Hi All,
In this thread I hope to present a new technique (at least it's new to Excess Energy Generation)
that has some great potential for developing useful devices.
THIS IS A "NEW APPROACH" TO EXCESS ENERGY GENERATION (EEG)
Although the technique has been known for over a 100 years, TRANSVERSE FLUX (TF) methods do
not appear to have been applied, to date, for "stand alone" fueless generation of power.
Preliminary analysis shows some great promise. We'll investigate further by designing a few
generator configurations. TF technology has recently (10 years or so) been employed in Permanent
Magnet (TFPM) generators but all these schemes use a rotating structure and PM's.
This new approach (a novel, undocumented, nor investigated idea) simply replaces the "PM's" with
equivelant "Electromagnets." This avoids or eliminates many of the TFPM drawbacks - the generator
becomes stationary (no cogging torque), requires no external anything, and is self-sustaining.
The TF methods appear to produce substantial output power while requiring very little input power.
These devices are very simple and easy to build while requiring no exotic materials, assembly tools
nor skills.
Stay tuned - I'll go through the investigation, development and design in some detail; including CAE Analysis;
sourcing, fabrication techniques and device implementation and testing.
However - please be aware that this new approach has been submitted as a Provisional Patent. So, if you have
a problem with that; just quietly move on. Thanks!
SL (solarlab)
Some Preliminary BACKGROUND and STUDY Information
If your new to the Transverse Flux (TF) concept these links will help explain the idea. Although they
focus on generators using Permanent Magnets (PM's) used in Wind Generators, you can easily
substitute the PM rotating disc with fixed "Electromagnets" driven by a simple "Full H-Bridge" electronically.
Principle of TFPM Generator:
https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.html (https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.html)
Animated video of the simplified operation (using PM's):
https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.mp4 (https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.mp4)
A video of a TF Motor design and build from Mr. Kuhn (student at Altoon Penn State University):
https://altoona.psu.edu/video/35096/2020/12/14/transverse-flux-motor (https://altoona.psu.edu/video/35096/2020/12/14/transverse-flux-motor)
Again, replace the PM's with an Electromagnet and you'll get the idea of this new EEG_EM concept.
SL
Brief Transverse Flux Definition
This picture sums up the difference between "Conventional Flux" (the one we've all been
chasing for the past 10, or more, years and "Transverse Flux" (the concept used here in this
EEG_EM).
A side note:
When looking into the LinGen I wanted something that didn't require the sliding, or rotating,
magnetic field. Faraday and Lorentz laws are different but come up with the same results. As
a bonus, this EEG_EM does not have a large "overhang" of the LAP Winding found in the
original LinGen. In fact, the LAP Coil is replace by a simple round, or oval, torroid shape coil.
After a bit of study the TF seemed to be that difference. It wasn't covered much (1 hr?) in
university but it at least it got stuck in the "upstairs" over the years.
TF Definition - Conventional Flux (shown in (a) Fig 1.) and Transverse Flux (shown in (b) fig 1.)
This Figure was taken from the paper that's attached in the next post.
SL
Related Papers
Attached are several related papers that explain, in more detail, the TF as it
pertains to generator design in general.
SL
CAE Analysis of the EEG_EM TF Design Concept
These two (2) documents are a preliminary CAE Analysis of the approach.
Part 1 of 2 is the "Typical - TF LinGen V2 Design.pdf"
Part 2 of 2 is an analysis "TFG_Z03_TR_A-phi_OutCoil_5_100mA-20t_Rev_01.pdf"
Of particular interest are the data preliminary results found at the end of part 2.
SL
Misc Animations of the Operation (from CAE)
Two animations are attached in 7z (zip) format that depict the movement of
the "H" "B" and "J" fields in the device.
Store the zip somewhere (downloads) and unzip to view the animations in your
favourite animated gif viewer.
Good night for now...
SL
Animation Explanation
From the above files - the animation "TFG_Z03_Example_1.7z" shows the complete system with
only one (1) Pole around the Output Loop (a simple wire loop of "t" turns). The more Poles that
are added, in turn, causes more Output to be created. So the theory goes anyaway - will check
that out in the near future using CAE.
The second animation "TFG_Z03_TRb.7z" shows the "B Field" "N/S" flip flop action created
by the "H [A-turns/m]" coils on each leg of the Pole. This "H" is created by the 100mA
current simultaneously feeding the two (2) 20 turn N Coil and S Coil, in series, from a typical
"Full H-Bridge."
There's nothing more to it. Considering the In vs Out ratio, and the simplicity, this could
be a true break-through in EEG! CAE Analysis shows the possibilities...
SL
Example Files | can be opened in Ansys AEDT Student
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEG EM => EXCESS ENERGY GENERATOR using ELECTROMAGNETICS
ANSYS Electronic Desk Top (AEDT) Student version download link:
https://www.ansys.com/academic/students/ansys-electronics-desktop-student (https://www.ansys.com/academic/students/ansys-electronics-desktop-student)
(Built-in license valid until 07/31/24) [zip file 8.3GB] Has some limitations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached are two (2) files that can be opened and examined (played with to some extent - except
AEDT Student does not allow Transient solutions and is node restricted - limited mesh).
The files may be useful in understanding the concept as well as determining the "Magnetostatic B, H, J etc.
Several AEDT Student Proj "getting started" files are found at the Mooker Forum.
Proj Link starts about here: https://www.mooker.com/thread-47-post-608.html#pid608
SL
Some Interesting Data
Since this EEG_EM LinGen V2 approach is new, there are no patents, papers or other a priori
information available for reference. Therefore, everything has to be done from the ground
up. Including studies based on Wild Ass Guesses (WAG's) and Experimental Analysis.
To date, the technique appears to be of great value to those seeking an independant
generation source. All of the attributes meet, or exceed, anything that has been developed
to date. Initial results seem to be "too good to be true;" and further work will hopefully bare
this out.
Anyway, the attached pdf charts some of the initial analysis of adding poles to the loop,
changing the number of turns for both the N S "U Poles" and Loop coil.
It's just some data so it might not be too interesting to those looking for a "Cook Book" device
however some experimenters who are interested in evolving this method might find it of value.
Have a Merry Christmas and hopefully I will continue this project in the New Year!
SL
TFG_Z04 Pole Dimensions and Lamination Structure
Received an inquiry about the TFG_Z04 Pole dimensions and Lamination structure so I'll
quickly add what I've done so far (this is WAG so take it for what it's worth).
