Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[Groundloop]

@argona369 and @abassign,

An saturable reactor uses a DC current to switch a larger AC current.
My replica device uses no DC current to switch the output on or off.

The difference is that my circuit use NO power to do the switching.
So I do NOT agree that my replica circuit is an saturable reactor.

Groundloop.

[gyulasun]

Hi Groundloop,

At this link I referred to earlier http://science.blogdig.net/archives/articles/July2007/04/Free_energy_with_magnetic_reluctance.html
Thane Heins says this:  The primary operates only at magnetizing current levels (reactive current only) and does not draw any non-reactive current from the source.

So it seems a circulating reactive current is to be created like in a parallel resonant tank circuit, right?
If you agree, then a normal oscillator that includes a tank circuit should be built. I included here a Colpitts oscillator from this link, slightly modified Fig.3 from there.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colpitts_oscillator

If you connect your L1 and L2 (bifilar) coils on your lower permeability core in series in the correct phase (I indicated with black dots) and connect the common middle point of the coils to the collector of Q1, then the resonant reactive energy gets increased  with respect to the case where there is only one coil without any tap in the collector circuit.  (Resonant voltage up-transformation occurs.)  And the oscillator current could be changed by modifying the bias current of Q1, by decreasing (or increasing) R3.  The frequency can be changed by C1 and C2, experiment reveals values,  I suggest between 47nF to 470nF.

Regarding a bridge rectifier at the output, I agree with you using diodes of higher speed,  and a full wave rectifier is needed if the output waveform has both positive and negative amplitudes with respect to a zero value.  An oscilloscope would be of great value here.

rgds,  Gyula

[sterlinga]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Perepiteia_Generator_by_Potential_Difference_Inc

On Feb. 11, 2008, DMBoss added:

There is one thing I neglected to mention in the above commentary. That is this Heins fellow may also get this apparent anomalous rotor speed up entirely due to the improper use of an AC induction motor.

His related demonstration of putting a strong NIB magnet near the steel shaft of this induction motor, with said motor's front "C" plate removed and having it's speed increase is telling.

That is removing the C plate leaves the AC motor's fields rather open to external influence. And it's steel shaft is magnetically connected to the AC rotor, comprising steel laminations and several heavy turns of short circuited windings.

The AC induction motor [in this case a split phase motor] works by making the stator fields produce a rotating field, which induces currents and then fields in the rotor windings/core. These rotor fields try to couple to the 60Hz stator field rotation, and tries to synchronize with them. An AC motor never completely syncs though, and some rotor "slip" occurs. The more the slip the more current the stator coils draw, and this tries to lessen the slip this it automatically "throttles" the current to meet the drag torque causing the increased slip.

Anyway these things should never use an AC motor as they are inherently unreliable and non linear regards their power signature vs the output torque. But this chap is going wildly out of the normal operating envelope for an AC induction motor on top of that.

That is a 2 pole AC motor tries to run at 3600 rpm, and a 4 pole at 1800 rpm. And he is running at 50-200 rpm. So he has massive slip between rotor field and stator field. (you can allow a split phase motor to run at low speed by simply plugging it into a Variac and turning down the voltage after the rotor's turning, or give it a shove by hand as he does)

Now the force/torque on the rotor is proportional to the B^2 in the air gap. Yes it's alternating, but it is still proportional to the square of the flux density. Adding an external magnetic field from permanent magnets could very well provide a DC offset in this magnetic field - as a path is formed from the motor case to return to the magnet, and from the magnet's other pole to the shaft, through rotor, across air gap to stators, and into the motor case. (C plate is removed so you can make a complete flux path out to the magnet)

This small change in flux levels would make no difference if force was proportional to flux density. But it is proportional to flux density squared. So it is plausible that this small offset, applied to the motor in this very unusual running mode of extreme amounts of slip - has caused an imbalance in the amount of rotor torque.

In a sense this addition of external flux has made the coupling coefficient of the rotor to stator higher due to the DC offset and squared condition. No absolute power gain has occurred, but you have gotten more of the power applied to make rotor boost torque.

His own numbers belie this - his AC motor if the two stacked power meters are to be trusted, is drawing some 250 watts to run at this low speed. While the shaft friction of such a sized device is reasonably estimated to be below 20 watts, probably below 5 watts of shaft power to meet friction etc. So his coupling is below 10%. Adding the magnetic path from external magnets to the AC motor system, could cause say a 15 or 20% coupling to occur. Making the shaft speed up, but this is NOT a gain in energy!

My initial comments are correct - you can engineer a system which produces a shaft speed up when you have massive core loss and you short the generator coils - as this negates much of this core loss - so if the coil heating upon shorting is low, then the rotor can speed up.

Also his messing with AC motor can be responsible for the speed up alone or in combo with this generator core loss artifact. But neither is anything but mundane and neither cause of shaft speed up necessarily indicates a gain over unity!

[Groundloop]

@gyulasun,

Thanks, I will try your Colpitts oscillator this weekend.

Groundloop.

[Steven Dufresne]

Notes by Steven Dufresne from February 11, 2008 demonstration given by Thane Heins at the University of Ottawa. The photos I took are in another post. Luc, please correct me if I you remember anything differently.

