Hi All,
I've been mulling about this idea for a while and so far haven't found a flaw.
It uses an additional inductive component to reduce some of the loading of the primary in a parametric transformer.
Consider a standard mag amp style of parametric transformer like (c) in the image attached. The idea would work for the other forms of such transformers, but it's easiest to explain with this form.
As most of you know, there's no inductive transfer of energy through this transformer. The transfer occurs through the change in mu of the core. Typically, the secondary is part of a tank circuit at half the primary frequency, and over several cycles parametric oscillations build in the tank due the change in L.
Either the secondary or primary windings have a reversed current direction, or counterwound coils, to cancel standard induction.
Despite many misunderstandings about this type of device over the last couple decades, it's definitely not overunity in this form. A well designed version with two cores may have an efficiency of around 80%. Orthogonal single core versions will be somewhat less. Saturation is an inherently lossy process (with a single exception that has no relevance here).
My idea puts a third winding closely coupled to the secondary winding. If the secondary reverses direction between the two toroids, this third winding will as well, so that inductive coupling is maximized between these two windings.
The secondary winding is in a high Q tank circuit with no additional load. The third winding goes straight to a resistive load of a size appropriate to allow parametric oscillations if it were part of the tank circuit (these devices are load sensitive).
As I imagine it to work, the primary at 2F generates parametric oscillations in the secondary as usual. However, the secondary induces to the third coil, powering the load.
As per Lenz's law, the third winding flux oppose changes in the secondary flux. Since variations of the secondary flux at quadrature to the primary are what draws power from it, Lenz's law reduces the loading on the primary.
The effect of the primary on the third coil is limited because it's not part of a tank circuit so parametric oscillations won't build. It does see a change in L due to the primary, but this change will increase current in the third coil (the change in parameter amplifies current of either polarity) but this rise in current will still be in opposition to the rise in current in the secondary, so the net effect should be a flattening of variations of total flux created by secondary and third coil.
I can't say whether it will be overunity or not, but there should be an increase in efficiency due to this process. A lot would depend on how well the parametric transformer was designed in the first place, and what square loop material, frequency, etc, it was run at.
Fred
Forgot to attached the image. It's here.
For some reason I didn't manage to transfer any tangible power through a parametric transformer with orthogonal windings. Although I know that it should work, and moreover, it has been used in technology for many years.
And the efficiency of such stabilized power supplies reaches 86%. In addition, they are not afraid of output short circuits.
Hi Chief,
It looks like you either took two tape wound C cores and put them together, or possibly cut a square tape wound core in half. In either case, the laminations would intersect at right angles, meaning there would be micro-gaps throughout the area where the cores intersect-- areas where each core is facing an air gap rather than the other core.
This would result in a lot of flux leakage at the interface between the cores. I don't think the Wanlass family (the inventors of this type of core construction) had access to tape wound cores. Cravens Wanlass describes using 'randomly or cubic oriented material' in his primary patent using this topology.
I assume the tape cores are Metglas or some other square loop material?
I posted a paper in Partzman's bench recently on the superiority of the two toroid construction over the Wanlass type construction.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3641.msg101902#msg101902
If you're still interested in working with the orthogonal cores, you might look at the attached patents. They show an asymmetry based on the use of grain oriented materials, which might be the 'boost' needed to make these overunity.
Neither is a parametric transformer, but the first one could easily be adapted to this use.
Magnetic Frequency Changer shows a very convenient core topology that doesn't have the flux leakage (and poor use of the core material) of the Wanlass type design, and uses only one core. You can see that the wire goes through holes cut out of a single sheet of grain oriented material.
This patent has three diagrams showing the BH curves of the material when at 90 degrees to the grain of the material, aligned with the grain, and at an intermediate angle. Behavior can be controlled with a nearby permanent magnet. When properly tuned with a magnet for the steep part of the BH curve, "At this particular point on the curve a very small increase in the amplitude of the alternating input signal or the biasing voltage will produce
a very large increase in the amplitude of the output voltage."
The Flux Switching Transformer patent goes into more detail about the use of grain oriented material. The patent says: "A characteristic of grain oriented core materials which makes such particularly desirable in the present instance for core 13 is the tremendous difference in the permeability in the direction of grain orientation as compared to the permeability at right angles thereto. Thus where permeabilities of the order of several thousand may be common in the grain oriented direction, which is that of flux produced by winding 16, for example, transverse permeabilities of the order of several units will exist for the flux produced in core 13 by winding 18 and core 15. Thus even with core materials of high permeability for core 15, core 13 will provide a substantial reluctance in the total path for flux producer by winding 18. It is further characteristic of grain oriented core material, that although the transverse permeability is very low compared to the oriented permeability, that percentage changes in the permeability in the grain oriented direction will be Substantially equal to percentage changes in the degree of saturation in the transverse direction. Thus flux changes of several units in the transverse flux produced by winding 18 will cause permeability changes of the order of several thousands in the oriented direction of core 3 which is operated on by winding 16."