Attached two (2) files (before I forget):
"TFG_Z04_8-Pole_Dimensions (WAG) and Structure.pdf"
"TFG_Z04_Lamination_Cut_Pattern_(WAG)_and_Structure.pdf"
Note the unique 1/2 Pole cut pattern scheme to reduce waste... I think it's pretty | cleaver |.
Have a good one!
SL
And, yes, I'm at my "other office" (the Boat Dock Bar)...
TFG_EM (Transverse Flux Generator using ElectroMagnets)
TFG_EM SUMMARY 25 December 2023 (DEH SL)
This Excess Energy Generator (EEG) appears to be almost too Amazing!
The initial Wind Ass Guess (WAG) approximations certainly indicate this could very likely be
the "HOLY GRAIL" of "Stand Alone, Fuel Free Power Generation."
Features include:
- Simple design, using only three (3) initial parts, easy to fabricate;
- Low cost; very good power to volume ratio;
- Requires no external Fuel source or Mover; it's totally self-contained;
- Easily expandable to increase output, or create a 3-Phase device, etc.;
- There are no moving parts, no noise or vibration, and nothing to wear out;
- High output power in a small size;
- Simple electronic controller scheme.
All of the initial design analysis are encouraging enough to promote further development.
With a WAG ( not optimized) output performance of over 400 Watts with a footprint of near
212mm x 153mm x 76.5mm (8.35" x 6.1" x 3.1") being driven by a simple On/Off pulsed full
H-Bridge using a 3 Volt 100m Amp (0.3 Watt) supply source; this TFG_EM
concept provides some great promise for future EEG developments.
A "cleaning up" before any optimization and new design and development. Attached a few
files to clairify some items. Sorry if there are any repeats...
SL
Hoping you're all having a Great and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Looking forward to the NEW YEAR!
EDIT - changed the driving source to "3V 100mA = 0.3W" (500mA will saturate the Pole, unless you're using only a few turns) - sorry, a typo? >:D
You might try increasing the cross section of the laminate stack and wire turns.
Here are some figures from a transformer calculator with common grade electrical steel.:
Cross section mm --- max power in watts
29 x 29 ------------ 65.9
50 x 55 ------------ 756.2
56 x 56 ------------ 983.4
Thanks Cadman,
This week I hope to construct a model where the dimensions are variables. This hopefully will allow
easily changing these and then doing some step by step comparative analysis.
Not sure exactly how AEDT handles the cross section of the wire turns but it does calculate the "J" term
so it might take the "fill factor" into account since it allows the number of turns to be entered, but not
the wire guage. We shall see...
Curious to see if the device can be scaled based on lamination stack size (or simply the Pole size). Also
need to link the model with the Thermal analysis module, and some other things.
Interesting and lots of fun!
Regards, and Happy New Year!
SL
Hi Cadman,
Before I spend time trying to do any comparative analysis on this "WAG" device I thought a review of
other promising topologies (primarily stator pole schemes) would be a good idea. Don't want to get
too "wrapped-around-the-axle" before taking a broader view of what might work better.
This paper (attached), and several others, look into a variety of designs, so I'll review these first.
If you decide to review the paper a bit, keep in mind the PM's are replaced with EM's and the generator
is motionless so the related problems/concerns with torque, cogging, flux leakage, gap (no gap required)
and so forth are somewhat moot. Other things, like RPM are arbitrary - we can easily control these
(we determine the drive frequency - osc freq).
You can likely appreciate why this (new) design approach is interesting and so much fun!
SL
PS - found Fig. 10 interesting.
Another paper worth reviewing.
Has some good general information as well as design stuff.
Again, keep in mind we are replacing the PM's with EM's.
SL
Another paper worth reviewing.
Shows an analytic approach to solutions. Just an FYI, but might be useful if no 3D CAE is available
and you enjoy using some math!
However, a lot of the work can be done using Ansys Electronics Desktop's (AEDT) free Student Edition
using Magnetostatic and Eddy Current.
Again, keep in mind we are replacing the PM's with EM's and there is no motion/rotation.
SL
A REVIEW of TFG TOPOLOGIES
Before beginning a detailed design intent a review of promising topologies (in particular Pole designs)
was conducted.
As a result; the primary focus will begin with the "WAG" scheme presented earlier. Several papers also
support this approach, plus, due to the straight forward configuration, ease of fabrication, and good
performance it is concluded that this is a good place to start with respect to (wrt) designing an Excess
Energy Generator (EEG) based on the Transverse Flux (TF) concepts.
More than 30+ papers, patents and articles were reviewed with several being studied in detail.
Some may criticize or comment - "quit the theory stuff and just get on with it" - but try to realize that
a "wrong direction" mis-step in the beginning can easily lead to a giant "waste of time" in the end.
A thourough literature review before beginning any indepth design is a very common practise.
So, I ask for your patience as I attempt to leave "no stone unturned" prior to initiating long computer
simulation analyses, expensive part procurement and warming up the soldering gun.
Two papers are attached. The first deals with very good summary (a 2021 paper from the Turkish Journal
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences) and performance analysis of TF designs.
A second paper is a Dissertation that focuses on some significant performance improvements that
can be applied to a design similar to the WAG. Of inerest, amongst other things, is a simple widening
modification to the pole piece slot that appears to result in a 35%/80%/90% increase in performance.
SL
Attached:
1. "Comparative review of disk type and unconventional transverse flux machines: performance analysis"
2. "STUDY ON PERMANENT MAGNET TRANSVERSE FLUX MACHINE"
SUPRISING PERFORMANCE (almost unbelievable)
After reviewing the performance specifications of a variety of Transverse Flux Generators,
it's surprising how well these devices perform. A couple of things really stand out:
1. A generator with a relative slim depth and a small overall diameter, appears to produce
upwards of ~ >240V with > 1++ kW output, rotating near 600 RPM. Thats about 10Hz x # of
Poles, say 600/60 = 10Hz x 16p = 160 Hz - that's the N/S pulse rate for all poles simultaneous.
Ooops! Not exactly - the "tick rate" is 600/60 = 10; each pole "ticks" at the same time, therefore 10Hz!
2. They are powered by Permanent Magnets with strengths ranging in value from 0.6 to 1.4
Tesla and most are quite flat (1-2mm) with a very small diameter (some much <12-15mm).
