PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-08-05, 20:23:11
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Hubbard Coil  (Read 51323 times)
Group: Guest
The available information on the Hubbard Coil as a free energy device invented by a certain young Alfred M. Hubbard makes for quite interesting reading.  It appears to share design similarities with both the Barbat device and to a lesser extent Hendershot's device.

I know that it is sugested that radium was the source of power in the Hubbard Coil, but I'm not overly convinced by this, particularly as it appears that Hubbard did not become involved with the Radium Chemical Company until some time after he had invented the initial device.  Hubbard never patented his device and it all eventually went quiet when he seems to have effectively called time on his invention.  However, there may well be rather underlying reasons for this, and indeed for Hubbard to undermine the importance of his invention by later claiming that he used radium.   And let's face it, even if he did use radium it would be a novel and low cost way of extracting useful energy.

So, assuming that radium was not the energy source, could it have something to do with Eccentric Transformer Theory.  I've read and re-read the following text numerous times and not only does it make for very good reading, but also seems to make very good sense.  However, this is not my particular area of expertise so would be very interested in the thoughts of some of you hardened sparkys.

Here's the link to the following quoted text: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5199-eccentric-transformer-theory.html

Depictions and graphs are missing as they did not copy across, and I don't know how to do this, but they can be seen in the link above.  :)

Quote
Eccentric Transformer Theory -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transformer process in current light generally refers to a passive electrical component which is designed to take energy at one potential and current state on the input, and output at a differing potential and current state based on well defined and accepted ratios. Generally the transformer is of inductive character defined by two electrically separate conductors wound about the same core. It is expected that the power consumable on the output will be equal and opposite to the power consumed from the input minus losses. This is a feature of design only, and holds true to most modern transformers. In eccentric transformer theory, we will examine various forms of transformer which are geometrically wound about individual centers. We will take note how , The bulk of the transformer process can be described by taking an examination of the laws of induction, but it will be shown also that other phenomenon describe the transformation process, but are hidden to us through conventional design. Both capacitive and inductive transformer coupling will be addressed and calculations presented for each.

Inductive Transformer action

The standard transformer According to Faraday's law (put in this convenient permutation)

Voltage Generated = (-N)(delta (BA))/delta t)

Where we have replaced the unit of inductance with its terms:
-N = number of turns
B = Magnetic field strength in Tesla
A = Area of turns

Assuming the primary and secondary are concentric (about the same center) Lenz law applies in the standard way, giving us an equal and opposite EMF equating to equal and opposite energy states on both primary and secondary minus losses. This essentially describes the bulk of the "transformation" process mechanism for this example. It may not be readily apparent, but the Inverse Squared law of electromagnetic radiation is also in effect, though it is hidden to us in conventional designs.
According to the inverse squared law, as we increase the diameter of the secondary (around the primary, concentrically) the magnitude of the EMF created by the primary will decrease accordingly. As we get one radius away from the primary, the magnitude will be 1/4 of the source. But we have also increased area by a factor of four (area of a circle increases by factor of 4 with a doubling of the radius). Therefore in the equation for Faraday's law, the factors of 1/4 and 4 cancel out for no net effect.
This clearly shows both in practice, and mathematical convenience, that when sharing a common center, Faraday's law creates an Equal and Opposite reaction to any change with respect to time in the current of the primary. However, if the primary and secondary do NOT share centers, a new area of study becomes of interest.
If the secondary is wound about a separate center, sitting adjacent to the primary, Lenz law does not behave in the familiar way. The secondary coil will feel a fraction of the field emitted by the primary according to the inverse square law of electromagnetics. For example:

Primary coil: 16 units Field strength
Secondary coil: 2r away from centre of primary
secondary coil: “Feels”: 4 units Field strength