This asymmetry between different directions in the core might be the key to making these types of devices much more efficient.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.14, 19:40:48
It looks like you either took two tape wound C cores and put them together, or possibly cut a square tape wound core in half. In either case, the laminations would intersect at right angles, meaning there would be micro-gaps throughout the area where the cores intersect-- areas where each core is facing an air gap rather than the other core.
Hello.
It was a conventional transformer with a core of four C-shaped parts.
It was not easy to find such a transformer with a strictly square end cut.
We tried a whole bunch of them, mostly rectangular.
Of course, the area of contact of the cores with such a connection decreases several times, but this design cannot be done differently. But she must work. I think there is not enough time for everything.
I start, I don't finish, I quit.
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.14, 19:40:48
...
The Flux Switching Transformer patent goes into more detail about the use of grain oriented material. The patent says: "A characteristic of grain oriented core materials which makes such particularly desirable in the present instance for core 13 is the tremendous difference in the permeability in the direction of grain orientation as compared to the permeability at right angles thereto.
...
Hi Fred,
Note that no "grain oriented" material is needed to achieve this effect. It is sufficient to saturate any non-oriented magnetic core with a permanent magnet along one axis. Saturation along this axis will reduce the permeability to very little, while transversely the permeability is unchanged.
I've played with this before but with no result for energy.
Hi F6FLT,
That's a good point. The first patent I mentioned does have a permanent magnet aligned along one of the orientations of the material, but makes little of it.
I don't think that a process with inherent losses like magnetic saturation is a likely candidate for 'excess energy', but I certainly encourage experimentation with parametric transformers and such--they are just inherently interesting to me. To me, the more intriguing possibility is the conversion of variable resistance to variable reactance.
Fred
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.15, 10:35:40
Hi Fred,
Note that no "grain oriented" material is needed to achieve this effect. It is sufficient to saturate any non-oriented magnetic core with a permanent magnet along one axis. Saturation along this axis will reduce the permeability to very little, while transversely the permeability is unchanged.
I've played with this before but with no result for energy.
I have to disagree with you on this one. Saturation in one axis does significantly affect the permeability in the other axis. I learned this many years ago while I worked for a "Marconi" company and got involved with the Marconi Research Laboratories. I held a joint patent with one of their scientists for a magnetometer that used this axis cross coupling effect.
Smudge
Hi Smudge, F6FLT,
I suspect this would very much depend on the material.
Fred
But I'm thinking, is Lenz's rule present in the "parametric transformer", parametric energy transfer?
Over the problem of which you have already broken your brains, trying to get rid of Lenz.
At the very least, the load in secondary response for the primary circuit is completely different from that of a conventional transformer.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.12.15, 17:09:27
I have to disagree with you on this one. Saturation in one axis does significantly affect the permeability in the other axis. I learned this many years ago while I worked for a "Marconi" company and got involved with the Marconi Research Laboratories. I held a joint patent with one of their scientists for a magnetometer that used this axis cross coupling effect.
Smudge
I checked the facts a dozen years ago. The magnetic field of a stack of cylindrical neodynium magnets clearly perpendicular to the plane of a ferrite torus does not change the inductance of the coil. I have verified this by finding that the resonance frequency remains almost the same if the magnet is perpendicular, while it changes considerably when the magnet is in another direction, see photo.
I think that a different finding is only due to an experimental artefact: an orientation of the field which is not exactly perpendicular everywhere in the volume, to the supposedly unperturbed axis.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.16, 09:23:22
I checked the facts a dozen years ago. The magnetic field of a stack of cylindrical neodynium magnets clearly perpendicular to the plane of a ferrite torus does not change the inductance of the coil. I have verified this by finding that the resonance frequency remains almost the same if the magnet is perpendicular, while it changes considerably when the magnet is in another direction, see photo.
That ferrite core will be grain oriented. I was replying to your statement in reply #5 that applied to non-grain-oriented material. Or did I misinterpret that reply?
Smudge
Interesting results, F6FLT.
There's a whole class of devices called magnetic modulators that were used widely for FM before transistors came along, and most depended of cross saturation of a core. They wouldn't have worked if your results were the whole story. So how to account for the well known cross flux effect, and also your result?
