PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-05-26, 06:01:02
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38]
Author Topic: Itsu's workbench / placeholder.  (Read 62135 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1571
FEMM also enables you to chart the normal component of B along a line.  I have shown such a line in the image below as the thick black one, and the chart.  There are definitely flux lines passing through that coil.  FEMM also gives you the integral along that line with the result of average B.n=4.923e-4 and flux 2.56e-7 weber.  The problem depth is 10mm as the flux is stated for that depth.
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
@smudge
Thanks for the feedback. Is it possible to have FEMM calculate the flux that would pass through the hole of a cylindrical coil placed underneath? This is important to know if the induction of this flux would be sufficient to light the LEDs.

I have now moved on to practical work, testing a toroid with two opposing coils. I put an AC current in one and a DC current in the other, which replaces the magnet, and I have a test coil nearby connected to the scope. We can see perfectly the signal that appears as the DC current increases and as we approach saturation, a sign of the "leakage" of the toroid. The effect is not linear and causes harmonics of the AC signal.

I am preparing a new test where the DC current will pass through the 2 coils creating an opposition of the 2 fields in the 2 half toroids, exactly as the magnet did, while the AC will pass through the 2 coils connected for AC as if they were in series so that their field remains toroidal. The interest of the DC current is that we can adjust the saturation level, unlike the case with the magnet. I just want to familiarize myself with the phenomenon.

I still don't know how, experimentally, one can distinguish the case of a looped flux passing through the cylindrical coil, from the case of a looped but asymmetric flux simply passing near it without passing through it.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
If the permeability imbalance between left and right is the cause of the flux leakage, then it should also be seen without any magnet causing it, simply by creating a toroid with each half having different permeability.
This is what I simulated. The toroid is made of a left half with µ=30000 and a right half with µ=1000. µ is constant in both cases, see 1st picture.
The two following pictures give the field B, with 2 cutting planes. No B field can be seen outside the toroid, not because there is none, but because it is too weak.
The second row of images gives the field H. This is where it is interesting. As we have B=µ.H, H does not depend on the medium, and here we see that H is far from being zero outside the toroid. This allows us to understand that B is not zero either, since outside the toroid B=µ0.H. And H, so B, can also be seen in the 2 planes of section, contrary to the views with B.
The last row of images gives the vector view of B, and two vector views of H. The view of H cut by the horizontal plane shows that H is small on the left and large on the right, which is the consequence that H=B/µ with µ much larger on the left than on the right, including outside the toroid. On the contrary, the view of H cut by the vertical plane shows the equality of H at the top and at the bottom.

The flux of B in the toroid is continuous in spite of the discontinuity of the permittivity, consequence that the field lines are closed (non divergence of B). It is the flux of H which is not, and we can also see from it that there are many leaks.
However, leakage does not explain everything. Because when the permeability is the same in both parts, we also have leaks.
So it remains to know
- how these leaks can create a looped field through the cylindrical coil, field intense enough to produce by induction the lighting of LEDs
- if these leaks are indeed due to the disparity of the permeability along the toroid,
- or if they are rather due to the variation of the permeability in time, the simulations made until now being static only whereas in the 2SGen the variation of the permeability is dynamic.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1571
Below I show three images of the leakage flux from the ring core.  I have adjusted the upper and lower bounds of the displayed contours so as to get those field lines.  In the first image there is zero toroidal coil current and you will see from the bounds that the field is very weak.  The flux linkage into the solenoid coil as a single turn is 4.046e-10 weber.  It is not possible to adjust the bounds for the vector plots so FEMM can't show the vectors for this weak field.  I have placed arrows to show the field direction.

The next image has toroidal coil current at 128 ampere-turns.  The upper and lower bounds are now 1000 times greater and the flux linkage becomes 3.745e-7, also about 1000 times higher.  Note that in reply #924 I show the flux linkage v. current and it is almost linear.  The field shape and field direction is the same as in the first image.

The final image is for toroidal coil current at -128 ampere-turns.   The same upper and lower bounds as in image 2.  Also the same flux linkage, there has been no leakage flux reversal.  The field shape and field direction is the same as in the first and second image.

It is clear from this that the saturating ring core is acting as a flux gate, gating flux from the magnet.  At either polarity of the toroidal coil current flux from the magnet is allowed to escape.  If that coil is driven with a sine wave the leakage flux follows a rectified sine wave, a series of half sine waves.  Thus the output voltage in the solenoid coil will not be a sine wave and will be predominately twice the frequency plus lots of harmonics.

