PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-08-02, 23:33:19
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
Author Topic: Daniel McFarland Cook Generator  (Read 190724 times)
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 60
Orthofield
Thanks for the response. I'm glad you thought my idea had some merit. I am of the belief that a properly wound series bifilar coil as a secondary will not induce secondary reflection back onto the primary. I do see your point about making it non-resonant with the primary. Yes, your diagrams remind me of a few devices touted as OU over the years. What a logical, yet amazingly simple idea to keep the secondaries' flux from going back to the primary.
I've had my Cook coils out on the kitchen table for 3 weeks, but my health doesn't allow me the energy to do much right now.
I look forward to reading the progress on this thread.
Bob
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 201
Hi Bob,

I was hoping to post an excellent paper I found which shows how the near field can be controlled by coil dimensions.. but now I can't find it among the many papers I dl'ed on this.. oh well, I will get it again :-/

I'm sorry your health is not so good. I pray that it will improve.

Using a tertiary coil is an excellent way of separating secondary actions from the primary. I'm not sure how close the tertiary coil needs to be to the secondary-- whether it should be in a bifilar coupling, or very near field (as in the thing I just sent) or further out into the far field.

 It's oddly difficult to find the actual math for the 'double peak' phenomena that happens between tightly resonant overcoupled RF coils. Based on EMDevices experiences with Witricity type coils, I said that if the coils are too tightly couple they will try to conserve energy in the mutual positively superposed fields, by doing this odd double peak phenomenon. Strangely this does not happen when the coils are at the tightest coupling, right on top of each other--??  What happens in the double peak has to be a simultaneous *frequency up and down shift* in the two field sources, which is like a parametric change. 

The Cook coils are probably not the best place to start anyway-- as extremely interesting as they are, the situation is too complex to resolve without breaking it down into separate experiments, as Wattsup is doing. These involve a couple of different areas which I will probably try to list over in that forum.

I personally like to start with simple, well-acknowledged principles of physics, or empirical observations stated in journal articles or patents, and build them into overunity designs. I strongly believe that Nature is conscious, and wants us to have overunity. It is our blindness that prevents this.
When we start from ground zero, and work from well established principles, then there is a double payoff when the test is done. Either we find overunity as a consequence of Nature's laws, and everyone goes "of course!" a generation later :-) ...or we find an anomaly where results are not what's expected, leading to further experiments. We may well find ways of improving our efficiencies through all of this.

It would be truly surprising if these "logical, yet amazingly simple" rules of magnetic reluctance in circuits were not upheld, and indeed they have been. In three different experiments I've been involved with, the combination of secondary fluxes to increase power, along with isolation of the primary, resulted in the increase of secondary output power, complete isolation of the secondary loads from the primary source, and a drop in input power. The experiment with total isolation of loads did use resonance in the primary, and showed an ostensible calculated COP of 19 as the four load resistances were reduced towards four shorted coils.
 
This number was exceedingly inconclusive, and I consider to be a case of faulty power calculations. Reactive power or Q was not calced/measured correctly in the primary.. nonetheless, all indications were positive at that time.. I hope to go back to those experiments at some point.

orthofield





   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
I think this is a great insight into the Daniel McFarland Cook effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Kg69cQteg


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1484
There is nothing remarkable about those experiments, they both demonstrate some known and accepted EM effects.  In the first demo using just one coil where the parts hang together the steel parts get "permanently" magnetized with some remanence and that holds them.  That remanent magnetization gets destroyed when the keeper is removed, that action moves the steel into the second quadrant of the BH loop where demagnetization takes effect.  The second demo shows that a shorted coil can hold flux.  If it were a superconductor it would hold the flux forever and you would have a SC magnet.  As it is it only holds the flux for a short period of time associated with the L/R time constant, the coil current decays exponentially at that rate.  The shorted coil current builds up rapidly (much faster than that L/R rate) when the battery is removed as the flux initially tries to decay (a tiny amount) and the voltage so produced drives the current.  Shorted coils can be used in association with switches to create a form of magnetic logic.  Graham Gunderson once demonstrated flux build-up in a core in staircase fashion using shorted coils appropriately switched.  It worked rather like the well known voltage multiplier using a chain of diodes and capacitors, but this multiplication occurred in the magnetic domain.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
Isn't that interesting.  So you can create a synthetic remanence in what would otherwise be a non-remanent core, just by the application of a shorted secondary winding...
This is not interesting if the time for which the "synthetic remanence" continues is shorter than five L/R time constants of the shorted coil.
Is it?
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 201
Hi Smudge, Matt, Verpies,

Yes, I remember these experiments from Graham, Smudge. I agree that these are known and accepted EM effects, but I still think they may have some importance in energy work.