I think it's possible that your very powerful permanent magnets (relative to the size of the core), have taken the toroid into the little-known regime called 'flux clamping'. This is a region of magnetic operation where the resultant B vector of the two magnetic fields is always above saturation, and there are no hysteretic losses.
The attached patent, one of several from Lipkin, assigned to Sperry Rand, explains the matter better than I can. On page 4, col., line 44 he says:
"As the scalar value of the magnetizing field increases above that required for complete saturation, experiment shows that the saturated flux vector
comes increasingly under the dominance of the resultant magnetizing field, and although the saturated flux changes little in value, it becomes to a greater and greater degree aligned with the resultant field until the two representative vectors may be thought of as locked together.
In the region beyond the maximum rotational loss, an increase in applied field tends to bring the magnetic field closer to saturation. Under a condition of substantial saturation, the field and flux vectors have substantially the same direction, and, as the field vector rotates, the
flux vector tends to rotate with it continuing in the same direction as the field vector. At lesser values of the field, the field and flux vectors have somewhat different directions and the angle between them may vary. This characteristic of the substantially saturated flux vector having substantially the same direction as the field vector is termed "clamping action between the flux and field vectors
B and H" in FIG. 1 and similarly elsewhere in this specification and in certain claims."
This immediately suggests ways to both increase the maximum power density of transformers as well as reduce their losses, but the information seems to have been little used except for several patents from Krause and Delvecchio, originally assigned to Westinghouse. For instance:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4595843A/en?oq=4%2c595%2c843
I'll quote only the patent abstract here, which is a good synopsis of the above principle:
"A transformer utilizing a rotating flux for saturating the entire core. The transformer uses a core configured such that a vector sum of the induction produced by two windings in the core rotates through 360°. This is accomplished by arranging the component induction vectors to be perpendicular and the source voltages associated with each of the component induction vectors to be 90° out of phase. If the inductions are of equal magnitude and the vector sum is sufficient to saturate the core, rotation of the vector sum saturates the entire core and the transformer experiences a very low or nearly negligible hysteresis losses. Various topological configurations for the core, including a toroid, are described. The transformer windings can be arranged for single, two-phase, three-phase, or multi-phase operation."
In terms of your experiment, I suggest if you used ONE neo magnet and brought it close to your toroid while in operation, you would see the standard effect at some point. You're using TOO MUCH PM flux to see the typical orthogonal flux effect.
Fred
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.16, 06:28:52
But I'm thinking, is Lenz's rule present in the "parametric transformer", parametric energy transfer?
Over the problem of which you have already broken your brains, trying to get rid of Lenz.
At the very least, the load in secondary response for the primary circuit is completely different from that of a conventional transformer.
Hi Chief,
I've only just started looking at the long paper you sent out. Thanks for the info! More to think about (because I didn't have enough haha).
There's no Lenz effect in a well designed parametric transformer. The loading of the primary is due to modulation of the L of the cores by the oscillating tank current of the secondary, out of phase with the primary current. So as primary current is rising, the L is rising at the same time, attenuating it. But I think you know that.
I think it's futile to try to get rid of Lenz. There are clear and present ways of using Lenz to increase output, and nullify loading of the primary, but that's for another letter.
My idea is to bring Lenz back into the paraformer so that the output current is reduced, and the effect on the primary is reduced. Lenz and parametric effect are made to work against each other. Maybe.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.16, 17:39:16
I've only just started looking at the long paper you sent out.
Long paper, as I was told, is nonsense. Perhaps this is so, although some points interested me, but oh well, I'm not talking about that now. I forgot to add that during experiments with this transformer with orthogonal windings, when I turned it on with a conventional magnetic amplifier, it worked perfectly. Well, you all know how a magnetic amplifier works. :) That is, the controlled saturation choke changed its inductance many times with the help of the second control coil. So my iron core worked perfectly. But parametrically excitation of oscillations turned out badly. :(
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.12.16, 15:10:31
That ferrite core will be grain oriented.
...
What makes you say that? The datasheets of this kind of inductance do not specify if the grain is oriented or not.
I read on wikipedia :
"The ferrite cores used for power transformers work in the low frequency range (1 to 200 kHz usually[2]) and are fairly large in size, can be toroidal, shell, [...] They are useful in all kinds of electronic switching devices – especially power supplies from 1 Watt to 1000 Watts maximum,
since more powerful applications are usually out of range of ferritic single core and require grain oriented lamination cores."
My toroid is not a transformer, it is a filtering inductance but for low powers so a priori not "grain oriented".
Hi F6FLT,
Do you happen to know the name of the material in the toroid? More than likely a Mn-Zn ferrite.
