Hello everyone,
There is this concept that has been pressing me for years now and because I have found extremely low information on it, I have decided to share it with you. It is about the principle of the rotating magnetic field being produced by an induction motors stator for example, but instead of inducing a current in the rotor bars it induces a current in a specially designed coil that is wound on a core and positioned where the usual rotor is supposed to be. I have attached the patent of Alberto MOLINA-MARTINEZ, which describes in detail the principle. I have been trying to build it and the simple way to go around it would be to take a 3 Phase induction stator and build basically only the "rotor" part. In order to build that part, I need laser cutting services for silicon steel sheets (0.3 - 0.5 mm thick), which I cannot find in my area. At the moment I am stuck with this project, construction-wise. Until I get moving, I wanted to discuss one main aspect of this machine and that is:
*Is the rotating magnetic field generated by the stator, inducing current in the secondary part by flux linkage or flux cutting? If it is flux linkage the whole thing would be a transformer, an inefficient one because of the air gap between the parts and the low frequency (50Hz). If it is flux cutting, then it is a generator and in theory, it should be very efficient mainly because we are not moving mechanically a piece of magnetized metal near an electrical conductor. The only thing that moves is the flux. Also, in the case of flux cutting, the stator input should be independent of the "rotor's" output as in the case of a car alternator (I have one car alternator laying around and to energize the electromagnet it is required 12V at 5A, but the output, when the electromagnet is mechanically moved of course, can be as high as 12V at 36A, so there is no electrical input power vs electrical output power "equality"). I am judging that this car alternator analogy would be the same for the device we are discussing here, but once again, we should have an advantage because we are not moving the flux mechanically.
I want to hear your thoughts on this, if you have more details about the device, maybe you have built it, etc.
All the best,
Vasile
Hi Vasile,
"Flux cutting" and "flux linking" are exactly the same physical phenomenon. It is a mathematical equivalence linked to Gauss' theorem.
The "flux linkage" is the one to use preferably, because the current is due to the force on the electrons, and the force F=q.E is indeed the result of the integration of E on the whole circuit. This is the causal explanation.
The "cutting flux" is not a causal relation. A rigorous application would require the treatment of delayed potentials, since the flux is not local, it is produced at a distance by the electrons at the origin of the field. The "flux cutting" is only a practical calculation tool when we neglect the transmission times. Flux linking and flux cutting are two completely equivalent mathematical ways of treating the same physical phenomenon.
Vasile
Quote*Is the rotating magnetic field generated by the stator, inducing current in the secondary part by flux linkage or flux cutting? If it is flux linkage the whole thing would be a transformer, an inefficient one because of the air gap between the parts and the low frequency (50Hz). If it is flux cutting, then it is a generator and in theory, it should be very efficient mainly because we are not moving mechanically a piece of magnetized metal near an electrical conductor.
Most people run into the same problems for the same reasons.
It helps to understand the history and the "Field" was invented to describe an unknown or spooky action. Many forget few if anyone understands what a field is or how it works. So in reality the "field" is more like an imaginary construct, notation or concept to describe an unknown. However many like to use the term "field" liberally to disguise the fact they have no idea what there doing either.
Concerning induction Faraday said, it does not matter how the magnetic field "changes" only that it does. I think he is correct and both flux linkage and flux cutting represent a changing magnetic field density within a space. Real scientists like Faraday liked to cover there bases and not imply too much. In effect, Faraday was implying we don't know all the possible ways a magnetic field could change therefore let's just call it a field change in general.
For example, is a magnetic field displacement flux cutting or linking?. Displacement implies it's neither in my opinion. If we used a type I superconductor it does not repel a magnetic field with more magnetism it expels all magnetism. So we could have an instance where a current/magnetic field was induced in a coil then displaced as the source transitioned to a superconducting state.
What we do know is that extraordinary claims cannot be solved with ordinary solutions. Something different must happen to produce a different result...
AC
"Flux linking and flux cutting are two completely equivalent mathematical ways of treating the same physical phenomenon." why do you think so ? I think they are two different phenomena
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.04.21, 09:50:46
"Flux cutting" and "flux linking" are exactly the same physical phenomenon. It is a mathematical equivalence linked to Gauss' theorem.
The "flux linkage" is the one to use preferably, ...
Ha ha, wow. Just look at all those dumb engineers that use flux cutting to generate electrical power! From automotive alternators to hydro electric plants those morons, including Tesla, could have saved a fortune if they had used flux linking instead!
Cadman
QuoteHa ha, wow. Just look at all those dumb engineers that use flux cutting to generate electrical power! From automotive alternators to hydro electric plants those morons, including Tesla, could have saved a fortune if they had used flux linking instead!
Does a switched reluctance generator use flux cutting or linking?.
It uses flux linking to establish a magnetic field between the stator coil and the iron core of the rotor. However since the rotor is moving it forces the stator coil magnetic field to change faster than expected making it a generator. In fact we can use a moving iron core inductor or transformer to produce a similar effect.
