PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-01-18, 04:28:33
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Some "New" Observations  (Read 245748 times)

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
IMO you won't get powdered iron cores to saturate even with strong neo's.  So no surprise that you got a null result.  The patent mentions every possible type of core, but that is not Graham speaking, that is the patent attorney making the patent as wide as possible.  I don't know what core Graham used, but I do know he had some uncut metglas cores.  (The C cores are made by tape winding a toroidal core, then cutting it in half.  He managed to get large uncut cores for his experiments.)  He also had a collection of ferrite cores.  If you go the metglas route they are really tough things to drill holes in, you kneed a diamond tipped drill bit.

Smudge
Thanks Smudge, that could have been the problem, drilling cores is not easy that's why I went with the powdered iron.  I tried drilling a ferrite core and needed diamond bits like you said, I have a couple diamond saws so cutting in half is no problem if I need to.  I thought metglass would be harder to saturate then powdered iron, I know it is a lot harder to drill? 


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2066
@Room3327
Quote
I never saw any kind of output from that winding no matter what I tried, although I'm sure I didn't try everything that I could of, after figuring out there was no flux action in the holes I gave up.

There in lies the problem and I have been in that position more times than I would care to mention. Were sitting there staring at this thing and we see no way out, no possibilities and no way it could conceivably work. At which point I generally translate from replication to inspiration. That is to say okay this isn't working for me but if I wanted this to work from another perspective what should I do?. Try it then consider the opposite, if what I think does not work then what is the opposite to what I think I should do then try it.

Here is the logic I would use based only on what you have told me--
-the input generates no output...why?, I know, I do not know?
-is it the input or the output, add a DC source across the output, does the input effect the output now...yes-no?
-is it a a translation force, add an AC source to the output, vary the input AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC vs the AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC source at the output, what happens?, yes, no, is there a change?.
-is it the PM saturation, stronger magnets, weaker magnets, what happens?
-is it a material property, copper wire on input/output, copper on input iron on output, vice versa... what happens?, more wire, less wire what happens?.

Draw a truth table for every instance, better, worse, more, less, no change then start connecting the dots. This is what science is all about, we explore every avenue then we try to draw some conclusions based on what we have observed without preconceived notions or bias. It is never what we know that get's us it is what we have failed to consider that does.

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: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
@Room3327
There in lies the problem and I have been in that position more times than I would care to mention. Were sitting there staring at this thing and we see no way out, no possibilities and no way it could conceivably work. At which point I generally translate from replication to inspiration. That is to say okay this isn't working for me but if I wanted this to work from another perspective what should I do?. Try it then consider the opposite, if what I think does not work then what is the opposite to what I think I should do then try it.

Here is the logic I would use based only on what you have told me--
-the input generates no output...why?, I know, I do not know?
-is it the input or the output, add a DC source across the output, does the input effect the output now...yes-no?
-is it a a translation force, add an AC source to the output, vary the input AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC vs the AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC source at the output, what happens?, yes, no, is there a change?.
-is it the PM saturation, stronger magnets, weaker magnets, what happens?
-is it a material property, copper wire on input/output, copper on input iron on output, vice versa... what happens?, more wire, less wire what happens?.

Draw a truth table for every instance, better, worse, more, less, no change then start connecting the dots. This is what science is all about, we explore every avenue then we try to draw some conclusions based on what we have observed without preconceived notions or bias. It is never what we know that get's us it is what we have failed to consider that does.

AC



Hi AC,
Yes good information there, I did try most of what you mention, but in my mind when I found no magnetic flux sweeping through the holes it looked hopeless to me as it seemed from the patent that was the 'modus operandi' of this device.  The flux from the PM's sweeping back and forth across the meandering wire is supposed to produce the output and the input is  AC (not you), I certainly could have tried many other things but no sweep, no power, IMO.  AC (you) I have far fewer preconceived notions and biases then you seem to think I have, I am very used to thinking outside the box and spent most of my industrial career in R&D.
 O0

Cheers
Room


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2677
If you go the Metglas route they are really tough things to drill holes in, you kneed a diamond tipped drill bit.
I have a good way to cut and drill magnets, ferrites and Metglas cores - namely: water jet cutting.
I have an undertaker near me that cuts granite slabs for tombstones using this method and he is always happy to cut or drill hard materials for me.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2448


Buy me a cigar
I have a good way to cut and drill magnets, ferrites and Metglas cores - namely: water jet cutting.
I have an undertaker near me that cuts granite slabs for tombstones using this method and he is always happy to cut or drill hard materials for me.

Dear Verpies.

