PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-11-29, 07:32:40
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate  (Read 23979 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
...
Holcomb is a perfect example of how it's done...
1)File a few generalized patent applications.
2)Seek investors to fast track production.
3)Go into production as fast as possible.
4)Innovate faster than all the people trying to copy the technology.
5)Worst case scenario everyone eventually steals the technology and they still win because it's all about progress.
...

It would be ideal if the techno was real and ready. Unfortunately, the past has shown that in the field of FE, the method also works perfectly with scammers or incompetents. They stop at point 3, leaving with the investors' money or asking endlessly more money for the development of the miracle machine not quite finished but almost OU it is just a matter of adjustment...  C.C
Holcomb smells like Perendev. Has everyone forgotten about Perendev? or Genesis World Energy ? or Steorn ? or Lutec ?...

It would be useful to make a list of all these free energy companies that created the buzz, that were massively commented by naive enthusiasts, and then that failed miserably.



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

Posts: 211

(MOTOR) Back EMF  and (GENERATOR) Magnetic Drag

Note: this uses the same principle as found in a wire or inductor (coil) BEMF (opposition to current change due to flux change - self generation) but, when explained differently, it might be more intuative to grasp or visualize, when considering motors and generators.

For clarity this Back-EMF with respect to generators is refered to as Magnetic Drag.

Back EMF (motor)  - a moving magnetic field (flux) will cause a conductor loop (copper wire/winding) to rotate - a MOTOR - while, at the same time, this same conductor moving in this same magnetic field creates an EMF (voltage) in the same conductor loop - a GENERATOR effect.

Magentic Drag (generator) - a conductor loop (copper wire/winding) moving through a magnetic field (flux) will cause a current to flow around the conductor loop - a GENERATOR - while, at the same time, this same conductor loop moving in this same magnetic field creates a Magnetic Drag which will oppose this rotation - a MOTOR effect.

Conventional BEMF is what keeps transformers or motors, amongst other things, from becoming "smoke generators" by equalizing the current; but not initially, as evidenced by the large initial current draw upon power up (witnessed by the lights dimming, for example, when a large motor or transformer is turned on - LRA {locked rotor amps}). The rising magnetic field (flux) creates an opposing EMF (voltage) and balances the loop - conversely - a quick "shut down" can cause a high spike.

So, the question becomes, how to eliminate "Magnetic Drag or BEMF."  Rotate the magnetic field (flux), as opposed to the physically rotation of a stator or rotor (armature), or both. Recall; for a motor, the current requirement at operational speed is only that amount needed to overcome losses (not sure that's correct, actually).

Adjacent field interaction through rotational offset is eliminated; - plus, - the magnetic field (flux) can be precisely controlled, in rapid fashion, since all rotor and stator windings are stationary and can be controlled through a digital electronic sequencing; in any combination.

Anyway, there is quite a lot to work with here! Getting close? Maybe? You never know!

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1716
I have some comments on solarlab's post about BEMF.

Quote
For clarity this Back-EMF with respect to generators is refered to as Magnetic Drag.
Incorrect.  Generators move a conductor through a magnetic field and that movement induces voltage into the conductor via the motional induction rule E = v x B, more generally recognized by Fleming's RH rule when the voltage drives current through the conductor and a load.  That current-carrying-conductor within a magnetic field endures a force via Ampere's force law and that force opposes the motion, more generally recognized by Fleming's LH rule.  That is magnetic drag.  It is not Back-EMF.

Quote
Back EMF (motor)  - a moving magnetic field (flux) will cause a conductor loop (copper wire/winding) to rotate - a MOTOR
only if the loop is shorted and that is not always the case.  Most motors source current into their windings from the electrical input and in the presence of a magnetic field create a force (Fleming's LH rule).
Quote
- while, at the same time, this same conductor moving in this same magnetic field creates an EMF (voltage) in the same conductor loop - a GENERATOR effect.
Correct and that can be considered as BEMF as it opposes the current feeding the motor, the power source has to supply that voltage and the current.