As Faraday said, (in induction) it does not matter how the magnetic field "changes" only that it does.
As well, many of the newer power generation technologies are moving away from wound rotors and flux cutting schemes just like many FE inventors did. The price of copper is getting too expensive and wound rotors have cooling issues at high power densities. This ain't 1950 it's 2023...
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.04.21, 22:00:57
Cadman
Does a switched reluctance generator use flux cutting or linking?.
It uses flux linking to establish a magnetic field between the stator coil and the iron core of the rotor. However since the rotor is moving it forces the stator coil magnetic field to change faster than expected making it a generator. In fact we can use a moving iron core inductor or transformer to produce a similar effect.
As Faraday said, (in induction) it does not matter how the magnetic field "changes" only that it does.
As well, many of the newer power generation technologies are moving away from wound rotors and flux cutting schemes just like many FE inventors did. The price of copper is getting too expensive and wound rotors have cooling issues at high power densities. This ain't 1950 it's 2023...
AC
It sounds like you're insinuating I think that Faraday was wrong or that there is a mathematical difference between the two phenomenon. Switched reluctance generators are not a new concept, not even in 1950. It may be 2023 but that doesn't change the fact that in practice a rotating generator / alternator using flux cutting has greater output than a switched reluctance version.
So logically, if there is no mathematical difference between the two kinds of induction there must be some aspect of the flux cutting generator that accounts for it's superior performance. Can you identify what that would be? Can you isolate it? Can you apply it to a motionless generator?
Is Flux Linking and Flux Switching the same?
Flux Switching Generators are used on a lot of the better ATGMs,
long range drones and missles (they replace/fix/mitigate the dead
battery problems)!
Uses the propulsion exhaust as the rotary source.
Click to see animation.
8)
Solarlab
QuoteIs Flux Linking and Flux Switching the same?
From what I understand flux cutting is when a magnetic field source moves towards then away from the induced. Where in flux linking the magnetic field source expands into then contracts from the induced. So flux switching would qualify as flux linking.
In flux cutting we have a magnet changing position and flux linking a changing magnetic field strength. The only real difference is that a moving magnet carries a fixed field gradient with it while flux linking expands/contracts the field gradient.
It begs the question, if we were a coil or magnetic field sensor and sensed an approaching magnetic field could we tell the difference between a moving magnet or an expanding magnetic field?. My experiments say no and under normal conditions it doesn't matter whether the magnet position or the magnetic field strength is changing.
I think this relates to the common problem of using lumped sums and averages. If we look at the individual atoms and there spin they don't care where the magnetic field comes from only that it does so they can align with it. This is why infinite element analysis will always show more accurate results than lumping stuff together.
AC
Flux Cutting vs Flux Linkage - as explained to me by someone who probably knows more
than me (I'm not all that knowledgable at this). [Kind of mirrors AC's description.]
His description has some interesting consequences for some relatively simple cases.
Consider a loop flipping in a magnetic field. This describes how a simple generator works.
The value of the induced emf is correctly predicted by either flux cutting or change in flux linkage.
This equality is what leads some people to think that flux cutting and flux linkage give the same results.
If one looks at the derivative of the integral, B is constant so that no emf arises from the B within the
interior of the contour. It is the change of shape of the contour that leads to emf.
On the other hand, consider the loop to be fixed in space while the magnetic field is rotated. The contour
does not change shape, but the integral changes as B changes.
If you review any energy conversion, flux linkages rather than flux cutting are used. Flux cutting is
inadequate to represent any but very simplified models.
"The concepts of flux linkage and flux cutting were developed, in part at least, to come up with ways to
avoid Maxwell's equations."
There are cases where only flux linkage works. The problem arises as to which to use. In the dc machine
you do not want to use both flux cutting AND flux linking. No relativity needed and no change in the flux
linkage law except to realise that the enclosed area may change with time.
Or, just use CAE to solve the complete system as AC points out! To the best of my knowledge, CAE uses,
and provides values for, Flux Linkage; I've never run across the Flux Cutting term in CAE analysis.
Rules of Thumb(?): [mostly used to describe the process, even if the "results" are the same]
- Flux Cutting --- conductor moves while flux density "B" remains constant, N & S Poles are at different
angles as the loop rotates;
- Flux Linking --- conductor stays still while "B" changes, when the magnetic flux linking the coil changes,
an EMF is induced in the coil or conductor.
SL
Quote from: forest on 2023.04.21, 18:45:11
"Flux linking and flux cutting are two completely equivalent mathematical ways of treating the same physical phenomenon." why do you think so ?
...
This is not a physical question. It is a purely logical, mathematical consequence of treating a vector field.
See Stokes' theorem. I had written "Gauss" but Gauss is only for fluxes through closed surfaces (enclosing a volume). With Stokes the surface can be open, this is the case we are dealing with:
"
The line integral of a vector field over a loop is equal to the flux of its curl through the enclosed surface."
This math is true for any vector field.
