced to the Coulomb electric field or potential, and to its deformation by relativistic effects when we see it from moving reference frames, with a delay d/c. That's all. There is no need for fluxes or magnetic fields, and while it may be practical to use them sometimes, it is important to know that they are not fundamental and cannot be taken as a matter of principle.
The idea of a principle is not just a vague supposition or magic thought, it must be anchored either in new facts to explain them, or in our prior knowledge in anticipation of new facts.
Alek or Heins' "idea", and probably Jensen's, is not an idea but the same wishful thinking.
Finally, another trap to avoid is that of thinking that, since several people have different arrangements but could have a common principle, this would give credibility to the principle. Of course not. In the small world of free energy, everyone is mutually influenced, and an absurd principle can be taken up in multiple forms, giving the impression of a diversity of sources that would converge when it is only the same bug that is recycled.
Hi F6FLT,
Take a look at the UDT-A-01 file I uploaded, and tell me what you think. It of course does not show OU, but that there is something there, no doubt obscured by poor transformer design. Also, I gave the very simple example from JLN's website. When the B2 switch is closed, does the reactive flux from B2 go to supply B1, or not? Simple question-- has nothing to do with claims of overunity, or anything other than what it asks.
Keep in mind that Jensen put forward the UDT in 1996 and it influenced nobody, except Hyiq, who has the doc on his website. I had never heard of Thane Heins until I started looking at the internet to see who else was doing something similar. I basically ignore youtube videos and the like (the information density is too low for me). I agree that Heins is full of holes, but he is not really using the principle discussed, as far as I can tell. The fact that ignorant people vaguely latch on to something and trumpet their ideas on the internet says nothing about whether the original concept works or not.
If this concept is a bad idea, then that will come out. You don't need to protect people from bad experiments-- let them make them, and learn! I certainly don't think everyone should jump on this 'flux cancellation' idea and drop their worthy concepts. "Let a hundred flowers bloom" as Mao used to say (before he chopped off the heads of most of them :-)
I did read copiously in relativistic electrodynamics and there are plenty of oddities to exploit there. I could upload files on this subject until everyone's head was spinning. Same goes for plasma, LENR, sparks, arcs, phytons, charge clusters, torsion, ad infinitum. However, I suggest that basic superimposition physics still has some surprises too.
Regards,
Fred
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.11, 16:02:31
Hi Ion, F6LT, all,
As I mentioned, I'd rather not focus on any particular version of this network of concepts as 'the one', because it leads to excessive disputation. This is exactly the situation I was referring to. It's easy to latch on to a specific example, and find holes in it, and of course some holes may exist, and that particular idea may not work. My focus is not "does this device work?" but "is there a principle here that can be applied to overunity?" These are not the same questions.
I've only just begun to proliferate examples. Each of them has elements that are different from the others, but each support the concept that secondary fluxes can be made to appear to be nullified so that they don't load the primary. Or another, and perhaps more fruitful way to think of it, reactive power can be converted to real power.
I included Alek as a recent example which MAY overcome issues of increased magnetizing current due to gaps, but he may not be correct, of course. I think Jensen is on solider ground. It doesn't appear that Thane Heins gets it, since without gaps, his device is a type of 'load sharing' transformer where all secondaries still load the primary. There appear to be a lot of variant designs, so I'm not sure about that.
I agree that an absence of loading in a transformer can happen because the core goes from more saturated to less saturated. It may also occur just because the transformer is so inefficient that the load is hardly detected. The situation in some of these devices is somewhat different from that. Take a look at JLN's test of the two secondary loading, without consideration of overall efficiency. I'm using this as an example because it is already on the net, but I've seen the same exact phenomenon in tests with four secondaries, where loading each successive secondary increases the power output while reducing, or maintaining the same, power input. There is also a detailed patent from inventor Jim Murray that shows this same effect in a rotary device. Etc. Etc.
http://67.198.37.16/mirrors/jnaudin.free.fr/2002.06.03/html/smep11.htm
In this example with two secondaries, with B1 having a 10 ohm load, and B2 open circuit, the power input is 124.04 W. When B2 is shorted, the power input drops to 114.38. It seems pretty clear to me that, whatever else is going on, some reactive flux from B2 is now active flux at B1.
The white crow principle of William James says, 'even if only one true example of something exists, then that thing exists'. If only one example where reactive power can be converted to real power exists, then that principle exists. If you find a problem with these particular examples, I can show you more if you want.
