Parametric/inductive transformer concept

[Smudge]

Maybe F6's results are explained by the crossed field from the stack of magnets not reaching the saturation level of the core as the geometry does not allow the core to attract flux lines and get flux concentration.  In the other direction the geometry allows the core to attract flux, become a flux concentrator and reach saturation.
Smudge

[partzman]

@Partzman

Thank you very much, I didn't know there were such colour codes with inductors.
Do you know if the ferrite is "grain oriented"?

Actually, these cores are not a ferrite but rather powdered iron with many little gaps spread throughout the material which makes the overall part, a toroid in this case, very difficult to saturate.  I doubt if this material has any grain orientation but not sure on this.

What I always found interesting about this material in the various mixes is the change in initial permeability vs flux density.  I attempted in the past to utilize this feature for a gain but was unsuccessful.

I've attached the Micrometals data sheet below.

Pm

[Smudge]

@Smudge
........
Secondly, I don't agree at all with the fact that from a transverse H2 field only a weak component would remain, because of the saturating H1 field at 90°. The fields superpose. The H2 field is weak, so it does not change the permeability, its component is simply superimposed on H1.

The H field superimpose to create a combined H field at some angle from the two axes, and that combined value has to be applied to the BH curve to obtain B along that combined H direction.  That B will have components along the H1 and H2 axes.  It is wrong to think of H changing the permeability.  The permeability will be dB1/dH1 along the H1 axis and dB2/dH2 along the H2 axis

Of course the resulting field will have rotated slightly, but this rotation is only what we see of H2, while the saturation remains globally along H1.

Saturation is when all the domains are aligned along an axis.  In this case it is along that slightly rotated axis.  It is wrong to think that the saturation remains globally along H1.  Take the case for H1 = H2 and their values are individually below Hsat, but their combined component along the axis at 45 degrees is greater then Hsat.  Clearly the material is in saturation along that 45 degree axis where its relative permeability is now unity.  Any increase in H1 or H2 will only obtain a B field that is μ₀ times that increase, the high permeability of the material has disappeared.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

@Smudge

I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.

[F6FLT]

Playing with capacitance switching, I test a basic circuit with LTSpice: a capacitor of 1µF charged to 100V at the initial time t=0, is discharged through a diode in an inductor of 0.1H and internal resistance 10 ohm.
After a time t linked to the RC time constant of the circuit, we find a capacitor charged to...   -3 KV!    COP = 900.

And there is no limit: dividing the resistance of L1 by 100 multiplies the final voltage by 100.

I must have missed something...

[partzman]

F6,

You need to add an additional limit of I(L1)=0 to your .ic statement to prevent a large starting bias current in L1.  In this case the starting current in L1 is ~9 amps which creates the large negative voltage on C1. 

Regards,
Pm

[F6FLT]

@partzman

Okay, got it, the initial current from V(Cap) was supposed to already be flowing through the coil at t=0, and I need to eliminate it. Thanks!

[Orthofield]

@Smudge

I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.

For what it's worth, I agree with Smudge here. It doesn't matter that the signal doesn't add to saturation, if the vectorial total is always above saturation. I still think it possible that 'flux clamping' is involved, despite the relatively high Bsat of the material with nano-gaps dispersed throughout. Note in the patent I sent that losses well below saturation and well above saturation are similar in magnitude.

Fred

[F6FLT]

For what it's worth, I agree with Smudge here. It doesn't matter that the signal doesn't add to saturation, if the vectorial total is always above saturation. I still think it possible that 'flux clamping' is involved, despite the relatively high Bsat of the material with nano-gaps dispersed throughout. Note in the patent I sent that losses well below saturation and well above saturation are similar in magnitude.

Fred

I still don't agree. A field that is negligible compared to the saturation field cannot significantly rotate the orientation of the saturation. The saturation and the variable field remain at 90° to each other. The 90° component cannot count in the saturation field since this vector is perpendicular. It is therefore sensitive only to the permeability transverse to the saturating field.

There is no difference in the resonance frequency with or without a magnet. It is that the permeability transverse to the saturation field does not change.

[Smudge]

@Smudge

I don't agree. What you say is true in the absolute, but not in the present case where there are orders of magnitude of difference between the strong field of the neodymium magnet, and the field from the small signal which allows me to see the resonance frequency, and which one can reduce to the limit of visibility on the oscilloscope without that changing anything. This signal has no role in the saturation or its orientation.

