PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > Holcomb and other FE technology debate
2023-09-26, 22:36:45
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22
Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate  (Read 49793 times)
Topic Options img
img  F6FLT
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #400 on: 2022-09-27, 09:37:03 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1909
I'm sorry Partzman, because I know your competence as an experimenter and I don't question it, but I don't understand your enthusiasm for this twisted setup, with only reactive secondary load, L3, and moreover loaded at the start.
I see a multitude of measurement details but where is the circuit equation showing the calculation of the effect between the input and the output, and thus allowing to say which measurements would indicate if Lenz's law is defeated? The essential is missing.

Moreover, the principle put forward by Flickinger, the reduction of Δi to the secondary, is ridiculous since to reduce Δi is to reduce the effect of the primary, so obviously we reduce the Lenz effect by the same amount. It's like saying that we can reduce the losses in a resistance by reducing the current, when what we need to be told is how to reduce it for the current we need.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  partzman
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #401 on: 2022-09-27, 15:20:44 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1627
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-09-27, 09:37:03
I'm sorry Partzman, because I know your competence as an experimenter and I don't question it, but I don't understand your enthusiasm for this twisted setup, with only reactive secondary load, L3, and moreover loaded at the start.

My enthusiasm comes from the fact that excess energy can be observed from this simple setup.  Yes, it is a small amount of energy but it is the concept that counts IMO. 

Quote
I see a multitude of measurement details but where is the circuit equation showing the calculation of the effect between the input and the output, and thus allowing to say which measurements would indicate if Lenz's law is defeated? The essential is missing.

I understand that you wish to see an "equation" that proves the results I claim however, my math skills are not as they should be but I will work on that solution.  In the meantime, I do show logical proof in the paper using the calculation of the change in the primary inductance for the near elimination of the Lenz effect using a less-than-perfect inductor for the current source. 

Quote
Moreover, the principle put forward by Flickinger, the reduction of Δi to the secondary, is ridiculous since to reduce Δi is to reduce the effect of the primary, so obviously we reduce the Lenz effect by the same amount. It's like saying that we can reduce the losses in a resistance by reducing the current, when what we need to be told is how to reduce it for the current we need.

Not really a good analogy in this case and here is the reason why.  A linear resistor in itself is not capable of energy gain but an inductor is capable when used under the right conditions as I have demonstrated.  In the paper, if the bias current in L2 is reversed to -100ma and L3 is flipped in polarity, L3 will show an increase in current from the starting 100ma bias current as L1 ramps up in current resulting in an energy gain.  If an ideal current source is used, the bias current in the secondary will remain the same but due to voltage levels and polarities in the transformer in both cases, a gain will be seen even in the ideal current source.

However, even with these apparent gains in the secondary, the end result of this circuit is conservative and the reasons are fully understandable.  But, if we use a PM as an axial induction source to replace the primary, then we see an energy gain as I've shown.  We could also equate a PM source to an electromagnetic source as in Holcomb.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #402 on: 2022-09-27, 19:56:05 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1909
Quote from: partzman on 2022-09-27, 15:20:44
My enthusiasm comes from the fact that excess energy can be observed from this simple setup.
...

I disagree. Without the requested equation, you can't tell. It's not enough to measure, what you measure has to be relevant to conclude.

You are doing an experiment based on a simulation that cannot show what is claimed. The easiest way is to do it again more clearly.
With LTSpice, it is possible to put a calculated trace of the total power, it is enough in the formula of a trace to add the powers U*I of the generators, the power supplied by L3 which is charged with a current at the beginning, and to subtract the R*I² of all the resistors. One must find zero (except if the time step is badly chosen, too big).
If Lenz's law is wrong, there will be a gain of energy, that should be immediately visible.
Flickinger sees an anomaly in Lenz's law coming out of a model from electromagnetism that respects it. I see the anomaly only in this fact. :)



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  partzman
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #403 on: 2022-09-28, 14:37:21 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1627
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-09-27, 19:56:05
I disagree. Without the requested equation, you can't tell. It's not enough to measure, what you measure has to be relevant to conclude.