The argument that 'if something like this was true, people would have discovered it early on' although in many cases true, is not a scientific principle, any more than if I were to state, 'people have observed this over and over, so it must be true.' Neither one has anything to do with testing a hypothesis but are a priori arguments from common sense. But common sense can be wrong, and scientists do occasionally discover something in plain sight, for instance, the discovery in the last few years of a new organ in the human body, the interstitium.
Your own statements show that if this 'reactive to real power' conversion were to actually occur, most engineers would attribute it to reduction in core loss. "Seen it before, move on". And, as I've already mentioned, the efficiency of most small transformers does not reach the levels where the effect would stand out. Using three separated coils on a transformer is not common practice commercially because of increased leakage flux. Most of the patents (indeed from the late 19th century on) that use a gapped EI core are welding transformers where the center leg is controlled to control the current. There is no practical usefulness and some inefficiencies in such a design otherwise, so it is not really common practice that I've seen. So the idea that people throughout the history of transformers have been observing the power output from two secondaries on the legs of a gapped EI core looking for some anomaly is not part of the historical record. Jensen also points out that the gap must be very precise in order to avoid losing the excess energy in the gap. So, historical welding transformer inventors, without having Jensen's rationale, would not have been designing transformers with a specific gap tailored to the particular transformer at hand and, in any case, would not be driving the transformer from the middle, but from one of the legs to the opposite leg.
But these are all a priori arguments too. Only tests would show.
Finally, the situation is not as simple as it seems. What is 'flux nullification' or cancellation, for instance? Obviously when two opposing fluxes are superimposed in a high mu core, there will be a portion that leaks out of the core, and a portion that remains in the core. Half way between those coils, a test coil that does not intersect leakage flux will not show (much of) a voltage. But is there an absence of magnetic energy in the core? No-- in a simplified model, each domain is subjected to equal and opposite MMFs and thus don't align with either flux, but the magnetic energy is still there, as 'stress'. You can DC power two opposing coils on a core, and when you shut off the power, there will be a back emf spike from both coils. The energy that was invisible before can now be partially recovered.
These are all basically interference phenomena, and the cases of 'total positive interference' and 'total negative interference' are not covered well in the literature on these things-- the assumption being that positive and negative interference must balance out in any particular situation. However there are concrete examples where this is not true, for instance in nano optics, where light shining through micro holes that are less than a wavelength apart has an increase in light intensity on the other side. I believe all these phenomena are the same, whether flux or light. But that is just a belief.
I could go on (and on :-) but if there is no consensus that these devices could be gainful, I'd be happy to move on to parametric devices, which have enough complexity for anyone :-) My brief is not to defend any particular device, or concept, -- or even the concept of 'overunity'!-- but to increase efficiencies and reduce losses in electrical equipment by using little known historical data. That is certainly doable.
Regards,
Fred
As you mentioned welding transformers,which are gapped transformers,i thought this video might be of some interest.
Cheapest welding out there :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcPKz7uEq-8
Brad
I think people suffer from the "don't know squared" syndrome, they don't know they don't know (I found this years ago in Skolnik's "Introduction to Radar Systems"). They talk about nullifying Lenz flux, in fact you find "Lenz flux" mentioned everywhere in the FE community. But when you get down to it what Lenz describes in his Law is not so much a flux but a mmf. The changing applied flux produces an mmf that then tries to produce flux that opposes the change. So in my mind people ought to consider "Lenz mmf" as the guiding principle, and any nullification should be mmf based, not flux based.
Also few people have the ability to properly consider the magnetic domain model for a transformer under dynamic conditions, their perception of mmf and reluctance goes no further than magnetic Ohm's law. But modelling a loaded secondary in a magnetic circuit is as simple as using a "magnetic inductance" Lm obeying mmf = -Lm*dPhi/dt where Phi is the flux and Lm has a value N2/Rload. That simple formula that any electrical engineer will recognise is Lenz's Law in a nutshell yielding Lenz mmf, not Lenz flux. When the loaded secondary is correctly modelled as that magnetic inductance, had Jensen been able to view the real magnetic domain model then much of his reasoning that led him to believe he had OU would have been revealed as nonsense.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Yes, that may well be... Although I've seen zero change in current when loaded, and with each additional loaded coil that is applied, the power input either drops or stays the same.