The shorted turns in these experiments are loads in the sense that they dissipate energy.
High energy efficiency practices suggest you never use thermal dissipation deliberately in an OU system. So why not replace the shorted coil with a real load, for instance a light bulb?

A resistance is in some ways a fiction. There are relatively simple Cuk converters which can appear as a desired resistance at their input terminals, while any power at the input terminals is output-- a virtual resistor. So a simulated resistance creating Graham's stair step pattern may be a whole different thing, because each step of the stair outputs energy from the converter.

I made drawings of a flux switch on paper not too long ago, where a 100 Hz power signal is put into a core with two secondary legs. At a frequency much higher than the power frequency, say 100 KHz, coils around the legs are alternately connected to loads. Each load might be a light bulb for instance. Each loaded coil bucks the AC power flux, and forces it into the other leg, and the process repeats. My theory is that the loads themselves create a flux switching action that can be tapped for power.  These EMF pulses at 100 Khz will resonate a tank at that frequency, while the transformer simply behaves as a reasonably efficient transformer with some voltage noise, supplying alternate light bulbs with pulsed power.
I bet Graham already did something like that, because he explored these ideas thoroughly.
 
Verpies, I think how long you would hold the 'synthetic remanence' would depend on the system. It could be very useful in magnet motors where most of the motor force is supplied by a 'track' of permanent magnets attracting this coil. This could be many TC of the coil in question, depending more than anything the rate of decay of the remanent flux. In the case of a transformer, my guess is that it would be most useful at some fraction of the TC of the coil involved, because dissipation would quickly outweigh any reduction in losses after that.

Whoops, I just realized I didn't watch the video that started this conversation --better go watch it! :-)

orthofield
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 201
Hi A.king,

I've seen the video now, a beautiful and simple demonstration. I don't think it is what is going on in the Cook coil at all, but it is important in itself in all sorts of flux switching applications. The Radus magnetic boot patent develops ideas that were first worked out nearly a hundred years ago now.

To return to the Cook coils, I originally thought they might work due to time delays or hysteresis, but now I think it is exactly the opposite. The Cook coils work because of the relative simultaneity of their magnetic actions.

I start with the presupposition/simplification that it is the *magnetic action between the two cores* that makes this something other than a standard set of induction coils. 

Let's separate the two cores electrically for a moment and just consider one of them. It has a primary and loaded secondary coil, and at any time, the secondary flux will be less than the primary one. As in any transformer, what will be observed is a single flux emanating from the poles of the core, in the same direction of the primary flux.
 
Now considering the other separated core, it has the identical situation with ultimately only a single flux seen at the ends of the core, always in the direction of the primary flux.

Let us pull back and consider one core as an electromagnet in space, with an oscillating field around it. If we take the other core and put it nearby without energizing it, we will see that core 1 will induce opposite poles on core 2. This is the classic induction of a magnet for a keeper.

Now let us hook the two sets of coils back together, with the secondary coils connected to the primary ends. We can see that although there is some time lag in the circuit-- and certainly between the two ends of a single core-- the primaries in the two circuits are more or less in phase with each other. If we take the current loop of a secondary and the opposite primary it must *in the lumped circuit model* have the same current all the way around it. So simplistically, both actions in both sets of coils are simultaneous, and in phase with each other electrically.

If the circuits are more or less in phase with each other, then what appears simultaneously at the ends of both cores are two N poles or two S poles. Each core tends to magnetize the other one to have the opposite pole. The flux from core 1 that enters into core 2 is opposite its flux. If the flux from core 1 was high enough, it could reduce the flux in core 2 to zero, and core 2 could reduce the flux in core 1 to zero. But in reality the coupling is not complete, and so some small flux from pri and sec mutual action appears in both cores.

