PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-07-22, 04:46:04
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

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 219011 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2440
Everyman decries immorality
Perhaps Mr. Gunderson himself could respond here regarding why he nor Mr Goldes is marketing this device, but rather somehow Graham has forgotten how to make it and is struggling with a (maybe) COP> 1.00x device.

haha!  ;D


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3078
tExB=qr
An explanation of how the TPU works is given here:

http://overunity.com/16030/tinmans-coil-shorting-circuit/msg461601/#msg461601

implying the use of forces without back-torque?

I liked spherics' explanation better.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3525


Buy me some coffee
implying the use of forces without back-torque?

I liked spherics' explanation better.

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?.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 331
You lost me.
I understand that two magnets are attracting and one magnet is inside a coil and the other is not, but how do they move relative to each other?
They won't move but the magnetic field will move due changed magnetic field density on the magnet with a coil. And the wire between the magnets will get induction from that.
In the patent application I wanted to point onto picture as possible arrangement as it seem to me very similar to the situation described.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1161
Thank you for that background Smudge.

Here is what Mr Graham Gunderson says in the patent (last line in 0015):

"Because of the novel magnetic interaction, the solid state generator of the present invention is a robust generator, requiring only a small electric force to operate."

In patent talk that seems to say a little power input and a lot of power output.

Perhaps Mr. Gunderson himself could respond here regarding why he nor Mr Goldes is marketing this device, but rather somehow Graham has forgotten how to make it and is struggling with a (maybe) COP> 1.00x device.

At any rate, believers should build it for themselves and prepare to perhaps be disappointed.

The upshot: You might stumble on something new by trying.

Just for interest I have been doing some FEMM modelling on this arrangement.  First off I used linear materials with no saturation (because they solve faster in FEMM) and found that all the various fields simply add linearly and there is no coupling between the drive coil and the meandering wire passing through the core.  However when I used practical materials that saturate then there is coupling, so the device is using saturation effects.  The presence of the magnets stuck to the core is creating regions just below each magnet that is near saturation and that causes the axial flux to meander as it finds the least reluctance path.  And the meandering flux couples well to the meandering wire.  So my guess is that Graham was unwittingly using this effect, and his explanation for moving magnetic lines doing flux cutting is incorrect.  Whether or not the scheme is OU is a much bigger job to answer in FEMM as it requires many (snap-shot) solutions and each solution uses many iterations to get to an answer (because of the non-linear material).  I would have to leave my computer running for days.

It may be noted that with the wire surrounded by core material the field from any induced current will create circular flux around the hole, and the thing will then act like a transformer with a magnetically screened secondary.  There have been attempts at creating this type of transformer where the A field that drives current in the secondary penetrates the screen, so you get secondary voltage, but the magnetic field from the secondary current can't get back to the primary because of the magnetic screen.  Effectively the secondary is buried within its own core material separate from the primary core.   AFAIK these have not been successful, but that may be due to the high secondary inductance due to the screen.  I would think that could be countered by using a series capacitor in the secondary to resonate with that high inductance, but whether anyone has tried that I don't know.

As regards getting Graham to respond here I can invite him to join OUR, but I would not like to see him getting the stick aimed at Mr Goldes.  The ownership of the patent is with MPI and its successor, you should be asking them why it has not been proceeded with.

Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1472
As regards getting Graham to respond here I can invite him to join OUR, but I would not like to see him getting the stick aimed at Mr Goldes.  The ownership of the patent is with MPI and its successor, you should be asking them why it has not been proceeded with.
Show him this embodiment of his device enclosed in a potcore.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1472
Just for interest I have been doing some FEMM modelling on this arrangement.  First off I used linear materials with no saturation (because they solve faster in FEMM) and found that all the various fields simply add linearly and there is no coupling between the drive coil and the meandering wire passing through the core. 
Doesn't the flux cut the meandering wire?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
Doesn't the flux cut the meandering wire?

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.


---------------------------
"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: 1472
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)
That the flux stays in the core and avoids the air hole is obvious ...but does it stay only on one side of the hole ?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
That the flux stays in the core and avoids the air hole is obvious ...but does it stay only on one side of the hole ?

I think what you are saying is, 'is there a flux free zone  around the hole somewhere, like a flux shadow'.  No not that I could find, the flux seems to spread around the hole and comeback together on the opposite side from what I could tell.  It seems to just avoid the hole, which is just what you don't want happening, in this device.


---------------------------
"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: 1161
I think what you are saying is, 'is there a flux free zone  around the hole somewhere, like a flux shadow'.  No not that I could find, the flux seems to spread around the hole and comeback together on the opposite side from what I could tell.  It seems to just avoid the hole, which is just what you don't want happening, in this device.