What is clear experimentally is that the MMF from each loaded secondary is applying to the other one, increasing the output voltage. Maybe all loading still exists and is just buried in poor overall efficiency, or core loss mitigation, or excess magnetizing current-- but still, nearly doubling the output voltage from letting loaded secondaries power one another isn't bad. It's clearly a USE of Lenz's law, and not some purported violation of it. In a lot of ways to me, it's like shining a light on two mirrors. When the mirrors are directly facing the light, all the light bounces back to the light. When the two mirrors are angled at 45 degrees, some of their light hits each other. Maybe it's that simple. Or maybe not :-)
Warm Regards,
Fred
Hi Fred,
A quick word to start with, on the mutual influences. It should not be assumed that only the Internet allows it. Even in the 19th century there were many scientific journals, including more or less scientific popularization that could federate do-it-yourselfers.
In the end of the 1980's and in the 1990s, we already had BBSs, which allowed working groups in all fields, and file sharing.
Concerning Jensen, I am sorry to say that I do not see any idea in Jensen's patent, and even that I see that there is none. It is not a "principle" but a recipe, supposed to produce something new by the magical thought of opposing fluxes to the secondary, whereas it is conventional.
If P-1/P1-2 are connected to a power source, then an EMF is produced in both windings of cores X and Y. These windings are coupled in opposition by the core Z. The core Z adds a part of inductance to each coil, the other being due to the cores X and Y respectively.
The circuit is therefore equivalent to two inductors respectively coupled only to the cores X and Y, in series with the two inductors linked to the core Z, which are connected in series and in opposition so that they play no role. The current available at terminals P1-3/P1-4 will therefore be that resulting only from the variation of flux in cores X and Y, i.e. the core Z is strictly useless, it can be removed, and we see that we are with a conventional non-OU setup. End of story.
The story could start again if the experiment had shown OU, but nothing tells us that. And there's no reason to try it since nothing here suggests anything new.
The novelty cannot come from a complexity of coil arrangements or inductances that obey the laws of electromagnetism, but from a fundamental elementary physical principle that we would exploit. Complexity, which I see as a complication due to a large number, is what is confusing everyone in the field. Scammers use it by presenting an impressive big mess of pieces, when only a small proof of concept would be enough, but obviously they don't have it. As for those who are convinced of their great invention, they are mistaken themselves because of this complexity (which in addition gives rise to experimental biases and artifacts).
A principle is the opposite of complexity. And if we assume that the Jensen's principle is only the elementary opposition of fluxes, then why the inventor doesn't propose a much simpler setup, why would the opposition would create OU or anything abnormal, which has never been observed until now? That's where we wait for the idea, and there isn't one.
Orthofield wrote: "I think Jensen is on solider ground. It doesn't appear that Thane Heins gets it, since without gaps, his device is a type of 'load sharing' transformer where all secondaries still load the primary."
Then Ion:
Quote from: ion on 2019.04.11, 17:37:43
Orthofield;
You make many good arguments which I also agree with, so the proof will be in testing here at O.U.R.
I currently have a small backlog of tests I want to run but will keep this on the list also.
Regards
F6flt appears to disagree: "Concerning Jensen, I am sorry to say that I do not see any idea in Jensen's patent, and even that I see that there is none. "
I agree with ION: the proof is in the pudding, not in verbal arguments: " so the proof will be in testing here at O.U.R. "
When there is no new principle, there is nothing to test, unless you have time to waste to confirm conventional science.
For at least 20 years, the "free energy" movement has only confirmed the validity of academic science, since we still have no OU, in accordance with the laws of physics. I think it's not the aim of OUR.
Here once again and without any risk, I can bet my case of champagne bottles that the laws of physics will be checked once again. There is no new idea. It is time to draw the consequences rather than go in circles in the verification of "ideas" with seductive appearances but hollow as soon as we look closely. We have to sort and eliminate, as I suggested in the other thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3748.0), and fortunately the analysis is enough to eliminate most of them, the need to experiment being reserved only for real novelties.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.04.13, 13:52:13
When there is no new principle, there is nothing to test, unless you have time to waste to confirm conventional science.
For at least 20 years, the "free energy" movement has only confirmed the validity of academic science, since we still have no OU, in accordance with the laws of physics. I think it's not the aim of OUR.