They also include gaps of around 1-2mm to allow the disc to rotate. We don't need gaps.
3. A small 1.2T ElectroMagnet can be made using < 50mA with 20 turns of wire. These
EM's can also be powered in series, making the requirements almost nothing, when compared to
the possible output power. A 3V supercap supplying, say, 100mA = 0.3W.
Having done some preliminary analysis of this novel TF device using electromagnets; I still
find it amazing!
Hey, have I had too much Christmas/New Years CHEER or is this actually for REAL? We shall see...
* Is it really this simple? * Can we easily construct such a apparatus? * It appears so!
A simplified technical discussion regarding ElectroMagnet construction is attached. It can
also be used in conjunction with AEDT (Student - Magnetostatic) to verify the 'analytic' results.
SL
Happy New Year Everyone!
Attached: "Practical electromagnet design.pdf"
Dear SL,
Thank you for sharing this technology.
Hope your meaningful work will help us all in understanding
the technology and replicating it.
Perfectly explained and best news so far I have heard.
Greetings,
Alex
Hi Alex (kampen),
Happy New Year!
Based on a lot of preliminary design study and analysis it appears this new, novel, idea
of replacing the permanent magnets with electronically controlled electromagnets in
these Transverse Flux Generators (primarily for wind turbines) just might be the answer!
We shall see... Have a look at the attached data in the next post. Any questions or concerns,
please let me know - this is all pretty new, probably to everyone, and there's no Cook Book.
Regards,
SL
TFG_Z05 PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE STUDY
NOTE: These figures are Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates only. They are solely for
the purpose of design engineering analysis and are subject to errors, omissions and change.
Very Preliminary Observations: (based on the WAG dimensions and physical layout)
- Number of Loop turns does not seem to make a significant difference (Output Loop terminated into 5 ohms),
- Frequency (Pulse - Pperiod and Pwidth) does not seem to increase the output to any extent,
- Coil turns DOES seem to have a significant impact on the output. Appears to be the 'Prime Parameter.'
- Output ranges [theoretically] from 24.2KW (500 Coil turns) to 49.3W (20 Coil turns) at a
Coil Drive of 100mA (+50mA/-50mA) based upon the initial WAG.
More details are found in the attachment "TFG Z05 Preliminary Performance Study.pdf" A second pdf is just
the Worksheets FWIW.
Take care and have a Very Good 2024!
SL
Daar SL,
Thank you for sharing your recent simulations.
I am amazed with these unbelievable results and scary at the same time!
Can this be for real?
I will definitely follow your messages and willing to make a replication.
Keep up the good work.
Happy New Year for all.
Greetings, Alex
Alex,
Initially I had the same reservations w.r.t. the analysis results; however, after studying some
of the Wind Generator papers, etc. using TFG techniques, the numbers do not appear to that
much "out-of-line." Some of these compact devices have quite a "healthy" output at low RPM.
One observation I noticed is that the output doesn't change that much as the frequency (RPM)
changes - which would be a definite bennefit for wind based systems.
Scheduled some prototype builds and tests for early in the new year. Still very optomistic!
Thermal will likely be the limiting factor as the wattage increases - a fixed vs wind environment...
SL
Hi Worldcup,
Once you review the TFG information that I've presented so far, in detail if need be; you'll be able to
quickly and easily answer your own questions.
TFG_example_picture.PNG
NOTE: At the risk of sounding harsh - please be advised this thread is geared towards the design,
development and analysis of a new and novel discovery relating to TFG_EE technology that appears
to provide the excess energy we've all been looking into. This is a detailed technical thread (as is the
Overunity Machines Forum in general).
To avoid the "degeneration" of the professional approach used here; I will let your post stand for a
brief period and then remove it. I hope you will appreciate my requirements regarding discussions.
Well written and researched "Technical Presentations" are appreciated and welcome - anything else gets scrubbed!
Have a good one!
SL
Hi SL,
As usual I'm a little confused. In your 'TFG_Z05 PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE STUDY.pdf' you say the pulse frequency is 10Hz and 20Hz, but looking at the plots the abscissa is labeled 'Time [ms]' with a max range of 1.0
Counting the cycles in the 1 ms plot tells me the frequency is 10KHz and 20KHz. Is it a typo, or is something happening that I'm missing?
Regards
Cadman
Quote from: Cadman on Jan 02, 2024, 05:53 PMHi SL,
As usual I'm a little confused. In your 'TFG_Z05 PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE STUDY.pdf' you say the pulse frequency is 10Hz and 20Hz, but looking at the plots the abscissa is labeled 'Time [ms]' with a max range of 1.0
Counting the cycles in the 1 ms plot tells me the frequency is 10KHz and 20KHz. Is it a typo, or is something happening that I'm missing?
Regards
Cadman
Hi Cadman,
You're spot on correct - the frequencies I called out are in error - they should be 10 kHz and 20 kHz!
Thanks for spotting my mistake - I can't even think of a good excuse for screwing that one up - glad
the computer plotted the correct values.
Now that you pointed me onto the correct course, I'll go back and try a few at an actual 10 and 20 Hz.
I was shooting for 10 Hz since some of the papers were quoting performance numbers based on 600 RPM,
which gives about 10 magnet pole passes per second, or (600rpm / 60sec = 10 Hz).
Where I got 10Hz = 0.1mS from must be nothing more than {
get this one} "a spell check error" ;) yea right!
Thanks again, and Happy New Year! (
or, maybe that's my excuse).
SL
CONSERVATIVE NUMBERS are typically used in Spice type Simulators
A question arose from a fellow who is also trying to replicate the TFG_EE in another forum. It was about
where the "Input Watt" numbers I was quoting came from.
The answer is:
While thinking about the Pout vs Pin on the simulations, if I recall correctly; what the logic involved at
the time was the V & I input windings plotted to be something like Vpp = ~20V and I = ~ 100mApp
using the Circuit's Pulse Source.
Now, since the actual source would be a +3.2VDC battery or super cap it would be a bit hard to get
20Vpp out of this battery or supercap. I suspect that the schematic uses 'conservative calculations'
(all Spice based programs do AFAIK) so that's probably what's going on here.
I just took the (known) Current requirement and (known) battery output Voltage
of the circuit Pulse Generator to calculate Input Watts.
This, of course may be wrong; but it would account for the equivalent powers seen in the TFPM
(permanent magnet) generator papers.