To answer F6's question, a coil placed across the opening of the solenoid coil would have 2.56e-7 webers of flux passing through it at the 128 ampere-turn value of toroidal coil current.  I am not familiiar with Naudin's work on this so I can't comment on whether that is enough to light his LED.  But with say 100 turns and 10KHz drive that would result in 1.6V.  Note that my depth was only 10mm (this is a 2D program) whereas across that opening the length is 60mm in this simulation.  So that 1.6V is more likely to be 10V.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
@Smudge
From my tests, the flux goes out in the axis of the magnets, as in your simulation. In my real setup, it is in the axis between the two coils wound on each side of the toroid,  since I use DC current to simulate the magnet and polarize the toroid. This is expected since each half of the toroid will tend to behave a bit like a solenoid, because the flux can hardly loop back to the side where the permeability has dropped.

However, the permeability must remain at a large value with respect to the air, for example 1000 on one side for 30000 on the other, otherwise it is as if the toroid was open on the side of the low permeability, and so we would have a trivial coupling.  This is perhaps what happens in the Naudin's experiment.
With FEMM, can you get the permeability at the time and position when it is the lowest?

I realize that even with the knowledge of the leakage flux, it will not be possible to know if the FEM will be sufficient to light the LEDs, because the counter-flux of the cylindrical coil due to Lenz's law, will be transferred to the toroid, opposing its FEM and lowering the collected flux, and the decrease will depend on the coupling parameters.
The model of the whole setup is needed. I'll see if CST can do it.

While playing with my coils I wanted to see if the probe coil, which has the same role as the cylindrical coil, coupled at best with the toroid, had repercussions on the input signal when tuned to the resonance, where it behaves like a short circuit. The input signal does not weaken at all, although I put in series with the generator a 10 K resistor to better see a possible voltage drop. On the other hand, the polarization of the toroid makes the input voltage drop, because I suppose, the impedance of the coil drops with the drop of the permeability.
So I can't conclude for the moment that the coupling with the probe-coil has no effect on the input. It is possible that it does by its "counter-field", but that this counter-field affects the permeability in the opposite way to that of the signal generator, cancelling the effect. Simple hypothesis. It is also possible that the probe-coil is not a sufficient load. The assembly seemed simple, but if we want to check everything, it's endless...   :) >:(



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
The topology that JL Naudin presented and that Itsu replicated in one form can be easily defined once the source of induction in the air coil is established.  I'm not sure if this has been done or not at this point so this is my opinion on what is the source.

As I stated previously, the air coil is simply a flux sensor and the toroid in it's various configurations with PMs is the induction source that creates the differential in the so called mag and demag currents in the air coil.  Simply put, the demag current in the air coil is dependent on the mean voltage during the field collapse in the toroid and is ~di = E*t/Laircoil .

Attached are two pix of the transformer assembly that is used to demonstrate the above and this transformer/air coil assembly is considerably more efficient than Naudin presentations but operates in the same manner.  This transformer however is not what it appears at first glance when one views the break down of the assembly.  The 3019 pot core has it's sides cut down thus allowing flux to enter the air coil in a conventional manner and the pot core also provides a higher perm material than air to the so called air coil.

The specs for this assembly is as follows:

   Lpot = 9.15mH
   Lair =  1.87mH
   Lpot aid Lair = 16.54mH
   Lpot buck Lair = 4.98mH
   M = 2.89e-3
   k = .698

The one scope pix shows the peak demag current at -924ma in the air coil and the avalanche mean voltage of the IRF636 mosfet at 288.6v over a time period of 6.72us.  Calculating the peak current according to the above would be 288.6*6.72e-6/1.87e-3 = 1.037 amps.  This is greater than the measured [924ma] by 12% which is most likely due to the diode voltage drop in the secondary and the resistance of the windings.

Therefore, the primary applied voltage on the induction source determines the air coil mag current and the higher voltage during the induction source collapse determines the air coil demag current.  Just my opinion.

