PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-11-29, 08:05:30
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only 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 23985 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
F6FLT
Quote
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.

Damn, that was a Yoda level response in my opinion... clear, concise and exactly on point.

I would agree we can model something we know but not something we don't. You also nailed it on the Holcomb response in my opinion. We can claim the source of energy is electron spin but then we would have to explain where the extra spin energy came from. In fact a moving/rotating magnetic field or electron spin explain nothing and were still left with the question of where the actual energy gain came from.

Energy is one thing but an energy gain in a supposedly closed system is quite another because it implies the extra energy was already present or came from an external source. If the energy was already present it must diminish the source in some way. If the energy was external then we should be able to measure said energy coming into the system. This is not to say either cannot happen only that we still lack the knowledge or tools to understand what is happening.

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
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.

F6FLT,

Thanks for your reply.  I totally agree that simulators like LtSpice will not break the  law of CoE but perhaps they can help us see possible solutions.  I do not claim to know if Holcomb's device works or not but I will say that with his patents and applications, it may be more about what he doesn't say than what is said.

For example allow me to speculate if I may.  As stated before elsewhere on this forum, I can demonstrate that a constant current or constant voltage load on a secondary can exhibit a gain increase in the secondary without any Lenz effect on the primary.  However, this concept still yields conservative results.  Why?  Because of the cost to energize the induction source that is, the primary.

I have shown several means in previous posts to create moving electromagnetic fields that requires very little energy.  If we now consider this as our induction source in the above concept, what might the results be?  What other hidden or not so obvious elements would prevent a gain?  I hope to have an answer to these questions in the up coming weeks.

Pm
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve
If we made an analogue of the Tesla valve for a magnetic field in a magnetic circuit, we would defeat the Lenz law ...
IMHO. :)
Or am I wrong?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
F6FLT,

Thanks for your reply.  I totally agree that simulators like LtSpice will not break the  law of CoE but perhaps they can help us see possible solutions.  I do not claim to know if Holcomb's device works or not but I will say that with his patents and applications, it may be more about what he doesn't say than what is said.

I agree.

Quote
For example allow me to speculate if I may.  As stated before elsewhere on this forum, I can demonstrate that a constant current or constant voltage load on a secondary can exhibit a gain increase in the secondary without any Lenz effect on the primary.  However, this concept still yields conservative results.  Why?  Because of the cost to energize the induction source that is, the primary.

I have shown several means in previous posts to create moving electromagnetic fields that requires very little energy.  If we now consider this as our induction source in the above concept, what might the results be?  What other hidden or not so obvious elements would prevent a gain?  I hope to have an answer to these questions in the up coming weeks.

Moving a magnetic field requires no energy, at least in theory, and as long as it is not used.
But this is the general case of motions in the framework of Newton's 1st law. If I spin a slingshot in space and drop it, it will spin in space for eternity.

We need an initial energy, the one that is used to build the magnetic field and that we will find in the energy 1/2*L*I² that the inductors store. When the field is built, theoretically we don't need any more energy to maintain it or to move it, except that in practice we will need some because we don't have a superconductor so the resistance of the inductors dissipate some, and when we make the field rotate, the commutation between coils also.

But I don't see why being able to do it without consuming much would be a sign to expect a COP>1.
The best industrial electric motors today have an efficiency > 95%. It doesn't mean that we would be close to exceed 100%. It just means that we can make them close to the theoretical limit. It is the same thing with a rotating magnetic field.


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

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
I agree.

Moving a magnetic field requires no energy, at least in theory, and as long as it is not used.

The energy of the field is not used, or the energy of its movement?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582

But I don't see why being able to do it without consuming much would be a sign to expect a COP>1.


The attached scope pix is a demo of a simple circuit that includes a rectangular flat air coil L1 with an inductance of 43uH connected in series with a cored inductor Lcc having 24.7mH of inductance.  There is a bias constant current through this network that equals 102.6ma.  I then have passed the north pole face of a rectangular ferrite PM across 1/2 of L1 the air coil to produce the current waveform seen.  This could be considered somewhat equivalent to Holcomb's planar design except the air coil or stator has no core.