Here once again and without any risk, I can bet my case of champagne bottles that the laws of physics will be checked once again. There is no new idea. It is time to draw the consequences rather than go in circles in the verification of "ideas" with seductive appearances but hollow as soon as we look closely. We have to sort and eliminate, as I suggested in the other thread (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3748.0).
F6FTL
I was just wondering if you have a !theory! on what the magnetic field/force is.
I mean,what is the field made of?
When two same polarity fields are bought near one another(we will stick with the N/S deal,so as it's easy to explain),how or why do they repel each other?--what is pushing against what ?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.04.13, 14:00:34
...
I was just wondering if you have a !theory! on what the magnetic field/force is.
I mean,what is the field made of?
...
It's a metaphysical question. It should not be forgotten that the "field" is only a mathematical concept.
A condition in space where an electrical charge q is subjected to a force F is considered to be an electric field E with E=F/q. That's all.
There is no reason to try to match a physical reality. Physical reality is not necessarily a field, it may be, for example, a potential. Our field is a way of describing our observations in an operational way, but not a way of matching a mathematical object strictly to an underlying reality.
When the charges move relative to each other, the electric field is no longer seen as isotropic around the charge: the field of a moving charge, seen from a resting charge, compresses in the direction of movement and extends transversely. It is this change in the electric field that is seen as a magnetic field.
When charges move in a conductor, there is no effect on an external charge at rest because the conductors remain neutral.
On the other hand, when the charge at rest also starts to move, then by a relativistic effect that I can develop but it will become very long, it will see an electric field resulting from the non-cancellation of the field of positive charges (the atomic nuclei of the conductor) by that of negative charges (free electrons) because of their speed difference.
If the charge moves parallel to the conductor whose electric field of the moving charges is seen to strengthen transversely, then the charge will be deflected by this electric field towards or away from the conductor, depending on the direction of their respective movement. It's Lorentz's force. Permanent magnets are like rotating charges, like coils through which a current flows, so they are charges that move relative to each other and influence each other as described, by the transverse force linked to the electric field deformed by the relativistic effect.
So in conclusion the magnetic field is only an electric field seen by a charge that moves with respect to the source. To switch from the relativistic effect to classical electromagnetism (approximately), it is enough to take
E=vxB, we see there too that as soon as there is a relative speed of the charges, we have an electric field, we no longer need B.
Hi Folks,
I agree with much of what F6LT says. Not every concept can be tested. We have limited time and energy and must make our best choices as to where to put it. I was asked for a likely candidate based on my historical research, not on some pre-existing theoretical rationale. So I gave, within the limited precinct of linear EM devices, what I consider to be my best candidate. Want more candidates? I got em'! Want to ignore my candidates? You can!
But I'm confused as to role of theory in determining whether something gets tested. I get the sense that excess energy ideas will be rejected for testing if:
1) if the theory is completely conventional (the generally understood laws of magnetic circuits lead to overunity)
2) if the theory is too unconventional (ie the Earth's magnetic field can supply serious power)
3) if there is no theory, but simply an observation or a recipe (this test tube is way too hot, I wonder why? build this and it will do something)
This reminds me of my days of UFO investigation. In those days, before CGI, when a film of a UFO was presented for review, there were always the same three objections:
1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it
2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist
See how that works? :-)
Of course, one can use any rationale for considering or rejecting an idea, and to me that is perfectly legitimate. Sometimes I ignore patents or concepts because I don't like the way they are written :-) --but still, I don't want to suck up people's time with theoretical (or a-theoretical) disagreements. I've already started filling up this forum with 'lost' data, and I have several gB more to put forward.
As I mentioned before, although I do keep my hand in some OU projects, I have seen that there is a huge amount of more or less conventional science that is not being applied to our global issues, for social, psychological, and economic reasons. What I observe among the overunity subculture is that a lot of really brilliant, creative people who could be greatly benefiting the Earth are spending their time disputing whether overunity exists, etc. etc, instead of applying themselves to solving the pressing problems we have. I've started presenting loss reduction methods in other places here, and I can guarantee they will not get the attention that any random overunity scheme will get, because they are not glamorous and don't fit in with the archetype of the lone, heroic inventor/scientist who comes up with a new paradigm for humanity. They just work! -- And that's not enough, apparently.
Regards,
Fred
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.13, 15:39:46
1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it
2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist
Hi Fred,
You right, situation often goes like this.