The vector field here is the magnetic field, and the line integral gives us the voltage along the circuit. If the flux through the surface changes because of a moving conductor or because of a time-varying magnetic field or because of both, the result is the same.
Alberto Molina-Martinez's device is a waste of time. He posted on the overunity dot com forum, several years ago, that the device functions as a transformer and is not OU. At the time he applied for a patent he erroneously thought that is was OU.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2023.04.25, 14:04:05
Alberto Molina-Martinez's device is a waste of time. He posted on the overunity dot com forum, several years ago, that the device functions as a transformer and is not OU. At the time he applied for a patent he erroneously thought that is was OU.
Hi Grumpy,
Do you recall why this patent would be deemed a "waste of time" based on a
detailed technical analysis?
The OU stuff seems to be based mostly on misconceptions regarding lumping a rotating magnetic field
in with a simple transformer. But, maybe thats not how it works, by chance. Any insights are appreciated.
Regards,
SL
Quote from: solarlab on 2023.04.26, 18:06:09
Hi Grumpy,
Do you recall why this patent would be deemed a "waste of time" based on a detailed technical analysis?
The OU stuff seems to be based mostly on misconceptions regarding lumping a rotating magnetic field
in with a simple transformer. But, maybe thats not how it works, by chance. Any insights are appreciated.
Regards,
SL
The inventor said that he was incorrect in his measurements and that the device in the patent is not OU.
Alberto posted this back when Spherics first disclosed his TPU information, so it was over 10 years ago.
You don't have to prove that a device works to get a patent on it.
Becasue the
Quote from: Grumpy on 2023.04.26, 19:21:17
The inventor said that he was incorrect in his measurements and that the device in the patent is not OU.
Alberto posted this back when Spherics first disclosed his TPU information, so it was over 10 years ago.
You don't have to prove that a device works to get a patent on it.
Becasue the
Thanks Grumpy for the clarification and information. Appreciate it.
Just curious since he did file a patent and the disclosure looked pretty straight forward as do the claims.
Of course - if he did claim OU his chances of receiving a grant would have been very remote, at best!
However; it may serve, in part, as a defense involving any "infringement claims" in the future...?
SL
Grumpy
QuoteThe inventor said that he was incorrect in his measurements and that the device in the patent is not OU.
Alberto posted this back when Spherics first disclosed his TPU information, so it was over 10 years ago.
You don't have to prove that a device works to get a patent on it.
I never could understand how a person could get confused about whether there was an energy gain or not.
For example, we could simply connect an isolation/step up transformer on the output and send it to a parallel cap on the input. If in fact the output is greater then it will raise the voltage higher than the input and it falls towards zero. I use this setup all the time to measure efficiency and if the output cancels part of the input then whatever the actual source input is represents the total losses within the system.
On smaller setups I use input/output capacitors and a DC/DC converter to send the output back to the input ie. a loop. It's super easy and the caps show us the real energy loss/gain. Energy in a cap equals the 1/2 C V^2 so the voltage on the input cap shows us the real energy loss/gain.
Even more bizarre is people supposedly being smart enough to build a COP>1 device but not smart enough to accurately measure the input/output to determine if there is a gain or not. It just doesn't add up in my opinion. If they can build a COP>1 device accurate measurement shouldn't be a problem.
AC
FWIW - US20030168921A1 "Continuous Electrical Generator"
Note: This patent application was rejected, like many others, by virtue
that the PTO does not grant patents to devices that "Violates the Law
of Conservation of Energy." See attached:
Well, I humbley disagree based on recent "LinGen" analysis and development plus
demonstrated performance of technically similar devices that have been varified
insitu by very qualified entities (FPL, etc.).
The patent is very similar to the LinGen, when it's "stretched out" in a linear fashion,
therefore, a detailed analysis is likely worth pursuing.
We will then know for sure if it performs as claimed!
And, please, spare me the typical forum herd mentality of "nay saying and smart ass
remarks, etc." - TIA. We've seen this 'stuff' far too often around here...
If you want to prove your "value ad" - contribute some viable schemes for re-using the BEMF.
Similar to what "evostars" is doing.
Regards,
SL
Forgot the patent rejection notice (standard for this type of device):
Attached pdf.
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5u2m/4NF7qxgqN (https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5u2m/4NF7qxgqN)
It seems me here they say about rotation magnetic field inside Rodin coil. ;)
Yesterday I was putting the rodin coil into my cunning device.
I didn't notice any rotation. :(
QuoteI mention this because like the the egg of Columbus and all FE devices looks are always superficial and deceiving. We look at something and our mind tries to tell us one thing but the reality of it often suggests another. Kind of like people and I have found very few are who they would have us believe they are but some are.
:)
Did somebody try this circuit?
To further my understanding of what is being discussed here, I've being using chatgpt4 to explore what is being discussed. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts on this. I use chatgpt daily in my business and often it gets things wrong.
Why do flux cutting generators perform better than flux linking generators?