As far as I can tell from bits and pieces of different datasheets, these ferrites are isotropic.
Some ferrites are however anisotropic, those intended to be permanently magnetized.
The 'above saturation' vectorial effect I mentioned would work in isotropic materials-- as I think yours was-- but wouldn't work in anisotropic ones.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.16, 23:51:45
Hi F6FLT,
Do you happen to know the name of the material in the toroid? More than likely a Mn-Zn ferrite.
As far as I can tell from bits and pieces of different datasheets, these ferrites are isotropic.
Some ferrites are however anisotropic, those intended to be permanently magnetized.
From my knowledge of ferrites I think that may not be correct. Grain orientation that makes a ferrite anisotropic is a production process that can be applied to any ferrite. The ferrite is ground down to a fine powder such that each grain is virtually a single domain. This is then treated much like clay to be fired in a kiln but during the firing process the grains are orientated by the application of a magnetic field. Once fired the magnetic field is removed and the grains remain orientated. This not only applies to permanent magnet ferrites but also to soft ferrites where the grain orientation increases the permeability significantly along that axis, thus creating highly anisotropic material. For ring cores the grains are orientated along a circumference. Toroidal coils on such ring cores have much higher efficiency than ones using isotropic material, and I assumed that ring-core manufacturers would all offer grain-orientated cores for this reason.
For isotropic material it is so easy to prove mathematically that saturation along one axis alters the permeability along a crossed axis that I am surprised that people think otherwise. When one axis is saturated application of an H field along a crossed axis causes the saturated magnetization vector to rotate slightly so it has a component along the crossed axis. That component has a different value to that which would occur if the other axis were not saturated. You can easily create a family of BH curves for one axis where each curve is for a specific H value along the crossed axis. This looks somewhat like the familiar transistor collector voltage/current v. base current characteristics. My take on F6's experimental results is that his ferrite core was grain orientated else he would have got different results.
Smudge
@Smudge
First of all, concerning ferrites, orienting the grains with a magnetic field is a heavy operation, which certainly increases the cost, and which I strongly doubt is applied to many ferrites except those reserved for particular uses. The ferrites I play with, and I think most of us do too, are rather cheap, low-end ones used in consumer equipment.
Secondly, I don't agree at all with the fact that from a transverse H2 field only a weak component would remain, because of the saturating H1 field at 90°. The fields superpose. The H2 field is weak, so it does not change the permeability, its component is simply superimposed on H1. Of course the resulting field will have rotated slightly, but this rotation is only what we see of H2, while the saturation remains globally along H1.
It is only by proving the variation of the permeability on an axis different from that of the saturating field, that you can prove what you say. However, there is nothing to support this idea. Even if the grain of my ferrite was oriented, which I don't think it is, we should see a difference in the case with or without a magnet, which is not the case.
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.16, 23:51:45
Hi F6FLT,
Do you happen to know the name of the material in the toroid? More than likely a Mn-Zn ferrite...
I found my ferrite but I don't see any marking. It is white (but maybe a coating), and painted yellow except on a circular area, see photo.
Quote
The 'above saturation' vectorial effect I mentioned would work in isotropic materials-- as I think yours was-- but wouldn't work in anisotropic ones.
Fred
Well noted!
F6FLT,
The core you show is a powered iron toroid and is type -26. See the attached table from Micrometals for specs.
Pm
@Partzman
Thank you very much, I didn't know there were such colour codes with inductors.
Do you know if the ferrite is "grain oriented"?
Thanks, Partzman!
The Bsat of these cores is much higher than ferrites-- on the other hand, that's quite a stack of neo magnets...
Fred
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.16, 18:12:07
Long paper, as I was told, is nonsense. Perhaps this is so, although some points interested me, but oh well, I'm not talking about that now. I forgot to add that during experiments with this transformer with orthogonal windings, when I turned it on with a conventional magnetic amplifier, it worked perfectly. Well, you all know how a magnetic amplifier works. :) That is, the controlled saturation choke changed its inductance many times with the help of the second control coil. So my iron core worked perfectly. But parametrically excitation of oscillations turned out badly. :(
Hi Chief,
Yes, magnetic amplifiers work :-) ...and it is not necessary to get parametric oscillation for them to act as amplifiers. You can shuttle energy into and out of the coil with for instance a CLC circuit, without any oscillations at all. The real question is whether a saturating type magnetic amplifier can get gain over unity, and unfortunately, without some other principle, I think the answer is NO.
I had a chance to skim through the long paper you sent. I ignore all the HF/HV stuff because it's so easy to get some kind of testing artifacts. The tests of simple arrangements of switched inductors starting around pg. 52 are of some interest.