You are doing an experiment based on a simulation that cannot show what is claimed. The easiest way is to do it again more clearly.
With LTSpice, it is possible to put a calculated trace of the total power, it is enough in the formula of a trace to add the powers U*I of the generators, the power supplied by L3 which is charged with a current at the beginning, and to subtract the R*I² of all the resistors. One must find zero (except if the time step is badly chosen, too big).
If Lenz's law is wrong, there will be a gain of energy, that should be immediately visible.
Flickinger sees an anomaly in Lenz's law coming out of a model from electromagnetism that respects it. I see the anomaly only in this fact. :)

If you are referring to the simulations in the paper, you are correct as they are conservative as stated so you're arguing a mute point!

However, if you are talking about my simple bench result shown in post #399 how can you deny the gain?

BTW, I am Flickinger.

Pm
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #404 on: 2022-09-28, 15:15:52 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1909
@Partzman

You agree that a simulation is not conclusive, and you think that a setup made from a non conclusive simulation would be valid, finally confirming a simulation error? That's a hell of a chance!  :)

It is impossible for me to know how you calculate your net gain of ~57uJ, if you have taken everything into account in the energy balance, what is the uncertainty margin on the measurements and so on.

You know as well as I do that proof of OU can only come from a self-sustaining circuit. If you really believe in it, go on, try to improve it to be able to loop it. In my experience it is always in this attempt that you find out where you went wrong. Otherwise, well, champagne!


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #405 on: 2022-10-06, 18:02:14 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #406 on: 2022-10-06, 18:30:01 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Quote from: solarlab on 2022-10-06, 18:02:14
Pretty busy lately - OT!

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/10/06/hurricane-ian-recovery-day-7/#more-238321


Update:

Needless to say - Newer LinGen Design (Rev. 2.) and Beta Results delayed until further notice.

Have a good one!

 
   
img  JimBoot
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #407 on: 2022-10-08, 22:56:10 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1670
Quote from: solarlab on 2022-10-06, 18:30:01


Update:

Needless to say - Newer LinGen Design (Rev. 2.) and Beta Results delayed until further notice.

Have a good one!
wow SL pretty amazing. Hope you and yours survived ok.
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #408 on: 2022-10-11, 16:40:58 »

Full Member
***

Posts: 120
I found in my trash the so-called magnetic brake used in industrial equipment, which sometimes has to be repaired.
Why is this not a linGen for you, if you put two pieces together? Only absolutely symmetrical, because round.
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #409 on: 2022-10-11, 18:51:26 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Quote from: JimBoot on 2022-10-08, 22:56:10
wow SL pretty amazing. Hope you and yours survived ok.


Jimboot,

Everything is fine and we all survived ok - thanks for your concern.

"Each storm cloud has a silver lining" as they say. This one did indeed have a "gold"
lining.

Right place and right time with the right prototype and documentation mixed with
a small but smart "ad-hoc" group of like-minded fellows.

A once-in-a-lifetime combination of time, place, idea and a clear demonstrated need!

But now I will (must) leave these forums, and such, to properly move this project forward.  :)

[ I should say "Thanks to Everyone" here - but I'm not able to point to a single reason why ]

Best Regards and may the "show" go on!

SL


« Last Edit: 2022-10-12, 01:01:15 by solarlab »
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #410 on: 2022-10-12, 00:20:09 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
   
img  JimBoot
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #411 on: 2022-10-13, 11:01:24 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1670
 :o who is john galt. Amazing stuff. Dont be a stranger. /jimboot pretty much everywhere on the net if you want to remain connected.
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #412 on: 2022-10-23, 01:39:01 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Another "Good Saturday Afternoon Project with the Kids"

Faradays Electromagnetic Lab

Run the "faraday_en.jar" file [unzip first] (opens the application in a window);
 
* Preferences | Privacy | uncheck Allow sending info to PhET, if you don't want anon info sent.

- Select "Electromagnet";
- Starts with a Battery and Compass, now, also show the Field Meter;
- Align compass and field meter to horizontal center of the coil (move Battery/Coil up a bit);
- Align the Field Meter to where B & Bx are equal, and By and Phase are 0 (Battery at 10V);

Now, move the Battery Voltage from 10V to 0V (center position with mouse);

Quickly move between 0V and 10V, try not to go negative (a bit tricky at first).
Notice how the Compass and Field Meter respond! [Pulsed DC into a coil? Field reaction?]
For comparison try the Pickup Coil application (this is what we are all familiar with).

Question: Is this annimation correct? Test it using the Supplemental below.