My argument which was not about your experiment but talking generally about the material.  I realise the small current used to measure the inductance has no effect on the saturation.  In your experiment quite clearly in one case the field from the magnets is not causing saturation while in the other case it is doing so.  IMO that is entirely down to the magnetic geometry that is different for the two cases.  Take for example a 1cm cube of material between you two stacks of magnets.  The notional 1T field from the magnets will not take the Fe particles to saturation.  Now imagine that lump of material is thinned down at its centre so it has the shape of an hour-glass.  The flux will be increased at that centre point to be taken above saturation.  That is an extreme example but it illustrates the point.  The magnet field along the two semicircles of the ring is above saturation.  Of course in this iron dust material there is not a clearly defined saturation point, the saturation knee is not sharp, but you get the gist.

Smudge

[Orthofield]

Actually, these cores are not a ferrite but rather powdered iron with many little gaps spread throughout the material which makes the overall part, a toroid in this case, very difficult to saturate.  I doubt if this material has any grain orientation but not sure on this.

What I always found interesting about this material in the various mixes is the change in initial permeability vs flux density.  I attempted in the past to utilize this feature for a gain but was unsuccessful.

I've attached the Micrometals data sheet below.

Pm

Hi Partzman,

I was intrigued by the idea of using these positive changes in mu with increasing flux density. This seems to be a sort of 'self-organization' on the part of the domains, which has OU potential. I immediately thought of in-line flux switchers like the old Subieta-Garron patent attached, but considered it would be better to isolate the effect, not have it show up as an increase in current of normal transformer output, as Subieta-Garron claims--or for that matter, increase in flux density in air, like various flux switched motors.

After several days and many designs I came up with the following, attached.

You see an ordinary powdered iron toroidal transformer with primary L1 and secondary L2, with AC source and load R1.

Three neo magnets are attached to the toroid, two outside, and one inside, with (for instance) N poles facing in on the outside of the toroid, and S pole facing in on the inside.  They of course can be arranged on the top and bottom of the toroid as well.

Two counter wound coils L3 and L4 intercept the flux from the two 'wings' of PM flux, which are naturally in opposite directions. These are connected in series to a second load R2.

Normal transformer operation creates a changing net flux, and thus causes a variation in mu of the core. We are using only the change in mu in this device.

If the transformer flux is rising, it causes an increase in mu, and thus in flux that L3 and L4 see from their respective permanent magnet pairs. Each coil generates current to oppose the rise in flux, and this current adds in series to go to load R2. The same is of course true if transformer flux/mu is dropping.

Because L3 and L4 are counterwound, transformer induction cancels and doesn't go to load R2. Because the fluxes that L3 and L4 generate are always in opposite directions, their flux doesn't induce on the transformer. There's complete decoupling between the two sets of coils.

As an added advantage, the opposition between L3 and L4 fluxes reduces the reactance of the output circuit.

I've shown only three magnets but of course they can be spaced around the entire core with outputs adding in series. The net flux from this coil set remains zero at all times.

L1/L2 are shown here as spaced apart but to reduce flux leakage they can be bifilar wound around the whole toroid-- it changes nothing about the operating principle. 

More PMs can be added to the stack, as long as the flux in any 'wing' of the three magnet array remains around the steepest part of the flux vs. mu curve-- around 2000 Gauss in the chart you sent. At this bias, even a small primary A/turns in the transformer will cause a wide variation in mu, leading to an increased output to R2.

Since the transformer part can be made pretty efficient all on its own, the additional output dissipated across R2 could well take the whole device into OU territory. 

Patent/project references: Subieta-Garron, Tupper, Jensen, Cobb, Magnetic amplifiers, etc.

Fred

[Orthofield]

Hi All,

No need to respond to these messages, Partman. I realize you have a lot on your plate.
These are just ideas for general consideration.

Attached is a simpler version of the 'Mutilizer'.

Here you have a square core transformer, with primary and secondary windings L1 and L2, an AC source, and load R2 as usual. (The transformer can be made of any convenient material since every transformer has mu variation).

Permanent magnets are placed at the center of the core so that the PM flux is split evenly between the legs. I have them as single magnets with N and S facing the core, but they could consist of a bar magnet or stacks of neos. The only other major requirement is that PM plus transformer flux never saturates the core.

The additional 'mutilizer' secondaries L3 and L4 each consist of two counterwound coils, one on each side of where the PMs are attached to the core.  These coils are connected in series to supply loads R1 and R3. As L3 and L4 are counterwound and in series, any induction from L1/L2 is canceled out.

As the transformer is in operation, for instance between mains and a load, the PM flux going through both legs of the core is modulated by the changes in mu.  L3 and L4 generate current to respond to these changes in flux.