ChatGPT
Flux cutting and flux linking are two fundamental principles of electromagnetic induction used in the design of electrical generators. The primary difference between the two lies in the way they interact with the magnetic field to generate an electromotive force (EMF) or voltage. While both types of generators have their own advantages and disadvantages, flux cutting generators often perform better than flux linking generators due to a few key reasons:
Higher efficiency: Flux cutting generators typically exhibit higher efficiency as they cut through the magnetic field lines at a more optimal angle. In a well-designed flux cutting generator, the conductors move perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, maximizing the rate of change of the magnetic field and thus generating a higher EMF.
Improved power density: Flux cutting generators generally have better power density than flux linking generators. This means that for a given size and weight, a flux cutting generator can generate more power. This is particularly important in applications where space and weight constraints are critical, such as in aerospace or automotive industries.
Reduced cogging torque: Cogging torque is an undesirable phenomenon in generators that leads to pulsating torque production and can cause vibrations, noise, and reduced efficiency. Flux cutting generators usually have a lower cogging torque compared to flux linking generators, which results in smoother operation and reduced mechanical stress on the generator.
Easier cooling: In flux cutting generators, the windings are typically distributed more uniformly, allowing for more effective cooling. This helps in dissipating heat generated during operation, resulting in a longer service life and improved performance.
However, it's important to note that the choice between flux cutting and flux linking generators depends on the specific application and design requirements. Each type of generator has its unique characteristics, and engineers must consider multiple factors such as efficiency, power density, cost, and size to determine the most suitable design for a given application.
Me
What type are switched reluctance generators
ChatGPT
Switched reluctance generators (SRGs) are a type of electrical machine that operates based on the principles of variable reluctance, which means they rely on the tendency of their magnetic circuit to minimize the reluctance in response to the applied magnetic field. In other words, they exploit the attraction between the rotor and the stator poles to generate torque.
SRGs are neither pure flux cutting nor pure flux linking generators, but they can be considered as a hybrid of the two. The operation of SRGs involves a combination of flux cutting and flux linking mechanisms. When the rotor of an SRG aligns with the stator poles, the magnetic field links through the rotor, and when the rotor moves away from the aligned position, it cuts through the magnetic field lines.
Switched reluctance generators have several advantages that make them attractive for various applications:
Simple and robust construction: SRGs have a simple construction, with no permanent magnets, brushes, or windings on the rotor, which makes them mechanically robust and more reliable.
High-speed operation: Due to their simple rotor design and the absence of windings, SRGs can operate at high speeds without significant limitations.
Fault tolerance: SRGs have independent phase windings, which means that even if one winding fails, the generator can continue to operate with reduced performance.
Cost-effectiveness: The absence of permanent magnets and brushes in the design of SRGs can result in lower manufacturing and maintenance costs.
However, SRGs also have some drawbacks, such as torque ripple, noise, and the requirement of a complex control system to regulate the excitation of the stator windings. Despite these challenges, switched reluctance generators are used in various applications, including renewable energy systems, electric vehicles, and industrial drives.
Me
Do you know of any designs that use the principle of an SRG in a solid state manner?
ChatGPT
A solid-state implementation of a switched reluctance concept does exist and is known as a Magnetic Amplifier, or MagAmp. A magnetic amplifier is a type of solid-state device that uses the principle of saturable reactor for controlling electrical power, based on the magnetic saturation of a magnetic core. It was used extensively in the mid-20th century, particularly in military and industrial applications, before being largely replaced by semiconductor devices such as thyristors and transistors.
In a magnetic amplifier, an AC signal is applied to a control winding, which is wound around a magnetic core. The level of magnetic saturation in the core, determined by the control winding's current, affects the inductance of the output winding. By varying the control current, the output current can be regulated. In this way, the magnetic amplifier can be considered a solid-state equivalent of a switched reluctance machine.
While magnetic amplifiers are not as commonly used today due to the advancements in semiconductor technology, they still find applications in specialized areas such as high-voltage DC transmission, space missions, nuclear power plants, and other environments where robustness, reliability, and resistance to radiation are critical.
Me
Can you recommend any designs, patents or further reading on the MagAMp?
ChaGPT
Certainly! Here's a list of resources to help you learn more about magnetic amplifiers (MagAmps) and their applications:
Books:
a. "Magnetic Amplifiers: Principles and Applications" by Paul Mali
b. "Magnetic Amplifier Circuits" by United States. Bureau of Naval Personnel
c. "Magnetic Amplifiers" by G. V. Poltavtsev
Research Papers:
a. Whitson, J.R. (1960). "Magnetic Amplifiers - A Bibliography". IRE Transactions on Component Parts. CP-7 (3): 93-102. doi:10.1109/TCP.1960.1136327
b. Ogasawara, S., & Akagi, H. (1996). "An approach to real-time current distribution control for a parallel-connected H-bridge diode-clamped multilevel PWM inverter system using magnetic amplifier reactors". IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 32(5), 1019-1026.