Regarding the bi-toroid transformer mentioned on this webpage:
http://science.blogdig.net/archives/articles/July2007/04/Free_energy_with_magnetic_reluctance.html
- Thane did not want to answer my questions about specific construction details due to his contractual agreements with organizations he is involved with regarding the bi-toroid transformer. He did confirm that he was using round cores, and that they would be better than rectangular ones and that the input core should be of lower permeability than the output core. I showed him a color photo furnished by Luc of Groundloop's replication attempt and he seemed to indicate that they were the types of cores he used, but again, he would not give specifics. He also confirmed that they did manage to get the flux to  go one way, i.e. no back EMF into the primary, but were having
problems with the voltage balancing.
- Regarding the claim on the webpage of of 7000% efficiency, this was incorrect. The author of this blog was jumping the gun on releasing this information and shouldn't have. The 7000% efficiency is based on a measurement made by an undisclosed person in Russia who did not make power factor into account. Once power factor is taken into account, it is less than 100% efficient. However, Thane is working with other organizations to improve it and "I GOT THE IMPRESSION" (i.e. he did not say it outright) that he thought that it should be possible to make it over 100%.
- Looking back at the above blog, I should have asked him about the claim of 0.2 watts in and 14 watts out also made on the webpage.

Regarding the demonstration...
- Nothing new came up in the demonstration. Given the time, and that we'd already seen the videos, less time was spent on the set demonstraton than in the videos. See the videos for details on the demonstration.
- In case it's hard to read from the videos, the units he uses to display power are Lutron DW-6090 Power Analyzers.
- The output of any single coil is in the milliwatt range. Remember, the cores are just steel pieces purchased from Home Depot, nothing special.
- He did try combining the output of a bunch of coils but found that too difficult since it's like combining 8 phases, with a different voltage from each coil. Remember, each one is different since he
was trying many variables. Thane made no claims to have measured more power out than in.
- Thane will be emailing Luc documents showing test results with open circuit coils, coils with resistive loads, and short-circuit coils. Luc will upload these to the group.

Regarding construction of the devices in the videos...
- The steel wheel is just a spoked wheel available at Lee Valley Hardware, a store in Ottawa and is a wagon wheel. He then welded on the rings that hold the magnets and the magnets were glued in place. The magnets were also from Lee Valley, which sells Neodymium magnets. The wheel/magnet
he used in the demonstration was a different one than in the videos in that it had only one magnet (though there may have been more than one magnet back-to-back within each ring) per spoke and so there were less and they were more uniformly distributed around the wheel.
- The motor is the induction motor and base taken from a RYOBI 6" grinder purchased at Home Depot. Thane did suggest that DC and AC motors should work too, as long as when the flux from redirected back EMF would make a contribution once it made its way back into the motor.
- The steel used as coil cores and to furnish a flux path to the shaft and to other corse was purchased at Home Depot. As needed, some were just straight pieces or as in the 4th video with the toroid, 90 degree pieces. In some places, tranformer tape was used to separate pieces of steel to make laminated cores, in other places the steel pieces were bolted togther with nothing in between to simply make a large mass flux path.
- Various gauges of wire were used in the coils as were different amounts of steel pieces and laminations in an effort to test many variables. From observation some of the wire was around 22 AWG enamel coated wire.

Regarding the patent 2437745...
- Thane said that this patent was an old idea that lead up to what he had now and was outdated. Incidentally, he gave the patent office diagrams in color which they scanned. This may be the reason
that they don't appear in the online version - i.e. problem with the resulting scan.

-Steve
http://rimstar.org

[Steven Dufresne]

Photos attached from February 11, 2008 demonstration given by Thane Heins at the University of Ottawa. I didn't take a lot of photos since everything that was there was the same as in the demonstration videos available online.
-Steve
http://rimstar.og

[LarryC]

Hi All,

Please note the following statement from the news article:

'Heins adds that he and his colleagues ?have coupling from the primary to the secondary. The reluctance flux path in the secondary is lower because either the secondary core area is greater or because we employ core material with a higher relative permeability which results in a decrease in reluctance. When the secondary reluctance is lower - back EMF induced flux from secondary coil 1 must follow the path of least reluctance into secondary 2 and not back to the primary. The primary operates only at magnetizing current levels (reactive current only) and does not draw any non-reactive current from the source. The law of conservation of energy for a transformer requires secondary back EMF to be able to mutually couple back to the primary - but if this flux path is higher it will not be able to do so.?

In order for the back EMF induced flux in core 1 to follow the path of least reluctance into core 2, the cores must be in direct contact at the center point. Each core may be a half circle at the point of contact. Please note that the drawing in the article shows that if the circles were extended they would overlap.

If there is any spacing between the two cores caused by the coating, etc, the induced flux in core 1 will not jump to core 2 as the air gap will not be the least reluctance path. You would only get the induced flux causes by the  current in the center wire wrapping. This may be why when Groundloop switched cores the results were the same. Also, the two cores must be closer than two cores just touching as they would easily saturate at the point of contact. Half of each core at the point of contact would best help the flux switching to the second core.


Regards, LarryC


 

[Groundloop]

Steven,

Thank you for providing the information and images.

If the "o/u" transformer is only 100% effective (or less) then I see no need to continue reaserach on my replica.
Same old story, we are not quite there yet.

@LarryC,

Thank you for the information.

Groundloop.

[Steven Dufresne]

LarryC,
If the cores were ground down flat to about half their thickness, not their diameter but the thickness of the ring material, and then joined would that do?
-Steve
http://rimstar.org

[argona369]

@argona369 and @abassign,

An saturable reactor uses a DC current to switch a larger AC current.
My replica device uses no DC current to switch the output on or off.

The difference is that my circuit use NO power to do the switching.
So I do NOT agree that my replica circuit is an saturable reactor.

Groundloop.

your right i think,a second look and it is a bit different than a mag amp.
there are different configurations of mag amps but i don't think this is one of them
as all the power transfers through the control winding.
interesting idea to chop the control to stop feedback btw.