The simulation is found here:
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/browse   (scroll to the right a bit)
Physics - Faraday's Law - related sims (bottom) "Faraday's Electromagnetic Lab."
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/faraday [legacy java version download, if needed]
(program attached in a 7z zip file)

Supplemental

A good Saturday afternoon exercise with the Kids - download "Gauss Meter" on an Android
phone or Tablet. And, wrap a few turns of wire around a Nail (or whatever) to form a Coil.

Remove the Nail from the Coil and touch the Coil terminals to Battery terminals, record the Gauss.
Repeat the process again but with the Nail inside the Coil and record the Gauss!

Question: Did the Iron Nail provide any "Magnetic Field" gain w.r.t. the air Coil?

Try more wire turns and/or nails, and so forth...
Don't saturate your "Meter" - but, to reset the phone magnetometer, move it around for a bit.

SL
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #413 on: 2022-10-23, 07:20:40 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Quote from: JimBoot on 2022-10-13, 11:01:24
:o who is john galt. Amazing stuff. Dont be a stranger. /jimboot pretty much everywhere on the net if you want to remain connected.

Check your PM!
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #414 on: 2022-10-31, 01:06:54 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Another "Good Saturday Afternoon Project with the Kids"
    (Gather-round and get the popcorn!)

The Physics of Magnetic Monopoles [The Royal Institute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY

In physics, why is it that things can have an electric charge, but not a
magnetic charge? Can you get a magnet with only a north or south pole?

Q&A: The Physics of Magnetic Monopoles
   - Interesting "first question" and "answer"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQpNh2nOhpE


Engineering magnetics -- practical introduction to BH curve [Applied Science]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UFKl9fULkA

A practical introduction to understanding magnetic devices such as
transformers and motors.  This video covers BH curves, reluctance,
permeability, DC and AC magnetic circuits, and some applications.

Scary Stuff!  # Happy Holloween #
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #415 on: 2022-11-06, 21:22:02 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317

Saturday Update

While developing a chapter on the Clemente Figuera [Figueras] (1908) excess energy generator it was
found that the Figuera and Holcomb devices have a great deal of synergy.

Therefore, the Figuera CAE Analysis and further work on the LinGen characteristics has been moved to a
Forum primarily dedicated to Figuera.

Both these methods and techniques offer some exciting discovery.

Regards,

SL
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #416 on: 2022-11-11, 02:59:31 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
LinGen Design - Initial Analytics (use of formulas)

To answer how the initial "Wild Ass Guess [WAG]" came out quite close to something
that was near usable in a Numerics CAE Analysis; an analytics approach (a few formulas)
was taken once the operation was understood (to some extent, at least) and the key
elements needed for the operation became more clear.

See the attached .pdf for a brief explaination of the analytics (formulas) involved, including
a link to a good online physics calculator for iterative solving of "Faraday's Law."

Hopefully this is easy to understand for everyone and of some value!

SL
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #417 on: 2022-11-12, 04:49:41 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317

Confusion between B and H (a bit of a follow-up)

The attached article from Encyclopedia Magnetica (http://e-magnetica.pl)
attempts to explain the detail behind a problem regarding magnetic field quantities
Magnetic Flux Density "B" and Magnetic Field Strength "H".

"Both B and H are strickly defined in terms of measurement units as well as their physical
meaning. Only the names are problematic, not the units or mathematical calculations. Theoritical
Physics and Engineering approaches differ."

SL
   
img  Smudge
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #418 on: 2022-11-12, 09:56:42 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1762
Quote from: solarlab on 2022-11-11, 02:59:31
LinGen Design - Initial Analytics (use of formulas)
.....................
See the attached .pdf for a brief explaination of the analytics (formulas) involved, including
a link to a good online physics calculator for iterative solving of "Faraday's Law."
........................
Just one criticism and I am sure it is an unintended typo, H should be in amps/meter and not amps/turn.  To get the amps/meter value you need amps/turn (same value as amps in the winding) multiplied by turns/meter.

Smudge
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #419 on: 2022-11-12, 20:16:58 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Quote from: Smudge on 2022-11-12, 09:56:42
Just one criticism and I am sure it is an unintended typo, H should be in amps/meter and not amps/turn.  To get the amps/meter value you need amps/turn (same value as amps in the winding) multiplied by turns/meter.

Smudge

Smudge,

Amperes/Turns was used in a generic sense since Analytics has no idea about the winding coil structure and needs the "H" units from the B-H Curve graph whereas Numerics already knows the winding coil structure, including dimensions.