I've found in my reading that when you reduce the core flux to zero, you eliminate the reaction of the secondary on the primary, while in no way eliminating the secondary output. This is shown in the Cobb energy conserver patent, where some of the output current is fed back to a coil that bucks the combined primary and secondary flux. This has the effect of increasing the primary reactance, and decreasing the secondary reactance. You would think that adding a new flux that bucks the net pri/sec flux would only reduce the output of the transformer, but it actually substantially enhances the output and reduces magnetic losses.

I see the same principle at work in the Cook coils. The mutual action of the fluxes acts to reduce the load of the secondary on the primary of each coil, as well as to reduce the magnetic field inside the cores to a very low, non lossy state, which further enhances efficiency.

Now I've made a lot of blatant simplifications here, and I'm certainly not sure if this theory stands up, but it is testable by using two separate cores each with working transformers (primary/loaded secondary), then moving them closer together while they are in phase electrically, and out of phase electrically, to see what happens...

orthofield


   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2422


Buy me a cigar
Dear orthofield.

With regards to the Cobb patent I have done some experiments using a 12-0- 12-0 to 240 Vac torroidal transformer. I used a variable 12 V ac supply and drove windings 20 and 26 from this. Winding 24 was the 240 V ac transformer winding which I connected a 40 W incandescent lamp as first load 14. Second load 27, was a 21 W incandescent automotive lamp.

Now my experience was that following the dot polarity the primary windings fought each other as an almost short circuit and with one primary dot reversed, no fight but, quite obviously the first load 14 was half as bright.

Any suggestions ??

Cheers Grum.



---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
The shorted turns in these experiments are loads in the sense that they dissipate energy.
Yes, resistance represents an energy leak in inductive circuits.
If there were no resistance in that shorted coil then the current and the "synthetic remanence" in that PMH would persist forever.

If it does not persist when the coil is open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.
« Last Edit: 2015-03-27, 00:45:47 by verpies »
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2422


Buy me a cigar
Yes, resistance represents an energy leak in inductive circuits.
If there were no resistance in that shorted coil then the current and the "synthetic remanence" in that PMH would persist forever.

If it does not persist when the coil open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.

Dear Verpies.

Does this count ??   ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXMxAOFW-w

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
Remember that the PMH can operate in two modes:
Mode R: Operating by the remanent magnetization (a.k.a. residual magnetism) of the core and/or keeper as shown in this video.
Mode E: Electromagnet mode in which a shorted coil prevents a change of magnetic flux, as shown in this video.

Does this count ??   ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXMxAOFW-w
No, because you did not satisfy the first condition in my statement.  I marked it in red below.

Quote
After closing and pulsing the PMH:  If the hold does not persist when the coil is open or absent but persists longer than 5*L/R when the coil is shorted, then it is an anomaly worth investigating.

That first condition ensures that you are operating the PMH in Mode E and that it matters whether the coil is shorted...or not.


Also, it is impossible to calculate the L/R time constant for Mode E if you do not provide the resistance and inductance of the shorted coil.

P.S.
You should supply the coil with DC.  If you are supplying it with a sinewave AC, then you are playing a game of chance, because the PMH in Mode R will hold the keeper only if you do not turn off the AC power supply during a zero-crossing (which happens every 10ms for a 50Hz sinewave).  
Also, in the Mode R, the L/R time constant of the shorted coil is irrelevant, because the remanence is not governed by the coil's parameters - it is indefinite, as it is governed by the core's magnetic properties (just like in a magnetic audio tape)
« Last Edit: 2015-03-27, 13:52:30 by verpies »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1935
Hey Grumage

Quote
Does this count ??  

Nice video and it got me thinking, I did this a long time ago however I have come a long way since then so I found an old laminated "H" core transformer and quickly did new some tests.

On charging the electromagnet holds a 2" x 6" x 1/8" thick piece of iron across the core and it stays in place however it depends on the weight of the iron piece and if it's to heavy it falls off. Next I shorted the secondary and pulsed the primary then I shorted the primary and pulsed the secondary, no difference as expected as the field is dictated by amp/turns.