When I physically moved the PM in this case, I did not have adequate control to freeze the current or induced H-field at the peak.  However, with electronic control, this would be possible.  If so, then we can take a look at the energy levels of this simple circuit.

For simplicity we will ignore the energy in L1 as it averages only 260nJ.  Therefore, the starting energy in Lcc is ULcc_start = (.1026^2)*.0247 = 130uJ and the theoretical ending energy in Lcc is
ULcc_end = (.1214^2)*.0247 = 182uJ.  This is an apparent gain of 182/130 = 1.4 .

The point of this is that we have replaced the transformer primary induction source with a moving PM source which we will finally replace with a moving electromagnetic source with hopefully the same results!

Pm   
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
F6FLT
Quote
We need an initial energy, the one that is used to build the magnetic field and that we will find in the energy 1/2*L*I² that the inductors store. When the field is built, theoretically we don't need any more energy to maintain it or to move it, except that in practice we will need some because we don't have a superconductor so the resistance of the inductors dissipate some, and when we make the field rotate, the commutation between coils also.

It helps to put it into perspective...
If we input X energy into a good LC circuit it produces a millisecond dampened oscillation.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on a tuning fork it oscillates for many minutes.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on my magnetic bearings it oscillates for hours.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to charge a good capacitor it can be stored for years.

So we can see trying to store energy in an inductor as a magnetic field is probably the least efficient way of doing things. This is true because the magnetic field can only be sustained in an inductor so long as a current is flowing and this is it's inherent flaw.

Quote
But I don't see why being able to do it without consuming much would be a sign to expect a COP>1.
The best industrial electric motors today have an efficiency > 95%. It doesn't mean that we would be close to exceed 100%. It just means that we can make them close to the theoretical limit. It is the same thing with a rotating magnetic field.

Indeed, many people confuse the concepts of storing and transforming energy because they don't understand energy. Once we understand what it is and how it works things get much easier.

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
Yes there is another open source venue
Which may be able to host ( I can ask)
However
Would you be ok with moderating it ?

Just to keep it neat and on track ?
I believe “experts” may more easily become involved
In a well managed venue ( where respect of presenters efforts ( all presenters)
Is guaranteed…


Although  … we may also be able to build it here …perhaps if more talent could assist here with this ?
Peter is up against very busy work life and trying to keep this working ( as well Darren has limited time )

Just trying to help not hinder this process ,

I will ask the other admin about this file storage issue next day or so! (Gyula might know about this file storage there?)

Respectfully
Chet K


Chet K,

The final analysis of HES LinGen is near complete (only a bit of clean up and detailed stuff left).

Maybe you could start a new thread so the completed results, at least in CAE and "alpha" fab form, can be posted.
A smart kid from our group can moderate, under my nom/sig, so that should free up my time to a great extent.
Will work-around the forum limitations as best I can. {If (modest) extra funding, etc. is needed, well, I'm not poor.}

Maybe use a title like "HES LinGen CAE Analysis" or whatever - this approach appears (and validated) as a "Game Changer"
[as the DOE would call it - Disruptive Technology"] from this stage of the evaluation at least. Lots of detailed design still to be done but
the base looks good to go!

Thanks,

SL

 
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 2
The attached scope pix is a demo of a simple circuit that includes a rectangular flat air coil L1 with an inductance of 43uH connected in series with a cored inductor Lcc having 24.7mH of inductance.  There is a bias constant current through this network that equals 102.6ma.  I then have passed the north pole face of a rectangular ferrite PM across 1/2 of L1 the air coil to produce the current waveform seen.  This could be considered somewhat equivalent to Holcomb's planar design except the air coil or stator has no core.

When I physically moved the PM in this case, I did not have adequate control to freeze the current or induced H-field at the peak.  However, with electronic control, this would be possible.  If so, then we can take a look at the energy levels of this simple circuit.