I don't think the Hubbard transformer worked by switched inductances. It seems similar in some ways to the Jensen Unidirectional Transformer and several other devices where two secondary fluxes are opposing each other, rather than returning through the primary. At some point I'll put forth a 'modern' form of the Hubbard for comment.
Fred
In my case this mechanical analogy haunts me.
Where is the mistake, why shouldn't it work?
Maybe F6's results are explained by the crossed field from the stack of magnets not reaching the saturation level of the core as the geometry does not allow the core to attract flux lines and get flux concentration. In the other direction the geometry allows the core to attract flux, become a flux concentrator and reach saturation.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.17, 16:28:59
@Partzman
Thank you very much, I didn't know there were such colour codes with inductors.
Do you know if the ferrite is "grain oriented"?
Actually, these cores are not a ferrite but rather powdered iron with many little gaps spread throughout the material which makes the overall part, a toroid in this case, very difficult to saturate. I doubt if this material has any grain orientation but not sure on this.
What I always found interesting about this material in the various mixes is the change in initial permeability vs flux density. I attempted in the past to utilize this feature for a gain but was unsuccessful.
I've attached the Micrometals data sheet below.
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.17, 14:45:16
@Smudge
........
Secondly, I don't agree at all with the fact that from a transverse H2 field only a weak component would remain, because of the saturating H1 field at 90°. The fields superpose. The H2 field is weak, so it does not change the permeability, its component is simply superimposed on H1.
The H field superimpose to create a combined H field at some angle from the two axes, and that combined value has to be applied to the BH curve to obtain B along that combined H direction. That B will have components along the H1 and H2 axes. It is wrong to think of H
changing the permeability. The permeability will be dB1/dH1 along the H1 axis and dB2/dH2 along the H2 axis
QuoteOf course the resulting field will have rotated slightly, but this rotation is only what we see of H2, while the saturation remains globally along H1.
Saturation is when all the domains are aligned along an axis. In this case it is along that slightly rotated axis. It is wrong to think that the saturation remains globally along H1. Take the case for H1 = H2 and their values are individually below Hsat, but their combined component along the axis at 45 degrees is greater then Hsat. Clearly the material is in saturation along that 45 degree axis where its relative permeability is now unity. Any increase in H1 or H2 will only obtain a B field that is μ
0 times that increase, the high permeability of the material has disappeared.
Smudge
@Smudge
I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.
Playing with capacitance switching, I test a basic circuit with LTSpice: a capacitor of 1µF charged to 100V at the initial time t=0, is discharged through a diode in an inductor of 0.1H and internal resistance 10 ohm.
After a time t linked to the RC time constant of the circuit, we find a capacitor charged to... -3 KV! COP = 900.
And there is no limit: dividing the resistance of L1 by 100 multiplies the final voltage by 100.
I must have missed something...
F6,
You need to add an additional limit of I(L1)=0 to your .ic statement to prevent a large starting bias current in L1. In this case the starting current in L1 is ~9 amps which creates the large negative voltage on C1.
Regards,
Pm
@partzman
Okay, got it, the initial current from V(Cap) was supposed to already be flowing through the coil at t=0, and I need to eliminate it. Thanks!
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.18, 11:49:34
@Smudge
I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.
For what it's worth, I agree with Smudge here. It doesn't matter that the signal doesn't add to saturation, if the vectorial total is always above saturation. I still think it possible that 'flux clamping' is involved, despite the relatively high Bsat of the material with nano-gaps dispersed throughout. Note in the patent I sent that losses well below saturation and well above saturation are similar in magnitude.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.18, 18:33:23
For what it's worth, I agree with Smudge here. It doesn't matter that the signal doesn't add to saturation, if the vectorial total is always above saturation. I still think it possible that 'flux clamping' is involved, despite the relatively high Bsat of the material with nano-gaps dispersed throughout. Note in the patent I sent that losses well below saturation and well above saturation are similar in magnitude.
Fred
I still don't agree. A field that is negligible compared to the saturation field cannot significantly rotate the orientation of the saturation. The saturation and the variable field remain at 90° to each other. The 90° component cannot count in the saturation field since this vector is perpendicular. It is therefore sensitive only to the permeability transverse to the saturating field.
There is no difference in the resonance frequency with or without a magnet. It is that the permeability transverse to the saturation field does not change.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.18, 11:49:34
@Smudge
I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.