Because of the inverse square law, and our geometric spacing, we can see that the secondary at distance 2r will see only ¼ of the emf as if it had been wound about the same centre as the primary. The secondary will now react per Lenz law to push back on the oscillations of the primary coil. This opposing oscillation must now travel back to the primary across free space, and according to the inverse squared law once again, its magnitude will decrease. If we decrease by a factor of 4 once more, we can see that the primary coil will feel a BEMF of only 1unit. To summarize:

Primary coil:
16 units of field radiating
Secondary coil:
Feels 4 units of field from primary
Creates equal and opposite 4 units per Lenz Law (BEMF)
Primary coil:
Feels 1 unit of BEMF From secondary

So we have expended 16 units, to "create" 4, which pushes back for a total of 1. Hugely inefficient, unless you consider the primary to be a charge conserving resonant structure. In this situation, minus the average reduction due to Q loss, 16 units gets reduced by the BEMF for 1, to create 4 units. The rest of the charge within the primary is conserved and reused in succeeding cycles. Thus we find that the primary consumes 1 unit of energy (minus loss) to create 4 units of energy. Here the "equal and opposite" apparent in all areas of electromagnetics has not been circumvented in any way, simply the geometry has been changed to our advantage.


This same effect can also be calculated using only the capacitive coupling for transformer action.
Capacitors can be arranged in simple geometric ways to act as transformers much the same way inductors can. Such a transformer would appear as a sphere, with a sphere around it concentrically. Because the energy states of both “plates” of our capacitor must be equal, but, the surface area of the inner sphere is less than that of the outer sphere, it will have higher charge density than the outer sphere. The ratio of sizes of the inner sphere to the outer sphere can manipulate the charge density on each to give us transformer action in well known ratios. The mathematics are a direct derivation of
Gauss' law. Because both spheres are about the same center, you will find a situation identical to the transformer described in the previous section. When a change in potential on one sphere occurs, it is mirrored in the second sphere equal and opposite.



One may remove the concentricity aspect of this transformer, and place the spheres on eccentric centers. Here one sphere will be physically next to the other. A simple mental experiment will show that we are left with a similar situation to the transformer action described above. We will assume once again that the primary sphere emits a field of 16 units and both spheres have equal capacitance. The second capacitor sitting 2r away will feel only 4 units of potential with respect to ground, once again due to the inverse squared law of electromagnetics. The secondary capacitor is allowed to charge to this 4 unit potential. In practice the primary sphere will be attached to an inductor which allows for a resonant circuit. Each cycle the sphere discharges its energy back into the inductor and it is recycled. Because our secondary is now charged, and emitting its own field of 4 units, the primary cannot discharge 100% of its energy back into the inductor. The secondary per inverse squared mechanics will have the primary sitting in its field and the primary will feel 1 unit of field. Now where the primary would have discharged all 16 units back into the inductor for re use, it instead only returns 15 units because one unit is held stationary by the charge found on the secondary. Once again we find ourselves expending 1 unit to create 4 total minus loss.

It can be seen in both cases that by simply changing the geometric relations of primary and secondary, energy can be created. In similar fashion, and through creative design energy can also be destroyed.

It can be shown that as one gets further from the source the signal received will decrease as shown in the graph below. The number 1 on the X axis represents concentric arrangement. As the centers depart from one another, the field felt decreases accordingly.



It can also be surmised that what is felt by the secondary, is returned in Lenz like fassion to the primary, constituting a feedback to the source, and equating to work done. The ratio of power induced on the secondary to power returned to source in Lenz like reactions can be considered a multiplicaiton ratio. So for example with our previous calculations, as the secondary feels 4 units, and returns to the source 1unit of detraction, the multiplication ratio is 4.

It can be seen when graphing this in the chart below, that as one moves further and further from the source, the process becomes more and more efficient. At 3r it becomes a multiplication ratio of 9, at 4r, 16 and so on.



It must be realized though that while the process becomes more and more efficient, the average power felt by the secondary decreases. We can see that the graphs have inverse relations in their slopes, and so there will be one point at which they cross. This intersection in the graphs represents the best possible agreement between power felt by the secondary, and the calculated multiplication factor. Mathematically the two equations can be set to one another used to derive the graphs, and find a common solution.

