PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-11-29, 07:07:41
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

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 23976 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550

Serious question, does this hold true for a LOPT running in discontinuos mode?

Cadman

This is still true. There is no Lenz flux.

Magnetism is only a relativistic effect linked to the displacement of charges. The induction effect is simply the coulombic law F=q*E: the electrons of the primary and secondary circuit interact with each other in a perfectly symmetrical way, each creating the field E at the position of the other.
See the attached excerpt from the course which explains this very well in the case of the force on parallel wires carrying a current, which is the coulombic force on the electrons that are transferred to the crystal lattice of the conductor.

In the case of induction, where the force on the electrons must no longer be transverse but along the conductor for a current to flow, why is a variable current necessary for this force to appear?

Because under the effect of the acceleration of the electrons, their electric field is no longer isotropic, it is deformed, see attached picture. This deformation means that the field is no longer transverse to the conductor but has a component along the conductor, so we have a force on the electrons along the conductor, so a current in the secondary. The same action takes place in the other direction, from the electrons in the secondary circuit to the primary circuit. Induction by the primary in the secondary and by the secondary in the primary (Lenz law) are one and the same phenomenon related to the relativity of the movement of charges.

Contrary to what one might think, it is indeed by the relativity applied to Coulomb's law that magnetism is the simplest to understand. For the calculation, it is more complicated, but not more than by Maxwell's equations which, if they are well relativistic, require to use quadrivectors for the fields if we want the same rigor of results.
A "flux" is only a mathematical artifice, not a physical object. And even in this way, this flux is unique, shared between the primary and the secondary.



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

Posts: 2318
smudge
Quote
Where, in a good transformer, is this induced field?  The answer is it doesn't exist.  Yes the secondary current could create an opposing field but it does not do so.  The field from the magnetizing current in the primary is there whether or not the secondary is loaded, and it doesn't change in magnitude between being unloaded (no secondary current) and fully loaded (lots of secondary current).  (I did say a good transformer, if there is flux leakage then there is a slight difference in the flux).  What many people don't realize is that the transformer works without any Lenz flux.  The flux that could have been created by the secondary current doesn't exist because the load current in the primary as a mmf exactly cancels the mmf of the load current in the secondary.  THERE IS NO LENZ FLUX.

When I was doing experiments on transformer action I came to a different conclusion.

First I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with only the primary winding on the core. As expected it acted like an inductor and the majority of energy input showed up on the output when the field collapsed.

Next I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with the primary and an unloaded secondary. Nothing changed and again the primary acted like an inductor.

Then I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with the primary and a loaded secondary. The current in the primary increased in proportion to the load on the secondary.

Here we would ask a logical question, why did the current increase on the primary?. Forget the secondary, how can the current increase on the primary?. The most logical answer is that 1)the core became saturated with more magnetic field lowering the inductance or 2)the primary field was opposed which lowered the inductance ie. Lenz law. In fact, opening the core, reducing the core or saturating the core with an external field will also change the current on the primary.

We could also think of it this way...
1)the only thing limiting the primary current/EMF is a counter EMF or self-induction.
2)What is self-induction?, an increasing current/expanding field induces a force which opposes the current increase. Also, a decreasing current/collapsing field induces a force which opposes the current decrease.
3)Ergo, the only reasonable explanation for a current increase under load must relate to a change in the self-inductance. That is, a change in the magnitude/direction of the field change which caused the self-induction limiting the current in the first place. Any current cannot just change for no apparent reason and there must be a specific sequence of events and forces linking cause and effect in every case.

This is where things get fun because once we start to understand what's actually happening with respect to cause and effect we can begin to work around the problem.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

AC,

You have missed/overlooked five, or more, very key fundamental observations in this Holcomb device:

1.  A Pulsed DC current sequence is used to drive the Pole Coils (not AC - which generally a transformer employs).

2. There are no shared "common transformer cores" - it does not operate like, nor resemble a transformer.

3. In Holcomb's devices  there are no primary - secondary windings as we know and understand them.

4. This device functions as a Generator, of sorts, where a load would ordinarily lug the motor (prime mover).

5. There is no "Prime Mover" so to speak, or rather, the prime mover is, in effect, a moving magnetic field.

Ergo, Apples and Oranges... they are simply not the same other than sharing magnetics (fruit family but that's it)!