Patents:
a. US Patent 2,846,573: "Magnetic Amplifier Circuit" by J.L. Kludt
b. US Patent 2,782,289: "Magnetic Amplifier" by A. G. Moles
c. US Patent 3,243,623: "Magnetic Amplifier" by R. A. Lester
Websites:
a. All About Circuits: A good introduction to magnetic amplifiers can be found at https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-9/magnetic-amplifiers/
Please note that some of the books and research papers might not be freely available online and may require access through a library, university, or paid subscription. The patents can generally be accessed for free through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/search-patents or other patent databases such as Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/).
These resources should provide a solid foundation for understanding the principles, design, and applications of magnetic amplifiers.
I'd be interested in your thoughts cheers.
Do you belive chatgpt ? :o
Can you tell me something about Clemente Figuera devices?
ChatGPT
Clemente Figuera was a Spanish electrical engineer who claimed to have developed a revolutionary electrical device known as the "Figuera's device" or "Figuera's generator" in the late 19th century. According to Figuera, his device was capable of generating electricity without the need for any external source of energy, such as fuel or mechanical input.
Figuera's generator was based on the principle of self-induction, utilizing a set of coils and transformers to harness the Earth's magnetic field and convert it into electrical power. He claimed that the device could produce continuous and limitless energy, providing a potential solution to the world's energy needs.
Figuera demonstrated his device in several public exhibitions in the late 19th century, attracting attention and curiosity. However, his claims were met with skepticism and controversy, and he faced challenges in gaining scientific recognition and financial support for further development.
Although Figuera's device generated interest and intrigue, there is limited information available about its technical specifications or detailed operation. Historical records suggest that Figuera filed a patent for his invention in 1902 but was unable to secure the necessary funding to continue his work.
It's important to note that there is no credible scientific evidence or documentation to support the claims made by Figuera regarding his device's ability to produce limitless energy. Figuera's work remains largely unverified and unrecognized within the scientific community.
Jimboot,
Thanks for the "chatGPT" heads-up! (was not really aware of it till your post above)
Great post and information - plus - sharing the Resource.
[Might also solve some peripheral related "information sharing" concerns I've been wrestling with lately.]
Regards,
SL
@Jimboot,
Think your description of a magamps operation is reversed. Magamps control AC, DC is applied to the control winding.
Forest
QuoteAlthough Figuera's device generated interest and intrigue, there is limited information available about its technical specifications or detailed operation. Historical records suggest that Figuera filed a patent for his invention in 1902 but was unable to secure the necessary funding to continue his work.
It's important to note that there is no credible scientific evidence or documentation to support the claims made by Figuera regarding his device's ability to produce limitless energy. Figuera's work remains largely unverified and unrecognized within the scientific community.
This is not correct.
Figuera was a very well respected and credible Engineer who demonstrated his technology to countless people. Figuera also claimed he sold his working technology to a bankers union for a very large sum of money. Coincidentally, there is no record of the bankers ever suing Figuera thus we can assume they were pleased with the technology which worked as claimed.
AC
Sure, I know. It was posted as example of chatgpt response. He is cheating
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.05.16, 14:37:10
Forest
This is not correct.
Figuera was a very well respected and credible Engineer who demonstrated his technology to countless people. Figuera also claimed he sold his working technology to a bankers union for a very large sum of money. Coincidentally, there is no record of the bankers ever suing Figuera thus we can assume they were pleased with the technology which worked as claimed.
AC
thanks ac. As this is an Llm with built in "safety" controls I'd like to use it in ways unintended to explore alt energy development. If you have any citations for the above it would be good to share. I think we need a thread on how to use these tools . I've already published two extensions on the chrome store this year and I'm not a programmer
I come back with the answer to the first post of this thread. I made some experiments and I can conclude that Alberto MOLINA-MARTINEZs idea of using the rotating magnetic field as a generator, that presumably induces on a coil and produces more than its input, is incorect as far as I have experimented. It acts like a conventional transformer, a very inefficient one and not like a generator.
Vasile
QuoteI come back with the answer to the first post of this thread. I made some experiments and I can conclude that Alberto MOLINA-MARTINEZs idea of using the rotating magnetic field as a generator, that presumably induces on a coil and produces more than its input, is incorect as far as I have experimented. It acts like a conventional transformer, a very inefficient one and not like a generator.
Indeed, like most others I encountered this same problem over a decade ago. However I didn't solve the problem with electronics or science more so logic and a good line of reason.
For example, forget what we believe or think is happening and look at what is present. In reality these kinds of devices are simply many transformers placed in a circle. The supposed rotating magnetic field is many transformers in a circle switched sequentially giving the appearance of a rotating field. This is why most devices we build act just like a transformer because that's exactly what we built.
Here we need to step back and look at what we have done for what it is. We built a transformer then placed many of them in a circle and they acted just like a transformer. We just built a transformer not a free energy device.