But in this particular case, UJT was tested many times and it is clear that it does not work (as described).
Regards,
Vasik
Hi Vasik041,
What do you think of the Ivanov flux switch device? It uses the same principle as the UDT in the output stage, where two secondaries oppose each across a gap (in this case a point contact between a toroid and an I core). I see you included it in your excellent FECD manual.
Fred
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.13, 16:32:55
Hi Vasik041,
What do you think of the Ivanov flux switch device? It uses the same principle as the UDT in the output stage, where two secondaries oppose each across a gap (in this case a point contact between a toroid and an I core). I see you included it in your excellent FECD manual.
Fred
I think Ivanov's device is interesting and worth researching.
But why you say that it has same principle ? I understand that in Ivanov's setup flux of permanent magnet modulated by changing
permeability of core fragment. And in UJT no core saturation should happen...or did I miss something ?
PS I tried building a variation of Ivanov's setup, with materials I have maximum COP I achieved 45%.
My friend made FEMM simulations for several similar setups and he got OU results, not sure, however, how trustworthy it is but anyway...
Regards
The problem with F6's acceptance that it is relativity that links electric and magnetic field effects is that it doesn't explain exactly what are the quanta travelling at light velocity that create the effects. The concept of a field is just a mathematical way of describing such effects, but it is really the manner in which matter reacts to those quanta which we see as a field. In my mind I see those quanta as sub photonic particles carrying momentum and spin, space if full of an enormous number of these. All matter continually absorbs and emits these particles. Gravity, inertia, electric and magnetic effects can all be explained, and that includes the relative velocities that yield magnetic effects from the basic electrical ones.
Smudge
For me too, the photon, real or virtual, is the mediator of electromagnetic interaction. But we can't mix QM and classical physics. When we talk about "electric or magnetic fields", we are in classical physics (including relativity and its 4D space-time, but not a Hilbert space).
Hi Vasik041,
I may be misunderstanding the mode of operation. It looks to me like PM flux is shunted back and forth between the toroid containing the secondaries, and the saturating core on the right. The toroid more or less fulfills the UDT-type conditions:
1) low reluctance path between opposing secondaries
2) relatively high reluctance path back to the saturating coil.
Under those conditions, not all the secondary flux passes back to the control coil--some 'nullifies' in the toroid (recognizing the word is not the best, I like 'cancel' even less).
If this was not Ivanov's intention, why would he use the toroid? Why not just put a secondary on a stick core in the gap?
I think there are many conditions that have to be fulfilled for this type of device to be OU.
1) The general sizing of the device is important. Many sims done on various devices show that the larger the cores, especially the cross section, the better the efficiency.
2) How easy is it to saturate the control core? This depends on the core material Bsat and dimensions of course.
3) Is the toroid the same material as the rest of the core? In one test that showed zero loading on the primary with heavy loading on four secondaries, the toroid was made of metglas and the rest of the core(s) were ferrite. The use of two materials allows for essentially zero gap, that still blocks secondary flux from entering the primary core. (keeping the secondary flux out of the main core does nothing really, except force it to 'nullify' itself.).
Regards,
Fred
Hi Fred,
Here documents from my archive about Ivanov's device.
Not very good English (google translated from Bulgarian), but still give good picture how device supposed to work.
Regards
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.13, 15:39:46
...
Of course, one can use any rationale for considering or rejecting an idea, and to me that is perfectly legitimate.
...
Hi Orthofield,
I think I understand the method you use and agree with it. I don't think we disagree much, except on the thresholds of credibility that are placed to decide whether something is worthy or not.
But the three points you mention are oversimplified. Here, revised, is my proposal for a rejection (it is not exhaustive, there are many other cases):
1) the theory is completely conventional (no measurement results or theoretical points of the inventor specify how it would deviate from it, example: Jensen).
2) the theory is unconventional and the author does not propose any experiment that would have results different from those predicted by conventional theories (therefore useless theory)
3) There is an observation of results, but they can also be explained by conventional theories (this is the case of almost all experiments claimed to show new phenomena, generally because their authors are incompetent in the theoretical field of which they speak)
Concerning Jensen's editing, I don't understand why you put him in the "possible" to try. The use of magnetic fluxes does not introduce anything new, it is even already practiced in industry, and primary/secondary coupling remains. The way it works is perfectly clear, where would be a shadow of a beginning of a challenge to the laws of physics or engineering, nor any supporting data? Case 1.