SL


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

HES LinGen TIMING PULSE SEQUENCE 4 Pole (rev 1.0)

Maybe someone could varify this sequence against the patent disclosure
(as described under Fig. 20 in the 2018 patent).

Got it wrong once - but Partzman caught the error, thanks again!


   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
I perfectly understand what you are talking about.
You believe that no energy will be spent on the rotation of the virtual magnetic field.
In contrast to how energy is spent on the mechanical rotation of the generator rotor.
I don't have an answer to this question. Well if that were the case. :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1716
smudge
When I was doing experiments on transformer action I came to a different conclusion.

First I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with only the primary winding on the core. As expected it acted like an inductor and the majority of energy input showed up on the output when the field collapsed.

Next I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with the primary and an unloaded secondary. Nothing changed and again the primary acted like an inductor.

Then I measured the current, voltage and magnetic field strength with the primary and a loaded secondary. The current in the primary increased in proportion to the load on the secondary.

Here we would ask a logical question, why did the current increase on the primary?. Forget the secondary, how can the current increase on the primary?. The most logical answer is that 1)the core became saturated with more magnetic field lowering the inductance or 2)the primary field was opposed which lowered the inductance ie. Lenz law. In fact, opening the core, reducing the core or saturating the core with an external field will also change the current on the primary.

We could also think of it this way...
1)the only thing limiting the primary current/EMF is a counter EMF or self-induction.
2)What is self-induction?, an increasing current/expanding field induces a force which opposes the current increase. Also, a decreasing current/collapsing field induces a force which opposes the current decrease.
3)Ergo, the only reasonable explanation for a current increase under load must relate to a change in the self-inductance. That is, a change in the magnitude/direction of the field change which caused the self-induction limiting the current in the first place. Any current cannot just change for no apparent reason and there must be a specific sequence of events and forces linking cause and effect in every case.

This is where things get fun because once we start to understand what's actually happening with respect to cause and effect we can begin to work around the problem.

Regards
AC
Yes you could come to that conclusion if you only measured the primary current magnitude, and ignored the phase relationship to the primary voltage.  But if you also measured phase you would see that when the secondary is loaded there is NOT a change in primary self inductance, so your reasoning is flawed.  The classical theoretical model of a transformer used by all electrical engineers since the year dot correctly shows that the self inductance does not change.  What does change when looking into the primary is the resistance, which is just losses when the secondary is unloaded but becomes a much larger loss (except it isn't loss because the extra energy is being used) when the secondary is loaded. 

A more reasoned look into cause and effect comes about when you delve further into how the transformer actually works, why do the electrons in the secondary coil endure a force when they are not actually within a magnetic field?  That takes you into the realm of the magnetic vector potential, the A field.  In the transformer the A field forms closed circles around the core, when the field in the core is changing magnitude then so is the A field, and that is what drives the electrons along the secondary wires.  You can also get a changing A field as seen by an electron that is moving through an A field that is static (not time changing) but varies spatially.  That is the basis of motional induction, and it is entirely different from transformer induction.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Yes you could come to that conclusion if you only measured the primary current magnitude, and ignored the phase relationship to the primary voltage.  But if you also measured phase you would see that when the secondary is loaded there is NOT a change in primary self inductance, so your reasoning is flawed.  The classical theoretical model of a transformer used by all electrical engineers since the year dot correctly shows that the self inductance does not change.  What does change when looking into the primary is the resistance, which is just losses when the secondary is unloaded but becomes a much larger loss (except it isn't loss because the extra energy is being used) when the secondary is loaded. 