This is where logic, reason and first principals come into play. If all we see is transformers and that's all we build then that's exactly what were going to get. So I started breaking everything down and concluded the circular form aka rotating field is not required. In fact many inventors only used one supposed transformer thus we can exclude a circular form and a rotating magnetic field. Logically if neither is required then they are irrelevant and not part of the process producing a gain. First principals is about excluding all that doesn't apply and focusing on what could. Always refining our thinking, being precise in our thinking and avoiding all the clutter and noise which doesn't apply.
Here we need to ask, are we more interested in blindly following others and copying what they do or are we looking for a logical explanation of how to produce a gain in energy?. You see, when I tested my first working device what others believed or did was the last thing on my mind. It was completely irrelevant and my only focus was on energy and how a process could produce a supposed gain.
We could think of it this way, an inventor sits down at there bench with the same materials present as millions of other people. However what defines an inventor is being able to assemble the materials in such a way that it does something different nobody else thought of. It sounds easy however as many here know it's actually very difficult. This definitely helps, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-flow-2794768
AC
There are two types of rotating magnetic fields. This video shows both.One that rotates about the vertical axis of the coil and the other is the flux rotates around the winding.I am surprised that this is still an issue that people follow. The false connection is between what SM built compared to what people assumed was happening. I believe it is a rabbit hole. On the other hand when a ring coil is fired up the initial growth of the field does follow the ring path and pulsing drives this. SM stated this in the King's journey document by Mannix. The idea was to convey an operation through a concept. Unfortunate though is many an operation was touted by personal interpretation of a myriad of concepts belonging to the individual's training or experience. Good or bad. Matching or not.Why bother about all this and drive a coil snubbed just shy of harmonic destruction.
Quote from: solarlab on 2023.04.27, 03:39:37
Forgot the patent rejection notice (standard for this type of device):
Attached pdf.
I attempted to find this patent application based off the number in the patent rejection you attached but the only document I could get off that number (and I tried a number of variations) seems to be only about a detergent application - nothing to do with energy. I also tried the applicants name with no luck in the advanced search unless I want to look through over 26000 documents. Can you point a way to the original patent application?
After digging around a bit more with that patent application database I did find 3 patents by the applicant person and one was the one in the rejection notice. One is titled "Antimatter Electrical Device" and the other two "Continuous Electrical Device" I think they are worth looking at. I attached all three here but my post failed for some reason so I'll try adding them in the next post.
I've tried twice now to post the attached patent application pdf's but nothing shows up so trying one at a time.
Second one attached.
Third one attached (apparently there is a limit on total size attached per post?)
Quote from: e2matrix on 2023.07.19, 18:53:40
Second one attached.
This version has pictures... (wooo!)
D
2
Thanks for the one with pictures. O0 Guess I should have read the whole thread from the start :-[
Some highlights from that patent:
The Continuous Electrical Generator is and will be
a very Simple machine.
The outgoing electric energy provided by this
System has been used to produce light and heat, run poly
phase motors, generate usable mono-phase and poly-phase
Voltages and currents, transform Voltages and currents by
means of transformers, convert the alternate outgoing poly
phase currents to direct current, as well as for other uses. The
electricity obtained by the means described is as Versatile
and perfect as the electricity obtained today with common
electric generators. But the Continuous Electrical Generator
is autonomous and does not depend on any other Source of
energy but itself once it is running, may be carried anywhere
with no limitations, it can be constructed in any size and
provides any amount of electricity indefinitely, according to
the design.
Is it fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enmd2I48Zi8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enmd2I48Zi8)
Chief
Another resource for you
Jim is amazing guy ... cuts his own path !!
https://mooker.com/
You should join and share there , Jim ( aka Floodrod) is actively exploring similar ( or at least he was )
And 100% open source guy !
Thanks for posting question... my response here was not to give opinions on
Device .
Just connect you ( and other readers)
With another open source builder/researcher forum .
With gratitude
Chet
Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.22, 17:49:53
Chief
Another resource for you
Jim is amazing guy ... cuts his own path !!
https://mooker.com/
You should join and share there , Jim ( aka Floodrod) is actively exploring similar ( or at least he was )
And 100% open source guy !
...
Chet
Jim (aka Floodrod) is enthusiastic, but ignorant about basic electric and magnetic fundamentals. He clearly does not know the difference between a phase and a pole. He cannot tolerate criticism. Unfortunate to see all that energy (his) wasted.
Obviously my opinion.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2023.11.22, 21:55:51
Jim (aka Floodrod) is enthusiastic, but ignorant about basic electric and magnetic fundamentals. He clearly does not know the difference between a phase and a pole.
That's forgivable.
Quote from: bistander on 2023.11.22, 21:55:51
He cannot tolerate criticism.
That is not.
IMO
Jim (Floodrod) works through his own intuition, "cause and effect" and to his own internal drum beat ..
It is hard for me to put into words , ultimately if he does get a gain or self runner ( playing with_his_ "intuitive what ifs" ?)
That will be all that matters !( and he will absolutely be able to " do it again " ).
Advice is good when it is solicited... not so good when it's not !
Over the years I have spoken to many persons...
And one thing seems clear ...advice on conventional systems ( well managed and controlled towards very specific goals ...