Does this device have any potential for OU?

regards,
Pm 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
Hi Partzman,

If we stick to classical electromagnetism, Naudin's 2SGen is a simple transformer, of very bad design. Indeed the primary is a toroidal coil, while the secondary is a cylindrical coil, so the coupling is very bad.
How is it improved ? By saturating more or less the toroidal core with magnets, reducing the permeability in some places, the flux leakage is favored, the flux that should have remained confined in the toroid escapes and the cylindrical coil captures it better.
So improving the 2SGen is easy, just take a real transformer instead: we have the same function with an efficiency > 90%.  :)

Now we can assume that there is something beyond appearances, for example that if the permeability of the toroid remains high enough, then even if it varies along the torus, we should not have significant flux leakage. This is the assumption I made, but I have a hard time verifying it, because most probably, this assumption is wrong and the 2SGen is indeed just a bad transformer.
To remotely detect the existence of a flux confined in a toroid is theoretically impossible without using a circuit surrounding this flux (thus whose surface cuts the flux, e.g. thanks to a conductor passing through the hole of the toroid), unless there are experimental biases such as flux leaks. Experimentally, there will always be leaks. What is important to know is their level. With magnets completely saturating the core on one part, it is as if we had an open toroid, or a half-toroid, so obviously we will be able to couple it easily and efficiently to any coil. But we will not have invented anything new. There's no OU in it.

With Smudge we have already discussed a lot of ideas with the potential vector. It is not zero in the space outside the toroid. Can we recover energy from it by the virtue that E=-δA/δt, or more daringly that E=-δA/δx * δdx/δt = -v*δA/δx, maybe this setup would allow it, that's what I was trying to check, taking advantage of this 2SGen topic that Itsu has revived.

When you ask about OU potentiality, it is impossible to say, whatever the setup. Since a science consists in explaining and modeling what we observe, and since we have not yet observed any OU, or in any case there is no consensus on the fact that we have observed any, we have no science of OU, we cannot predict anything.
My point of view is that the potentiality of OU is in anything, with more probability in what has not already been studied than in what is commonplace, but it is a bet, an a priori that we take, to test and keep or reject according to the results. Our initial approach is therefore not scientific. But at least our method must be scientific and technical to obtain the concrete products we need, and that consists in experimentally verifying our daring hypothesis and distinguishing what is conventional from what would be a sign of anomaly. It's hard to say for sure about 2SGen at the moment, although there are many signs that it is not a pathway for OU.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1571
You can get a good handle on how the system performs using magnetic domain analysis.  The first image below shows the magnet, the ring core and the air coil with the magnetic domain circuit superimposed.  We have the ability to establish the values of all those circuit components.  The non linear resistor (actually reluctance) characteristics are easily got using the known non linear BH curve for the core material.   The air gap values and air paths within the air coil and outside the air coil values can be reasonably deduced.  The drive mmfs are the known input current to the toroidal coil.  The second image is a slightly simplified circuit where I also show the effect of a load resistor across the air coil as an inductor whose induced voltage (actually a mmf) correctly accounts for the load current and you don't have to worry about Lenz's Law any more.  This circuit can be modeled in a Spice like program and will give the dynamic performance, and in my view that is better than second guessing what is going on inside the system due to the saturation effects.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
I agree with your diagram  O0.

Just a remark, the reluctance Rm is not the same for the DC flux and the AC flux. Indeed the permeability of neodymium is 1.05 so hardly different from air for the AC flux, while the DC flux passes perfectly through the neodymium since it is generated directly by the mass. We could complete the circuit by making 2 paths, one for the AC the other for the DC. Is it really necessary, I don't know.

The tricky part would be Rcore, since the component will have to be created in LTspice. Without hysteresis it would be relatively easy, but if you want to put hysteresis, rather difficult, because the current/voltage relation is not a bijective function anymore. I think your diagram will give correct results on the order of magnitude of the induced current, and that's the important point. If subtle effects have significant effects, we would not see it, for example, the proximity of the toroid core can influence the inductance of the air coil, and as this core is not linear, influence it in a complex way. Again I don't know if this would be a real problem, but that's why I prefer physical modeling to electronic modeling. Do you plan to go as far as modeling in LTspice? I'm trying to get familiar with CST. It took me over a month to get used to it for the antennas, and now in magneostatic or quasistatic I feel like I have to start from the beginning, it's very different!



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1571
Just a remark, the reluctance Rm is not the same for the DC flux and the AC flux. Indeed the permeability of neodymium is 1.05 so hardly different from air for the AC flux, while the DC flux passes perfectly through the neodymium since it is generated directly by the mass. We could complete the circuit by making 2 paths, one for the AC the other for the DC. Is it really necessary, I don't know.

It is not necessary.  The DC flux is correctly accounted for by the magnet's mmf UM shown as a battery.  The DC flux path through RM and the reluctances external to the magnet correctly set the magnet's operating point on its BH curve.

Quote
The tricky part would be Rcore, since the component will have to be created in LTspice. Without hysteresis it would be relatively easy, but if you want to put hysteresis, rather difficult, because the current/voltage relation is not a bijective function anymore.

