PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-04-22, 07:35:11
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The Unidirectional Transformer of Jensen  (Read 806 times)

Full Member
***

Posts: 162
1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it
2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist

Hi Fred,

You right, situation often goes like this.
But in this particular case, UJT was tested many times and it is clear that it does not work (as described).

Regards,
Vasik


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Vasik041,

What do you think of the Ivanov flux switch device? It uses the same principle as the UDT in the output stage, where two secondaries oppose each across a gap (in this case a point contact between a toroid and an I core).  I see you included it in your excellent FECD manual.

Fred
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 162
Hi Vasik041,

What do you think of the Ivanov flux switch device? It uses the same principle as the UDT in the output stage, where two secondaries oppose each across a gap (in this case a point contact between a toroid and an I core).  I see you included it in your excellent FECD manual.

Fred

I think Ivanov's device is interesting and worth researching.
But why you say that it has same principle ? I understand that in Ivanov's setup flux of permanent magnet modulated by changing
permeability of core fragment. And in UJT no core saturation should happen...or did I miss something ?

PS I tried building a variation of Ivanov's setup, with materials I have maximum COP I achieved 45%.
My friend made FEMM simulations for several similar setups and he got OU results, not sure, however, how trustworthy it is but anyway...

Regards







---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1090
The problem with F6's acceptance that it is relativity that links electric and magnetic field effects is that it doesn't explain exactly what are the quanta travelling at light velocity that create the effects.  The concept of a field is just a mathematical way of describing such effects, but it is really the manner in which matter reacts to those quanta which we see as a field.  In my mind I see those quanta as sub photonic particles carrying momentum and spin, space if full of an enormous number of these.  All matter continually absorbs and emits these particles.  Gravity, inertia, electric and magnetic effects can all be explained, and that includes the relative velocities that yield magnetic effects from the basic electrical ones.
Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 305
For me too, the photon, real or virtual, is the mediator of electromagnetic interaction. But we can't mix QM and classical physics. When we talk about "electric or magnetic fields", we are in classical physics (including relativity and its 4D space-time, but not a Hilbert space).



---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Vasik041,

I may be misunderstanding the mode of operation. It looks to me like PM flux is shunted back and forth between the toroid containing the secondaries, and the saturating core on the right. The toroid more or less fulfills the UDT-type conditions:
1) low reluctance path between opposing secondaries
2) relatively high reluctance path back to the saturating coil.
Under those conditions, not all the secondary flux passes back to the control coil--some 'nullifies' in the toroid (recognizing the word is not the best, I like 'cancel' even less).
If this was not Ivanov's intention, why would he use the toroid? Why not just put a secondary on a stick core in the gap?

I think there are many conditions that have to be fulfilled for this type of device to be OU.
1) The general sizing of the device is important. Many sims done on various devices show that the larger the cores, especially the cross section, the better the efficiency.
2) How easy is it to saturate the control core? This depends on the core material Bsat and dimensions of course.
3) Is the toroid the same material as the rest of the core? In one test that showed zero loading on the primary with heavy loading on four secondaries, the toroid was made of metglas and the rest of the core(s) were ferrite. The use of two materials allows for essentially zero gap, that still blocks secondary flux from entering the primary core. (keeping the secondary flux out of the main core does nothing really, except force it to 'nullify' itself.).

Regards,
Fred
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 162
Hi Fred,

Here documents from my archive about Ivanov's device.
Not very good English (google translated from Bulgarian), but still give good picture how device supposed to work.

Regards


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 305
...
Of course, one can use any rationale for considering or rejecting an idea, and to me that is perfectly legitimate.
...
Hi Orthofield,

I think I understand the method you use and agree with it. I don't think we disagree much, except on the thresholds of credibility that are placed to decide whether something is worthy or not.

But the three points you mention are oversimplified. Here, revised, is my proposal for a rejection (it is not exhaustive, there are many other cases):
1) the theory is completely conventional (no measurement results or theoretical points of the inventor specify how it would deviate from it, example: Jensen).
2) the theory is unconventional and the author does not propose any experiment that would have results different from those predicted by conventional theories (therefore useless theory)
3) There is an observation of results, but they can also be explained by conventional theories (this is the case of almost all experiments claimed to show new phenomena, generally because their authors are incompetent in the theoretical field of which they speak)

Concerning Jensen's editing, I don't understand why you put him in the "possible" to try. The use of magnetic fluxes does not introduce anything new, it is even already practiced in industry, and primary/secondary coupling remains. The way it works is perfectly clear, where would be a shadow of a beginning of a challenge to the laws of physics or engineering, nor any supporting data? Case 1.