Well yes you get expected results...inside the box.
It's the "hairier" areas (IMO perhaps chaotic in so far as the "rules which hold things ( atomic/magnetic etc level) together "
Where odd happens ..or can happen !
Yeah I like Jim's odd ...
And I just try to pay attention!
I'm odd too ...I have this "belief" ....here in this place we inhabit...somehow ( which I can't explain...) all things are possible , we're playing in somebody's "toy box of creation" ..
Our bodies "should" go forever..except..there are built in mechanisms which build a little loss in at every "rebuild "
This is really not natures " survival of the fittest" way..
It's by design ( which we very recently cracked the DNA code ..
Same type of code ( rules to manage) apply to everything around us ... everything (LENR etc etc)
We'll crack those codes too, it's our destiny..as is FE
Just one man's opinion
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
Jim ( Floodrod here) bangs his drum at mooker,
https://mooker.com/ as Jim Mac
And since he is devout open source
He'll bang it here too if he finds something truly unusual!
deleted
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.22, 17:32:38
Is it fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enmd2I48Zi8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enmd2I48Zi8)
BTW Chief, that's my video and that model sucked. Lol.. Here is a better one I did a few days ago which verifies rotation, as I can control the direction it rotates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4E6krAxWOo
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 04:08:09
...
Bistander- you're right! I have no interest in your opinions. You believe as you do, and I believe as I do.
...
Hi Jim,
I gave my opinion to this group. I gave you facts, in an attempt to help you. Had you looked at polyphase RMF when I suggested, you would have realized then what you just demonstrated in the video. BTW, 2-phase is polyphase.
Regarding the alternator and engine driven shaft power, my statement was again fact, not opinion. The armature output is not derived from power exciting the wound field. This is evident when the wound field is replaced with a PM. All the alternator output power is converted from the shaft (mechanical) input rotational power.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 04:08:09
...
I graduated from Romp-A-Room more than 4 decades ago.
Education is good. I graduated a few times also, from other institutions. I try to share some of that learning along with my 5 decades of experience in the electric machinery industry to help experimenters on these forums now that I am retired. That's all.
bi
deleted.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 15:01:32
deleted.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 15:01:32
Notice I used the word "Rotating".
it is not contested that the engine causes "Rotation". And the physically rotating "Mass" bogs down when inducing. And I also did not claim a static magnetic field can cause induction like a generator. They key word was "Rotating".
~~~~ My point was that Kinetic Energy of a Rotating Mass is not a requirement to reproduce the induction effects that an alternator exhibits. ~~~~
If proven true, it puts into question the assertion that a generator converts kinetic power into electricity.
Hi Jim,
Your assertion is that the alternator output is not derived from the conversion of mechanical power input via the shaft from the engine but rather from simply the rotation of the magnetic field, correct? The relative motion of the magnetic field, or change in the field, is required for generation or induction, as taught by Faraday. It has never been shown that this alone creates energy.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 04:08:09
... and I am not going to stop my builds because you say they won't work.
I don't recall saying your builds won't work, and I have no intent to stop your builds. That is a misconception on your part. Your misconceptions will encumber your build efforts. Do you openly display your work to engage with the community, or to simply show off? If to engage, learn to accept scrutiny.
You may not like what I say about your posts, but other readers might find those comments useful. So please don't delete my posts, or silence me. Thanks and good luck.
bi
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 04:08:09
deleted
Because floodrod's deletion affects the context of my posts, I paste it here.
bi
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 04:08:09
Hey guys. Thanks Chet for the words. I will give a quick update here.
2 phase and 3 phase can both create a rotating field. Actually any phase 2 or more can be used. I have rebuilt by 2 phase rotation several times, but I can not get the output to be 90 degrees out of phase with both input phases yet. it may be possible with 2 phase, but so far I can achieve an output that is 45 degrees out of phase with each input phase, or I can get the output 90 degrees out of phase with 1 input phase, but in-phase with the other input phase. But the CEMF will not be balanced till I can get the output 90 degrees with both input phases.
I am thinking that if 2 phase is used at 90 degree difference, the pickup coils must also combine 2 phases @ 90 degrees to achieve this, but I can not confirm this yet. Still working on it to find out. Tesla, Marinov, and Meyl all suggest 2 phase can indeed create balanced CEMF, but the phase relationships and accuracy is crucial. Can't just rotate with 2 phase and throw any old coil in there.. But honestly, I have my doubts if 2 or 3 phase can really balance CEMF.
I am also building a higher order Poly-Phase rotation device, which should expand output coil configuration possibilities.
In regards to not being able to take criticism, some people like to criticize without accessing or addressing what is being said and shown. The criticism I received was telling me that a car alternator producing more output than is needed to sustain the magnetic field of the rotor was not due to the rotating magnetic field, but the engine and shaft. Where I believe it is the rotating magnetic field that makes it possible.