Concerning UFOs, it's very different, there we don't have any experiment or verified theory, so the first point of your reasoning is correct:
"1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it"
But the second point and the third point are unrelated to the OU subject.
"2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist"
Any curious and critical mind will watch the film, and if it is clear, will suspect a fake, but will not affirm that it is one, unless after investigation.
I've often wondered why we always see distant and fuzzy things when it comes to UFO, and why today, when everyone has a smartphone capable of taking pictures, we still don't have clear and sharp pictures of UFO, it's like in the 60s. For me the answer is the following: what is filmed from afar can be confused with a UFO because it is fuzzy, but when it is close you see what it is, it is not a UFO, so you don't take a picture of it.
Remember that only those who make the positive statement ("it is a UFO"), have the burden of proof.
The fact that you mix free energy and UFO as a method concerns me a little bit.
Unlike the case of UFOs, in the electromagnetic domain we know how build setups because we have a theory that is more than a century old, verified by all electrical technology.
Why should Jensen's montage work differently from what the theory predicts, or why would it bring something paradoxical? This is where we wait for the idea or principle, and there is nothing but an error, the one that opposing flows would cancel the reaction on the primary, which is a false intuition.
If you don't have sufficient theoretical skills in electromagnetism, how would you know that this setup is not in conformity with it? And if you have them, then it will be necessary to explain the question of its extent of divergence from classical theories, and in a strong formalism, equal to the claim. If you can't, it's better to study electromagnetism than to experiment to finally see that there's nothing new about it, and to repeat the mistake at the next crazy patent.
just a question to all.
Dose anyone know of a liquid that becomes magnetic when hit with a laser beam ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.04.14, 11:55:47
just a question to all.
Dose anyone know of a liquid that becomes magnetic when hit with a laser beam ?.
Brad
Very intriguing possibility, but - no, I don't know of such a liquid.
Hi Vasik041,
Thanks for the info, I'll take a look!
F.
Hi Vasik041,
Ah yes, I see that I was mistaken. I was identifying output flux paths as input, and vice versa. It doesn't use the UDT principle. The toroid acts as a saturating flux switch. This is a conventional technology, and I've always wondered if it could be used in a PM flux switcher.
F.
Hi F6FLT,
I agree with your schema of classification, only in where Jensen fits into it. Jensen was tested in 2006-- the document UDT-A-01 is part of those test results. The attached test was also done at that time. What do you think?
I admit these were somewhat cursory tests, but they do show an anomaly.
These tests are only a couple of the data points that led me to think the UDT is a good candidate. Rather than elaborate further, until some serious discussion happens about the two above test results, I'll simply list my sources here, just to show I'm not putting something forward at random.
Harold Aspden's Three Experiments in Magnetism
Jim Murray's patent Transforming Generator
Paul Lawrence's HUE device
Groehl's patent on Substantial Nullification of Magnetic Fluxes (used in huge magnets for high energy research)
Frolov's Phi Transformer
Tupper's patent Low Inductance Electrical Machine (in commercial production)
Cobb's Energy Conserver Circuit (tested successfully in a business in California)
Graham Gunderson's patent Solid State Electrical Generator
my tests done with Roberto Notte
Leslie Szabo's patent Compensation Circuit For Electrical Generators (currently in production in Switzerland)
Papers on all-negative and all-positive interference in acoustics and optics
Now, if you were to read all these papers/patents one after the other, you might be hard put to see how they all connect. It would be easy to find flaws in any one or several of them. But as I said, I look for overall patterns, not particularly honing in on errors or details (which often gets me into trouble when a specific patent or device is concerned).
In truth, I am not even a technical person at core, but an intuitive (in this case, someone who can grasp a pattern without fully understanding it) and a paper pusher. I decided early on that solving the world's energy problems was more important than being an experimental musician or poet, so I began to teach myself physics and electronics out of the books in my shop. I only read what does not bore me, which means there are plenty of holes in my knowledge. I am terrible at math. My gifts are that I have an extraordinary memory, and a good record of picking projects that are successful to at least some degree. I think out of maybe 20 serious projects I've promoted since I started this work, I picked right in more than 10 of them. (These are approximations). I am also pretty good at picking projects that WON'T work, but I am also kind, so I hold my tongue in those cases. :-)
Now that says absolutely nothing about whether I picked right in this case-- just wanted to tell you where I'm coming from...