For simplicity we will ignore the energy in L1 as it averages only 260nJ.  Therefore, the starting energy in Lcc is ULcc_start = (.1026^2)*.0247 = 130uJ and the theoretical ending energy in Lcc is
ULcc_end = (.1214^2)*.0247 = 182uJ.  This is an apparent gain of 182/130 = 1.4 .


The point of this is that we have replaced the transformer primary induction source with a moving PM source which we will finally replace with a moving electromagnetic source with hopefully the same results!

Pm

The added energy here came from you moving the magnet. That cost energy and it was converted into the circuit. Hence you see a gain.

The good thing about a PM is that it acts like a current source, so it doesn't care about BEMF. If you replace it with an electromagnetic version that will not be the case. It will act as a voltage source and thus is affected by BEMF.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3791

Chet K,

The final analysis of HES LinGen is near complete (only a bit of clean up and detailed stuff left).

Maybe you could start a new thread so the completed results, at least in CAE and "alpha" fab form, can be posted.
A smart kid from our group can moderate, under my nom/sig, so that should free up my time to a great extent.
Will work-around the forum limitations as best I can. {If (modest) extra funding, etc. is needed, well, I'm not poor.}

Maybe use a title like "HES LinGen CAE Analysis" or whatever - this approach appears (and validated) as a "Game Changer"
[as the DOE would call it - Disruptive Technology"] from this stage of the evaluation at least. Lots of detailed design still to be done but
the base looks good to go!

Thanks,

SL

Solarlab
Yes I recall you work with/help students !
I will send you a pm here !

Your work is a huge asset to the open source community!
Hopefully more of like skills ( or looking to learn) will join in !

Respectfully
Chet K

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
The added energy here came from you moving the magnet. That cost energy and it was converted into the circuit. Hence you see a gain.

Yes, I totally agree.

Quote
The good thing about a PM is that it acts like a current source, so it doesn't care about BEMF. If you replace it with an electromagnetic version that will not be the case. It will act as a voltage source and thus is affected by BEMF.

First, did you not see my post #172 that uses current sources to charge the sequential coils at rates depending on chosen compliance voltages?  Second, with a constant current load as I have proposed and demonstrated, the BEMF is nearly non existent thereby allowing a gain.

Pm   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
F6FLT
It helps to put it into perspective...
If we input X energy into a good LC circuit it produces a millisecond dampened oscillation.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on a tuning fork it oscillates for many minutes.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on my magnetic bearings it oscillates for hours.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to charge a good capacitor it can be stored for years.

Please explain how we can draw excess energy from any one of these concepts.  They are all conservative are they not?

Quote
So we can see trying to store energy in an inductor as a magnetic field is probably the least efficient way of doing things. This is true because the magnetic field can only be sustained in an inductor so long as a current is flowing and this is it's inherent flaw.

I believe I have proposed a valid method of extracting an energy gain utilizing a magnetic field.  What method do you propose?

Quote
Indeed, many people confuse the concepts of storing and transforming energy because they don't understand energy. Once we understand what it is and how it works things get much easier.

You speak as if you have the answer.  Would you please elaborate?

Quote
Regards
AC
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 379
Source is simple : sun and precisely solar wind and other cosmic radiation
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
FWIW,

It can be demonstrated that induction from a transmission line to a secondary is affected by Lenz.  IOW, a loaded secondary placed somewhere along a long transmission will create a Lenz effect on the moving electromagnetic pulse propagating down the transmission line.  Other than the frequencies involved, how is this any different from the disclosed Holcomb device?

Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2718


Buy me a beer
Source is simple : sun and precisely solar wind and other cosmic radiation

Ion exchange.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

- In case you missed it -

A link to one of the best websites re: MAGNETICS was posted by OU member Bistander:

https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg567702/#msg567702

Encyclopedia Magnetica - the home page contains many very good pages plus a Database of magnetic properties
which also has a web app and off-line program to create data plots from published curves (good for making BH plots).

https://e-magnetica.pl/

Search or drill down using the "text-in-context" links... the wealth of information and clear presentation on the site is awesome!