I have to agree, water jet cutting is amazing.

Unfortunately our local guy won't even throw the switch until £100.00 has crossed palms. Then there's a running fee on top. I suppose it's understandable, his kit cost in excess of quarter of a million to buy!!

I've successfully used Diamond tipped tooling for many materials, plenty of water flowing is the key to a good job.  ;)

Cheers Grum.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1523
Thanks Smudge, that could have been the problem, drilling cores is not easy that's why I went with the powdered iron.  I tried drilling a ferrite core and needed diamond bits like you said, I have a couple diamond saws so cutting in half is no problem if I need to.  I thought metglass would be harder to saturate then powdered iron, I know it is a lot harder to drill? 

If the Bsat of the material is greater than the Brem of the magnet you can always use tapered sections as flux concentrators to get the desired saturation.

Smudge
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
If the Bsat of the material is greater than the Brem of the magnet you can always use tapered sections as flux concentrators to get the desired saturation.

Smudge

Hi Smudge,
I don't quite get what you mean using tapered sections to concentrate the flux, could you explain what you mean? :(
Thanks
Room


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1523
@Room

My image software has gone defunct so it will have to be a pdf, see below

Smudge
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
@Room

My image software has gone defunct so it will have to be a pdf, see below

Smudge

Thank you for that Smudge, I thought that was what you meant but I don't see how it is applicable to the Gunderson generator. How would you implement that in the Gunderson, it would seem to me you would have to decrease the size of the entire toroid, I would think using stronger magnets would accomplish the same thing with the Gunderson design.
Room


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2677
This is the problem I found with the Gunderson generator, the flux stays inside the core and bypasses the meandering wire, it does not flow through the holes (air) and induce the meandering wire.  A magnetic flux prefers iron 7000 to 1 over air, I thought maybe doing this with an air core may work some what, but haven't had time to try it yet.
But does it do that?

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 331
But does it do that?

This is something on I had discussion on Skype in another day:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20140091890

There are ways for poles flip:
a) put magnet inside coil and have opposite polarity magnet attached to the first magnet then neutralize magnetic feld if first magnet
b) put magnet on E core and have core middle very close with slit then have coil finishing magnetic loop circuit. When coil is off the magnetic field should reach external E core coil

In first option if you get flat coil between two magnets the induction will happen from the second magnet.

The second option is about shorting magnetic field and redirection. When you leave small air gap betwen two ends of the magnet - it is too big reistance to close loop. With the coil on top you can close it. Until loop is not closed there are magnetic poles, With loop closed the net magnetic B field is 0. Only one issue for induction pickup coils is the geometry which is solvable.

Also there is 3rd option - when there are two magnets and the T form core flips from one magnet to the other.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 556
But does it do that?



Hi verpies,
It is the conclusion I came to with this device.  Am I correct? I don't know, all I do know is my experience and knowledge led me to that conclusion.  I think a few hours playing with a hole in a piece of ferrous material and a wire through it, will probably lead you to the same conclusion. I don't profess to be the smartest man on earth, I know what I know and I know how much I don't know, but I try to only talk about things I do know and leave the rest to others.


I wish a speedy recovery for ION and groundloop, I've had my own problems in the last several years so you are both high on my sympathy list!

Room   


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 60
The iron wire is a toroid a coil of insulated iron wire which serves as the magnetic core and a generating coil for recharge of the input (no direct output to input), this is an unusual twist to looping

The L1 to L4 are 4 coils in bucking mode to one another. Not shown on the sch: because it is difficult to draw, is that L1 is opposite to L2 and L3 is opposite to L4 on the toroid. As explained by a member here, this will give the flux a circular rotation around the iron core. The cap C1 (400v) creates a parametric oscillation by powering the coils in the switch off time, so inducing multiple frequencies by heterodyning. C2 and C3 supply the biasing and need to be HV of around 400v or C2 will blow, as I have found one day when that happened using only 100v caps, even at 400v C2 can get warm.

It is very important that the diodes D1 and D2 are ultra fast for the frequency band that we are working in, they have to be able to block the return path so as the system pumps itself up, so to say, by the adding of same frequencies generated within the system.

This toroid when running will vibrate if the frequency band is low, it will also in time heat up if the iron coil is loosly wound.

The output ferrite toroid is to isolate the output, as the primary of that toroid is part of the parametric oscillator and important that it should be within the magnetic field of the main iron toroid (that I can't explain why, but I presume it is the interaction of the magnetic fields).

I have re-posted below the spectrum shot, it is important to note the power levels due to same frequency addition, it is like two power supplies of 12v @ 10amps in parallel will give you 12v @ 20amps as an example.