Concerning UFOs, it's very different, there we don't have any experiment or verified theory, so the first point of your reasoning is correct:
"1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it"
But the second point and the third point are unrelated to the OU subject.
"2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist"
Any curious and critical mind will watch the film, and if it is clear, will suspect a fake, but will not affirm that it is one, unless after investigation.

I've often wondered why we always see distant and fuzzy things when it comes to UFO, and why today, when everyone has a smartphone capable of taking pictures, we still don't have clear and sharp pictures of UFO, it's like in the 60s. For me the answer is the following: what is filmed from afar can be confused with a UFO because it is fuzzy, but when it is close you see what it is, it is not a UFO, so you don't take a picture of it.

Remember that only those who make the positive statement ("it is a UFO"), have the burden of proof.

The fact that you mix free energy and UFO as a method concerns me a little bit.
Unlike the case of UFOs, in the electromagnetic domain we know how build setups because we have a theory that is more than a century old, verified by all electrical technology.
Why should Jensen's montage work differently from what the theory predicts, or why would it bring something paradoxical? This is where we wait for the idea or principle, and there is nothing but an error, the one that opposing flows would cancel the reaction on the primary, which is a false intuition.
If you don't have sufficient theoretical skills in electromagnetism, how would you know that this setup is not in conformity with it? And if you have them, then it will be necessary to explain the question of its extent of divergence from classical theories, and in a strong formalism, equal to the claim. If you can't, it's better to study electromagnetism than to experiment to finally see that there's nothing new about it, and to repeat the mistake at the next crazy patent.


---------------------------
"Chance favours only the prepared mind."  Louis Pasteur
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3075


Buy me some coffee
just a question to all.

Dose anyone know of a liquid that becomes magnetic when hit with a laser beam ?.


Brad


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

Posts: 2437
just a question to all.

Dose anyone know of a liquid that becomes magnetic when hit with a laser beam ?.


Brad

    Very intriguing possibility, but - no, I don't know of such a liquid.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Vasik041,

Thanks for the info, I'll take a look!

F.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Vasik041,

Ah yes, I see that I was mistaken. I was identifying output flux paths as input, and vice versa. It doesn't use the UDT principle. The toroid acts as a saturating flux switch. This is a conventional technology, and I've always wondered if it could be used in a PM flux switcher.

F.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi F6FLT,

I agree with your schema of classification, only in where Jensen fits into it. Jensen was tested in 2006-- the document UDT-A-01 is part of those test results. The attached test was also done at that time. What do you think?
I admit these were somewhat cursory tests, but they do show an anomaly.
 
These tests are only a couple of the data points that led me to think the UDT is a good candidate. Rather than elaborate further, until some serious discussion happens about the two above test results, I'll simply list my sources here, just to show I'm not putting something forward at random.
Harold Aspden's Three Experiments in Magnetism
Jim Murray's patent Transforming Generator
Paul Lawrence's HUE device
Groehl's patent on Substantial Nullification of Magnetic Fluxes (used in huge magnets for high energy research)
Frolov's Phi Transformer
Tupper's patent Low Inductance Electrical Machine (in commercial production)
Cobb's Energy Conserver Circuit (tested successfully in a business in California)
Graham Gunderson's patent Solid State Electrical Generator
my tests done with Roberto Notte
Leslie Szabo's patent Compensation Circuit For Electrical Generators (currently in production in Switzerland)
Papers on all-negative and all-positive interference in acoustics and optics

Now, if you were to read all these papers/patents one after the other, you might be hard put to see how they all connect. It would be easy to find flaws in any one or several of them. But as I said, I look for overall patterns, not particularly honing in on errors or details (which often gets me into trouble when a specific patent or device is concerned).

In truth, I am not even a technical person at core, but an intuitive (in this case, someone who can grasp a pattern without fully understanding it) and a paper pusher. I decided early on that solving the world's energy problems was more important than being an experimental musician or poet, so I began to teach myself physics and electronics out of the books in my shop. I only read what does not bore me, which means there are plenty of holes in my knowledge. I am terrible at math. My gifts are that I have an extraordinary memory, and a good record of picking projects that are successful to at least some degree. I think out of maybe 20 serious projects I've promoted since I started this work, I picked right in more than 10 of them. (These are approximations). I am also pretty good at picking projects that WON'T work, but I am also kind, so I hold my tongue in those cases. :-)
Now that says absolutely nothing about whether I picked right in this case-- just wanted to tell you where I'm coming from...