Also, of particular interest is the author's observations from both the Physics, as well as, the Engineering prospectives.

Thanks Bistander!


HES Update: More complex simulations show =>  "free beer tonight, and likely all weekend!"  O0






   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
Quote
It helps to put it into perspective...
If we input X energy into a good LC circuit it produces a millisecond dampened oscillation.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on a tuning fork it oscillates for many minutes.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to move a magnet on my magnetic bearings it oscillates for hours.
If we input the same X energy into a coil to charge a good capacitor it can be stored for years.

partzman
Please explain how we can draw excess energy from any one of these concepts.  They are all conservative are they not?

The first step to FE is understanding energy and the concepts of generation and dissipation.

For example, the dampened LC oscillation below is what most consider "normal". Thus, gross inefficiency is the normal simply because most don't know any better. I mean look at it, in less than 10 cycles all the energy has been dissipated.

In fact, almost all the greatest FE inventors didn't start with FE. They were more interested if finding ways to sustain electrical oscillations within there circuits. They were seeking ways to sustain the oscillations for progressively longer periods of time until at some point the system became "self-sustaining". In fact, Nikola Tesla was obsessed with this phenomena and often mentioned how a bell in vacuum could oscillate for months. He was also obsessed with resonance and how a small oscillator could theoretically destroy a large building or bridge.

These concepts should sound familiar because almost every FE inventor mentions them. They describe how a very small input can become near self-sustaining but also act on other things producing much larger effects. Of course, we should understand a small oscillation storing energy in a larger element producing a larger effect is not FE, energy is always conserved. However this concept can produce a non-intuitive, non-conservative result.

For example, suppose we have a car sitting in the desert on the sand. If we wanted to bury the car in the sand almost everyone without exception has only one thing on there mind which is to dig a big hole. We all know digging a hole is how everyone buries things and most have no idea how to do it any different. However there is an easier way in which we don't move the sand per say but let the car sink into the sand. We simply stuff a pipe under the car, blow pressurized air into the sand causing the particles to oscillate rendering it fluid and the car sinks into the sand.

The example above is non-intuitive, non-conservative because the amount of energy to oscillate the sand rendering it fluid is much smaller than shoveling and lifting all the heavy sand out of the way to dig a hole like some kind of primitive cave man. Here we can see science still applies were just solving the problem using intelligence versus brute force. This conceptual, creative kind of thinking and intelligence is the reason why many inventors found FE easy while everyone else still finds it impossible.

As Nikola Tesla said... "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."

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

CONCLUSION - HES LinGen Analysis

{Disclaimer - these analysis, observations and conclusions are based on
personal work and presented in good faith as open source educational
material only}

This concludes the Holcomb HES LinGen analysis. It demonstrates the:

 - ability to roll a magnetic field is confirmed;
 - ability to increase the magnetic field intensity using ferromagnetic
    material (Poles) is confirmed (usde Metglass 2605S3A; tested many);
 - ability to achieve Excess Energy is confirmed.

Several attachments show the target analysis brass-board with
some chart results and an animation of the Magnetic Field Intensity
at/on the Stator Lap Coil/Winding.

Attachments may be provided over several posts, as required, and are
self explanatory.

Excitation is eight ( 8 ) Pole Coil/Windings, four (4) North orientated
[Coil 1-4] and four (4) South orientated [Coil 5-8]. All are  driven with
a staggered Pulsed Delayed Start Sequence. Stator Lap Coil/Winding
is [Coil 9].

Timing of the sequence, coil amp/turns (A/T), and so forth are arbitrary
and can be changed to suit the investigation requirements.

This presentation is for analysis of the HES LinGen ONLY and is for educational
purposes ONLY. The BrassBoard mockup is not intended to be "Build To Print."

