EEG_EM_New_Technique_TRANSVERSE_FLUX (TF) (Provisional Patent Applied for)

[Electro]

The concern for driving those 16 coils comes from a very basic problem called impedance (not to be confused with resistance) that is a function of the inductance and frequency of the AC current you're trying to put through it.

What does your fancy sim software ask (tell?) you what the impedance/reactance factor is for this setup?

Ideal current source? Ideal coil impedance?? Colour me skeptical.

[solarlab]

One of the many things Ansys does really well.

See their website, including the many examples when you get minute...

[solarlab]

The concern for driving those 16 coils comes from a very basic problem called impedance (not to be confused with resistance) that is a function of the inductance and frequency of the AC current you're trying to put through it.

What does your fancy sim software ask (tell?) you what the impedance/reactance factor is for this setup?

Ideal current source? Ideal coil impedance?? Colour me skeptical.

Electro,

Anyway, since your not familiar with the Software, or Methods and Techniques
used to develop the EE_TFG (as simple as it is). Or, even the basic required
knowledge used in nearly all fundamental designs (even LF).

I'll leave you to your "buzz word salad" and other foolish comments!

A waste of time at best - Have a good one...

But do visit ANSYS, you will definately (?) learn a lot!
https://www.ansys.com/

SL

[Electro]

Confused.  Please circle the words that you deem "word salad".

I'm just taken aback that I'm the only forum lurker that has taken offence to your public description of forum members. ref: "dead fish"/etc.

Looks like this larp is over. What an utter disappointment. 

[partzman]

Electro,

Do not feel alone here!  SL does not feel obligated to answer basic questions about the EEG_EM device but prefers to hide behind the ANSYS curtain in a condescending manner.

SL,

In your post #149, you refer to the 'loose' coupling in your core/coil arrangement.  I assume you are referring to the coupling between the 'loop' turns and the 'pole' windings.  If so, I am curious as to why you would think this?  Is it because the 'loop' windings do not wrap around each individual core?  I claim your arrangement is a common transformer of which you disagree which is fine, and then you proceed to claim that the Lorentz force in the method of induction instead of Faraday.  I would refer you to a paper by Edwards and Saha that is attached below in which they describe the use of the Poynting vector for power flow in a transformer.  As you see here, it is not necessary for a winding to completely circumvent the core.  This commonly known by transformer engineers and evidenced by a simple toroidal current transformer.  So, whether you use Lorentz or Faraday for your calculations, the results will come out the same, IOW, transformer induction.

Now, I'm going to give my opinions on your project as I see them.  You have changed the design of the EEG_EM as you've progressed throughout this thread.  You first disclosed the use of a bipolar current source feeding the 'pole' windings thru 33 ohm resistors.  You then calculated (with ANSYS?) the input power as the product of the current times the resistance and compared this to the much higher output power.  We know and I think you also discovered that this was incorrect as I pointed out earlier, because you forgot to include the inherent EMF that would developed across the 'pole' primaries or IOW, the losses in the current source(s).

Then, you changed the input to a constant voltage drive with "H" bridges both with and without series limit resistors!  I'm surprised that others have not pointed out to you that is not a correct model of the original TFG.  The PM's in the TFG do not ratchet from one position to the other at a 20ns delay rate, they smoothly move between the fixed pole positions.

So, you can definitely add me to the list of skeptics as I think your device is conservative.  Prove us wrong!

Regards,
Pm