A more reasoned look into cause and effect comes about when you delve further into how the transformer actually works, why do the electrons in the secondary coil endure a force when they are not actually within a magnetic field?  That takes you into the realm of the magnetic vector potential, the A field.  In the transformer the A field forms closed circles around the core, when the field in the core is changing magnitude then so is the A field, and that is what drives the electrons along the secondary wires.  You can also get a changing A field as seen by an electron that is moving through an A field that is static (not time changing) but varies spatially.  That is the basis of motional induction, and it is entirely different from transformer induction.

Smudge

Smudge,

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying regarding the lack of change in primary inductance with secondary loading.  It can be experimentally proven that the following formulae apply to transformer loading no matter what the input waveform and phase.

First, mutual coupling M = (Lseriesaid - Lseriesbuck)/4 .

Next, the coupling or k = M/(Lp*Ls)^.5 .

Then, the primary leakage inductance (apparent primary inductance) Lpleak = (1-k)*Lpri .

And finally the shorted secondary primary inductance Lpss = (1-k^2)*Lpri .

These ignores any dc resistance and any capacitance in the windings.  What am I not understanding here?

Regards,
Pm

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1716
Smudge,

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying regarding the lack of change in primary inductance with secondary loading.  It can be experimentally proven that the following formulae apply to transformer loading no matter what the input waveform and phase.

First, mutual coupling M = (Lseriesaid - Lseriesbuck)/4 .

Next, the coupling or k = M/(Lp*Ls)^.5 .

Where Lp is the primary inductance (as measured with secondary open circuit?), Ls is the secondary inductance (as measured with the primary open circuit?).

Quote
Then, the primary leakage inductance (apparent primary inductance) Lpleak = (1-k)*Lpri .
No that is not the apparent primary inductance, that is the leakage inductance.   I think the primary inductance is Lp-Lpleak, the input looks like two inductances in series, one being the leakage inductance and one being the true primary inductance.

Quote
And finally the shorted secondary primary inductance Lpss = (1-k^2)*Lpri .

These ignores any dc resistance and any capacitance in the windings.
A shorted secondary is not a loaded secondary (well it is if the secondary has resistance and that resistance becomes the load, but you have just said dc resistance is ignored).  Then we do see an apparent reduced value of primary inductance because of that shorted secondary.  The zero resistance means that the shorted secondary affects the primary without the phase shift that occurs with resistive load.  Add a tiny bit of phase shift by having a small value of resistance in the short (or even just use the secondary dc coil resistance) and you can kid yourself that the primary inductance has become near zero.  Indeed this is the basis for measuring leakage inductance, measure the primary input inductance with the secondary shorted, and you get Lpleak.  But the primary inductance has not gone away, it is still there but shunted by the very low value input resistance transferred by transformer action from the almost shorted secondary.  So to all intents you can assume the primary inductance has gone to zero.  Move away from the shorted secondary regime into the operational regime and the input to the primary is a series inductance representing leakage followed by the primary inductance shunted by the reflected resistive load.  Variations of that load do not change the value of inductance, they change the value of that reflected shunt. 
Quote
What am I not understanding here?
Hopefully this makes things clearer, but maybe it doesn't as our brains work differently.
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Where Lp is the primary inductance (as measured with secondary open circuit?), Ls is the secondary inductance (as measured with the primary open circuit?).

Yes.

Quote
No that is not the apparent primary inductance, that is the leakage inductance.   I think the primary inductance is Lp-Lpleak, the input looks like two inductances in series, one being the leakage inductance and one being the true primary inductance.

When I look carefully at an equivalent model of a transformer with leakage inductance, I see what you mean!

Quote

A shorted secondary is not a loaded secondary (well it is if the secondary has resistance and that resistance becomes the load, but you have just said dc resistance is ignored).  Then we do see an apparent reduced value of primary inductance because of that shorted secondary.  The zero resistance means that the shorted secondary affects the primary without the phase shift that occurs with resistive load.  Add a tiny bit of phase shift by having a small value of resistance in the short (or even just use the secondary dc coil resistance) and you can kid yourself that the primary inductance has become near zero.  Indeed this is the basis for measuring leakage inductance, measure the primary input inductance with the secondary shorted, and you get Lpleak.  But the primary inductance has not gone away, it is still there but shunted by the very low value input resistance transferred by transformer action from the almost shorted secondary.  So to all intents you can assume the primary inductance has gone to zero.  Move away from the shorted secondary regime into the operational regime and the input to the primary is a series inductance representing leakage followed by the primary inductance shunted by the reflected resistive load.  Variations of that load do not change the value of inductance, they change the value of that reflected shunt.