Quote
Magentic Drag (generator) - a conductor loop (copper wire/winding) moving through a magnetic field (flux) will cause a current to flow around the conductor loop - a GENERATOR - while, at the same time, this same conductor loop moving in this same magnetic field creates a Magnetic Drag which will oppose this rotation - a MOTOR effect.
Correct but that drag is not BEMF

Quote
Conventional BEMF is what keeps transformers or motors, amongst other things, from becoming "smoke generators" by equalizing the current; but not initially, as evidenced by the large initial current draw upon power up (witnessed by the lights dimming, for example, when a large motor or transformer is turned on - LRA {locked rotor amps}). The rising magnetic field (flux) creates an opposing EMF (voltage) and balances the loop - conversely - a quick "shut down" can cause a high spike.
For motors it is the rising revolution rate that creates the rising opposing EMF (rising BEMF) that eventually balances the loop.

Quote
....for a motor, the current requirement at operational speed is only that amount needed to overcome losses (not sure that's correct, actually).
That is incorrect, the current requirement at operational speed is that amount needed to overcome losses plus the amount needed to power the shaft load.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
Quote
Back EMF (motor)  - a moving magnetic field (flux) will cause a conductor loop (copper wire/winding) to rotate - a MOTOR
only if the loop is shorted and that is not always the case.
...

Of course you are right but the question goes beyond that. I know you know everything I'm going to say here, but let me make the point because the idea that a flux variation can be the cause of anything is quite penalizing for the understanding of cause and effect relationships.

If the flux were a cause, it would be non-local because the electrons are not in the flux but in the conductor of the induced circuit. A flux variation is therefore not the cause of anything in a circuit.

The one and only cause is the force on the electron in the induced circuit, which is F=q.E where E is the local electric field.
So why can we evaluate E from the variation of the flux?

To understand, we need to find Faraday's law.

Emf = ∮E.dl               integral of the electric field E on the circuit l of which dl is an element
E.dl = ∬(∇xE).n.dS    Stokes' theorem applied to E, S surface bounded by l
∇xE = -∂B/∂t             Maxwell
so ∮E.dl = -∬(∂B/∂t).n.dS

Φ = ∬B.n.dS             definition of flux, B and n are vectors, n is the unit vector, normal to the surface S of the circuit
-dΦ/dt = -∂(∬B.n.dS)/∂t = -∬∂B/∂t .n.dS
hence:
 ∮E.dl = -dΦ/dt          Faraday's law, Q.E.D.


The flux variation is only a convenient mathematical means from Stokes' theorem, but it is not a physical cause of action on the charges in the induced circuit. Only the electric field at the position of a charge creates a force.
One could also obtain the electric field from the potential vector, E=-∂A/∂t, or from relativity by applying the Lorentz transforms to the electric field of the charges at the source of the magnetic field, as seen by the charges in the induced circuit. Everything is very coherent, the magnetic field is a deceptive artifice, the only cause is the Coulomb force.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 261
AC,

I have a little different perspective on this.  Holding a patent as an individual or small company means nothing.  I speak from experience.  If you for example have FE technology, trying to protect it from the powers that be is impossible via such means! 

There is only one solution.  It must be given away.  Yes, given away freely.  Does the inventor stand to loose, absolutely.  Does mankind stand to benefit, absolutely. 

So, one must decide what action to take if he/she posses such technology!

regards,
Pm


Agreed

A Free Energy Device, that works, is Classified as National Security, and is taken from the inventor by the US Gov. here in USA.

Read it and weep...

Patent Secrecy Order
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent.


The U.S. Government’s Secret Inventions
Secrecy orders allow U.S. defense agencies to control patents, including those that are privately developed.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html

But as of 2017, according to statistics reported by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and published by the Federation of American Scientists, there were 5,784 patents that you can’t see. They’re the U.S. government’s cache of inventions under “secrecy orders.” We don’t know what they’re for, but once-secret patents recently made public have included a laser-tracking system, a warhead-production method, an anti–radar-jamming apparatus, and a stronger net
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 261
AC,

I have a little different perspective on this.  Holding a patent as an individual or small company means nothing.  I speak from experience.  If you for example have FE technology, trying to protect it from the powers that be is impossible via such means! 

There is only one solution.  It must be given away.  Yes, given away freely.  Does the inventor stand to loose, absolutely.  Does mankind stand to benefit, absolutely. 