Regards,
Fred
Hi Orthofield,
I presume the BH plots were produced in the usual way by measuring the currents in the coils then using the turns count and the core geometry to convert that to H. Also by integrating the voltage and using the turns count and geometry to get B. In that case my comments are
(a) There is clearly an increase in the primary loop area when the secondary is loaded as would be expected.
(b) IMO the small change in Delta B and mu is experimental error and is not significant.
(c) The secondary loop is expected to be circular and not show any permeability trait since the secondary does not supply any magnetizing current.
(d) In normal condition of reciprocity, the primary will not mirror this squashing of the narrow unloaded curve into a near circle, the primary is still supplying the magnetization current at 90 degrees to the load current.
(e) In normal case the primary plot will not reduce delta B and mu substantially when loaded, IMO that is a complete fallacy.
I therefore find no evidence that this supports Jensen.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Thanks! I will study your remarks. Can you also take a look at the first doc I sent? That would be UDT-A-01, attached here for convenience. If these two related tests don't pan out under examination, I will drop this line of inquiry.
Regards,
Fred
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.15, 13:18:39
Hi Vasik041,
Ah yes, I see that I was mistaken. I was identifying output flux paths as input, and vice versa. It doesn't use the UDT principle. The toroid acts as a saturating flux switch. This is a conventional technology, and I've always wondered if it could be used in a PM flux switcher.
F.
Hi Fred,
Yes, it is similar to magnetic amplifier, but flux source is permanent magnet.
With no doubt this works, but how efficient ? Magnetic amplifiers known as low efficient devices.
Can this kind of switching give OU ? May be, I don't know for sure, there are pros and cons.
Regards,
Vasik
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.15, 15:19:29
Hi Smudge,
Thanks! I will study your remarks. Can you also take a look at the first doc I sent? That would be UDT-A-01, attached here for convenience. If these two related tests don't pan out under examination, I will drop this line of inquiry.
Regards,
Fred
I saw that first time round but ignored it as the useful COP was only below 50%. On a closer look I think there is something wrong with the assessment. Taking the Tek measurements the unloaded primary data yielding so called "hysteresis" power has 81.75 degree phase between V and i, and the 4.556 input power must be almost wholly i
2R loss in the primary coil since that works out at more than 4.556 watts (actually 5.743 watts)! If we believe the i
2R value to be accurate, then the measuring system is not handling the "hysteresis" (area of the loop) value very well, it is yielding a low value some 21% too low. And it is not core hysteresis but really the area of the elliptical Lissajous for displayed V against i but calculated via the normal V*i*power factor. Core hysteresis can be ignored as it is insignificant compared to the primary coil loss.
Taking the loaded primary results there is still a significant phase between V and i of 73.62 degrees, so the input is still highly reactive. If we assume that the poor "hysteresis" measurement error is still reading 21% low in this instance, then the input power of 8.533 watts should be increased to 10.756 watts. Then taking all the known i
2R outputs together yields a total output power of 9.584 watts, i.e. an absolute COP of 0.891. Or more likely a COP of unity and the "hysteresis" measuring error for that 73.62 degrees phase is somewhat less than 21%.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Thanks for your very cogent analysis! I took it for granted that the scope pic directly represented the hysteresis, and that his numbers were good. This is how I keep learning :-)
Well, actually, it's good to clear the decks on that concept, it's been bugging me for a while. I still think there is a way of increasing voltage there, but it isn't OU.
F.
Hi Ortho,
Yes measuring primary current with the secondary unloaded yields the magnetizing current which would in a perfect transformer be 90 degree phase shifted from the voltage and be purely reactive. When the phase shift is less than 90 degrees you can determine the real power consumed but that is both core and coil loss. If you know the resistance of the coil you can account for coil loss and determine the core loss. In the data you gave the core is apparently not consuming power but actually delivering power because the i2R coil loss is greater than the real power input. If you are looking for OU then there you have it :). But do we really believe that? My take is the measuring system was delivering a poor estimate of the phase shift and that accounted for the error. It is worth noting that for a well designed transformer where the maximum primary load current is much greater than the magnetizing current the input power under no-load conditions is very close to the core loss because the i2R loss is then negligible, the primary is designed to have low R to make this so.
Smudge
Yes, all those pieces were probably in my brain somewhere, but not in a usable fashion :-)
Fred