Regards

Mike 8)
Great post, Mike! Thank you for your generosity in sharing it (along with the preceding schematic). 
Bob
   
Group: Guest
Exactly
And this is how the RT works-no back torque when power is drawn from the stator coil.
many have replicated this effect,but !! no one!! has been able to explain as to why.

Am i the only one that can explain the effect taking place here?
Will the guru's step up to the plate,and have a stab at it?.

In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect".  You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect. 

What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear?  What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking?  Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial.  What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner.  I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.

All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years.  I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone.  How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own.  We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate.  You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines.  It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this.  It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author.  We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.

As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa.  I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and  have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis.  This  however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.

The ball is in your court Sir.  You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.


Regards
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect".  You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect. 

What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear?  What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking?  Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial.  What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner.  I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.

All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years.  I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone.  How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own.  We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate.  You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines.  It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this.  It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author.  We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.

As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa.  I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and  have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis.  This  however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.

The ball is in your court Sir.  You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.


Regards

There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.

The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.

Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.

The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.

Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)

Hello Tinman,

I can appreciate what you are saying regarding folks just copying and pasting and putting little or no thought into the project. The problem is Tinman, in their defense, they aren't being motivated to probe the issue, they aren't asked to formulate their own opinions regarding what may be taking place.  If and when they are asked or it is suggested that they do their own thinking, when they share their thoughts, it is found that their thinking is not in line with the thinking of originator of the concepts.....I am sure you can appreciate how this is a conflict generating mechanism.  This is your show, you must lead, you cannot ask folks to think for themselves and for those thoughts to be in line with yours.  We are not here to learn as we do in school, we are here to "consider" the thoughts and ideas presented by like minded individuals.  For you to use the example of the classroom environment, you elevate yourself to the position of instructor, from this altitude you are no longer a peer, it is my hope that you can see the conflict of interest here.  From what I gather, the community is slowly but surely throwing in the towel.  If that was the desired result then I sincerely congratulate you.  If it is not the desired result, then you sir have work to do.  The question and answer period can only begin when you've completed your presentation.  From what I read, and from my own experience, I conclude that you have not.  As you stated and agree with you 100%:

It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.

You have worked it out, now open the door.

As far as my taking a stab at it goes, I have nothing to prove, and find that I am completely satisfied with my understanding of how the effect manifests, and more importantly, I am making strides in my effort to apply the principles constructively.  I have my own understanding of whats happening, and have demonstrated a few things to a few individuals.  One of my goals was to show that the effect is not limited to apparatus which have been and are being discussed on this platform.

You have made a few demonstrations, none of them disclose what you think is happening and more importantly why you think its happening.  Everyone here can read, folks don't need a lesson from textbooks that they can source and study themselves.  Folks are here to partake in the creative expression of like minded researchers.  You started by providing folks with an image of what you were thinking, this evolved into a working concept, you advanced it to levels that no one had contemplated.  You made connections that the majority could not and would not make.  As I stated before and am repeating now, this is your show, its not about folks figuring out what you have found its about you sharing it with them because you can.  

I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.  

We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue.  We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action.  We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.  


Regards
« Last Edit: 2015-10-11, 11:40:21 by Erfinder »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3173
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.

What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.

!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!!  O0  <----Not yelling here,just highlighting  :)
Pre-bias the stator coil with the appropriate magnetic field so that the approaching rotor field decreases the field. The opposite to what would happen if the pre-bias wasn't present.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Hello Tinman,
  

I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.  

Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue.  We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action.  We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.  


Regards

Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.

So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.

I understand what you are suggesting, the problem is, you say that one:

"simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator (generating coil....)"

however, you don't show how you are accomplishing this in your basic demonstrations of the RT,  before you started advancing the concept.  The only thing folks witnessed was that a short was made on one of the stator coils, without the diode, with the diode in the incorrect direction, and with the diode in the correct direction. The basics are missing.  From here we move to the second part of your statement where you say:  

"and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the stator coil."  

The majority are left to assume that this latter part has something to do with the diode they were instructed to add.  Much was demonstrated, but there is no clear description of what was shown, and why it was shown, simply put....purpose and method are lacking.  

Then we are faced with your finial statement:

"This way, the stator coil (inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching, and approaching when it is leaving.  This is the very reason I Made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical."