Thanks for viewing

Andrew Manrique

What do you think boys, has Eccentric Transformer Theory got anything going for it in the constant effort to beat Lenz?

.99, you might want to put this topic under it's own 'Hubbard Coil' heading in the 'Pulsed/Radiant Energy' section of the forum.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-16, 18:26:23 by Farrah Day »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3265
tExB=qr
Once ION pointed out to me that the pics of a Hubbard coil with a car distributor and HV supply were from a replication attempt, I now believe that Hubbard did use radium, and that the unit is somehow looped back on itself.  Once started it keeps going forever.
   
Group: Guest
Once ION pointed out to me that the pics of a Hubbard coil with a car distributor and HV supply were from a replication attempt, I now believe that Hubbard did use radium, and that the unit is somehow looped back on itself.  Once started it keeps going forever.

Hi Grumps. I have looked into the radium thing, and I'm not entirely happy with this proposal.  It just seems too convenient in undermining the invention, and something that, at least to my mind, has been specifically thrown in to diffuse interest in the original device and Hubbard's claims.  Besides, even just creating such a transducer would seem to be extraordinary achievement in itself.  Furthermore, when looking into the chronological order of events, unless Hubbard had a former connection to the Radium Chemical Company, Hubbards invention would seem to predate their involvement.

Maybe radium does have something to do with it, but it just doesn't feel right to me.  I mean, how would you even come by radium... and if you did, how would you not get sick?

What are your thoughts on the Eccentric Transformer Theory as a way of putting one over on Lenz?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2911
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
As I've requested in the past, folks please include links to quoted material (including posts from OUR) whenever possible. I see that the "Eccentric Transformer Theory" above is from a post at EF, yet no link, and the accompanying pictures are also not included.

.99
   
Group: Guest
Sorry .99, I missed that, must have been a day when I was absent from class. Will get right on it. ;)
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
regarding the Eccentric Transformer Theory, I think the author may make a mis-step in his logic when he tries to infer that Lenz's law is diminished with distance at a different rate than forward coupling.

I think the coupling coefficient implies a link between primary and secondary that is bi-directional in that the primary acts on the secondary with the same force as the secondary acts on the primary. It is mutual coupling, and while distance may diminish the coupling coefficient, it does not alter the mutuality.

Regarding Alfred Hubbard, he was certainly a colorful character. There is much interesting info on him if you search deep enough. He was considered the Johnny Appleseed of LSD in the 50's turning on thousands so the legend goes. Also possibly a gov't double agent in the bootleg days.

He does have a patent for a Radium tipped spark plug, so he must have been working with the stuff. Radium was dangerously used in a lot of products back then including medicinals.

A lot of folks have spun off ideas and built devices that in some ways resemble the Hubbard transformer. The photos of these devices are passed off as the original Hubbard, but they are not, as the meter styles shown in the photo's were not available in the 20's Now it has all gotten mixed up and you can really only rely on first sources.

The Radium as a source probably is not correct, but as a catalyst...maybe.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
I'm not disputing that hubbard worked for the Radium Chemical Company, it's just that the timeline for this appears wrong in relation to his original invention.

Maybe the author of that Eccentric Transformer Theory text does have it wrong. Whether or not this is the case is really what I hope to discover. Because if he hasn't got it wrong, and if what he is saying bears out scientifically, then this might well shed a whole new light on devices such as the Hubbard Coil.

I guess there's an obvious way to find out... building one.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
I'm not disputing that hubbard worked for the Radium Chemical Company, it's just that the timeline for this appears wrong in relation to his original invention.

Maybe the author of that Eccentric Transformer Theory text does have it wrong. Whether or not this is the case is really what I hope to discover. Because if he hasn't got it wrong, and if what he is saying bears out scientifically, then this might well shed a whole new light on devices such as the Hubbard Coil.