My argument which was not about your experiment but talking generally about the material. I realise the small current used to measure the inductance has no effect on the saturation. In your experiment quite clearly in one case the field from the magnets is not causing saturation while in the other case it is doing so. IMO that is entirely down to the magnetic geometry that is different for the two cases. Take for example a 1cm cube of material between you two stacks of magnets. The notional 1T field from the magnets will not take the Fe particles to saturation. Now imagine that lump of material is thinned down at its centre so it has the shape of an hour-glass. The flux will be increased at that centre point to be taken above saturation. That is an extreme example but it illustrates the point. The magnet field along the two semicircles of the ring is above saturation. Of course in this iron dust material there is not a clearly defined saturation point, the saturation knee is not sharp, but you get the gist.
Smudge
Quote from: partzman on 2022.12.17, 19:39:28
Actually, these cores are not a ferrite but rather powdered iron with many little gaps spread throughout the material which makes the overall part, a toroid in this case, very difficult to saturate. I doubt if this material has any grain orientation but not sure on this.
What I always found interesting about this material in the various mixes is the change in initial permeability vs flux density. I attempted in the past to utilize this feature for a gain but was unsuccessful.
I've attached the Micrometals data sheet below.
Pm
Hi Partzman,
I was intrigued by the idea of using these positive changes in mu with increasing flux density. This seems to be a sort of 'self-organization' on the part of the domains, which has OU potential. I immediately thought of in-line flux switchers like the old Subieta-Garron patent attached, but considered it would be better to isolate the effect, not have it show up as an increase in current of normal transformer output, as Subieta-Garron claims--or for that matter, increase in flux density in air, like various flux switched motors.
After several days and many designs I came up with the following, attached.
You see an ordinary powdered iron toroidal transformer with primary L1 and secondary L2, with AC source and load R1.
Three neo magnets are attached to the toroid, two outside, and one inside, with (for instance) N poles facing in on the outside of the toroid, and S pole facing in on the inside. They of course can be arranged on the top and bottom of the toroid as well.
Two counter wound coils L3 and L4 intercept the flux from the two 'wings' of PM flux, which are naturally in opposite directions. These are connected in series to a second load R2.
Normal transformer operation creates a changing net flux, and thus causes a variation in mu of the core. We are using only the change in mu in this device.
If the transformer flux is rising, it causes an increase in mu, and thus in flux that L3 and L4 see from their respective permanent magnet pairs. Each coil generates current to oppose the rise in flux, and this current adds in series to go to load R2. The same is of course true if transformer flux/mu is dropping.
Because L3 and L4 are counterwound, transformer induction cancels and doesn't go to load R2. Because the fluxes that L3 and L4 generate are always in opposite directions, their flux doesn't induce on the transformer. There's complete decoupling between the two sets of coils.
As an added advantage, the opposition between L3 and L4 fluxes reduces the reactance of the output circuit.
I've shown only three magnets but of course they can be spaced around the entire core with outputs adding in series. The net flux from this coil set remains zero at all times.
L1/L2 are shown here as spaced apart but to reduce flux leakage they can be bifilar wound around the whole toroid-- it changes nothing about the operating principle.
More PMs can be added to the stack, as long as the flux in any 'wing' of the three magnet array remains around the steepest part of the flux vs. mu curve-- around 2000 Gauss in the chart you sent. At this bias, even a small primary A/turns in the transformer will cause a wide variation in mu, leading to an increased output to R2.
Since the transformer part can be made pretty efficient all on its own, the additional output dissipated across R2 could well take the whole device into OU territory.
Patent/project references: Subieta-Garron, Tupper, Jensen, Cobb, Magnetic amplifiers, etc.
Fred
Hi All,
No need to respond to these messages, Partman. I realize you have a lot on your plate.
These are just ideas for general consideration.
Attached is a simpler version of the 'Mutilizer'.
Here you have a square core transformer, with primary and secondary windings L1 and L2, an AC source, and load R2 as usual. (The transformer can be made of any convenient material since every transformer has mu variation).
Permanent magnets are placed at the center of the core so that the PM flux is split evenly between the legs. I have them as single magnets with N and S facing the core, but they could consist of a bar magnet or stacks of neos. The only other major requirement is that PM plus transformer flux never saturates the core.
The additional 'mutilizer' secondaries L3 and L4 each consist of two counterwound coils, one on each side of where the PMs are attached to the core. These coils are connected in series to supply loads R1 and R3. As L3 and L4 are counterwound and in series, any induction from L1/L2 is canceled out.
As the transformer is in operation, for instance between mains and a load, the PM flux going through both legs of the core is modulated by the changes in mu. L3 and L4 generate current to respond to these changes in flux.
As L3 and L4 output fluxes are always opposite in direction, and contained completely within the core, they 'nullify' or 'cancel', and at no time is there flux circulating in the core due to power dissipated in R1 and R3. (If one doesn't accept the idea of 'flux nullification', it's still true that their net induction on L1 and L2 is zero).