Bistander- you're right! I have no interest in your opinions. You believe as you do, and I believe as I do. You stated you think a car alternator can output many times more than it needs to sustain the magnetic field of the rotor because of the engine and shaft power. And I think it is the rotating magnetic field itself which makes it possible. You bicker about 3 phase being just as good, while I am focused on finding the recipe for balancing CEMF. You call it not being able to take criticism, I call it ending the bickering. I have no time for drama and I am not going to stop my builds because you say they won't work.
You can have the last word Bistander, and I won't even fire back anymore. I graduated from Romp-A-Room more than 4 decades ago.
.
With this, I'll take the last word as he offers.
Quote from: bistander on 2023.11.25, 16:15:58
Hi Jim,
Your assertion is that the alternator output is not derived from the conversion of mechanical power input via the shaft from the engine but rather from simply the rotation of the magnetic field, correct? The relative motion of the magnetic field, or change in the field, is required for generation or induction, as taught by Faraday. It has never been shown that this alone creates energy.
That is correct. I ascertain that "any change in magnetic flux induces an electromotive force (EMF) opposing the change". And I will also say I believe it matters NOT if the change was caused from a gerbil on a wheel, a car engine, or from a motionless circuit.
You can drag a log from point A to point B and exert unneeded energy in friction and resistance to motion, or you can build a wheel and exert a fraction of the energy to achieve the same goal.
Those who do want to see my progress (or lack there of) know where to find me. I yield.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.11.25, 19:52:10
That is correct. I ascertain that "any change in magnetic flux induces an electromotive force (EMF) opposing the change". And I will also say I believe it matters NOT if the change was caused from a gerbil on a wheel, a car engine, or from a motionless circuit.
You can drag a log from point A to point B and exert unneeded energy in friction and resistance to motion, or you can build a wheel and exert a fraction of the energy to achieve the same goal.
Those who do want to see my progress (or lack there of) know where to find me. I yield.
Let me clarify my question; "Your assertion is that the alternator output
power is not derived from the conversion of mechanical power input via the shaft from the engine but rather from simply the rotation of the magnetic field, correct? The relative motion of the magnetic field, or change in the field, is required for generation or induction, as taught by Faraday. It has never been shown that this alone creates energy."
Inducing or generating a voltage or EMF does not produce power or do work.
bi
Note: In a context like this, saying "alternator output" would typically mean output power. I should have specified that, as I show in bold in the clarification above, to be perfectly clear.
I understand nothing.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.27, 15:18:27
I understand nothing.
Yet you demonstrated the polyphase RMF using an old motor stator as I recall. It appeared that you knew what you were doing.
bi
Could I use this to construct similar devices with rotating virtual magnetic field ?
I will not name this person :(
If I supply three phase to coils with three rings.
At least it looks much simpler.
I'll try it tomorrow for sure.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.30, 18:53:53
Could I use this to construct similar devices with rotating virtual magnetic field ?
I will not name this person :(
If I supply three phase to coils with three rings.
At least it looks much simpler.
I'll try it tomorrow for sure.
Looks interesting. How will you detect a rotating magnetic field?
I'll wait for your test results.
bi
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.30, 18:53:53
Could I use this to construct similar devices with rotating virtual magnetic field ?
I will not name this person :(
If I supply three phase to coils with three rings.
At least it looks much simpler.
I'll try it tomorrow for sure.
You should be able to induce a current but not generate a rotating magnetic field unless the chokes are out of phase.
Anyway our virtual magnetic field will be moving along the wire of the second coil. Consequently it won't create the EMF. Magnetic field ought to be perpendicular across the wire. But how to do that ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.12.03, 07:18:07
Anyway our virtual magnetic field will be moving along the wire of the second coil. Consequently it won't create the EMF. Magnetic field ought to be perpendicular across the wire. But how to do that ?
Can you draw what you mean ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.30, 18:53:53
Could I use this to construct similar devices with rotating virtual magnetic field ?
I will not name this person :(
If I supply three phase to coils with three rings.
At least it looks much simpler.
I'll try it tomorrow for sure.
What have you tried with the 3 cores so far?
mags
QuoteWhat have you tried with the 3 cores so far?
Unfortunately, nothing. :-[
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.01.08, 16:13:38
Unfortunately, nothing. :-[
if the windings on the cores, we will call them primaries, are the same wire, same number of turns, count the turns and wind the secondary with say 10 more turns than that number of turns of 1 of the primaries. now you put the 3 primaries in series and apply input to see what you get out. pulse or sine input. You should get more voltage out than in, which would seem backwards of the norm as you will have nearly 3 times more total turns on the primaries than the secondary. if the primaries are in parallel, you should get more than 3 times the output voltage than the input voltage. more due to the 10 extra turns on the secondary.
mags
It's kind of strange reading all the posts prior to AI.
Where today we can just ask an AI and get an accurate answer in seconds. AI tells us...
"One-sentence summary
Flux linking describes induction from the circuit's point of view (changing total flux), while flux cutting describes induction from the charge's point of view (magnetic force on moving charges); they are two complementary ways of describing the same physics."
Bada boom bada bing, too easy.