I guess there's an obvious way to find out... building one.

I think the story is that Hubbard had a professor /  benefactor and mentor that gave him a small amount of Radium to play with at the time of the development of the transformer.

As for the Eccentric transformer, you should be able to test his basic theory with a pair of windings and variable coupling without having to go into a full blown Hubbard design for (which we have little to no real construction information from original writings.)



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
I think the story is that Hubbard had a professor /  benefactor and mentor that gave him a small amount of Radium to play with at the time of the development of the transformer.

Yes, I can see the possibilities, but even if this was the case, the Hubbard Coil transducer would surely have been an extremely intriguing - not to say remarkable - device.

When I get chance I'll build something along the lines of what we know of the Hubbard Coil geometry, which itself appears to fall exactly in line with the layout required for testing the Eccentric Coil Theory.  

I'm hoping to have a dedicated small laboratory built in my back garden this summer, where I'll be able to set up shop and do some real experimenting. I currently have nowhere very suitable to work, just a pokey greenhouse full of garden tools and such, that becomes an ice box in winter.  Going to be a busy year.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 414
This is a valuable document; page 50 onwards:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
   
Group: Guest
This is a valuable document; page 50 onwards:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf


Yes, I'm aware of Patrick Kelly's work.  Whilst I'm not always convinced by the arguments, his views or indeed his conclusions, he has to be commended for the work he has put into collating so much relevant information and putting it all in one easy-to-access place.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 414
Yes, I'm aware of Patrick Kelly's work.  Whilst I'm not always convinced by the arguments, his views or indeed his conclusions, he has to be commended for the work he has put into collating so much relevant information and putting it all in one easy-to-access place.
Yes. His contribution to the community is colossal.

There is doubt about the material of the tubes. He seems to suggest low carbon steel but others insist on iron
which is, as far as I can see, unobtainable. Someone has proposed one of the granular materials.
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi All,
I'm interesting in reviving some threads that have gone dormant, since I think there is really something to them.

IMO It's not certain, but very likely that Hubbard used radium in his device, as Paul Brown did, in his patented later version.
But I don't think the operating principle requires radium to get free energy.

The patent attached claims overunity, and is from 1933. It's in French but the basic translation is simple:
1) one primary core made of soft iron in the center, surrounded by a coil, and supplied with AC. The core is proportioned so that the AC keeps the core in saturation most of the time.
2) six satellite secondaries also made of soft iron, arranged in a circle around the primary. (see pg. 3). The secondaries and primary all have the same number of turns.
The resemblance to the Hubbard coil and Paul Brown nuclear battery is clear.

The inventor explains that since each of the secondaries is in transformer relation to the ones on each side, there is a multiplication of power. Although he doesn't elaborate on it, it's clear that the flux from the secondaries has a preferential path through the other secondaries, due to the saturation of the primary core.
In terms of flux paths, the flux of the primary is divided by 1/6 and goes to a secondary. The loaded secondary output flux is split in half, with 1/2 going to the secondaries on each side, and very little going back to the primary.
The absence of flux back through the primary, and the increase of flux that each secondary sees means an increased power and reduced loading, by all standard understanding of transformer operation.

This is similar to the Eccentric Transformer theory regarding the important of geometry.
I have a crude French translation if anyone wants to see it..

orthofield



   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 414
A very interesting patent, o/f, if in French.

This translation should be reliable
http://freenrg.info/Patents/FR739458_COUTIER/FR739458_COUTIER_TRANS.html

(No mention of radium, radioactive stuff or radioactivity in general).


I got this from Nerzhdishual here: (in #85):
http://www.overunity.com/5144/infinity-coil/85/#.VNYeq3eonTo

On page 1, #8 has interesting links from Pese.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-07, 14:44:05 by Paul-R »
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201

Hi Paul R,

A very interesting patent, o/f, if in French.

--O/f, good :-)
It looks like a case of independent rediscovery of Coutier.