So we have two independent operations, a standard transformer and a PM flux modulator with no inductive connection between them. The interaction is only through the variation of mu in the core, and this interaction is in only one direction, since L3 and L4 have no impact on the mu.
I make no claim that this device is overunity. However, since every aspect of it is conventional, I can say with some certainty that any power dissipated in R1 and R3 is 'free' in that it has no impact on transformer operation.
Fred
Hi Fred,
Perhaps not fully off topic, I would like to refer to an interesting test a Russian guy made. Perhaps it can be further food for thought to someone interested.
He gave this title to his youtube video:
"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".
Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ)
I think the magnets saturate the toroid sections directly beneath them when their like poles are arranged into the same direction, creating a 'virtual gap' in the core beneath them so the light bulb remains dark. In this magnet orientation the permeability of the closed toroidal core surely drops from the input - output coils point of view.
And when (any) one of the magnets is flipped, the magnets are able to create a closed magnetic circuit fully inside the toroid core (their flux is orthogonal to the coils flux) so no saturation or only a little one can happen in the core so the 1:1 toroidal transformer can work as usual.
If you explain the test differently, please tell.
Of course the strength of the magnets should be selected to the saturation properties of the toroidal core.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
Yes, it's exactly as you say. The magnets are saturating the core directly beneath them, when they can't close a path around the whole toroid.
His test shows that using small magnets on the outside of a toroid or square core is a fruitful area of experimentation. You can create distinct areas of flux, or no flux, inside the core, which can then be made to interact with each other.
In my concept you use additional coils to modulate the mu and thus the flux from the magnets. But there are other things you can do.
I think saturation is inherently wasteful and is to be avoided. It's better to vary the mu in a linear region where there's less losses.
When magnetic modulators were in common use, one type used the idea of moving 'flux nulls' inside the core. The attached patents show two such designs. In the first, you see a PM inside of a toroid, with 'flux nulls' in the region of the toroid near the poles, at top and bottom. In reality the flux is not null in those regions, but the orientation of the flux is such that it doesn't induce into the coil above it. Additional signal coils wiggle the flux null back and forth, generating a voltage corresponding to the input signal. The second design uses two PMs with same poles facing toward each other in a stick core, but the principle is the same.
These types of modulators seem like a very cheap and easy form of 'solid state generator' which might lead to some good results-- especially combined with other coils that aren't coupled inductively.
Fred
Quote from: gyula on 2022.12.21, 23:41:51
Hi Fred,
Perhaps not fully off topic, I would like to refer to an interesting test a Russian guy made. Perhaps it can be further food for thought to someone interested.
He gave this title to his youtube video:
"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".
Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ)
I think the magnets saturate the toroid sections directly beneath them when their like poles are arranged into the same direction, creating a 'virtual gap' in the core beneath them so the light bulb remains dark.
...
Hi gyula,
I totally agree.
Besides the experience is not only instructive but fun and spectacular, thank you.
Hi All,
After looking for flaws in my own design, I've found something, but not sure if it is a flaw or a feature.
This is somewhat elaborate to explain, so I'll forgive you if you lose patience and go on.
It's as much for me to articulate my thoughts as anything else. If someone reads it, then all the better.
I'm using the toroidal form of the gadget that has three PMs attached to the surface in what amounts to a magnetic bridge circuit, creating a pair of static and opposite fluxes. The principle of operation is that the mu between these magnets varies with standard transformer flux, generating current in two coils L3 and L4 interposed between the magnets.
So far, so good. Since the output fluxes are in opposite directions, they clearly won't induce on to the transformer cores. But on consideration, I realized that they DO alter the mu of the transformer core, even though they have no inductive effect.
It may seem strange that superimposed--seemingly 'nullified' fluxes can have an effect on the mu of the core, but among other examples, the Gennady Markov transformer operates by this principle. You can see the principle described on the bottom of pg. 10 and the top of pg. 11 of the attached patent.
It's essentially a parametric autotransformer, where (in simplest form) the single winding is center tapped so that flux goes in opposite directions through the core. Despite this, the mu of the core is varied by the superimposed fluxes, and this change in mu generates current in the coils which shows up at the output terminals.
It could also be described as a sort of 'collapsed' mag amp with the two toroids superimposed onto one.
This is an interesting effect, little investigated, with many potential applications. But what impact does it have on my proposed design? There are two independent variables, either of which could have an impact, and neither can be resolved by running mental models in my head. I'm only going to talk about the first here, to reduce the length of this already very long post.