So, one must decide what action to take if he/she posses such technology!

regards,
Pm


Agreed

A Free Energy Device, that works, is Classified as National Security, and is taken from the inventor by the US Gov. here in USA.

Read it and weep...

Patent Secrecy Order
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent.


The U.S. Government’s Secret Inventions
Secrecy orders allow U.S. defense agencies to control patents, including those that are privately developed.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html

But as of 2017, according to statistics reported by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and published by the Federation of American Scientists, there were 5,784 patents that you can’t see. They’re the U.S. government’s cache of inventions under “secrecy orders.” We don’t know what they’re for, but once-secret patents recently made public have included a laser-tracking system, a warhead-production method, an anti–radar-jamming apparatus, and a stronger net
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

BEMF Sequence and a quick test


Dividing the input signal (sine wave or other) into four equal time slots or segments per period (360deg/4=90deg) and observing the EMF and BEMF for the Primary and Secondary windings shows that for the:

- first segment (0 - 90deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed against (cancelling) the EMF of the Primary - counter-EMF.

- second segment (90 - 180deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed in the direction (aiding) of the EMF of the Primary - useful-EMF (supports current and voltage in the Primary).

- third segment (180 - 270deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed against the EMF of the Primary - counter-EMF.

- forth segment (270 - 360deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed in the direction (aiding) of the EMF of the Primary - useful-EMF (supports current and voltage in the Primary).

It might be easy to "test" this by taking two transformers and phase shift their primary inputs by 90deg (1 segment). Then remove the current only during the even segments (90deg and 270deg). Odd segments (1 and 3) should have the Secondary windings turned off - no load. Switch at the positive and negative peaks and zero crossing. Rectifying the outputs should fill all segments (360deg) since the inputs were offset by 90deg. One transformer should also work.

Compare the input and output power consumption.


« Last Edit: 2022-03-28, 04:52:45 by solarlab »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
The idea that a government could prevent free energy by blocking patents is part of the conspiracy theories around free energy.
Patents are sometimes blocked by paranoid technocrats in paranoid countries for the slightest idea that might, perhaps, have some vague connection with national defence and military techniques.
In the rest of the world, implementation of such measures remains marginal or non-existent, and blocking a free energy invention is not the interest of any government, especially in most countries, which lack natural sources of energy.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1716
........The flux variation is only a convenient mathematical means from Stokes' theorem, but it is not a physical cause of action on the charges in the induced circuit. Only the electric field at the position of a charge creates a force.
One could also obtain the electric field from the potential vector, E=-∂A/∂t, or from relativity by applying the Lorentz transforms to the electric field of the charges at the source of the magnetic field, as seen by the charges in the induced circuit. Everything is very coherent, the magnetic field is a deceptive artifice, the only cause is the Coulomb force.
Yes you are correct, flux Φ does not necessarily appear within the conductor, that is certainly the case in transformers where Φ is within the core.  You mention E=-∂A/∂t but fail to relate its connection to Faraday's law via ∮A.dl = Φ, so we get the same answer but now A is local, A is within the conductor.

As the Holcomb patent mentions a moving magnetic field, perhaps the motional induction E = v x B ought to also be considered.  That also can be related to the A field since B is related to A via the curl function which is spatial gradients of A, hence movement through space must involve a time variation of A yielding E=-∂A/∂t (the vector math proving this relationship is complicated and beyond my capabilities).

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
...You mention E=-∂A/∂t but fail to relate its connection to Faraday's law via ∮A.dl = Φ, so we get the same answer but now A is local, A is within the conductor.

I have not tried to relate it to Faraday's law. On the contrary, Faraday's law allows us to know E from Φ, and E is the fundamental notion that acts on electrons.
As E is also equal to -∂A/∂t, there is no need to go through the flux when we know A. Similarly, thanks to Einstein's relativity, E can also be known from the relative positions and velocities of the charges of a magnetic source with respect to the influenced charges. This last point shows why Lenz's law will never be cancelled, since it is a simple reciprocity of a single effect between charges.
Φ, and even the magnetic field, are superfluous except to possibly facilitate the calculations.


Quote
As the Holcomb patent mentions a moving magnetic field, perhaps the motional induction E = v x B ought to also be considered.  That also can be related to the A field since B is related to A via the curl function which is spatial gradients of A, hence movement through space must involve a time variation of A yielding E=-∂A/∂t (the vector math proving this relationship is complicated and beyond my capabilities).