So, if you use the schematic derived 'conservative' numbers in calculating Watts it might not give
the real picture.
Maybe that's why we haven't seen this type of thing before except by those looking into TFPM
devices. Plus, we know we can generate an electromagnet of ~1.2T with +3.2VDC 100mA
[equivelant to the PM's used in the papers].
Hey, this is all new to me and there isn't a Cook Book yet to source from. But, I hope I'm correct in my logic.
Let me know if you think my logic makes any sense!
TIA
SL
A MID COURSE RE-CALIBRATION
Looking back at the LinGen and TFG analysis files a few anomolies were noted;
therefore a complete "Re-calibration" of both designs will take place.
This may take some time as there is a lot of "data" to be looked into, so please
be patient. F.Y.I. - Everything appears to be OK; but a double check won't hurt.
Included in evaluating the data to date will be a review of LinGen prototype
measurements as well as the TFG Brassboard since the parts and fabrication should
be finalized shortly.
Don't want to get too far down the "Rabbit Hole" if the design contains any flaws!
SL
Some of the anomolies involved in the TFG analysis were "solved (?)" by the logical
assumption that the "Circuit" part of the analysis involved "conservative" numbers.
NOTE - Spice simulators are conservative (that is, they use Kirchoff's Laws and Ohm's
Law to solve the circuit schematic). Any Excess Output is just tacked onto the Input!
A little more study appears to have revealed this to be the case. Once the "complete fix"
replaces the "work-around (which is still correct but not as 'clean')," a full, non-conservative,
result can be demonstrated for excess energy devices. This will be useful in the future.
CONSERVATIVE TO NON-CONSERVATIVE
Looked at Simplorer in more detail and it appears the "conservative" circuit anomaly can be
mitigated using Simplorer. An overview of the "conservative (Kirchoff)" input/output results
in the TFG is, as we speculated, is attached.
So far it seems Simplorer will work ok; but there are a few things that need to be done to
have the "Simplorer schematic" treat the device under test (DUT) as non-conservative.
Hint: Using the search in the Twin Builder pdf (2231 pages) for "conservative" tags a few
topics for detailed review. Lots of acronyms - so open a second copy of the pdf and search
using the "(acronym)" [brackets] to find the acronym explainations {e.g. "(SML)" which
locates what SML relates to - "Twin Builder Modeling Language", a.k.a "Simplorer Modeling
Language." This is useful for quickly finding your way around large documents, etc..
Briefly, the Simplorer Schematic appears that it can be converted to "non-conservative"
which, hopefully, will allow for a 'clean' analysis of excess energy devices. We shall see.
SL
SUMMARY
Completed a detailed review of the EE_TFG and LinGen schemes and there were no apparent
flaws other than a few mis-alignments in the CAD models and a few scaling offsets.
Still a few fuzzy aspects of the Lorentz and Faraday Law application to these devices - however,
we may have to wait another 100 years before it's all sorted out.
So, in brief, we'll move on the the next stage of development. Did manage to streamline the
analysis enough to put together a clean paper detailing the methods and techniques.
It may be a challenge to having Excess Energy accepted in the broader scope but we now
have some good tools put together to assist us.
SL
The following was posted in another thread (edited for this thread); however it really belongs here.
Lorentz - Transverse Flux
With respect to the EE_TFG it appears the Lorentz Force Law is the only one that might
reasonably apply when explaining the operation of the Transverse Flux generator;
both in the permanent magnet generators (TFPM) and the proposed Electromagnet
(EE_TFG) devies [magnetic field applied at right angle to the coil which creates
current in the coil].
There seems to be very little technical information available regarding a "fixed in place"
wire (a.k.a. Loop Coil). Several simplified references can be found here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html#c2) [general]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magint.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magint.html#c1) [stationary wire]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/forwir2.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/forwir2.html#c1) [calculation]
Now, set the sin theta to 90 degrees (at least thats the angle that the TFG Poles seem
to be at when presented to the Loop Coil); BUT the numbers from the on-line
calculator have me quite confused (especially the "Force" without the "v" component).
Hoping the Transverse Flux concept will fit within the Lorentz Force Laws...
----------------
After viewing this fellows video, I gathered a lot of insight that appears to have answered most of my inquiries.
Induced Current In A Wire_Physics - Sal at Kahn Academy (these Kahn guys seem to 'run' with Lorentz more than with Faraday):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUMUvwvML8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUMUvwvML8)
----------------
Now, lets see if this approach to developing the Theory for a "EE_TFG" holds any water! To be continued...
SL
Attached: Magnetic Forces On Moving Charges
Magnetic Forces On Moving Charges Fixed Wire
A Postulation (assumed theory) for:
RELATING the LORENTZ FORCE LAW to the OPERATION of the EE_TFG
(EE_TFG or Electronic Electromagnet Transverse Flux Generator)
The next few posts will go into some detail linking the Electronic driven Electromagnetc Transverse
Flux Generator (EE_TFG) to Lorentz Law thus forming a Postulation (Theory) of the Operational Physics.
Very little, if any, math will be involved as images and pictorials are sometimes better when gaining
an appreciation of the underlying processes. However, much of the math required is relatively simple
and is abundantly available.
Two basic elements make up this "linkage"
Ax. Consists of the "Physical Device" composed of the following:
A 1.) A physical device, which has already been provided; although, it will be presented again in a simplified
component form consisting of two "U" shaped cores with uneven legs which are 'butted together' to
form a rectangular shape. Both cores are constructed of laminated electrical steel for best performance.
However Soft Magnetic Composites can also be used for the Cores but tend to give less performance.
A 2.) On the longer leg of each "U" core; a Coil of wire is wound. These coils are phased such that a North
Pole and a South Pole are simultaneously formed. These coils are driven at the same time and can be
configured in either series or parallel. The objective is to create a rotating magnetic B Field within the
rectangular shape formed by the two 'butted' cores. Together these form a so-called "Pole."
A 3.) In the center region of each "U Pole" (there are two regions available - one for each 1/2 Pole) a simple
"Loop" of wire is placed. This forms the "Output(s)" of the device. Optimal placement of the Loop Coil,
number of turns, and fill-factor (FF) will be looked at in detail later.
A 4.) A variety of electronic driving options for the two (one N & one S) "U Cores" can be employed ranging
from a simple "Oscillator" driving a full "H_Bridge" to a microprocessor scheme allowing further control
of the device. This will be looked at further as we progress.