However I wanted to retest this device because what people are showing and speculating about means nothing because we still don't know why it works. So I added a resistor then a lamp to the shorted coil and wala no difference. However from my own theories concerning nature and how things actually work I decided to try something new. I placed varying thickness of paper between the faces of the pieces and even a thin piece of paper will completely negate the effect... now were getting somewhere.

Now I just happened to look over and see my iron is still stuck to my H core even after 7 hours so why is it stuck there?. Let's try a simple theory that actually explains many phenomena we see in nature. If I charge two metal plates with an insulator between we have a capacitor and the charges want to attract to one another but there is a boundary condition which prevents this. Not unlike two pieces of iron with N and S domains want to attract to one another to complete the loop however they cannot because there is a boundary condition, the very small gap between surfaces, which prevents this. How do we know this?, well if the fields could couple as in a continuous piece of iron then there would be no external field, no N and S pole surfaces and there would be no attraction, it could not work.

We see the same thing when we stack permanent magnets and yes the fields do combine but there is always a portion that cannot because of the boundary condition between the magnets. We may say they are one but they never are as they are separate magnets in and of themselves just as our cores in the PMH are separate. The magnetic fields induce one another and one cannot be any greater or lesser than the other just as the plates of a capacitor cannot be any greater or lesser than the other, equal yet opposite. We cannot have one core with a magnetic field in it and another core right next to it with no field in it, it does not work that way and each must induce an equal and opposite field in the other simultaneously across the boundary condition which is why the keeper holds in place.

Nature Rules not textbooks

AC
« Last Edit: 2015-03-27, 04:14:25 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1935
Had time for a few more experiments tonight and the first was scoping the primary and secondary and there are no mysterious oscillations of any sort so we can rule out that nonsense. What does matter however is the surface area of the two faces and how smooth they are. Larger smoother contact areas produce progressively larger holding forces on the keeper. I also found something which surprise me which was that the keeper can be a laminate of two or more layers of metal and still hold in place.

Now from the above observations what can we deduce concerning the real effects at play here. I think you will be quite surprised however I will leave it until morning when I can verify the true cause of these effects further, you see I have a test which will prove it conclusively. I will leave you with a hint before I go, we have seen all this before everywhere in nature however nobody can seem to put it into the proper context. Everything you need to know is in the place nobody has bothered to look... the gap.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 201
Hi Grumage,

Yes, the Cobb effect does sound counterintuitive, and may not work in practice the way Cobb describes.
As AllCanadian says, experiment trumps theory every time. (Still, we who only read and write can contribute something too).

I started thinking about feedback amplifiers and such, and wondered if a feedback loop in the proper transformation ratio to a main circuit would have an unusual effect. Cobb specifies pri and sec coils with 120 turns, and a feedback winding of 50 turns, so there is an impedance transform in his patent that isn't in your transformer with equal turns input windings. The Harold Black patent I've discussed in my parametric/noise thread shows how to tap thermal noise energy for power using a negative feedback amplifier through a hybrid transformer with a high turns ratio. True, this is amplified feedback, where in Cobb the feedback is 'au natural'. But it got me thinking about using feedback ratios difference from the main transformer.

In the power combiner patent attached, two synchronous AC currents are combined with no mutual interaction between the currents (the sources do not react on each other) where the second current is made to buck the first before combining with it. The connection point is *after* the bucking action, on the load side, rather than on the source side as in Cobb, and this may be important. The inventor claims that the two currents are added at the connection point, while there is no total flux inside the core.
Such a power combiner is conventional, but interesting because of the lack of mutual interaction of the currents. Since there is no flux in the core, there is no magnetic interaction between them.

But going back to the Cook explanation I'm putting forward, there are some things that seem pretty certain:

--The nature of transformers being what they are, at any time, there will always be one unitive flux at the poles of each Cook core.
 
--The flux at the poles of one core will induce opposite poles on the other core. Because of the large size and relatively large diameter of the cores relative to the distance between them, there will be considerable interaction between them. This is evidenced in the early induction coil writings, where the interaction between separated cores was known and used. I'll leave it to the experimentalists to say what sort of induction a pri on one big Cook core has on a sec on another one, at typical distance, but I would guess that more than 20% of the flux from core 1 goes to core 2 and vice versa. This flux that is present in the opposite core I'll call the feedback flux in accord with the discussion above.

