|
Hi PM,
I'm glad I finally have a chance to comment! I think your idea is brilliant. To put it in simple terms that I can understand :-), you eliminate back reaction in either inductive or parametric transformers/generators by the simple expedient of controlling the output current. Obviously if I doesn't change in the output coil, there can be no change in flux, thus no induction or mu change in the primary. Is it possible to argue with that?
I seem to remember you doing some experiments on the MEG which showed increased output with a nonlinear resistor. Your principle would imply that a fixed nonlinear load would show gain in certain V ranges.
Jumping on to practical application (dying planet and all that), I think a solid state parametric version is best because it's well suited to unipolar operation. A rotary device will likely have a bipolar I, in which case your constant current condition can't be maintained through a full cycle. At some point I will change as it switches from side to side, and loading will occur-- unless you cut the load out in that brief interval, which increases the circuit complexity.
For an inductive version, I suggest a unipolar CLC resonant transfer circuit, where capacitors bounce charge back and forth through an inductor with relatively low losses. The inductor is the primary with your constant current inductor as the secondary. The same scheme could be used in a parametric version, most efficiently the classic two toroid mag amp, using square loop materials. Of course the bouncing pulse will be very nonlinear, but AFAIK the CLC will still work.
To me, the biggest barrier to practical application is the variable load. You need a converter to take the fixed I/variable V and convert it to fixed I/fixed V so you can power a normal load. This means your output circuit is more complicated, having two modules, a constant current sink and an AC-DC converter or the like.
This is a very broad principle with a lot of applications. I've done patent searches on the concept now, and it can be patented if framed properly. If you want to patent to maintain control of the technology, it would be wise to not reveal full details of your actual builds.
Good work, PM!
Fred
|
Author
Topic: partzmans board ATL (Read 36294 times)