Bx. is the Physics of Lorentz's Force Law which involves basically three Vectors:
B 1.) "B" which is the Magnetic Field vector,
B 2). "F" referes to the Force vector, and
B 3.) "I" also refered to as the Electric current Vector within the the wire (or Loop Coil in this case), and
B 4.) Which is the actual Lorentz Force equation(s) F = qE + qv X B. These are all Vector quantities except
"q" which is just a scalar quantity. Note the X is a Cross Product. More on this later.
NOTE: The above Vectors can be referenced to previous attachments, etc.
Linking the Physical Device to the Lorentz Force Law thus forming a Theory of Operation
Major to linking the physical device to Lorentz is related to the Vectors matching the actual Magnetic
Field Vectors and Current Direction. This will be done (attempted) using graphics and pictorials as much
as possible without a deep dive into the mathematics. CAE is used to determine the physical device vectors.
The entire Postulation, including graphics and animations, will form one, or more, "pdf" documents,
including all posts and related information, will also be available when completed and checked.
to be continued...
SL
As a preliminary introduction to "Lorentz" (not necessary but interesting non-the-less) for those who
may not be familiar with Lorentz's work see the Caltech video link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feBT0Anpg4A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feBT0Anpg4A)
continuation...
Linking the Physical Device to the Lorentz Force Law thus forming a Theory of Operation
Having trouble finding a way of plotting the "F" Force but here's what's available is so far:
Using the "Magnetic Force on a Current-Carrying Wire" (found above) there are three Vectors;
"B", "I" and "F".
A top view from the "X" coordinate of the EE_TFG is attached as "Y_Z_Planes_EE_TFG_Z03.png."
and an iso view is given in "X_Y_Z_Planes_EE_TFG_Z03.png."
Using "I" or, in this case, the "J" direction from the simulation it can be seen from the plot that
this is along the "Z Axis" so this becomes the "I Vector." This is shown in the attachment:
"J-Vector_YZplane_1.32mS_full_01.png". Note the current direction reverses as the Pole polarity
reverses - not shown in these attachemts, however animated 'gif's are available if requested.
Now, we want to see the "B Vector" perpendicular to the "I Vector" in the simulation plot. This
is shown in the four attachments "Vector_XYplane_0.95uS_L_to_R_01.png",
"Vector_XYplane_1.05uS_R_to_L_01.png", "Vector_YZplane_0.95uS_L-to-R_01.png" and
"Vector_YZplane_1.05uS_R-to-L_01.png".
Once the method of plotting the "F Vector" is found it will be added. However, we can
guess the F Vector pretty reliably based on the Lorentz teachings.
Anyway, it appears the "EE_TFG" device, as well as other Permanent Magnet TF (TFPM)
generators use the "Lorentz Force Laws."
More than interesting, this discovery will be of great assistance when explaining, as well as defending,
the "Theory of Operation" and inner workings of "TFG's" in general. Also, once understood, this approach
can be applied to any number of unique generator/motor topologies!
NOTE: These vector plots can be done using the free Ansys Student version of AEDT in Magnetostatic.
Regards,
SL
Project_HD01_EE_TFG_E32
NOTE: This has not been fabricated and tested yet - just a WAG to show the basic scheme.
Home Depot and other "Big Box Stores" sell Flat Metal Bar in various sizes. Some of these
bars (most?) in the 1/2" to 1-1/2" width, 3/8" to 3/4" thickness are typically ANSI C1008/1010
commercial grade; or simply ANSI 1008 or ANSI 1010. Note that it appears ANSI 1008 has a
better B-H Curve than ANSI 1010.
Let's try a 1" x 1/4" x 48" [25.4mm x 6.35mm x cut-to-length] Everbilt plain steel flat bar.
HOWEVER, before you buy anything and start bending the bar into a U shape, try a WAG
design using AEDT Student.
Using AEDT Student, make two "U" shaped half Poles (Upper & Lower). Fold the bars into
a "U shape" that can be easily bent to dimensions. Enter these into the AEDT and select
"steel_1008" as the material. You can now very quickly test whether or not this simulated
configuration is worth pursuing in a few minutes; before spending any money and
further effort. View the B-H Curves in AEDT (log plots, etc.)
In AEDT construct a "CoilTerminal" on one leg of "U 1/2 Pole" and enter the "number of wires"
or, in other words, the 'Number of Coil Turns'. The goal is to create an electromagnet of (?)
Tesla that propagates intenally around the "U Poles" when butted together.
Since the EE_TFG follows Lorentz's Force Law, you can get an idea of the "I Vector" or the
estimated "Current in the Loop Core". An AEDT Transient analysis would be helpful but
unfortunately the student version doesn't provide this.
However, from the AEDT CAE Magnetostatic analysis you can determine the "Number of
Turns" needed versus the "H" in Amp/turns (in meters) required to achieve, say,
a 1T (1 Tesla) "B" in the "U Pole" structure.
You will need to "Drive the N & S Coils" with your favourite (H-Bridge if needed) and Power
Supply using your Controller (a simple square wave should work OK).
ASTI1008 steel is not a great electrical steel but hopefully it will give enough of an output
to demonstrate the workings of an EE_TFG and how easily they can be built. Add more
"U Poles" and see if the Output increases.
A QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS
Note the symetry is screwed up - moved the device so the global coordinate was in
the middle - wrong move since the U's were built using lines (GCS - based) ooops!
Using ANSI 1108 flat steel (from HD or where ever) you really have to "pore-the-coal"
to 'er - each Winding = 500mA and Coil Turns = 100.
U Poles were formed by taking two flats as a former and bending the U flat Pole piece around it.
More turns or more current, more "B" - experiment a bit... Usable as a generator?
Will look at some Outputs later when there's a bit more time.
But; see some typical B & H results attached below [500mA and 100 turns for each Winding
using ANSI 1008 flat bar steel from the local hardware store (Everbuilt?) ]:
SL
Fabrication of a "QUICK TEST" of the EE-TFG Concept
NOTE: This is NOT A RECOMMENDATION - JUST AN IDEA that might work for you. I will try something
like this as time permits, but first I'll simulate the idea and see if it has any merit on paper!
This is a "Design Intent Document (DID") and subject to change as needed.
There are many ways of fabricating this device. One approach is outlined below to gain an appreciation
of how such a simple "Proof-of-Concept" build might be achieved using easily available,"off-the-shelf," hardware
and tools.