Smudge

I totally agree. The problem is that even if we consider that E is also generated by the spatial derivative of A, Holcomb's patent shows us a machine of quite conventional design. I don't see any original ideas that would suggest an unpredictable phenomenon, such as OU. So I don't see what we can experiment with here. Testing our own ideas seems to me a lesser waste of time.  :)


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

Posts: 211

Energizing Current

In the "four segment" sequence previously outlined a "load" was connected only during the even (2 and 4) segments.

Since odd segments are unloaded, the primary acts like a simple inductor. In this highly inductive load the current and voltage are nearly 90deg out of phase. This so called "energizing current" sets up the flux in the core and, although this current can be rather high, it will still not use much power since current and voltage are so far out of phase (inductive reactance).

The "energizing current" is determined primarily by the inductive reactance of the primary winding.

When the load is connected (even segments) to the secondary both the primary current and the phase angle changes. Amount of change is is determined by how heavily the transformer is loaded with the optimum being resistive (current and voltage being in-phase) thus providing real power to the load.

The primary voltage and current can vary from 90deg (inductive - reactive) to 0deg (resistive - optimum power transfer - apparent power and true power of the primary are nearly equal - power factor approaches 1) based on the secondary load.

Load on the secondary is reflected back to primary which, in turn, would draw the required power from the source, however, only loading during even sequences causes the BEMF voltage and current to assist (recall odd sequence BEMF oppose).

This is not really a fly-back scheme (the load is disconnected at zero crossing and connected at peak).


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
First Things First - the Napkin CAD

Please note that my scribblings here are entirely focused on discovering one, or more, possible methods or techniques that Holcomb might employ in his motionless generator.

A simple "deductive reasoning" based from a "basic analytical approach" (a napkin CAD block overview), using primary definitions (fundamental, known understandings) without formulas, numerics or derivations; since these would only cloud the fundamental search and understanding at this point.

Once, one or more, clear "concepts" of "how this device might work" surfaces, these can be evaluated and analyzed in great detail using modern Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools - but first "viable concepts" are required, then the simple or, more likely, complex details of implementation will be developed.

Getting "too far into the weeds" initially - only serves to cloud and confuse. Also, text book formulas, numerics, etc. although extremely valuable in validating concepts (laws) they become transparent when employing CAE.

Holcomb's web pages and patents provide some hints but no real explainations. Other than the magnetic field rotates (not a rotor), ferro/para magnetic iron provides excess energy gain, and a PLC controller and solid state relays switch the coil/windings in some fashion; Holcomb does not provide "the Napkin CAD!"

He does provide some nice cartoons and photos; but, more importantly, he feeds the vision (illusion?) of a fuel free energy future.


   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 90
I looked at https://holcombenergysystems.com/ and the videos https://holcombenergysystems.com/video/ .

I am afraid, this is at least a delution, if not a scam. The experiment concerning the unpaired electrons in iron atoms should have been peer reviewed and the contraption (see the attached foto) shouild have been measured and inspected for a hidden power dource by an independent party.

The web site offers only nonsense (promis of a great future) and no supporting independently verified data. In this respect it is a typical scam web site.

My suspision: there was an inconclusive experiment which might give hope, and now they want inverstors to develope something that really works. The contraption on the foto is also something inconclusive.

Since decades I observe these magical inventions and great promisses, but all start at the wrong end. A good invention delivers peer reviewed concepts and independent measurements. The talk about a great future comes after the facts, not before.

Greetings, Conrad

   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

Holcomb - Methods and Techniques that lend themselves to the Appliation

Since the windings (coils) are stationary and can be or are individually controlled (switched), a variety of techniques could be applied individually, or in combination, to this device to achieve excess energy.

1. BEMF manipulation - as explained above in BEMF Sequence.

2. More than one induced winding (coil/flux) can be excited by a single inducer winding (coil/flux). This method is evidenced in a variety of claimed excess energy devices (a single central coil "fluxing" many surrounding coils).