I completely understand whats being suggested here, however, the mechanism through which this is to be accomplished is missing.  You mentioned that you made folks aware of the significance of timing, and where this is an important factor, it is not the factor in question which makes that which you suggest a reality.  You reference the relation between the inducing and induced fields, but make no reference to the geometry of either and specifically the role of geometry has in generating the effect.  In my opinion and experience, it is the geometry which facilities the production of the effect, timing is secondary.  Timing is an issue here because of how these motors are designed and operated, here the term operated is a reference to how and when they are switched.

Myself and many others who do follow with an open mind, were/are of the understanding that this device was an advance on the principles demonstrated in the L.A.G.  We understood that the RT was a demonstration of how the principles and concepts demonstrated in the aforenamed could be applied to existing technology.   So far, it seems all that was promising in the L.A.G. is missing here.

So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.

As I understand how these motors work, the main reason why the rotor rotates is because of the quadrature relationship shared between the armature and stator fields.  In this specific and or particular embodiment, (the RT) it is of little consequence that the stator is not energized, the stator is under the influence of the armature field and as such there will still be a quadrature relationship between the two, thus we experience rotation in the absence of an "energized" stator.  

In regards to the generator action, as mentioned before there is a quadrature relation between the armature and stator fields.  The armature field is configured and energized in a manner which results in a unidirectional field, this unidirectional field induces a unidirectional field into the stator via the inductive relations between the energized armature and the iron in the stator.  Had the RT had been built using a pulse motor instead of a modified universal motor, it would have been as clear as the nose on a face that the induced wave appears as if it is rectified.  One would have observed that the wave is asymmetric, it would have been observed that the polarity of the wave was directly related to the direction that the rotor is rotated in.  This latter is not applicable to the RT, owing to how it is switched, and other factors, it can only operate in one direction effectively.  When one considers the polarity of the wave, and the fact that it is asymmetrical, it becomes self explanatory what happens when a diode properly oriented is added to the already asymmetrical, magnetically rectified waveform.

This is what I wanted to hear from you.....I never heard it.  I wasn't looking for you to tell me to look into the books to reexamine the laws, nor was I nor am I interested in numbers.  I wanted you to share your view of how you see your machine functioning, nothing more nothing less.  Now it doesn't really matter to me whether you do or not.  But it does matter to a few here, and you owe it to yourself and to them to finish what you started, and to do so in manner that allows them to be able to sit at the bench with you as you walk them through your thinking.  Its not about proving anything, or even about giving anyone anything, its about you sharing your impressions......or not.


Regards
   
Group: Guest
The square cans are inductors, usually tunable by turning screws through the holes on top, moving ferrite cores up and down inside coils. The round cans are electrolytic capacitors, almost certainly bad by now, except for the black round can on the separate chassis, this is probably a rectifier tube or a solid-state replacement for one.
The unbroken tubes may still be good, if you have something that can use them. Nowadays, with something that is in that bad shape, there isn't much point in salvaging components. You may be able to clean up the air-variable capacitor, and the transformer may still be good for something. You could sandblast the rust off of it, repaint it and it might be usable in a power supply or something like that.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2677
this is a pretty interesting video, showing voltage induction by just tapping a laminated steel core transformer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc
Seems like the remanent magnetism of the keeper and/or of the core.
I bet that tapping  it with a non-ferromagnetic piece would not have this effect.

Modulating flux from the remanent magnetization is very different from this Villari effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM
   
Group: Guest
Don't assume that a field that can move flowing charge is a magnetic field - and don't assume that moving charges are electrons.

Novel charge carriers may produce electrostatic (capacitive) and magnetic (inductive) effects but they will not behave in any rational manner across a semiconductor junction... in fact you are likely to cause inexplicable failures in digital equipment even at a distance you think is safe- I know this from first hand experience.

Novel charge carriers will produce novel fields in addition to classical fields when they move. Novel fields may extend into other dimensions -- study the mapping of dimensions.

Our experience with valves is good -- deflecting charges around a vacuum is more reliable than using mosfets and you can still get low ns HV pulses if you want.

Not sure why I am offering this ...holiday madness I suppose... and my account got trashed and all the history has been lost :(

While I'm posting -- did anyone else ever work out the mathematical foundation for the ratios of frequencies SM quoted? ... and realize the implications? .. if you did then please contact me privately.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3173
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Mark,

What are these Novel charge carriers you are referring to?

In terms of the frequencies he alluded to using, see attached for what I came up with 8 years ago. Probably way off base, but seemed to make sense for me at the time.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3173
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is another document I was working on at the time.

Probably complete rubbish, but nonetheless could be fruit for thought.
   
Group: Guest
@poynt99

wrong calculations --- look beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.

Everyone look for Tao/(Jason Kapica)
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-01-18, 04:28:33