It's the magnitude and phase of this feedback flux which will be important in determining its effect. The Cobb speculation is based on the idea that the two feedback fluxes must be *bucking* the net fluxes in the cores, but there are other possibilities. The feedback flux could be *adding* to the net flux in a core, or be partially out of phase with it (this would be like as if in your test situation you put a cap between the feedback coil and the rest).

orthofield
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1935
A few tests this morning with some interesting results however nothing unexpected.

The fist picture PMH keeper scan through length shows the keeper has a N-S polarity opposite to the S-N polarity of the "H" core as expected as they are attracted.

The second picture PMH keeper on pulse in shows the field measurement on the H core N face as the power is pulsed into the core at regular intervals.

The third picture PMH keeper then no keeper shows the field measurement on the H core N face with a keeper on power up then without a keeper on power up. We can see the field strength is stronger without the keeper as expected because the external field is greater without the keeper shunting the field.

The fourth picture PMH scan over north face and keeper shows a scan over the H core N face with the keeper in place scanning from right to left. We can see the H core face has a N polarity however the Keeper has a S polarity as expected because the H core and keeper are attracted to one another.


So we have established that there are magnetic fields present of opposite polarity N/S in the H core/keeper holding the keeper in place. We could also speculate that the H core and keeper are separate entities otherwise they would have like polarities and not opposite ones and the keeper would not be held in place. It was also noted that while the keeper is in place the primary and secondary coils can be shorted or cross connected in any configuration and this has absolutely no effect on the magnetic field of the H core or keeper.

It would seem to me this is a simple case of Magnetic Induction whereby the two separate magnetic fields of the H core and keeper reinforce one another across the gap to sustain there mutual fields.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1935
@Orthofield

My cook coils turned out okay although these bad boys weigh a ton and from the patent my guesstimate was 450T #16 primary, 7T 3" wide secondary on a 2" x 26" form.

Quote
The flux at the poles of one core will induce opposite poles on the other core. Because of the large size and relatively large diameter of the cores relative to the distance between them, there will be considerable interaction between them. This is evidenced in the early induction coil writings, where the interaction between separated cores was known and used. I'll leave it to the experimentalists to say what sort of induction a pri on one big Cook core has on a sec on another one, at typical distance, but I would guess that more than 20% of the flux from core 1 goes to core 2 and vice versa. This flux that is present in the opposite core I'll call the feedback flux in accord with the discussion above.

I did some initial testing and confirmed most of what you have said to be fairly accurate however it is a work in progress and there are many variables to consider. Testing continues as I find the time and the hard work has been done... the testing is just plain old fun.

If you can think of some interesting tests give me a shout.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2422


Buy me a cigar
Dear Verpies.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite understand what you are saying !!   :-[

Yes the video was done in haste, as per usual !! L was 195.7 micro Henry. R was 0.074 ohms.

What I did not show was that the halves remain together with the input leads fully disconnected and I also tried using a DC pulse which was found much harder to get a hold than with my AC pulse. Another note is that if an excess voltage is used the hold will not occur at all.
4 Vac seems to be the best for that particular coil.

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite understand what you are saying !!   :-[
Which sentence?

Do you understand the difference between Mode R and Mode E as illustrated by these video clips?

Yes the video was done in haste, as per usual !! L was 195.7 micro Henry. R was 0.074 ohms.
Is that inductance measured with two core halves pressed together?  (the inductance seems a little low...)
If "yes" then the L/R time constant is 2.6ms and five times that is 13.6ms, so if the PMH holds longer than 13.6ms in Mode E, then you have an anomaly.

In Mode R the L/R time constant does not matter and even an indefinite hold time is nothing unusual.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2422


Buy me a cigar
Dear Verpies.

Ok, now understood.

My coil measures  R = 0.074 ohms and  L= 4.44 milli Henry ( halves together )

We still have a locked pair after initial pulse either with or without the identical secondary coil winding being shorted. This condition lasts for minutes, if a steady hand is used !!

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
My coil measures  R = 0.074 ohms and  L= 4.44 milli Henry ( halves together )
So that coil would hold the attraction at most for 60ms in Mode E if it was shorted.