Regards,
Fred


   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1090
Hi Orthofield,
I presume the BH plots were produced in the usual way by measuring the currents in the coils then using the turns count and the core geometry to convert that to H.  Also by integrating the voltage and using the turns count and geometry to get B.  In that case my comments are
(a) There is clearly an increase in the primary loop area when the secondary is loaded as would be expected. 
(b) IMO the small change in Delta B and mu is experimental error and is not significant.
(c) The secondary loop is expected to be circular and not show any permeability trait since the secondary does not supply any magnetizing current.
(d) In normal condition of reciprocity, the primary will not mirror this squashing of the narrow unloaded curve into a near circle, the primary is still supplying the magnetization current at 90 degrees to the load current.
(e) In normal case the primary plot will not reduce delta B and mu substantially when loaded, IMO that is a complete fallacy.
I therefore find no evidence that this supports Jensen.
Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Smudge,

Thanks! I will study your remarks. Can you also take a look at the first doc I sent? That would be UDT-A-01, attached here for convenience. If these two related tests don't pan out under examination, I will drop this line of inquiry.

Regards,
Fred
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 162
Hi Vasik041,

Ah yes, I see that I was mistaken. I was identifying output flux paths as input, and vice versa. It doesn't use the UDT principle. The toroid acts as a saturating flux switch. This is a conventional technology, and I've always wondered if it could be used in a PM flux switcher.

F.

Hi Fred,

Yes, it is similar to magnetic amplifier, but flux source is permanent magnet.
With no doubt this works, but how efficient ? Magnetic amplifiers known as low efficient devices.
Can this kind of switching give OU ? May be, I don't know for sure, there are pros and cons.

Regards,
Vasik






---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1090
Hi Smudge,

Thanks! I will study your remarks. Can you also take a look at the first doc I sent? That would be UDT-A-01, attached here for convenience. If these two related tests don't pan out under examination, I will drop this line of inquiry.

Regards,
Fred
I saw that first time round but ignored it as the useful COP was only below 50%.  On a closer look I think there is something wrong with the assessment.  Taking the Tek measurements the unloaded primary data yielding so called "hysteresis" power has 81.75 degree phase between V and i, and the 4.556 input power must be almost wholly i2R loss in the primary coil since that works out at more than 4.556 watts (actually 5.743 watts)!  If we believe the i2R value to be accurate, then the measuring system is not handling the "hysteresis" (area of the loop) value very well, it is yielding a low value some 21% too low.  And it is not core hysteresis but really the area of the elliptical Lissajous for displayed V against i but calculated via the normal V*i*power factor.  Core hysteresis can be ignored as it is insignificant compared to the primary coil loss.

Taking the loaded primary results there is still a significant phase between V and i of 73.62 degrees, so the input is still highly reactive.  If we assume that the poor "hysteresis" measurement error is still reading 21% low in this instance, then the input power of 8.533 watts should be increased to 10.756 watts.  Then taking all the known i2R outputs together yields a total output power of 9.584 watts, i.e. an absolute COP of 0.891.  Or more likely a COP of unity and the "hysteresis" measuring error for that 73.62 degrees phase is somewhat less than 21%.

Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Hi Smudge,

Thanks for your very cogent analysis! I took it for granted that the scope pic directly represented the hysteresis, and that his numbers were good. This is how I keep learning :-)
Well, actually, it's good to clear the decks on that concept, it's been bugging me for a while. I still think there is a way of increasing voltage there, but it isn't OU.
 

F.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1090
Hi Ortho,

Yes measuring primary current with the secondary unloaded yields the magnetizing current which would in a perfect transformer be 90 degree phase shifted from the voltage and be purely reactive.  When the phase shift is less than 90 degrees you can determine the real power consumed but that is both core and coil loss.  If you know the resistance of the coil you can account for coil loss and determine the core loss.  In the data you gave the core is apparently not consuming power but actually delivering power because the i2R coil loss is greater than the real power input.  If you are looking for OU then there you have it :).  But do we really believe that?  My take is the measuring system was delivering a poor estimate of the phase shift and that accounted for the error.  It is worth noting that for a well designed transformer where the maximum primary load current is much greater than the magnetizing current the input power under no-load conditions is very close to the core loss because the i2R loss is then negligible, the primary is designed to have low R to make this so.

Smudge
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 191
Yes, all those pieces were probably in my brain somewhere, but not in a usable fashion :-)

Fred
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-04-22, 07:35:11