France was an overunity free-for-all from the start, and still is.
Go to Espacenet advanced search, plug in the desired year and enter just FR in the publication number line, and use the IPC code H02n11/00. This is the EU code for all solid-state electrical OU devices, and you will see those sorts of French OU patents for that year. It's interesting to do this year by year, starting with 1920. There are a number of undiscovered and extraordinary machines.

This translation should be reliable
http://freenrg.info/Patents/FR739458_COUTIER/FR739458_COUTIER_TRANS.html

--Yes, it's very accurate and quite a bit better than my machine translation.

(No mention of radium, radioactive stuff or radioactivity in general).

--It's not really too difficult to set up a transformer where two secondaries interact with each other instead of the primary. What usually happens is that 1/2 the secondary flux goes back to the primary, which means that the primary still sees loading, albeit half the usual. Several groups I've been in have seen this in practice.
I think even better is when the primary has a much higher net reluctance than the secondaries, either by being saturated or magnetized, or by using an air core (and resonance to capture the magnetic field energy in that case).
A number of experiments show this effect, for instance the Jensen UDT or Harold Aspden's experiments with an E and I core.

Just today I've found some newspaper articles suggesting the Hubbard central core was premagnetized before the windings were put on, and was permanently magnetized. A search of 'magnet' on the Rex research article on Hubbard, suggests that the satellite cores were "magnetic upon iron", but at the time that would have meant only that some of the iron was magnetized, since there wasn't much beside iron available at the time. It occurs to me that solid junctures between magnetic materials like this could cause reflections or phase lag.


I got this from Nerzhdishual here: (in #85):
http://www.overunity.com/5144/infinity-coil/85/#.VNYeq3eonTo

--Thanks for this! I didn't realize there were any active Hubbard-type projects going on. I have Barbat but haven't looked at it.
I should note that in those Fr patents there are devices that use 'radioactivity' that is created by electrostatic discharges to energize the coils, which is a nice solution to the radium problem. It almost approaches some of Correa's work. 

I'm really glad that people are paying attention to this type of device. In my view it has a proven record of creating improvements in power-- at the very least!

orthocoil

On page 1, #8 has interesting links from Pese.
[/quote]
   
Group: Guest
--It's not really too difficult to set up a transformer where two secondaries interact with each other instead of the primary. What usually happens is that 1/2 the secondary flux goes back to the primary, which means that the primary still sees loading, albeit half the usual. Several groups I've been in have seen this in practice.
I think even better is when the primary has a much higher net reluctance than the secondaries, either by being saturated or magnetized, or by using an air core (and resonance to capture the magnetic field energy in that case).
A number of experiments show this effect, for instance the Jensen UDT or Harold Aspden's experiments with an E and I core.

What is very interesting about this orthofield is that I have been working on what I term my Lenz Locker Transformer.  The idea here is to use a inner primary winding with high reluctance than another low reluctance core next to the primary that is shunted, typically with a single turn copper pipe.  Around both of these is the secondary winding.  The concept is very simple, use the effect of Lenz Law TWICE to mirror back to the secondary what would normally get back to the primary.  At the moment this concept appears to be sound, still having a little difficulty with the proper geometry and operating conditions.  With certain inputs, it almost appears that it is necessary to switch off the output for just a quick moment while the input changes polarity, hence the name Lenz Locker.

There was so much talk about stopping Lenz Law, I decided instead to take advantage of Lenz Law, just do it twice and see what happens.  So far, so good.
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Matt,

Yes, this effect is totally to be expected from applying standard laws of magnetic circuits. I really see it as two effects:
1) You set up two or more secondaries in close proximity, allowing a low R path through them. This increases the power.
2) You do something to the primary so that it appears as an 'internal high reluctance.' This decreases the loading.
3) You also usually have to compensate for high leakage flux in the primary.