Again, I understand after viewing an equivalent model!

Quote

Hopefully this makes things clearer, but maybe it doesn't as our brains work differently.

Yes you have helped make it clear and I wish to thank you for that!!

Pm

Quote
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
HES LinGen TIMING PULSE SEQUENCE 4 Pole (rev 1.0)

Maybe someone could varify this sequence against the patent disclosure
(as described under Fig. 20 in the 2018 patent).

Got it wrong once - but Partzman caught the error, thanks again!

SL,

FWIW, this is my understanding of Holcomb's explanation that is, with the ~1ms overlap of pole activation.

Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
I perfectly understand what you are talking about.
You believe that no energy will be spent on the rotation of the virtual magnetic field.
In contrast to how energy is spent on the mechanical rotation of the generator rotor.
I don't have an answer to this question. Well if that were the case. :)


That's one of the primary "claims" found in the patent - but until we have some "credible" technical proof to
support this claim, we'll remain "cautiously optomistic."

- However, there will be some power spent in driving the Pole Coil/Windings; - hopefully that will be much less than the
total power output available (patent claims an excess of somewhere around 4X to 6X - which is good enough IMHO).

One of the many objectives of the HES LinGen CAE analysis - if it looks anywhere near valid then a physical
prototype will be fabricated and tested, insitu. A slow, but necessary "link in the chain" to avoid going broke machining
metals and winding coils - keystrokes and CPU time are far less expensive, and much more instructive.



   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Feb2006 - Thanks!
https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg567275/#msg567275


Hope you don't mind having your timing diagram posted here (will remove it if you object, let me know).

Looks like I'll have to spend this Sunday trying to "read for comprehension" and correctly amending the analysis timing.
Will check all of Holcombs patent submissions in an attempt to get a clear timing picture embedded in my head!

Also as a side note: rakarskiyO0
https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg567238/#msg567238


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Riddle me this - two serious questions:

Question 1.


How is the recent discussion/debate regarding Transformers, Inductance, Mutual Inductance, Lenz, etcettra
RELATED to the Holcomb HES LinGen?

Referencing:
FIG. 11, FIG. 12, FIG.13 and FIG. 21 from:

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4261.0;attach=44235

or the diagrams posted here:

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98965#msg98965

Question 2.

And, are these simplified diagrams and explainations in error, or not related to HES LinGen?

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4261.0;attach=44100

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98421#msg98421

Serious questions because if they are NOT related, then they should be removed from the
presentation paper I'm writing - before any peer reviews take place!


Becoming "myoptic" when studying a subject in detail is not uncommon.

Thanks!

SL



   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
solarlab
Well played, one post and it basically shut down the whole thread...

Of course I recognized it as projection and misdirection right off the bat. I just wanted to see how long it would last and one week is enough I think.

I don't think any intelligent person cares about the Holcomb HES LinGen and it's a non starter. The device shown in the video's, more so the specially designed circular core is where all the action is. The supposed switched outer cores producing a pseudo rotating field are nothing of interest and well known in the art. It goes towards the reasoning that once we remove what is known and cannot work, whatever is left is probably what were looking for. Yet many would prefer to chase smoke and mirrors supposing simulations and math will miraculously guide there way. The fact is at some point we have to get our hands dirty, that's the way forward...

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
AC,

As explained here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98982#msg98982

Anyway - you now have "your forum" back - so post away to your hearts content!

The 4 or 5 viewers a day will be delighted for sure...

This thread has contributed ZERO VALUE ADD in return; so for me, it just becomes a giant WASTE OF TIME !

We all look forward to YOUR "Holcomb" detailed expert analysis and contributions.