The first factor is, how much does the mu change due to superimposed opposite fluxes, relative to how it changes if the fluxes supported each other? It seems unlikely at first glance that the mu variation would be the same with the opposite as with the supporting fluxes, but the possibility they are the same can't be discounted. After all, all the magnetic energy is still there, and acting on the domains, presumably as a sort of 'equal pressure' from both sides.
Without knowing the degree of this effect, it's impossible to know how the mutilizer would work in practice. Easy enough to build, but not having a scope and signal generator (yet), impossible to test.
Not exactly back to the drawing board, because I've basically never left haha.
Have a good Christmas/Hanukkah/Solstice/Festivus everyone!
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.24, 01:02:20
Have a good Christmas/Hanukkah/Solstice/Festivus everyone!
Hi all.
Why do we distribute good wishes to each other, celebrate holidays, and why is there more and more evil in the world? :(
Quote from: gyula on 2022.12.21, 23:41:51
"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqALovanrEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqALovanrEU)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.24, 07:18:28
Hi all.
Why do we distribute good wishes to each other, celebrate holidays, and why is there more and more evil in the world? :(
Hi Chief,
I usually refrain from talking metaphysics on this forum, but my view in brief is that Earth is a school for souls. Individual souls evolve through many lifetimes, but the human race as a whole evolves through history only very slowly, and mostly in cycles. A dark age is followed by a renaissance, and then back to a dark age, and so on.
Good and evil are deliberately maintained in about equal quantities through time so that each soul will always have a choice, because without choice there is no evolution. What's important is how you live YOUR life-- pay no attention to what other people are doing or not doing.
The mistake we make is the idea that things are supposed to 'get better' here. That's not what it's for. It's a training ground.
Fred
Hi,Fred.
Yes, it probably is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE9-tIdNLQM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE9-tIdNLQM)
And it really works.
Only I have it better when one magnet is at the top, the other is at the bottom. :)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.24, 08:38:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqALovanrEU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqALovanrEU)
Hi chief,
Thanks for the link, it shows a mechanically operated magnetic valve (flux switching) principle.
By the way, the video originally was made by youtuber gilbondfac, see the same video on his channel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlHtSzUMEjw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlHtSzUMEjw)
Some years later he made a similar video in much better quality, see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGrXjIKFH8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGrXjIKFH8)
You surely have heard of the Radus boots? He used electromagnets for flux switching: https://www.billstclair.com/www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm (https://www.billstclair.com/www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3skGmUCICM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3skGmUCICM)
Thanks for building a test setup with the toroidal core and showing a video on it. O0
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2022.12.25, 00:07:14
You surely have heard of the Radus boots?
No, I don't knew. Thanks.
Great information about the radisboots! Thanks a lot, ortofield. It would seem that this is what Floyd Sweet's SQM used. There is some information that he could perform the conditioning of the magnets by applying strong magnetic shockwaves while an oscillator provided the frequency to be impressed in the magnetic memory..
Hi Vidura,
It was Gyula who brought up the Radus Boots.
The Radus type of flux switcher has been taken to a high degree of development in Charles Flynn's Permanent Magnet Motors.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6246561B1/en?oq=US6246561B1
The patent by Carlos Subieta-Garron I recently posted here is a transformer version of the same thing. Although Flynn can rightly claim increased magnetic field strength at the poles, giving more torque to the motor, and Subieta-Garron claims increased current, I'm not sure that either of these inventions is overunity.
Neither Radus, Garron, or Flynn use the principle that's shown in the videos.
The videos use saturation of a portion of core with a permanent magnet to control transformer flux.
If you reverse this, and saturate a portion of the core with an electromagnet to control permanent magnet flux, you get something very much like the Villasenor De Rivas Electromagnetic Generator patent attached. You can see that there are several orthogonal cores 36,38,40,42 whose fields saturate alternating portions of the main core, forcing permanent magnet flux back and forth across an output coil, and generating power.
While there's a potential for OU operation in such a device, it would have to be very carefully designed to make sure that core cross sections, materials, A/turns, frequencies, etc, were just right. I've seen FEMM studies of such designs that showed excess energy, but it took a great deal of fiddling to get it just right. There is inherent loss in the saturating cores and this has to be compensated for.
In magnetic designs, I'm working with the idea of starting with a working, non-saturating transformer, then using the change in mu of the core to drive some other process that doesn't affect the transformer. Since transformers are already pretty efficient, getting some improvement really means something.
I've studied Sweet and all the other legends of overunity, but I don't think there's any point in trying to figure out what they did. There's just too much missing information. My strategy is to use only known, conventional principles, and see how far I can get with those...
Fred