Interesting magnetic amplification

[Smudge]

To further the possibilities from the SEMP work I had the idea to use a flat spiral coil as the input to a closed magnetic system.  This might allow for the non-linear current v. flux exhibited by ferromegnetic material that comes from the complex manner in which domains grow or contract or flip or rotate to be utilised.  It opened the possibility of driving the core with the flat spiral, then transferring the current into a conventional coil by having that shorted while the input current is switched off.  Discharging that current into a load would offer the possibility that the flipping, rotations etc. during the discharge would be different from that during the initial charge.  The first image below shows a flat coil within a pot core assembly.  The advantage of modeling a pot core is its symmetry axis.  It can be modeled in FEMM using its axisymmetric facility yielding a genuine 3D simulation, and the second image is the FEMM input.

In the event the model failed because the closed magnetic circuit has an air-gap, so the thing remains linear.  But then another brainwave, why don't we try a spiral coil of magnetic material that bridges the air gap?  Image 3 shows this where I used Supermalloy strip wound into a flat coil.  I used the same number of turns for both coils and found a most interesting result, the flux linkages didn't match for the two coils.  With the flat spiral driven with current the flux linkage of the bobbin coil exceeded that of the input.  And with the bobbin coil driven, the flux linkage of the spiral coil was less than the input.  The other two images show this feature.  I don't know where this will lead as I am unable to do experiments, but the results suggest this could lead to an OU transformer.

Smudge

[Verpies]

Image 3 shows this where I used Supermalloy strip wound into a flat coil.  I used the same number of turns for both coils and found a most interesting result, the flux linkages didn't match for the two coils.

Does that happen with any ferromagnetic winding ?
How does the flux distribution look like in FEMM ?

[Smudge]

Does that happen with any ferromagnetic winding ?

I think it does but I haven't tried other material yet.

How does the flux distribution look like in FEMM ?

The first image below shows the spiral coil of 36 turns driven with 0.11 amps.  Note the B field amplitude drops off with radius within the spiral coil.  The next image shows that linear drop with radius.  When the bobbin coil is driven its flux reaches the spiral coil lineary spread there, see the next two images where the 36 turn bobbin coil is driven with 0.01 amps.

In a normal transformer the load current does not create any flux, the system drives itself so that the primary load current negates any flux.  Only the primary magnetizing current creates flux.
Taking the spiral coil as the primary, it is interesting to find what secondary current cancels the flux.  For the 0.11 amps primary the secondary current here is found to be -0.034 amps.  The final image shows that situation.  Note that the primary flux linkage is not cancelled, only the coupling to the secondary goes to zero.  This is so unlike normal transformer action.  Here we have significant change of primary inductance that goes from 0.078H with no secondary current to 0.041H with that -0.034A secondary current.  So it clearly will act in a weird way as a transformer.

[Verpies]

Note the B field amplitude drops off with radius within the spiral coil.  The next image shows that linear drop with radius. 

Wait, what ?  Why ?
I thought this was an axisimetric sim...

[Smudge]

Wait, what ?  Why ?
I thought this was an axisimetric sim...

Yes this is an axisymmetric simulation and it correctly shows the B field at the centre of a flat spiral coil carrying current to be greater than that at the outer radius.  Why is this a surprise? 

[Verpies]

Why is this a surprise?

Because I expected this: 

[Smudge]

And that is what I showed.  The FEMM output gives only the right half that image.

[partzman]

Smudge,

Interesting!  I'm curious as to what FEMM shows for the E-Field in say the U-core.  Does it show the same characteristics for both the copper and magnetic spiral coils?

Pm

[Smudge]

Smudge,

Interesting!  I'm curious as to what FEMM shows for the E-Field in say the U-core.

The 3D axisymmetric feature in FEMM cannot handle U cores, so all my results are for pot cores.  If I find anything useful it could apply to a U core or E core system so your question is pertinent.  The magnetic FEMM sim does not model E fields.  The E field effect in cores creating eddy currents and loss is not modelled.

Does it show the same characteristics for both the copper and magnetic spiral coils?

FEMM does use the electrical conductivity of the material to give losses associated with current flow.  So the supermalloy coil would have greater loss than a copper one.  I ignore this as I am looking for an effect that can lead to OU, I am not trying so sim a practicable working device.  It is important to realise that this "magnetic amplification" is a ratio of flux-linkage, not a ratio of flux.  It can be argued that a turns ratio between two normal coils has the same effect so that is what this device is doing, hence not a route to OU.  I would accept that if the flux-linkage ratios for forward and backward coupling were reciprocal, but they are not.

Smudge

[Cortazar]

Hello Smudge
  I am trying to understand your setup: the spiral coil of supermalloy is a flat coil inbetween the upper and lower part of the center pot.
  The copper coil is wounded around the central part of the pot assembly as is normally done. There will be an air gap at outer rim of the pot.
  I this correct ? Why does this create the asymmetrical coupling ?
Regards
Cortazar

[Smudge]

Hello Smudge
  I am trying to understand your setup: the spiral coil of supermalloy is a flat coil inbetween the upper and lower part of the center pot.
  The copper coil is wounded around the central part of the pot assembly as is normally done.

Correct

There will be an air gap at outer rim of the pot.

No, there is no air gap there.  To make this using an existing pot core the centre leg would be machined to create an air gap there, then the spiral coil would fit into that air gap.