I'm not suggesting or recommending you try it; but the information has been provided if you want to attempt a simple
"self-built" investigation without too much effort or cost! This is geared towards those who continually call for a Proof;
now they can easily do a "self proof" by just following these inexpensive steps. I have no idea if it will work and make
no claims at all!
An initial CAE analysis showed resonable results (far from a final product as the efficiency and, thus, performance could
be increased without too much additional cost) but a build such as this might be instructive.
See the attached .pdf for details.
SL
Added: Some typical CAE B & H "U Pole" results attached below [500mA and 100 turns for each Winding using ANSI 1008
flat bar steel from the local hardware store (Everbuilt?) "ANSI-1008 HD flats - 500mA 100 turns"
EE_TFG FUNCTIONAL BLOCK/SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
For Engineering Development ONLY V0.1 (26 Jan 24 Rev-A)
Attached is a typical EE_TFG functional block/schematic diagram.
There are many ways to implement the required functions so
please consider this approach as an "example" ONLY that provides
somewhat of a complete basic system overview.
Consult the Infinion, and other, data sheets and AEDT results - don't
rely on the attached information verbatum.
This is NOT meant as a "Build-to-Print."
Enjoy!
SL
Thank You Solarlab,
I hope builders and experimenters all over the world have benefited from this.
Quantity counts, thus the technology remains and could be further developed.
Great job indeed.
Hi solarlab.
In your first post of Dec 20, 2023 9:51pm you stated These devices are very simple and easy to build while requiring no exotic materials, assembly tools
nor skills. According to the videos it didnt seem to work out to be so simple and easy to build for both the mechanical part of the build and the complexity of the controller. Could you comment on this, please. Have you tried building a simple version yourself?
Many OU machines seem to have COPs <1 when built on a smaller, simpler scale. Do you have any feel for how or if this would apply to a TFM device ?
In the video he mentions an external power supply but no suggestion of OU.
RichardG
To allow clearance for mechanical parts to rotate there will be two air gaps required (possibly 0.002" to 0.005" each gap). This very small air gap will significantly reduce that 1.0 Tesla number. I believe your formula and illustration is for a solid magnetic circuit with no air gap at all. In my searches it appears that calculating magnetic field strength with an air gap is very difficult and the variables become numerous. It is also very difficult to measure the flux density in a completed machine because the magnetic flux measuring instrument probe requires a larger air gap (maybe 0.0625") so such a test is meaningless for your particular machine (air gap size).
So the only real way to determine the flux density (Tesla's) is to build a machine, measure the output voltage, take all dimensions of the machine, wire length, magnetic circuit length and meters per second and use those numbers to calculate your Tesla's.
Hi Kampen,
Thanks. It appears the Transverse Flux scheme is ripe for some significant development.
If you review the 2010 Patent by Jacek F. Gieras [from Study On Permanent Magnet Transverse Machine
by Dobzhanskyi Oleksandr - previously attached] the Gieras device fell somewhat short of the claims.
However Oleksandr analyzed the device and, with a few almost simple changes, increased the
performance by somewhere around 70%, to about 2.2 KW with a double armature.
So, in short, we've still got a ways to go; but the concept of replacing the permanent magnets with
electronic controlled electromagnets might have some real merrit.
If we're right it could bring a significant change to the entire game!
SL
Hi gg9,
First off - to answer you comments as best I can - I have not compared the EE_TFG to any other
OU machines, other than my LinGen, since there simply are not any others to compare it with.
You are likely correct that bigger might be better in some senses, however the EE_TFG seems
to be easily scalable.
Not sure what video you're refering to with regards to an external power supply.
Also, I don't use the term OU since it makes no sense - a possible better description might be
an "Excess Energy Generator" (EE or EEG) and then let the detailed descriptions speak for themselves.
Wind, water, gravity, magnetic, etc.. could fall into a broad EE catagory. If the device is
electronic/electromagnetic by nature; and "Looped Back," to sustain operation then that's
simply an additional feature.
It might also be applied as a Battery Extender or an enhancement to a a Solar Cell or an
Automobile attachment. Each one is a bit different although they all fall into the EE catagory.
Also, the EE_TFG has no moving parts and does not require any Air Gaps. The device
employs; actually requires, 3D CAE Analysis to gain a complete appreciation of it's complex
operation since it's a transverse flux phenomena and follows Lorentz Force Law.
Have another look at Transverse Flux in general and, in particular, the EE_TFG concept to gain
a full appreciation of my novel discovery.
Note that the development is ongoing, including evaluation prototypes, and electronic circuitry.
You'll find neither the mechanical nor the control parts are complex. In fact, it's probably the
simplist scheme I've seen - the theory is somewhat complex but it has a very solid background
footing found in conventional science [Lorentz Law dating back to the turn of the 19th century].
SL
Thank you, Solarlab, I think I have a better understanding now.
Would you comment on the practicality of using the toroidal ferrite cores that are used in so much equipment, even around some power cords? I know they are much more difficult to wind since they are not split but I have a number of them, they are easy to find in discarded equipment and they are efficient for the higher frequencies.
RichardG
SolarLab, if I am allowed I would like to bring to your attention how iron rods with proper heat treatment ( see AISEG patent form South Korea) would help for your device.
The easiest way to obtain a better core for your electromagnets is to use iron rods or just pure iron wire (£3-4 for 20 meters roll), fire up your barbecue pot with coal than throw the iron wire roll in it, leave it there until cool itself very slow (+20 hours).
You need to use coal as its high content of carbon is useful and you can't get it if an oven is used instead. This method is described in Korean patent for their cores where electromagnets are used for induction, where saturation/desaturation ratio is the main key.
Stranded iron works better as magnetic path than solid chunks if high frequency is used ... but as far as I see your device use quite low frequencies and works on principle of magnetic amplifiers ... probably highest possible resistance in electromagnets would yield the best results if the resistance would be just under the threshold when no passing current is possible, assuming there is a certain relationship between cross section of the core and cross section of the multilayers coil forming electromagnets.
Quote from: Classic on Feb 06, 2024, 07:40 AMSolarLab, if I am allowed I would like to bring to your attention how iron rods with proper heat treatment ( see AISEG patent form South Korea) would help for your device.