I agree but any hysteresis there will only account for small loss.  The advantage of using Neo magnets is their linear BH characteristic hence no change of magnetization and no significant hysteresis over the operating range.

Quote
I think your diagram will give correct results on the order of magnitude of the induced current, and that's the important point. If subtle effects have significant effects, we would not see it, for example, the proximity of the toroid core can influence the inductance of the air coil, and as this core is not linear, influence it in a complex way. Again I don't know if this would be a real problem, but that's why I prefer physical modeling to electronic modeling.

I think the model correctly accounts for the non-linear inductance effects.  I agree, the model will not show any subtle effects, but it might give a better understanding of what is going on so that possible subtle effects can then be seen in context.

Quote
Do you plan to go as far as modeling in LTspice? I'm trying to get familiar with CST. It took me over a month to get used to it for the antennas, and now in magneostatic or quasistatic I feel like I have to start from the beginning, it's very different!
I don't have enough detail to determine the component values but if someone gives me details I will give it a go.  Or I could just invent my own geometry and do it that way for a similar device.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 918
Just as an aside, I have not given up on the full simulation of the 2SGen, but it takes a long time to master the tool before I can present a solid result.
A few days or weeks will be necessary. I will continue here.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
   Itsu, and all:
   Guys, it seams like the door has been closed on the Akula/Ruslan/Stalker thread. And the discussion ended in talks by F6 about all being nothing but fakes, again. Wow. As if we asked his opinion.
   I know that neither myself nor Itsu are done with that project, but, we are STUCK, and don't know what more to do, at this time.
However, I don't consider my time as wasted, as we are always learning something, even if it's what does not work, as expected. I now know what does not work. But, still don't know what does.
  Also, it would be very good to continue by a proper communication with the supposed inventors. Such as Stalker, etc.  Or at least someone that can actually help us out, with hands on tests, and not just in theories.
   We two are the only ones that have made replications here, and both have gotten to a point that we don't know what more needs to be done. It is not due to lost interest in the project, but it is still amazing that only just a few people even tried to build the device.
Geofusion has also not followed through, even after I invited him to come here.
   So, I don't know what we have done wrong, but, I want to make it right. As these table top toys are just a stepping stone for other bigger and better devices, in the future. Hopefully, in my future, as I'm not getting any younger.

   Sorry, if I posted on the wrong thread, (Itsu's thread), but all other doors (threads) were closed. I also want to thank Vasik for his great contributions.
   Let me know what you think, hopefully in a positive direction. As I still think that we have lots to learn and to discuss, to make this work right.

   NickZ
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433

Hi Nick,

I think there are more guys still working on the device then just you and me.

Maxolous, Deggory (Justawat), Utopia Now, Jeg (OU.com), Geo and Vasik come in mind.

I was hoping that they would join in more in the last thread and present their results, but somehow they did not.


I think / hope that when there is a new thread opened they will join again and do present their results as thats is the only way we as a team can crack this nut.

Itsu 
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
  Thanks Itsu. 
   Agreed.

   At least Vasik is still here, and has invested much time and real research efforts on this project. My hats off to him...
And he is our only tie to that part of the world. As T-1000 and others are not around. And he can possibly see some things first hand, like Wesley did.
Hopefully Verpies will join us, as well. So, we can all butt heads over critical thinking, and test to see what works, and what doesn't, instead of fairy tales.

   NickZ

  PS. How much proof do we need? https://youtu.be/e_kXFGNdANU

   
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 335
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
Nick Itsu no one can be all that bothered  no ofence but there is some anomaly we are all ignoring
carry on and it will never work, like how about some feed back from some of you! yes all of you

one of my points is Nick has a working device (it lights bulbs) but classed as a none worker
what frequency is his Katcher running at ? what frequency is his Grenade running at ?

And what frequency is his push pull frequency ? all this is important.

The same goes for others including 'Itsu’s device.

Well are you going to cooperate or not ?
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
   Well AG, I do cooperate. Over 5000 posts worth of cooperation. As you may know. And, I didn't post my all my videos just for me to see. 
   When are you going to build something, with us? To test all those ideas that you have in your head. Perhaps you're right, but how will you know?
   My videos are always available for any one to see. They show and discuss most of your questions. I'm not just into endless theories. As theories without test are well, you know...

   NickZ
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433
  Thanks Itsu. 
   Agreed.