I hadn't thought of doing it your way. When you say the high and low reluctance cores are 'next to' each other, I'm imagining two solenoids sitting next to each other, so there are flux air paths at the ends. Or is the shunted 'coil' a sort of cylindrical sleeve around a solenoid primary? I guess I am unclear on the geometry. I searched for your project but didn't see a drawing or pic.

But the same idea as seen in at least 5 devices, is clearly there-- the changing reaction flux from one sec. can be a real source of power if it can be routed to another secondary.

I'm not sure of the geometry of the Lenz Locker, but do you have the fluxes of primary and reaction coil in opposite directions, as seen by the secondary? This would seem to minimize induction, when you want to maximize it... have you tried putting a secondary around just a portion the shunt coil/core, and not the primary at all?

I tried to maximize these two effects in our experiments with ferrite stick cores attached to the flat surface of a metglas toroid. By putting the sticks as far away as possible on the toroid surface, and driving them together, we could create an AC primary flux in parallel paths through the toroid, with secondaries to pick up these fluxes.
The theory being that the ferrite stick cores with an open air path at the ends could send primary flux through the toroid without getting any secondary flux coming back their way.
Also, the toroid secondaries both generate output power, but their reaction fluxes meet completely inside the toroid, with almost no leakage flux, and 'nullify' so that their reactance on the primary is completely eliminated (and we found this to be true-- no load on primary no matter what R on secondary coils).
Then the problem, never completely solved, was to resonate the whole system to reduce losses from the air path, making it more like a Witricity device in some ways.

orthocoil









What is very interesting about this orthofield is that I have been working on what I term my Lenz Locker Transformer.  The idea here is to use a inner primary winding with high reluctance than another low reluctance core next to the primary that is shunted, typically with a single turn copper pipe.  Around both of these is the secondary winding.  The concept is very simple, use the effect of Lenz Law TWICE to mirror back to the secondary what would normally get back to the primary.  At the moment this concept appears to be sound, still having a little difficulty with the proper geometry and operating conditions.  With certain inputs, it almost appears that it is necessary to switch off the output for just a quick moment while the input changes polarity, hence the name Lenz Locker.

There was so much talk about stopping Lenz Law, I decided instead to take advantage of Lenz Law, just do it twice and see what happens.  So far, so good.
   
Group: Guest
I hadn't thought of doing it your way.

Got your PM orthocoil; thanks for reminding me to get back to the subject.  I was a little heads-down trying to make improvements I could share with the gang here.  Unfortunately, I'm not there yet, so I'll just have to show what I got and let the winner take the pot.   :)

Anyway, attached is my version two LLT.

I put five labels on the image we can use for reference:
A.  Small air core primary
B.  Heavy gauge shunt winding
C.  Secondary winding
D.  Pickup winding
E.  Laminated silicon steel C-Core

The reason I don't have this device detailed on my workbench is that I'm not at all clear how to properly drive it.  At the moment I have a spark gap (impulse) system connected but it has some problems that I need to work out.

The tiny air coil primary (A) seems to need some help.  Inserting soft iron welding rods is the easiest means so far.  Without some sort of core here, you have to use very high frequencies well outside the range of the of core (E).  My thought is to make a C-Core out of ferrite rod--place the rod through the coil and the other half outside the windings.  This may lower the operating frequency without lowing the reluctance so much the main core (E) no longer grabs the majority of the CEMF.

The (B) winding is a bit hard to see.  I believe it is 4 AWG, just shunted together.  I couldn't find a proper size piece of copper pipe that I could form around the bobbin, but as-is, seems to do the job.

The secondary (C) windings are just speaker wire, zip cord.  This allows me to gang the two windings in parallel or series (bifilar) and is far easier to wrap than just a single wire.  It's 18 AWG and can handle a few watts if I ever get to that point.

(D) is the test or pickup winding.  It has a couple of uses.  I can inject power into this winding and observe the core is shunted via the (B) winding.  I can also use this winding to detect ever slightly ringing within the core.  The more I look at it, the more it seems I should have switched positions between (B) and (D).  I may try this once I get my drive methodology figured out.