3. Manipulation of the di/dt and/or dv/dt inducer waveform (variable/modulated flux w.r.t Faraday-Lenz - by definition).

4. Gains are also achieved by the use of fast rising signals, high voltage/low current, high frequencies, steep BH curves, etc.

Use of the "motor frame" might be for convience only (rotor, stator, windings already exist and are easily obtainable). Tap the windings/coils as required and simply "switch" them in whatever sequence you determine via relays or SiC (fast, low on resistance, high voltage) MosFETS and controller/computer.

On it's face the concept provides a lot to work with - controllable fixed windings (and lots of them) - a suitable enclosure.

A rotating magnetic field replacing a conventional generator rotor - what's to be gained there? You see a "few poles" every revolution?

See them all, all the time, always aiding. Your not trying to move anything - just create flux interaction and reduce losses/BEMF!


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

To conclude this "Napkin CAD" review of the Holcomb device; there is an attached pdf file titled "Simplified Basics - Lenz's Law - the System"

There may well be other methods to achieve Holcombs "claims," however the attached scheme appears to provide one probable technique.

 "When viewing a system composed of only wire/coils and EMF (voltage), there isn't much to consider other than Farady's and Lenz's Laws, Ohm's Law (voltage and a subset of current and resistance), as well as the cycles, phases and polarity."

A "brute force" BEMF approach, which does not use the "load switching" technique described in the "Simplified Basics" attachment, is also found in the attached patent "EP0932248A1 Method of harnessing a back-emf." This patent also, in a way, elludes to production of "excess energy."

The CAE analysis might provide a positive "next step."


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
Of course you can get the back emf back. The back emf is as the name implies, the emf you put in the circuit and it comes back, minus the losses.
So what's the big deal?

Ainslie, Rosemary Ann, another old story out. Tinselkoala has demonstrated beyond any doubt the ineptitude of the theory and the glaring errors in measurement by this incompetent, who then sought to harm the detractors of her pseudo-invention.

If one wants to prevent the search for free energy, nothing better than to make the unhealthy and inconsistent stories reappear. By sending people down these lousy trails, they will have less time to spend on their own original ideas.


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

Posts: 1550
I looked at https://holcombenergysystems.com/ and the videos https://holcombenergysystems.com/video/ .

I am afraid, this is at least a delution, if not a scam. The experiment concerning the unpaired electrons in iron atoms should have been peer reviewed and the contraption (see the attached foto) shouild have been measured and inspected for a hidden power dource by an independent party.

The web site offers only nonsense (promis of a great future) and no supporting independently verified data. In this respect it is a typical scam web site.

My suspision: there was an inconclusive experiment which might give hope, and now they want inverstors to develope something that really works. The contraption on the foto is also something inconclusive.

Since decades I observe these magical inventions and great promisses, but all start at the wrong end. A good invention delivers peer reviewed concepts and independent measurements. The talk about a great future comes after the facts, not before.

Greetings, Conrad

I completely agree. Their method is not the right one, it is the one used either in scams (Perendev) or in mistakes (Steorn).


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

Posts: 211
Of course you can get the back emf back. The back emf is as the name implies, the emf you put in the circuit and it comes back, minus the losses.
So what's the big deal?

Ainslie, Rosemary Ann, another old story out. Tinselkoala has demonstrated beyond any doubt the ineptitude of the theory and the glaring errors in measurement by this incompetent, who then sought to harm the detractors of her pseudo-invention.

If one wants to prevent the search for free energy, nothing better than to make the unhealthy and inconsistent stories reappear. By sending people down these lousy trails, they will have less time to spend on their own original ideas.


Have you tried the "test" outlined in this link? https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98237#msg98237. More detail is provided in the pdf above "Simplified Basics - Lenz's Law - the System".

BEMF Sequence and a quick test

Dividing the input signal (sine wave or other) into four equal time slots or segments per period (360deg/4=90deg) and observing the EMF and BEMF for the Primary and Secondary windings shows that for the:

- first segment (0 - 90deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed against (cancelling) the EMF of the Primary - counter-EMF.

- second segment (90 - 180deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed in the direction (aiding) of the EMF of the Primary - useful-EMF (supports current and voltage in the Primary).

- third segment (180 - 270deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed against the EMF of the Primary - counter-EMF.