   At least Vasik is still here, and has invested much time and real research efforts on this project. My hats off to him...
And he is our only tie to that part of the world. As T-1000 and others are not around. And he can possibly see some things first hand, like Wesley did.
Hopefully Verpies will join us, as well. So, we can all butt heads over critical thinking, and test to see what works, and what doesn't, instead of fairy tales.

   NickZ

  PS. How much proof do we need? https://youtu.be/e_kXFGNdANU

 


Yes, the contribution of verpies will be vital as are the contributions of Smudge, Picowatt, Partzman etc.. but there also lies the problem.

We as builders will have to have the will and the patience to listen to what these guys are telling us and perform some tests as they requests them.

In the past i notice that that will seldom work and often terminates such a cooperation.

Everyone sticks to their own believes and setup and is not willing to accept must changes.

Until this mentality changes we have little chance to succeed.


Itsu
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
  Yes, I totally understand.
 And that is why the need of some help from those that know just what is really needed.
   So we can compare notes, readings, frequencies, and such. That was what I tried to do.
   As there is no one in my part of the world that can help. Even Geo, well he's out to lunch.

   NickZ
« Last Edit: 2022-04-24, 23:24:28 by NickZ »
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 335
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
have you tried the katcher working at 3 times the push pull frequency
you might very well need to lock the nodes with electronics, at least
you would know if the idea is a goer or not. It's the only logical way.

 Itsu. is the best one to test the idea out.

Sil
« Last Edit: 2022-04-25, 06:30:01 by AlienGrey »
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
   How about you testing your idea? Most of the time at those calculated frequencies one would normally see no gain at all. At least I have not.
   Did you understand what Itsu just said, about taking suggestions?

   NickZ
 
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 335
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
   How about you testing your idea? Most of the time at those calculated frequencies one would normally see no gain at all. At least I have not.
   Did you understand what Itsu just said, about taking suggestions?

   NickZ
Sure i do, but nothing the group has tried works, and we are ignoring what shows to work only
seek and you will find it so.

When i started on here some how help i followed ended up with me adding a thread to Hoppy's work
I then got accusations thrown at me that weren't nice, I wont disclose that character. But it ought to end
if we want to move on, i'm not one to hold grudges.

So can we please move on and share facts that are known to work, Please!

If you wait for me it will take a while as i don't have a full unit to test or modify as yet.

it's not a simple thing Geo's idea was on the right track as he was mixing frequency into blocks (mixing), and de-modulating.

Sil

PS is Itsu happy using this tread? or would some one like to create a dedicated channel  O0










   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433

This thread should stay what it is, a place for me to put various things into the open, so not dedicated to a specific item.

Thanks,  Itsu
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 396
Sure i do, but nothing the group has tried works, and we are ignoring what shows to work only
seek and you will find it so.

When i started on here some how help i followed ended up with me adding a thread to Hoppy's work
I then got accusations thrown at me that weren't nice, I wont disclose that character. But it ought to end
if we want to move on, i'm not one to hold grudges.

So can we please move on and share facts that are known to work, Please!

If you wait for me it will take a while as i don't have a full unit to test or modify as yet.

it's not a simple thing Geo's idea was on the right track as he was mixing frequency into blocks (mixing), and de-modulating.

Sil

PS is Itsu happy using this tread? or would some one like to create a dedicated channel  O0


   

   AG:  There are NO certain matched frequencies that have worked to produce OU. Much less self running. Not for me, and not for Itsu. And not any other experimenter. That idea does not work. If you think so, do tell, who has obtained the needed link up using the matched frequencies that you think will work.
   However, I don't go by nor tune to certain matched frequencies. Those guys that have gone that route have shown less output than what I have shown. So, unless you can show us how well it works this 3 to 1, or any other matched set of frequencies, I will continue to use the same system (current transformer tuning) that I show in my last video that I posted. That idea came from T-1000, and it has worked out to be the best way to tune the kacher to the grenade frequencies, to obtain the best output for me. Yet, there is no OU. Not once, nor ever. And in order to really tune this contraption you need a full set of tuning caps. Which at this time and at $30 each for the 2000v wima 0.47uf caps, it's a rather expensive proposal. My last video which I posted just a few days ago, again, has some important information, especially for you so I suggest that you watch it.
It's under my name, Nick Zec on YT.
   Current transformer tuning is where the best sync is, that I've found. I have mentioned and have linked to that video several times. And have no better method at this time, to find the best sync. Yet,  with no OU. I am always truthful, even now, no BS.

   NickZ
   
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-05-26, 06:01:02