SL



Just to clear up the Patent Timing question, see attached:


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Consider the following simulation below- Four coils are equally spaced around a toroid or an in-line core and are switched sequentially.  Initially, L1 is pre-charged to 100ma for a period of 10us and then switched off.  L2 is switched on as L1 is switched off and the core flux transfers the current in L1 to L2 minus (.1*IL1).  The coupling or k=.9 is the cause of this current reduction.  Current source I1 makes up for this loss through the so-called leakage inductance between L1 and L2. 

This same process is continued thru L4 and we notice there is very little current reduction in L4 as compared to the current level start in L1.  We do have an actual energy gain from the summing of the energies in the current sources which is greater than the dc resistance losses. 

So effectively, we have managed to move the H-field or the electromagnetic field of each coil in a rotary or linear fashion in the core at a rather high rate of speed with no energy consumed.  With creative engineering, we can manage to smooth these transition periods to any rate we so chose.

Pm

Edit:   
« Last Edit: 2022-05-30, 15:40:34 by partzman »
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 2
Consider the following simulation below- Four coils are equally spaced around a toroid or an in-line core and are switched sequentially.  Initially, L1 is pre-charged to 100ma for a period of 10us and then switched off.  L2 is switched on as L1 is switched off and the core flux transfers the current in L1 to L2 minus (.9*IL1).  The coupling or k=.9 is the cause of this current reduction.  Current source I1 makes up for this loss through the so-called leakage inductance between L1 and L2. 

This same process is continued thru L4 and we notice there is very little current reduction in L4 as compared to the current level start in L1.  We do have an actual energy gain from the summing of the energies in the current sources which is greater than the dc resistance losses. 

So effectively, we have managed to move the H-field or the electromagnetic field of each coil in a rotary or linear fashion in the core at a rather high rate of speed with no energy consumed.  With creative engineering, we can manage to smooth these transition periods to any rate we so chose.

Pm
Interesting view Partzman. However, you are using current sources which are impervious to BEMF so yes you can make it work that way, but look at the voltage developed over the current source. There is no practical implementation of that.

Either plot the voltage over the current source, or replace the current source with a voltage source and see what it does.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
Solarlab
Quote
As explained here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg98982#msg98982
Anyway - you now have "your forum" back - so post away to your hearts content!
The 4 or 5 viewers a day will be delighted for sure...
This thread has contributed ZERO VALUE ADD in return; so for me, it just becomes a giant WASTE OF TIME !

I wouldn't say it's a waste of time and I'm just pointing out information which could actually help some people move forward. For example...
1)Holcomb shows a moving PM rotor below to be used inside a modified AC motor/generator stator/core. This was presumably his first working setup unlike the much more complicated patents posted here.
2)Holcomb also shows his first working stator coil setup shown below as well. If someone had a little common sense they could assume the PM rotor fits inside the stator and wired as shown. 

You see many inventors followed a natural progression starting with rewired motor/generators. None was fool enough to try and replicate a very complex motionless setup like many are showing. They started with the basics so they could learn for themselves. Now some in the other forums are even supposing there may be some kind of magical rotating magnetic fields involved, good grief.

Yet, if we look below some might recognize the general layout as that of a modified Adam's motor/generator. Adam's shows a N pole rotor in his patent but also claimed an alternating pole rotor could be used as well. He also used primary coils with alternate or secondary coils placed in close proximity as shown below by Holcomb. Adam's claimed individual stator coil/cores allowed for a faster action however a closed stator could also be used. I found there is disproportionate amount of disinformation on the internet concerning Adams work which should tell us how important it actually was.

It's the damnedest thing isn't it?, so we could dispense with all the scientific chatter and equations, with all the splashy graphics and say all we really need are some magnets moving past some coils of wire switched in the correct manner. It's crazy isn't it?, that some could find this concept so easy yet 99% of others find it impossible. It doesn't seem fair but then life never is...

You see, I can justify my opinion without all caps or exclamation points...

Regards
AC



 



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Interesting view Partzman. However, you are using current sources which are impervious to BEMF so yes you can make it work that way, but look at the voltage developed over the current source. There is no practical implementation of that.