The C-Core (E) is a power core purchased from Bridgeport Magnetics, capable of about 3000 watts.  Used here in the LLT, it provides the low reluctance magnetic path for the CEMF

If we walk through this device, starting with (A), we see that only the secondary (C) encloses the primary (A).  So there is no possibility of induction into (B) or (D).  So if we get any induced EMF, we should see it in the secondary (C).  Now with just pure potential in (C), nothing should be observed in (B), (D) or (E).  However, if connect any sort of load to the secondary (C), this winding will now create a magnetic field in opposition to that of the primary (A).  This magnetic field created inside the windings (C) will funnel itself to wherever the lowest reluctance is; that being the core (E).  When it does so, it induces an EMF in both (B) and (D).  Lets assume (D) is left unconnected and concentrate on what happens in (B).  The (B) winding is now induced and creates another magnetic field that is opposition to the field generated by (C).  Fortunately for us, this magnetic field will aid the field created by (A) and the cycle repeats.  This is Lenz Law executed twice per initial induction event.

Hopefully this is sound logical thinking and from what I can tell so far, appears to behave as I have suggested.  Things get difficult when you consider coupling, frequency response, core saturation and the many other factors power engineers deal with.  I haven't progressed beyond the toddler stage thus far and have restricted my testing to simple impulses where I can see a partial effect manifest.  I'm mostly stuck at the moment and I think I know why, but haven't a good plan yet for a version three.  The speed of impulses I need to get any power transfer from (A) to (C) is so fast that (E) can't even respond.  It is way outside of its frequency range.

My thought for future improvement is to use multiple cores (E) and use a similar core for (A).  With this, everything should have an equivalent frequency response.  What will happen though is some of the CEMF will make it back to the primary, but it will be strictly proportional to the number of cores utilized.  So with one primary core and nine locker cores, only 10% of the CEMF will get back.  Doing this may however complicate the coupling even more.  It's a difficult problem to solve.

This is what I have.  It may be something worth pursuing, maybe not.  If anyone knows a straightforward way to get nature to cooperate, I'm all ears.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-12, 18:59:36 by Matt Watts »
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Matt,

Sorry I took a while to get back to you. I've been thinking hard about your design.

I do see some major ways that performance might be improved. Some of these are substantiated by previous tests.
Take a look at my drawing which is sort of an idealized version of what I am thinking about.
It eliminates both the shunt and zip cord secondary as you've conceived it.
It uses your idea of ferrite C cores for the primaries, but places four of these around the silicon core, surmounting four low turn, low-gauge secondaries, each with its own 2-10 ohm load.
It is Lenz Lock because the secondary fluxes are mostly trapped inside the C-C core. The difference between ferrite and silicon mu, as well as the inevitable gap between ferrite and silicon parts will result in almost none of the sec flux going to the primaries. All the primary flux sees a low reluctance path through a portion of the C-C core directly under its respective secondary.

The primaries are driven in series but with alternating polarity. This means that alternating secondaries will have opposite output fluxes. With four secondaries rather than two, most of the output fluxes will encounter each other inside the core, and the net effect will be a drastic reduction in the secondary flux. Some will leak, but all that remains inside the C-C core will be mutually cancelled.

The effect of cancellation of the output fluxes is that the transformer operates as if it had no load no matter what load is connected to it. This is the reason for the low-gauge wire and few turns in the secondaries, and low R values. Without any load effect, the bigger the load the better.

orthocoil

   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Matt,

The design in the last letter was somewhat based on work done in 2012 with a gadget I called the flux nullification transformer. In my post I tried to combine your test bed and concept of a low reluctance input coil with that 'old' research, because this seemed like the best way forward. I can't send the original docs because they have some other people's info on them, but I can outline what was done, and answer any questions.
See the attached drawings for my initial design and what got tested, and the results in brief.
I see a good fit between this project and Hubbard, which I think uses the same principles, and your LLT input stage in particular.

orthocoil
   
Group: Guest
All good stuff orthocoil; thanks for posting your ideas.   O0

I'm hoping to get all my components this week for my high voltage impulse driver.  ION mentioned a Skype call with him to have a look and give me a few pointers.  I get this part working, then I can test pretty much anything with it.  Being able to test a device with a controlled impulse driver should reveal some important facts, such as where the flux goes, what kind of delay it has, ringing effects, phase alteration and other things I haven't even thought of yet.