As L3 and L4 output fluxes are always opposite in direction, and contained completely within the core, they 'nullify' or 'cancel', and at no time is there flux circulating in the core due to power dissipated in R1 and R3. (If one doesn't accept the idea of 'flux nullification', it's still true that their net induction on L1 and L2 is zero).

So we have two independent operations, a standard transformer and a PM flux modulator with no inductive connection between them. The interaction is only through the variation of mu in the core, and this interaction is in only one direction, since L3 and L4 have no impact on the mu.

I make no claim that this device is overunity. However, since every aspect of it is conventional, I can say with some certainty that any power dissipated in R1 and R3 is 'free' in that it has no impact on transformer operation.

Fred

[gyula]

Hi Fred,

Perhaps not fully off topic, I would like to refer to an interesting test a Russian guy made. Perhaps it can be further food for thought to someone interested.

He gave this title to his youtube video:
"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".

Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ

I think the magnets saturate the toroid sections directly beneath them when their like poles are arranged into the same direction, creating a 'virtual gap' in the core beneath them so the light bulb remains dark. In this magnet orientation the permeability of the closed toroidal core surely drops from the input - output coils point of view.
And when (any) one of the magnets is flipped, the magnets are able to create a closed magnetic circuit fully inside the toroid core (their flux is orthogonal to the coils flux) so no saturation or only a little one can happen in the core so the 1:1 toroidal transformer can work as usual.
If you explain the test differently, please tell.
Of course the strength of the magnets should be selected to the saturation properties of the toroidal core.

Gyula

[Orthofield]

Hi Gyula,

Yes, it's exactly as you say. The magnets are saturating the core directly beneath them, when they can't close a path around the whole toroid.

His test shows that using small magnets on the outside of a toroid or square core is a fruitful area of experimentation. You can create distinct areas of flux, or no flux, inside the core, which can then be made to interact with each other.

In my concept you use additional coils to modulate the mu and thus the flux from the magnets. But there are other things you can do.

I think saturation is inherently wasteful and is to be avoided. It's better to vary the mu in a linear region where there's less losses.

When magnetic modulators were in common use, one type used the idea of moving 'flux nulls' inside the core. The attached patents show two such designs. In the first, you see a PM inside of a toroid, with 'flux nulls' in the region of the toroid near the poles, at top and bottom. In reality the flux is not null in those regions, but the orientation of the flux is such that it doesn't induce into the coil above it. Additional signal coils wiggle the flux null back and forth, generating a voltage corresponding to the input signal. The second design uses two PMs with same poles facing toward each other in a stick core, but the principle is the same.

These types of modulators seem like a very cheap and easy form of 'solid state generator' which might lead to some good results-- especially combined with other coils that aren't coupled inductively. 

Fred

[F6FLT]

Hi Fred,

Perhaps not fully off topic, I would like to refer to an interesting test a Russian guy made. Perhaps it can be further food for thought to someone interested.

He gave this title to his youtube video:
"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".

Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vSSXwqshQ

I think the magnets saturate the toroid sections directly beneath them when their like poles are arranged into the same direction, creating a 'virtual gap' in the core beneath them so the light bulb remains dark.
...

Hi gyula,

I totally agree.
Besides the experience is not only instructive but fun and spectacular, thank you.

[Orthofield]

Hi All,

After looking for flaws in my own design, I've found something, but not sure if it is a flaw or a feature.

This is somewhat elaborate to explain, so I'll forgive you if you lose patience and go on.
It's as much for me to articulate my thoughts as anything else. If someone reads it, then all the better.

I'm using the toroidal form of the gadget that has three PMs attached to the surface in what amounts to a magnetic bridge circuit, creating a pair of static and opposite fluxes. The principle of operation is that the mu between these magnets varies with standard transformer flux, generating current in two coils L3 and L4 interposed between the magnets.

So far, so good. Since the output fluxes are in opposite directions, they clearly won't induce on to the transformer cores. But on consideration, I realized that they DO alter the mu of the transformer core, even though they have no inductive effect.

It may seem strange that superimposed--seemingly 'nullified' fluxes can have an effect on the mu of the core, but among other examples, the Gennady Markov transformer operates by this principle. You can see the principle described on the bottom of pg. 10 and the top of pg. 11 of the attached patent.

It's essentially a parametric autotransformer, where (in simplest form) the single winding is center tapped so that flux goes in opposite directions through the core. Despite this, the mu of the core is varied by the superimposed fluxes, and this change in mu generates current in the coils which shows up at the output terminals.

It could also be described as a sort of 'collapsed' mag amp with the two toroids superimposed onto one. 

This is an interesting effect, little investigated, with many potential applications. But what impact does it have on my proposed design?  There are two independent variables, either of which could have an impact, and neither can be resolved by running mental models in my head. I'm only going to talk about the first here, to reduce the length of this already very long post.