Either plot the voltage over the current source, or replace the current source with a voltage source and see what it does.

When we apply a voltage across a coil, there will be a current ramp developed in the coil depending on the voltage, inductance, and time.  During this event, we are developing an H-field which is the resulting magnetic field intensity or magnetizing force defined as the mmf or ampere-turns divided by the path length.  At some point in time we can stop the current ramp and place a "clamp" across the coil to freeze the current and also the magnetizing force of the coil.  Little voltage across the coil is required for this and what we then have is an electromagnet which will retain it's characteristics depending on it's DC resistance.

I'm sure you are already aware of all this but my point is, it is very economical to produce a moving electromagnetic field in a coil/core assembly that will induce a secondary when the voltage across the primary coil is simply the current times the DC resistance.  The secondary in this case must be constructed in the same manner as Holcomb IMO to produce an efficient result.

Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Solarlab
I wouldn't say it's a waste of time and I'm just pointing out information which could actually help some people move forward. For example...
1)Holcomb shows a moving PM rotor below to be used inside a modified AC motor/generator stator/core. This was presumably his first working setup unlike the much more complicated patents posted here.
2)Holcomb also shows his first working stator coil setup shown below as well. If someone had a little common sense they could assume the PM rotor fits inside the stator and wired as shown. 

You see many inventors followed a natural progression starting with rewired motor/generators. None was fool enough to try and replicate a very complex motionless setup like many are showing. They started with the basics so they could learn for themselves. Now some in the other forums are even supposing there may be some kind of magical rotating magnetic fields involved, good grief.

Yet, if we look below some might recognize the general layout as that of a modified Adam's motor/generator. Adam's shows a N pole rotor in his patent but also claimed an alternating pole rotor could be used as well. He also used primary coils with alternate or secondary coils placed in close proximity as shown below by Holcomb. Adam's claimed individual stator coil/cores allowed for a faster action however a closed stator could also be used. I found there is disproportionate amount of disinformation on the internet concerning Adams work which should tell us how important it actually was.

It's the damnedest thing isn't it?, so we could dispense with all the scientific chatter and equations, with all the splashy graphics and say all we really need are some magnets moving past some coils of wire switched in the correct manner. It's crazy isn't it?, that some could find this concept so easy yet 99% of others find it impossible. It doesn't seem fair but then life never is...

You see, I can justify my opinion without all caps or exclamation points...

Regards
AC

AC,

Can you please point out, specifically, in Holcombs patent where:

1)Holcomb shows a moving PM rotor below to be used inside a modified AC motor/generator stator/core. This was presumably his first working setup unlike the much more complicated patents posted here.

2)Holcomb also shows his first working stator coil setup shown below as well. If someone had a little common sense they could assume the PM rotor fits inside the stator and wired as shown. 

I can not find a single instance where he uses, or claims to use, any "PM" - Permanent Magnets - in his devices. Thanks in advaance.

BTW, the "magical rotating magnetic fields" have already been shown in simulations (see previous cartoons) and proven in bench testing, as well as, in Holcomb demonstrations (at the open house and in many private showings).

No one is asking you to believe anything or telling you how to do things - just suggesting and presenting to you some proven analysis techniques and actual facts - that's it! These methods have been successfully used by millions of designers on litterly billions of projects.

Well, I would say it is a waste of time - combined with a big dose of "mis-information" - see above (PM) mixed in with a whole lot of very plain, off topic, stupid crap designed, I suppose, to simply flood the thread and obfuscate!

Just so you know - this will be my one-and-only participation in what amounts to childish "Playground Banter!"

So. please, study and learn the subject matter in detail, chart out your course, then think for a long while if it's relavent and useful to the topic (does it have any direct value add) before posting...

SL






   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
Solarlab
Quote
Can you please point out, specifically, in Holcombs patent where:
1)Holcomb shows a moving PM rotor below to be used inside a modified AC motor/generator stator/core. This was presumably his first working setup unlike the much more complicated patents posted here.
2)Holcomb also shows his first working stator coil setup shown below as well. If someone had a little common sense they could assume the PM rotor fits inside the stator and wired as shown.
I can not find a single instance where he uses, or claims to use, any "PM" - Permanent Magnets - in his devices. Thanks in advance.