If you have meandering flux that passes between the meandering wires then you get classical transformer induction that doesn't involve flux cutting.  So the lack of flux within the holes is of no consequence.  It is the changing vector potential in the holes that then drives the electrons in the wire.  My FEMM simulations show that you do get meandering axial flux but it can't be observed from the flux plots because they show total flux.  It can be inferred using the flux linkage parameter that FEMM obtains.  That flux linkage includes the fixed magnet fluxes so you have to apply two values of drive current then take the difference in flux linkage to get the coupling effect.

I have also plotted the flux transverse to the center line (without the holes present) for two different values of drive current, like plus 10 and minus 10.  These show a complex cyclic pattern for the flux across the core from the series of magnets but you can clearly see the changes occuring for the two drive currents.  And those changes couple to the meandering wire if it is in the right place.  Move the whole sequence of holes and the coupling disappears.  In the superimposed images below, the black and grey lines indicate the two values of drive current.  The hole positions would be as indicated by the red lines and you can clearly see the alternating change of transverse field synchronized with the hole spacing.

The coupling only occurs with non-linear material, so if your magnets were not strong enough you would get no effect.  Also there could be an optimum magnet separation related to the core thickness (thickness dimension from upper magnet to lower magnet).

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1018
@Smudge

I would agree and there are many variables to consider. One is symmetry and if a current carrying wire produces a magnetic field circling the wire then a circling magnetic field may induce a current in a wire without supposedly "cutting" the conductor.. Another is field interaction and it may be that the PM's are simply to hold the core near saturation and the saturation and geometry prevent the output field from translating back to the input.

The thing to remember here is that we know "normal" does not work therefore if it does work it must be something else. Find that "something else" and you have your solution. Again... we know normal does not work so stop doing it... try something else.

AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
If you have meandering flux that passes between the meandering wires then you get classical transformer induction that doesn't involve flux cutting.  So the lack of flux within the holes is of no consequence.  It is the changing vector potential in the holes that then drives the electrons in the wire.  My FEMM simulations show that you do get meandering axial flux but it can't be observed from the flux plots because they show total flux.  It can be inferred using the flux linkage parameter that FEMM obtains.  That flux linkage includes the fixed magnet fluxes so you have to apply two values of drive current then take the difference in flux linkage to get the coupling effect.

I have also plotted the flux transverse to the center line (without the holes present) for two different values of drive current, like plus 10 and minus 10.  These show a complex cyclic pattern for the flux across the core from the series of magnets but you can clearly see the changes occurring for the two drive currents.  And those changes couple to the meandering wire if it is in the right place.  Move the whole sequence of holes and the coupling disappears.  In the superimposed images below, the black and grey lines indicate the two values of drive current.  The hole positions would be as indicated by the red lines and you can clearly see the alternating change of transverse field synchronized with the hole spacing.

The coupling only occurs with nonlinear material, so if your magnets were not strong enough you would get no effect.  Also there could be an optimum magnet separation related to the core thickness (thickness dimension from upper magnet to lower magnet).

Smudge

Hi Smudge,

 Good post, I obviously am not in your league with the Femm analysis and all, I just built this from the patent and tried it.  I used neo magnets (very strong) on a five inch powdered iron core, three quarters of an inch thick,  I drilled 8 evenly spaced quarter inch holes through the center of the thickness for the meandering wire.  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.  The meandering wire is at a 90 degree angle to the coils which makes transformer coupling to it very low, and I never saw much on the oscilloscope.  The meandering winding was 20 ga. 16 turns, the input winding was 22 ga. about 130 turns which I later added another 100 turns to.  I really wanted it to work and was unable to make it happen, maybe we can still do it?

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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1161
Hi Smudge,

 Good post, I obviously am not in your league with the Femm analysis and all, I just built this from the patent and tried it.  I used neo magnets (very strong) on a five inch powdered iron core, three quarters of an inch thick,  I drilled 8 evenly spaced quarter inch holes through the center of the thickness for the meandering wire.  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.  The meandering wire is at a 90 degree angle to the coils which makes transformer coupling to it very low, and I never saw much on the oscilloscope.  The meandering winding was 20 ga. 16 turns, the input winding was 22 ga. about 130 turns which I later added another 100 turns to.  I really wanted it to work and was unable to make it happen, maybe we can still do it?

Room

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
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
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: 1018
@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



---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
@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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1472
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.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2108


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 !! :)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1161
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
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1161
@Room

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

Smudge
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 491
@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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1472
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.
   
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 2019-07-22, 04:46:04