Thus, the END!

Good Luck!

SL


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
CONCLUSION - HES LinGen Analysis

Attachments continued...

{Disclaimer - these analysis, observations and conclusions are based on
personal work and presented in good faith as open source educational
material only}


This presentation is for analysis of the HES LinGen ONLY and is for educational
purposes ONLY. The BrassBoard mockup is not intended to be "Build To Print."

... Thus, the END!

Good Luck!

SL
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

CONCLUSION - HES LinGen Analysis

Attachments continued...

{Disclaimer - these analysis, observations and conclusions are based on
personal work and presented in good faith as open source educational
material only}

This presentation is for analysis of the HES LinGen ONLY and is for educational
purposes ONLY. The BrassBoard mockup is not intended to be "Build To Print."

... Thus, the END!

Good Luck!

SL


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
SL,

Nice work and thanks for sharing this!!!

I have a question regarding your flat top current waveforms on the rotor coils.  How did you achieve this?

Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
solarlab
Quote
Thus, the END!

Call me old fashioned but I see little real relevance to FE here. I say relevance and not value because as a programmer I understand all the work you must have put into this. By the same token, as an Engineer I would expect to see some kind of justification because I don't think anyone has any idea what you suppose were supposed to see in all this. What I see is... Oh look a graph and some fancy graphics with literally no justification or substance. It's literally on par with those nonsensical youtube videos showing a coil attached to a magnet and an LED.

Here's a thought, literally billions of people have used the process of induction since Faraday supposedly discovered it in 1831 no less, which in itself is questionable. So as the supposed story goes in 185 years no man has had the understanding or wherewithal to improve upon the process of induction since Faraday?. Understand he was writing with a quill pen by whale oil lantern and riding a god damn horse to work at the time. Yet many would suppose this is the best we can do... I call bullshit.

If we can do no better than a man 185 years ago I would consider that as a complete failure to evolve as a man...

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

Proof is proof - unfortunate you don't/can't see it.

Like I've said before - it appears simple on it's face however there is some
complex stuff going on and without a good EM simulator I doubt if the interactions
would ever be seen.

Won't try to explain this Holcomb stuff any further nor even discuss it - it's all in
the patents and the simulations. Takes a lot of work to recognize it however.

Plus, this varification excercise was not to convince anyone about anything. It was
provided here as educational and to show how modern Engineering can do things
that were impossible only a few years ago. And that has now been demonstrated.

Sets the next stage for design and development.

You really do know how to make a fool of yourself, however, by calling it bullshit - real
engineers will immediately recognize the presentation concepts and technology involved.

It is what it is!  Sorry, didn't mean to make you cry  :'( 

SL


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
solarlab
Quote
You really do know how to make a fool of yourself, however, by calling it bullshit - real
engineers will immediately recognize the presentation concepts and technology involved.

I wasn't talking about your presentation which was pretty well done more so Faraday induction.

As I said, 185 years on almost nobody has improved or moved beyond Faraday Induction and Lenz Law. We can simulate and measure things more accurately today however the basic premise of induction has not changed.

I would agree with F6FLT that...
Quote
We need an initial energy, the one that is used to build the magnetic field and that we will find in the energy 1/2*L*I² that the inductors store. When the field is built, theoretically we don't need any more energy to maintain it or to move it, except that in practice we will need some because we don't have a superconductor so the resistance of the inductors dissipate some, and when we make the field rotate, the commutation between coils also.

But I don't see why being able to do it without consuming much would be a sign to expect a COP>1.
The best industrial electric motors today have an efficiency > 95%. It doesn't mean that we would be close to exceed 100%. It just means that we can make them close to the theoretical limit. It is the same thing with a rotating magnetic field.

Simply put, moving a magnetic field in a new or strange way does not negate the laws of induction or produce a COP>1. In order to do something new we would have to show how the laws of induction have changed, the process involved to produce the change and the new result.

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: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1621
Thanks SL I really appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
   
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, 08:05:30