The first factor is, how much does the mu change due to superimposed opposite fluxes, relative to how it changes if the fluxes supported each other?  It seems unlikely at first glance that the mu variation would be the same with the opposite as with the supporting fluxes, but the possibility they are the same can't be discounted. After all, all the magnetic energy is still there, and acting on the domains, presumably as a sort of 'equal pressure' from both sides.

Without knowing the degree of this effect, it's impossible to know how the mutilizer would work in practice. Easy enough to build, but not having a scope and signal generator (yet), impossible to test.

Not exactly back to the drawing board, because I've basically never left haha.

Have a good Christmas/Hanukkah/Solstice/Festivus everyone!

Fred

[chief kolbacict]

Have a good Christmas/Hanukkah/Solstice/Festivus everyone!

Hi all.
Why do we distribute good wishes to each other, celebrate holidays, and why is there more and more evil in the world?

[chief kolbacict]

"Выключатель магнитного поля или магнитный кран" which translates to "Magnetic field switch or magnetic valve".

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

[Orthofield]

Hi all.
Why do we distribute good wishes to each other, celebrate holidays, and why is there more and more evil in the world?

Hi Chief,

I usually refrain from talking metaphysics on this forum, but my view in brief is that Earth is a school for souls. Individual souls evolve through many lifetimes, but the human race as a whole evolves through history only very slowly, and mostly in cycles. A dark age is followed by a renaissance, and then back to a dark age, and so on.

Good and evil are deliberately maintained in about equal quantities through time so that each soul will always have a choice, because without choice there is no evolution. What's important is how you live YOUR life-- pay no attention to what other people are doing or not doing.

The mistake we make is the idea that things are supposed to 'get better' here. That's not what it's for. It's a training ground.

Fred

[chief kolbacict]

Hi,Fred.
Yes, it probably is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE9-tIdNLQM
And it really works.
Only I have it better when one magnet is at the top, the other is at the bottom. 

[gyula]

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

Hi chief,

Thanks for the link, it shows a mechanically operated magnetic valve (flux switching) principle.
By the way, the video originally was made by youtuber gilbondfac, see the same video on his channel here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlHtSzUMEjw
Some years later he made a similar video in much better quality, see it here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGrXjIKFH8

You surely have heard of the Radus boots? He used electromagnets for flux switching: https://www.billstclair.com/www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3skGmUCICM


Thanks for building a test setup with the toroidal core and showing a video on it.    

Gyula

[chief kolbacict]

You surely have heard of the Radus boots?

No, I don't knew. Thanks.

[Vidura]

Great information about the radisboots! Thanks a lot, ortofield. It would seem that this is what Floyd Sweet's SQM  used. There is some information that he could perform the conditioning of the magnets by applying strong magnetic shockwaves while an oscillator provided the frequency to be impressed in the magnetic memory..

[Orthofield]

Hi Vidura,

It was Gyula who brought up the Radus Boots.

The Radus type of flux switcher has been taken to a high degree of development in Charles Flynn's Permanent Magnet Motors.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6246561B1/en?oq=US6246561B1

The patent by Carlos Subieta-Garron I recently posted here is a transformer version of the same thing. Although Flynn can rightly claim increased magnetic field strength at the poles, giving more torque to the motor, and Subieta-Garron claims increased current, I'm not sure that either of these inventions is overunity.

Neither Radus, Garron, or Flynn use the principle that's shown in the videos.

The videos use saturation of a portion of core with a permanent magnet to control transformer flux.
If you reverse this, and saturate a portion of the core with an electromagnet to control permanent magnet flux, you get something very much like the Villasenor De Rivas Electromagnetic Generator patent attached. You can see that there are several orthogonal cores 36,38,40,42 whose fields saturate alternating portions of the main core, forcing permanent magnet flux back and forth across an output coil, and generating power.

While there's a potential for OU operation in such a device, it would have to be very carefully designed to make sure that core cross sections, materials, A/turns, frequencies, etc, were just right. I've seen FEMM studies of such designs that showed excess energy, but it took a great deal of fiddling to get it just right. There is inherent loss in the saturating cores and this has to be compensated for.

In magnetic designs, I'm working with the idea of starting with a working, non-saturating transformer, then using the change in mu of the core to drive some other process that doesn't affect the transformer. Since transformers are already pretty efficient, getting some improvement really means something.

I've studied Sweet and all the other legends of overunity, but I don't think there's any point in trying to figure out what they did. There's just too much missing information. My strategy is to use only known, conventional principles, and see how far I can get with those...

Fred