It isn't in his patents to my knowledge and considered prior art. It was supposedly taken from the Holcomb websites and posted on OU.com by other members. It's also corroborated by what Holcomb claimed in interviews working on FE tech well before 2007. Every credible FE inventor I know of started small with basic designs to prove a specific process or idea.

This line of reason is why I started this thread and called it "Holcomb and other FE technology debate" not to limit the debate to Holcombs patents. I was actually more interested in any prior art or related effects to better understand his patents.

Quote
So. please, study and learn the subject matter in detail, chart out your course, then think for a long while if it's relavent and useful to the topic (does it have any direct value add) before posting...

My reasoning is pretty easy to understand and based on a proven methodology. First, we cannot build something we do not understand. Second, the chances of someone understanding the most complex electronic version of a current device is basically zero. Ergo, we should always go back to the beginning and examine any prior art to determine how the inventor made there discovery in the first place. In this case the evidence would seem to suggest Holcomb was experimenting with variations of an Adam's motor/generator when he made his initial discovery.

For example, many think Kapanadze started with technology related to Tesla coils which is false. In fact the first device I tracked down was a very strange variation of a PM motor/generator. It used large NIB PM's mounted on long rods which moved past output coils around 8" away. The output coils powered a load and was also looped back to a motor spinning the PM rotor, ergo a motor/generator setup. It looked crude, archaic and thrown together but apparently what he learned from that device led to all his other devices.

So you may want to get your facts straight before posting as well...

Regards
AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Continuing along the line of my previous post #165, the following simulation shows how one can create an overlapping two pole bucking field that recovers the previously lost energy in the leakage inductance resulting in a very high efficiency.  Only two poles are shown for simplicity.

L1 is pre-charged with 100ma and at 10us is switched off.  The collapsing field current of L1 is routed to both C1 and L2.  The leakage current is captured during the charging phase of C1 and is returned to L2 during the discharge of C1.  At the same time, the bulk of the current in L1 is also transferred to L2.  This results in an extremely highly efficient field transfer which in this case is UL1=(.09985^2)*.005/2=24.925uJ and UL2=(.09945)^2*.005/2=24.726uJ for an efficiency of 99.2%.  In the real world it would be slightly less due to switch resistance.

The value of C1 also determines the rate of change of the moving electromagnetic field.

Pm

Edit: The leakage inductance between L1 and L2 is 500uH.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
Also, the following sim demonstrates the Holcomb technique of overlapping poles driven with "DC current".  I have interpreted that with constant current sources for charging the coils as can be seen.

The rise and fall times are 500ns for each current source.  These slew rates determine the magnitude of compliance voltages reached and as can be seen here, these voltages reach ~200v pk.

The energy cost to drive L1-L4 with the current sources can be seen to be nearly zero.  So, the question remains, with a special stator windings, will this scheme yield OU?

Pm
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
...
The energy cost to drive L1-L4 with the current sources can be seen to be nearly zero.  So, the question remains, with a special stator windings, will this scheme yield OU?

The answer is no. It is obviously theoretically possible to transfer energy from one coil to another without loss (perfect conductors, no switching losses...), and in practice to do so with little loss, but in no case to obtain an energy gain. The energy can only come from a new process that LTspice, a slave to conventional electromagnetism which guarantees the conservation of energy, can never show.

While modelling can help us clarify our ideas, it cannot provide a single clue that would lead us to the OU. And consequently neither can the conventional physics on which LTspice is based. That's the whole problem with Holcomb: we have no clue about the elementary principle involved (if it really works).

Holcomb holds spin as the origin of energy. For the moment we only have this. If we think that Holcomb is not wrong and since we know that spin is not a source of energy, then electron spin would be the vector by which energy taken from somewhere would be brought to the system. But how and from where? That is the question.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
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, 07:07:41