- forth segment (270 - 360deg) the electric field and EMF of the Secondary are directed in the direction (aiding) of the EMF of the Primary - useful-EMF (supports current and voltage in the Primary).

It might be easy to "test" this by taking two transformers and phase shift their primary inputs by 90deg (1 segment). Then remove the current only during the even segments (90deg and 270deg). Odd segments (1 and 3) should have the Secondary windings turned off - no load. Switch at the positive and negative peaks and zero crossing. Rectifying the outputs should fill all segments (360deg) since the inputs were offset by 90deg. One transformer should also work.

Compare the input and output power consumption.


Or, a similar type experiment or a computer analysis, where the load is switched to capture only the counter emf, as described above.

Curious what your results were, or what your observations were; or even why you think it does not work - thats all.


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
It doesn't make sense.


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

Posts: 211
OK, thanks for your observation/feedback.

Was thinking/hoping the waveform diagrams in the pdf on pages 3 and 4 would make sense; thought they would be/were self-explanatory.

In particular these two - Oh well...
 

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
Nothing can explain a type 1 perpetual motion from conventional electromagnetism, question of internal consistency of the mathematical formalism used in physics.


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

Posts: 211

F6FLT - noticed you are venturing into CAE analysis using CST, a great move IMHO.

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg98415#msg98415

Also observed "Smudge" is using FEMM as well.

Based from years of experience; applying CAE will open up a whole new world of discovery.

Very encouraging to say the least! 

Have a good one.

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Solarlab,

Below is a sim that represents the conceptual waveforms from your posted pdf.  The load is switched into the secondary at 90-180 degrees and 270-360 degrees.  From the plot math we see that the output is far from being OU.  Is my interpretation correct or...?

Regards,
Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Solarlab,

Below is a sim that represents the conceptual waveforms from your posted pdf.  The load is switched into the secondary at 90-180 degrees and 270-360 degrees.  From the plot math we see that the output is far from being OU.  Is my interpretation correct or...?

Regards,
Pm

Partzman,

First off; thanks for sharing your sim. At first glance it appears your interpretation is correct (connecting the "load" only during the even portions of the 1/4 cycle sequence). Nice work.

Since the circuit is only capturing "output" during two of the four cycles, at best the output will only be 1/2 the input. The plot of watts in/2 (0.6153) vs watts out (0.33839) is a little short of that (0.27691W) - wonder whether Vin needs an Rin=50 (match ?). What would be really nice to see is the "non modified" circuit power significantly drop (maybe to 10% - optomistic aye!) when the modification is applied.

Anyway - promising IMHO.

BTW, also thanks for jogging me out of the Rabbit Hole - that is; thinking about using a Spice Simulator - been wrapped around the axle with 3D EM for too long without thinking too clearly about the "real (napkin CAD) task" at hand.

When time permits - will look at this using my dusty copy of MicroCAP 12 (now free btw - similar to LTSpice from what they say). Curious to see what a Pulsed Vin looks like in the Spice type simulator. It is nice to be able to quickly examine a circuit/concept without a physical build.

Regards
SL

From the Forum/Dilbert file:  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voHGyN93Ru4

===========

OT but related:

MicroCAP 12 (now free) download: https://www.spectrum-soft.com/download/download.shtm
NOTE: May not be available for download much longer - web site doesn't appear to be maintained anymore.

For anyone interested in the MicroCAP 12 Spice simulator software, a good series of "getting started" type videos can be found here -
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0_iMoMBSslK1NFAXIEBsTnFzP8u9BGH

Powerful, comprehensive, easy to learn, and free! (probably the best spice simulator out there). Enjoy!





« Last Edit: 2022-04-10, 03:01:58 by solarlab »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

Partzman,

A great deal of the "elimiation of counter-emf" approach stems from discussions a few years back with a "theoretical" Physicist. Over time the discussions amounted to many hundreds of pages. Some transcribed notes relating to counter-emf mitigation from those discussion are attached.

You're likely familiar with his work, but if not... hopefully, a bit more insight into what Holcomb's device operation methods might be.

BTW - it appears the Ruslan type devices are affected by changes in the atmospheric electric field - causes the instability; therefore this magnetic scheme is attractive (its mobile and requires no connections/interactions with earth).

SL


   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-11-29, 07:32:40