The easiest way to obtain a better core for your electromagnets is to use iron rods or just pure iron wire (£3-4 for 20 meters roll), fire up your barbecue pot with coal than throw the iron wire roll in it, leave it there until cool itself very slow (+20 hours).
You need to use coal as its high content of carbon is useful and you can't get it if an oven is used instead. This method is described in Korean patent for their cores where electromagnets are used for induction, where saturation/desaturation ratio is the main key.
Stranded iron works better as magnetic path than solid chunks if high frequency is used ... but as far as I see your device use quite low frequencies and works on principle of magnetic amplifiers ... probably highest possible resistance in electromagnets would yield the best results if the resistance would be just under the threshold when no passing current is possible, assuming there is a certain relationship between cross section of the core and cross section of the multilayers coil forming electromagnets.
Hello Classic,
That is a very good contributions you've made above...Thanks!!
Yes, multiple steel rods or wire, stacked together, will also serve as to reduce eddy currents, same as laminated iron sheets would.
Lamination is limited, depending on the geometry of the core your design would have...
Plus, the tip on using charcoal for heating steel, as allowing "self-cooling" (not forced cooling, much less with cold water, or cold air, simply because it can "crystalize" steel)... is also a great add, in all electromagnetic applications, basically Electromagnets.
Btw, I added you on the Identified Members Group, so you now have access to Builder's Group as well.
Regards
Ufopolitics
Insulated (enameled) iron or steel wire is hard to find. Hobby Lobby has 24 gauge in 175 rolls for $2.99 used for making flower arrangements.
I wonder how this steel wire would work as the conductor. Would it improve the magnetic characteristics of the circuit enough to make up for the poor electrical conductivity of the steel such as higher voltage but lower current carrying ability ?
Thanks Fella's for the contributions, really appreciate the input
For the Proof-of-Concept Prototype a known industry type electrical steel will be used
and the fabrication will be done by a professional lamination and annealing company.
Since this is new and novel concept, plus I plan on writing a paper on it; I think doing
it this way would be the best approach initially. Pretty expensive but considering the
ramifications (and pushback that I'm sure will ensue) the development, if successful,
will be much easier to defend.
There are many who believe Excess Energy can not exist and thus can not be achieved.
If they are proven wrong by this EE_TFG device then at least some of their arguments
will be closed off.
Should this device perform, as I believe it will, it also sets a baseline for all kinds of
future schemes - and many will be "dirt cheap" and "easy to do" just based on the
nature of the underlying science and technology involved.
Once I receive the Lamination Poles and determine the prototype material and
construction methods are viable then I'll look at "cost reduction" techniques. The
design and development cycle could be a few months - I'll update along the way.
But, for now, it's still just a novel theory; however it does pass the CAE Analysis and
does have a well founded basis in science (the 100 year old Lorentz Force Law), plus
there are similar proven devices already in use - however, they use rotating magnets,
here we use electronically controlled electromagnets with no physical movement.
SL
Quote from: ggx9 on Feb 06, 2024, 02:49 PMInsulated (enameled) iron or steel wire is hard to find. Hobby Lobby has 24 gauge in 175 rolls for $2.99 used for making flower arrangements.
I wonder how this steel wire would work as the conductor. Would it improve the magnetic characteristics of the circuit enough to make up for the poor electrical conductivity of the steel such as higher voltage but lower current carrying ability ?
Hello ggx9,
This we are writing about it previously,
is for the STEEL CORE, not for coil winding...So, it does not need to be insulated at all...
Ufopolitics
Hello Ufopolitics.
To minimize eddy currents with methods such as thin steel sheets the sheets must be insulated from each other or the eddy currents will flow just as in solid steel.The insulation may be just a thin oxide but never the less there is insulation whether its visable thick vinyl or the invisible minimal oxide that forms from the heating of the steel sheet during manufacturing. The same will apply to any iron wire that is used as a core.
I expect wire to be of less magnetic performance, presuming similar alloy, because wire is round and will have more air spaces in the build.
Quote from: ggx9 on Feb 06, 2024, 04:35 PMHello Ufopolitics.
To minimize eddy currents with methods such as thin steel sheets the sheets must be insulated from each other or the eddy currents will flow just as in solid steel.The insulation may be just a thin oxide but never the less there is insulation whether its visable thick vinyl or the invisible minimal oxide that forms from the heating of the steel sheet during manufacturing. The same will apply to any iron wire that is used as a core.
I expect wire to be of less magnetic performance, presuming similar alloy, because wire is round and will have more air spaces in the build.
@ggx9,
Did you know that on the 19 Century, the Gramme Ring Armature Cores, on large Industrial Rating of High Amperage, High Voltage Dynamos, were made of fine steel wires?
And MIG Welder Iron wire, or a Steel Alloy, maybe used for this purposes...the air gaps between wires are negligible.
Gramme Ring Armature based on steel wires.PNG
Ufopolitics
@solarlab :
I am sorry we have -all the sudden- hijacked your Thread...let me know and I will erase all our posts, that you do not want here.
I can just move this conversation somewhere else...but to me it is important, because some geometries will not allow for laminated steel sheets...
Regards friend.
Ufopolitics
SolarLab, i wonder if you can use the software to simulate and find out what is the threshold for resistance to be set at maximum in your electromagnet coils and if you can adjust this resistance by length of wire just under the threshold by few ohms and another simulation where resistance will be tuned down to half of the threshold ?
Is there any certain distance between electromagnets that need to be preserved ?
Also, as far as info provided until now, number of turns for secondaries do not influence the output in a sensible way but, did you find out if the perimeter formed by secondary windings have any influence on the output ? Can you use less or more primary coils on the same magnetic path ?
Is it there any opportunity to analyse magnetic flux only or separate and than analysed in conjuction with electric flux ?
Also, if you use AC instead of DC you don't need to switch polarities, just pulsed AC is needed, so your system will be much easier to be replicated, cheaper and possible more efficient due to less losses in additional components. See https://youtu.be/kH3OmJ6SpnU?si=nLDGm3CYQbdNMfoL minute 15:44 or original paper of Patric Kelly.
Some interesting chat where a mag amp is described and obsesive pushed to new tech which cannot match exact performance of a traditional Magnetic Amplifier, also capabilities to describe a patent of Olivier Heaviside and the patent do not exist, even if it is referred to by many other.
Anyway, this is just an informative discussion related to one of my devices.
If we need to create electricity we need to manipulate magnetic flux.