We still have a locked pair after initial pulse either with or without the identical secondary coil winding being shorted.
So it is operating in the Mode R since it does not make any difference whether the coil is shorted or not.
In that mode the L/R time constant does not matter.

In that mode you could get an indefinite hold time with soft steel core and keeper.
« Last Edit: 2015-05-26, 23:16:42 by verpies »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 201
Hi Allcanadian,

I'm definitely interested in suggesting some tests for you to try with your giant Cook coils. I've been so busy at work that several lines of research had to be set aside for a little while.
I'm glad to hear that you've confirmed the general idea that considerable flux is transferred back and forth in the Cook cores. I'm convinced that there is really nothing unusual about the cores or their windings--except for the size!-- and it is the mutual interaction that makes it work.

You may have already done some of the things I suggest here, and they are just suggestions in case you are not sure of the answers already.

Start with two electrically and physically isolated Cook cores, at some distance from each other. Then drive both primaries with the same signal (same frequency, V, I, and phase) from two separate signal generators, also as electrically isolated from each other as possible.
 
Put the same load on the secondaries on each core.

Then move the cores closer together, observing the V on the secondary on one or the other of the cores. Does the secondary V drop or rise as the other core is brought closer?

Then repeat the experiment, starting at some distance from each other, moving them closer together, with the same signal from separate signal generators, but anti-phase this time. Will the anti-phase flux increase or decrease the secondary V, on either secondary?

My theory suggests that the presence of Core 2's in-phase magnetic field will have the effect of increasing the voltage seen across the secondary of Core 1, and vice versa of course.

Then try tuning the phase-- perhaps some phase other than precisely -in or -anti phase gives the most secondary output.

What we are looking for is an enhancement of the output from the secondary on one core, due to the some conditions in the other core. Usually theories are wrong, but they suggest experiments to do.

It's not a given that there will be a smooth increase in the effect of the second core as it is moved closer, since there is a 'drop off' at the cube of the distance, for the evanescent component of the magnetic fields.

I hope these tests are written clear enough to be followed, but if not, I can draw a diagram. The main requirement as I see it is that the cores and their drive oscillators need to be completely isolated from each other except through their mutual magnetic, and possibly electric, fields.

orthofield



@Orthofield

My cook coils turned out okay although these bad boys weigh a ton and from the patent my guesstimate was 450T #16 primary, 7T 3" wide secondary on a 2" x 26" form.

I did some initial testing and confirmed most of what you have said to be fairly accurate however it is a work in progress and there are many variables to consider. Testing continues as I find the time and the hard work has been done... the testing is just plain old fun.

If you can think of some interesting tests give me a shout.

AC

   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
I post this from overunitydotcom because I believe it is relevant:
NRamaswami
Full Member
***
Posts: 186
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #2082 on: Today at 07:49:20 AM »
Quote
Randy:

I do not understand why feel that a particular mode of doing things is needed. What matters is the principle of operation behind any device.

Look at Figuera's own words as translated and shown at http://www.alpoma.net/tecob/?page_id=8258

I believe this is done by Hanon.
----------------------------------------------BEGIN------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINCIPLE OF THE INVENTION

Watching closely what happens in a Dynamo in motion, is that the turns of the induced circuit approaches and moves away from the magnetic centers of the inductor magnet or electromagnets, and those turns,  while spinning, go through sections of the magnetic  field of different power, because, while this has its maximum attraction in the center of the core of each electromagnet, this action will weaken as the induced  is separated from the center of the electromagnet, to increase again, when the induced is approaching the center of another electromagnet with opposite sign to the first one.

Because we all know that the effects that are manifested when a closed circuit approaches and moves away from a magnetic center are the same as when, this circuit being still and motionless, the magnetic field is increased and reduced in intensity;  since any variation , occurring in the flow traversing a circuit is producing electrical  induced current .It was considered the possibility of building a machine that would work, not in the principle of movement, as do the current dynamos, but using the principle of increase and decrease, this is the variation of the power of the magnetic field, or the electrical current which produces it.