Why does this create the asymmetrical coupling ?

In a normal transformer each turn of a N-turn coil passes round all the flux in the core.  Thus the flux linkage is exactly N times the core flux.  Also the mmf applied to that flux from current I in the coil is exactly N*I.  For the flat spiral coil within the flux path those exact formula no longer apply.  That screws up how the normal transformer works, it needs a new set of formula.  I am looking into this with the help of FEMM to see whether this new regime might allow the magnetization M in the core (which has the same dimensions of H that comes from coil currents) might be a source of excess energy (like the primary current input is a source).  I have long held the view that the M coming from the aligned electron orbits in ferromagnetic atoms could have flux passing through the orbit diameter changing in a manner that applies force to the electron movement, thus attempting to either slow it down or accelerate it.  In one case energy is being consumed by the atom and in the other case the atom is supplying energy.  F6 will tell you I am wasting my time in this endeavour but it gives me something to do to keep me sane.

Smudge

[Cortazar]

Hello Smudge
Thank you for you detailed explanation.
Going through the new information of Coler's device, he used 3 coils.
One to cancel the magnetization of the iron bars.
Another coil, a spiral one was within the copper plates.
It was made with copper tape lying parallel  and within  the capacitor plates. The iron bars are perpendicular to the copper plates (capacitors) and traverse them.
The other was just a normal coil, I thought it was also a spiral coil, but I have to recheck  that in light of your  current experiment.
The capacitor plates were not normal plates, one plate was etched in such a way, that under high voltage the current would go through it (field effect), and
when the current reverses it acts as a normal capacitor.
Due to the massive size of the setup I got to believe that the machine was magnetically cooling the iron bars and obtaining energy this way, (the first magnetic refrigerator)
And this was the reason Prof. Schuman could not account for the extra energy, but I might be wrong and the machine could be OU by making hysteresis loop within the iron rods clockwise, by  using his clever setup.
Regards
Cortazar

[Smudge]

Hello Smudge
Thank you for you detailed explanation.
Going through the new information of Coler's device, he used 3 coils.

Yes three coils on each iron bar with the centre coil in opposition to the outer ones.

One to cancel the magnetization of the iron bars.

We don't know whether this is a full cancellation or merely to get a more uniform magnetization along the rod.

Another coil, a spiral one was within the copper plates.
It was made with copper tape lying parallel  and within  the capacitor plates.

I have not seen any evidence the flat spirals were made of copper tape.  The images in the Norrby patent are the closest to the Coler set up except he shows iron bars much smaller and with only one winding.

The iron bars are perpendicular to the copper plates (capacitors) and traverse them.
The other was just a normal coil, I thought it was also a spiral coil, but I have to recheck  that in light of your  current experiment.

Not sure what coil you mean here.  There are no spiral coils within the iron bars, just three normal coils on each bar.

The capacitor plates were not normal plates, one plate was etched in such a way, that under high voltage the current would go through it (field effect), and
when the current reverses it acts as a normal capacitor.

This is new information, where did you get that from?

Smudge

[Cortazar]

Hello Smudge
  All the information came from translating and trying to figure out what they mean in the description of these documentsl given by thomasarthur

https://doi.org/10.48781/ntnu.397261
or here
https://ntnu.tind.io/record/397261?v=uv#?xywh=-2049%2C-334%2C9232%2C6676

I used openai o4-mini-high and the new gemini 2.5 model from google.

They both more or less agree on the same description.
The spiral coil was made of flat copper tape. The same description is described  in Schuman's report.
It has very few turns around 15, and it seems to spiral around all the iron bars.

A description of the Hoffmann dynamo is also given in the pages above, and it appears to be the precursor of Coler's device.
The Hoffman dynamo also had a spiral coil sandwiched by capacitor plates which were connected to a DC source   supplying  3000 Volts.
The spiral coil is the secondary of a primary coil, which has half the turns of the secondary coil. The primary coil was driven by
a small dc current. Iron bars vibrate in and out of the center of this two coils, in a push pull manner, (there was a mirror arrangement
of coils and iron bars that move out of the coils while the counterpart was moving in.)
The input current to drive the motor and output current by the dynamo was high of the order of 100Amps and outputs of 25kw, if I recall correctly form memory.
They did not claim OU but very high efficiency 97%.  All this information is in  the link above.
Regards
Daniel

[Allcanadian]

Here one must do a little back tracking imo.

A magnetic field cannot be "amplified" per say but it can be concentrated. To imply a magnetic field can be "amplified" is misleading.


For example some say a transformer has no leakage which is nonsense. Anyone with a $20 DMM or DSO tied to a hall effect transistor can determine this is not true. Here we need to test everything for ourselves to determine what is true and what is not. Key word, "for ourselves", and take nothing for granted which is what real science is. Believe nothing prove everything.

AC

[Smudge]

Hi Cortazar,

What I challenged was the capacitor plates being etched in some way and being in some form of electrical contact to the flat spiral coils.  That current path is new to the Coler considerations and does not appear in any of Coler's writings.  I have not studied that Hoffmann dynamo stuff so I take your word that diode type contact is used there, but is there any evidence that the Stromerzeuger had the same?  If it were an essential condition surely Coler would have mentioned it? You mention a 3000 volt input for the Hoffmann dynamo; the Stromerzeuger had only low voltage batteries as input so I am sceptical about this new current path aspect.

Smudge