Numeric CAE allows the 3D winding coil to be either a single loop drawing representing many wires or conductors within that single element and only needs the Turns or Number of Conductors to be given if it's stranded. The excitation for an external circuit will need a signal specified in current (or voltage) for transient analysis where magnetostatic generally only requires a current (amperes).

The parameters of a B-H Curve are part of the material definition allowing non-linear analysys - this is hard to do analytically.

This avoids having to draw every individual wire or conductor when using a coil winding. Makes things easier without sacrificing accuracy.
CAE manuals explain this in great detail since, at first, it might appear confusing by representing a multi-turn coil winding by a closed loop structure.

SL
   
img  Smudge
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #420 on: 2022-11-13, 11:12:24 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1762
Quote from: solarlab on 2022-11-12, 20:16:58
Smudge,

Amperes/Turns was used in a generic sense since Analytics has no idea about the winding coil structure and needs the "H" units from the B-H Curve graph whereas Numerics already knows the winding coil structure, including dimensions.

Numeric CAE allows the 3D winding coil to be either a single loop drawing representing many wires or conductors within that single element and only needs the Turns or Number of Conductors to be given if it's stranded. The excitation for an external circuit will need a signal specified in current (or voltage) for transient analysis where magnetostatic generally only requires a current (amperes).

The parameters of a B-H Curve are part of the material definition allowing non-linear analysys - this is hard to do analytically.

This avoids having to draw every individual wire or conductor when using a coil winding. Makes things easier without sacrificing accuracy.
CAE manuals explain this in great detail since, at first, it might appear confusing by representing a multi-turn coil winding by a closed loop structure.

SL
I understand what you are saying but to get the correct value of H to apply to the BH curve you should use the ampere-turns (input amps multiplied by number of turns) divided by the length of the magnetic core.  Using amps/turn gives you the wrong value.

Smudge
   
img  Smudge
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #421 on: 2022-11-13, 11:13:43 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1762
Quote from: solarlab on 2022-11-12, 20:16:58
Smudge,

Amperes/Turns was used in a generic sense since Analytics has no idea about the winding coil structure and needs the "H" units from the B-H Curve graph whereas Numerics already knows the winding coil structure, including dimensions.

Numeric CAE allows the 3D winding coil to be either a single loop drawing representing many wires or conductors within that single element and only needs the Turns or Number of Conductors to be given if it's stranded. The excitation for an external circuit will need a signal specified in current (or voltage) for transient analysis where magnetostatic generally only requires a current (amperes).

The parameters of a B-H Curve are part of the material definition allowing non-linear analysys - this is hard to do analytically.

This avoids having to draw every individual wire or conductor when using a coil winding. Makes things easier without sacrificing accuracy.
CAE manuals explain this in great detail since, at first, it might appear confusing by representing a multi-turn coil winding by a closed loop structure.

SL
I understand what you are saying but to get the correct value of H to apply to the BH curve you should use the ampere-turns (input amps multiplied by number of turns) divided by the length of the magnetic core.  Using amps/turn gives you the wrong value.

Smudge
   
img  solarlab
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #422 on: 2022-11-13, 18:08:07 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 317
Quote from: Smudge on 2022-11-13, 11:13:43
I understand what you are saying but to get the correct value of H to apply to the BH curve you should use the ampere-turns (input amps multiplied by number of turns) divided by the length of the magnetic core.  Using amps/turn gives you the wrong value.

Smudge


Glad you got it figured out. Linking Analytics and Numerics can be a bit tricky sometimes.

SL


   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #423 on: 2022-11-18, 06:41:37 »

Full Member
***

Posts: 120
Yesterday I come up with how to visually observe what is happening in a three-phase stator, what is rotating there and at what speed. We insert the CRT into the stator in the right place, where the deflection system is located.
Instead of a dot, there should be a circle in the center of the screen. The diameter of this ring will tell us the intensity of the field. And by modulating the beam in brightness with a certain frequency, we can measure the speed of rotation. Am I really smart ?  O0
« Last Edit: 2022-11-18, 11:16:14 by chief kolbacict »
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #424 on: 2022-11-19, 05:51:52 »

Full Member
***

Posts: 120
If we continue to rotate our stator or rotor in which a virtual rotating magnetic field is already created.
If not cancel it at all, but, say, half of the rotation speed is created by switching, and the
other half by ordinary mechanical rotation, as in a conventional generator.
What will we get?
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2023-09-26, 22:36:45