The voltage from the total current of the current dynamos is the sum of partial induced currents born in each one of the turns of the induced. Therefore it matters little to these induced currents if they were obtained by the turning of the induced, or by the variation of the magnetic flux that runs through them; but in the first case, a greater source of mechanical work than obtained electricity is required, and in the second case, the force necessary to achieve the variation of flux is so insignificant that it can be derived without any inconvenience, from the one supplied by the machine.

Until the present no machine based on this principle has been applied yet to the production of large electrical currents, and which among other advantages, has suppressed any necessity for motion and therefore the force needed to produce it.
In order to privilege the application to the production of large industrial electrical currents, on the principle that says that “there is production of induced electrical current provided that you change in any way the flow of force through the induced circuit,” seems that it is enough with the previously exposed; however, as this application need to materialize in a machine, there is need to describe it in order to see how to carry out a practical application of said principle.

This principle is not new since it is just a consequence of the laws of induction stated by Faraday in the year 1831: what it is new and requested to privilege is the application of this principle to a machine which produces large industrial electrical currents which until now cannot be obtained but transforming mechanical work into electricity.

Let’s therefore make the description of a machine based on the prior principle which is being privileged; but it must be noted, and what is sought is the patent for the application of this principle, that all machines built based on this principle, will be included in the scope of this patent, whatever the form and way that has been used to make the application.
------------------------------------------END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now look at what I did. I sent primary current from the first P1 to the P2 and then back to the mains neutral. But It is AC current. Every second it changes direction 50 times. The only difference is I have used quadfilar coils to ensure that the current flows first in the primary four times and then moves to the second Primary where it again rotates four times before it changes its direction.

When the current rotates first in P1 the first primary is stronger than the second primary. But when it rotates in P2 second primary is stronger than P1. Now for every second P1 and P2 alternately becomes stronger and weaker because what we used is AC from the mains.

If you look closely at Figueras circuit it is intended to make the current flow first in one direction let us say from the head to the tail portion in Let us say P1, P3,P5 etc and then in P6,P4 and P2 by using the rotating contact device. He has given the current from a battery and so it is a direct current going one way only and it needs to be pulsed and so the circuit is given.

That arrangement is subject to the wear and tear of the rotary contact or commutator brushes.

I have simplified the whole thing because 1. I did not and could not make commutator brushes that can withstand the sparks that come and 2. as you know well I do not understand the circuits.

But as you can see the principle has been implemented in the modification made by me. We found that the straight pole is the best one.

Actually Figuera hides several trade secrets.

a. What is the pole between the primaries. That has been an intense discussion here and I had to tell that if you show identical poles against each other the result will be zero voltage. Why and how I could say that? Hands on experience without theoretical knowledge. I have tried myself identical poles to face each other and got zero voltage. So I could describe it.

b. Figuera hides what is the method of making the coils.. He simply says coils properly wound...What is the proper winding..We had to figure it out.

C. Figuera hides what is the core size..to be used.

d. Figuera also hides that the secondary has to be wound on the primary core also. Otherwise it goes waste. We are all aware that transformers are the most efficient electrical devices and they are normally about 98% effiecient. So if we wind a secondary coil in Primary core we must get 98% what is supplied. It is simple common sense that if you wind it on two primaries and then use the magnetic flux between the two opposite poles of the two primaries you are going to have more than 100% of the input.

What we did not realize is the fact that if the wires are of identical size in the primary and secondary, doubling the voltage, also doubles the amperage. At 300 volts we could generate 10 amps. At 620 volts it became 20 amps. But 300x10=3000 while 620x20= 12400. An almost four fold increase in power output. Voltage developed is based on the number of turns. Amperage is based on the size of the wire used and the magnetic field strength and (I believe or assume frequency..If the frequency were higher Amperage would have been higher too. I think this is what Don Smith is saying. But he is using very high frequency high voltage units that is frightening to replicate...I cannot confirm it as it is my assumption)

Figuera gives only an indication in the statement that reels and reels of coils.. That alone gives the hint that a lot of wires and turns are needed.

We have determined that the core size matters. You must have a minimum of 1.5 feet of iron rods and bigger the diameter of the primary the better it is. Actually bigger the diameter of the iron and higher the mass and higher the number of parallel wires the lower the input. What I have done at 1540 watts input can also be done with an input of 110 watts. and possibly more output in the secondary may be the result.