Based on some of the principals Erfinder is working with, I suspect what an inductor is connected to (the load) is as critical to how the inductor behaves; maybe more so than the inductor itself.  If you look at LR circuits, there is a lot going on there; much of it unseen by the test equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL_circuit

Verpies turned me on to studying this a little more in depth.  Something I hadn't considered at all when first testing my LLT.


I'm actually quite excited to dig in and start working with these techniques and see what they have to offer.
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Matt,

I'm glad you found those tests of interest.
Your discussion of spark gaps and pulse generators reminds me that our concepts are not too similar. So taking it back to your original photo, how do you get any appreciable output out of your device using a spark gap?

1) the core is highly lossy for most of the frequencies in the spark impulse.

2) the shunt coil represents a loss as well, regardless of frequency, since the currents through it dissipate as heat and are not useful power.

3) The primary flux actually does have a low reluctance path through the C-C core, and thus through the shunt coil, so there is a direct load on the primary from the shunt. There is also a direct load on the primary from the secondary, for the same reason.

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but to help improve your design. You must have seen some anomaly in driving it with a pulse, to merit your enthusiasm for the design. What have you seen that indicates some potential for overunity?

orthocoil

   
Group: Guest
What have you seen that indicates some potential for overunity?

I guess that would be no one has said my concept of using Lenz Law twice is a bad idea, or that it can never work.  Where excess power would manifest from...  I really have no idea.  So I push on...  Experimentally.

If you would be so kind, please allow me to prepare a presentation in my workbench area.  If there is anything to this concept, hopefully I will be able to clearly show it at power levels where the chances of error are minimized.  Initially I used an audio amplifier to drive the device, which is clearly not working as intended.  I'm hoping by using high voltage impulses, I can at least determine how the flux is propagating/dispersing.  First I have to get my driver system functional.  Been a little tricky with sparks jumping resistors and such.  Not nearly as straightforward as working with low voltage systems.

Anyway, I'm not at a dead-end, or I may be and just not know it yet.  With several design variations on the same theme and some testing, I should know the answer fairly soon.
   
Group: partzmans Private Group
Full Member
*

Posts: 201
Hi Matt,

I apologize for the somewhat grouchy tone of my letter this morning...need more coffee before I write :-)

 I'm excited by the concept of using Lenz law reaction for power since I've seen it used in quite a number of different gadgets over the years, both transformer and generator type. You can consider the basic concept confirmed by more than a few tests, and not just mine. To me, the real question is how to use it efficiently, not whether it works. I've yet to see it put fully into operation, except perhaps in the Hubbard coil. The Hubbard transformer secondaries are a clear example, since each will get output flux from the ones on either side.

The first place I saw it used was in the Jensen Unidirectional Transformer from 1996, see files attached. You'll note that the primary drives two secondaries that face each other. Although this device is not ideal in several ways, it has been measured OU in two separate tests that I know of. And this with LF AC operation.

orthocoil
   
Group: Guest
I apologize for the somewhat grouchy tone of my letter this morning...need more coffee before I write :-)

Not a problem.  After my Pa passed away, I sometimes miss that ol' kick in the butt.


I started at the beginning of this thread and followed some of the links it contained.  Came across this:
http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm

What caught my attention are what look like shunted coils, called "energy magnifying coils".  Hmmm...  Where have I seen that before?
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-08-05, 20:23:11