What I do not understand is this?

We understand that conducting metals are without any life.

We understand that conducting metals will generate electricity when they are subjected to a rotating magnetic field.

Not otherwise..

Now where is this Electricity coming from? What exactly is this electricity. Why and how a metal knows that it is in the rotating magnetic field and why and how it produces electricity and from where does it come..Answer...We do not know.

Now If we take a permanent magnet near an electromagnet the permanent magnet begins to oscillate violently. It has no life. Nothing. Strangely it does not jump at the electromagnet. it is very agitated but it does not jump at it. To the contrary if you take a permanent magnet near another permanent magnet it immediately changes the poles and dives at the other magnet. We all know this also.

I have checked once by winding some coils on an agitated permanent magnet to see if it produces voltage..I may be wrong here.. For I have done it only once..But there was no voltage.

I do not know if the rotating core of the turbines is given DC current to make them permanent electromagnet. A rotating permanent magnet induces electricity. We know it from the dynamo.

It is not necessary to rotate the core if you are giving it Alternating current. But the core size should be very large and iron should be in the 2.7 to 3.7 Tesla ranges. I preferred a lower range due to heat issues. But even without heat issues by supplying a lower input and having a large core we should be able to generate substantial current.

The secret of the Figuera device is that it used both Lenz law obeying coils and Lenz law denying coils in between the opposite poles and then ensured that the output is higher.

I have tested with smaller cores but I have realized that we add more and more iron around smaller cores output voltage goes up. That was against common sense but then I realized that the size of the core matters.

You can have very large but smaller power electromagnet that avoids the heating issues but still can produce lot of electricity. When we built the very large electromagnet that prevented the current from flowing out there was no heat but the magnetism was significant. 

So you can provide even much smaller input but the core size must be big. Daniel McFarland Cook gives the details of the length and minimum diameter of the iron needed. I would say a L:D ratio of 2:1 may be used to produce the best output for the primary and the secondary can be of the 1:1 size..

Smaller the distance between the two opposite poles higher is the mangetic flux and higher is the output in the secondary.

There was a question last night if I have seen that my device is posted on Patricks website..He is the person who has trained me up and motivated me to do these experiments. He has the moral right to post it. I have not studied it yet. He has all the information with him.

If there are any other questions I will gladly answer them.

I hope we have provided sufficient information now. Please ask if there is a need.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@Grumage

I put up the Figure #1 from the Cobb patent.

Primary 26 is in series with Load 27 and in series with Primary 20. Seems to me the load 27 has to first be tried with a variable resistor with a volt meter across to see if the change in resistance will favor an increase off the Secondary 24 and Load 14. There is a question of balance that will be require there where the load 27 and the primary 20 need to be equal. 

If the size of this transformer was big enough to run on mains, I'd say use a mains Variac with a bulb as Load 27, but I see you are using some small coils so a mains Variac would not be suitable. But some kind of variable resistance thee should show some more effects.

In Cobbs set-up, he takes that Primary 26 which if alone would be a classical dead end and extends it through Primary 20 and Load 27. So now the P26 is getting more of the complete brunt of the AC hot changes while the L27 and P20 are basically left with the loose change left over. So P20 will not really see that much hot AC. But while P26 sees the most, it imparts this most to Secondary 24 and Load 14 but all this is only possible if L27 is balanced to P20.

@Aking21

Thanks for that post.

Quote
When the current rotates first in P1 the first primary is stronger than the second primary. But when it rotates in P2 second primary is stronger than P1. Now for every second P1 and P2 alternately becomes stronger and weaker because what we used is AC from the mains.

hahaha. This is what I tried to explain to @Smudge in my last post on the Partnered Output Coils thread and this is what most guys never consider that a coil on its own is basically a half changing dead end. I made a video to show this.

wattsup


---------------------------
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
I've built 2 trafos based on Cobb and can't get the B****er  to work.
Using an inverter at 240 volts.  Mind you my trafos are ferrite cores, and I try and loop back all the time.
Moved on to other things. At least the trafos are useful.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
I think the reason we find it hard to replicate McFarland Cook is explained here:

http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg449151/#msg449151

Kinda humbling isn't it?


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-08-02, 23:33:19