If we need to create magnetic flux we need to manipulate electric flux
If we need physical work we need to combine magnetic and electric flux
Alternative current needs to flow back to the source throgh neutral line or return line to be specific.
Direct current always flow both negative and positive in the same time from the source to the load (check Jimboot test with 2 different batteries , even if he deleted my explanation posts prior to his experiment to find out my explanation was valid).
https://chat.openai.com/share/e81e9482-ef6d-4a0a-a03e-857c895bf0ac
If this post is not seen useful/relevant, please delete/move as considered.
Hi Ufopolitics,
No problem - this kind of "information" hijacking is always welcome and informative!
Thanks for the picture of the Gramme ring armature - quite instructive - noticed the iron wire "core, F"
runs in a loop; with 30 spaced out perpendicular copper windings "B, C, D, etc." around it, all in the same
direction at right angles.
Just a WAG, but it looks like a Transverse Flux arrangement sort-of in reverse (TF is magnetic core with flux
and the copper loop coil placed perpendicular [transverse]). Interesting! Looks like both the steel core and
the copper windings rotated together, even more interesting!
Probably worth a CAE analysis? Nice, since we already know the Gramme device worked! But later...
NOTE: There are probably a thousand ideas and things to try, and I appreciate all that, however the focus
right now for me is very myopic - simply to prove the EE-TFG concept's viability!
So I will recluse and focus only on the EE_TFG at hand until that task is completed - one way or the other...
But please, keep the ideas flowing.
SL
Hi Classic,
Just a quick F.Y.I. - the video in your #51 post was Flagged by my Nightly Scan. I don't have the time to
follow through and determine what the problem is or attempt fix it. I appears to play OK, however.
You might want to check into that - probably nothing - my scanner "sees a lot of false positives" these days!
SL
Just a quick "Tip" while we wait. This might be a useful design aid for a variety of projects.
One Proceedure that may be used to Determine Some Initial Design Objectives
The following proceedure might be one method to use in determining a usable mixture of
design objectives between the pole material, pole windings, current and voltage. This is
static only, however a feel for a starting point may be gained. AEDT Student can be used.
SL
Hello SolarLab.
Why are you using two coils on each core rather than one coil with double the turns?
I read through all this thread on your TFM but I must have missed the explanation for this.
Why is there a resistor in series with the coils? How about a low voltage transformer, like 6.3 volts, connected to a variac plugged into the wall with a continuous 60Hz AC supply? This would make it easy to adjust from 0.1 volts AC up to 6.3 volts AC.
Thank you for all your work, much appreciated.
RichardG
Hi ggx9,
The following post I hope will help answer your questions.
The Resistor in Series with the Coils
The resistor is explained in some of the attached literature but it's primarily a design
function - a variable, so to speak, that sets the coil current for further analysis.
SL
Two Windings Versus A Single Winding for the Pole Structure
Several thoughts:
Performance Monitoring (BITE) and Operation
- First, consider the "Lamination Cut Pattern" lends itself to minimal waste. See the
previous diagram for details. The result was having "one leg" longer than "the other
leg." This also provides a degree of versatility, both functional and during design.
- It can also serve as a System "BITE" (Built In Test Equipment) scheme. Periodically
look at each Pole Coil as an insitu test {BITE} for nominal performance. This can
further test the System Performance.
- The "Loop Coil" will also pass information to the "BITE" Coil. Valuable during both
design development as well as operationally. The more status LEDs/Indicators, the
better. Might be very handy to internally monitor the system during the design phase.
- Redundancy, that is, if one Coil Leg should fail the second Coil Leg will still function,
all be it at a reduced performance, but your still not "dead in the water." Half power
is better than no power!
Design and Development
- During development one coil can serve as a "Test Port," that is, one coil Leg is driven
while the other Leg is monitored. This might provide insitu measurements without
requiring other additional modifications; simply a quick, wire re-arrangement.
- This scheme allows testing and measuring "series" and "parallel" coil configurations,
timing schemes, amongst other things that might be of interest, without modification.
- The design itself allows easily adding or removing Leg Coils as required - "slide on,
slide off!" Power both, power one, alternate, etc. Check the temperature rise, and so
forth.
Hope this answers your question, at least to some extent.
SL
Windings - Inductance - Resistance
Precision Microdrives (Technical Resources) AB-022
[Reference Information - PWM Frequency For Linear Motion Control]
https://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/ab-022 (https://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/ab-022)
Keep in mind we are not concerned with motor control; however we just want to keep the
current in our coils "moving," therefore the goal is not maximum torque, etc.. Just keep the
current "moving" in the coils and only use as much current as we need to achieve ~ 1 Tesla
in the Pole structures. A non-linear current slope is perfectly acceptable.
Highlights:
- Input voltage is equal to the sum of the voltage drop across the inductor and the
voltage drop across the resistor [ VL(t) - Ve - tRLVR(t) = V(1-e-tRL) ]. VL moves toward 0 over
time and VR moves towards +V; until about 5 Tau. See the chart. Note that 1 Tau or 2 Tau
achieves the greatest slope of idt/t or vdt/t. This is good and wastes less.
See the charts for 50% at 2 Tau (4 tau) versus 50% at 1 Tau (2 Tau).
- Have a look at the Calculations paragraph, (in this case it's for a DC motor but still
relavant).
- Note the Motor Current vs PWM duty curve for 31.5 kHz, 2kHz and 200Hz. But keep
in mind we are not that interested in linear behavour, plus we will likely use a 50% wave.
Motor inertia, etc. are not a part of our equation. Neither is the linear/non-linear
response, or vibration, and so forth. We just need the "Current to Slope."
" di/dt "
Finding the Balance will be, in the end, part of the physical analysis and test.
SL
The Target Design is a "Stand Alone Device"
EE_TFG is meant to be an independant unit. The intent is to serve many applications
including a Battery Booster, enhance a Solar Panel output, and so forth.
Also, with the proper internal loop-back it may even provide a "stand alone" function.
This means it can be tied to an external AC supply feed to form an additional power
source but that's not a requirement. It would be one of the applications however.
SL
Thank you, SolarLab.
Cautious Optimism BUT There Is Still A Huge Amount of "Stuff" Left To Do
Being a New and Novel "never been done before" technology, the EE_TFG design and development
is still in it's early infancy. There's no comprehensive book to follow nor blueprint to study.
However, based upon some good CAE Analysis coupled with some similar techniques used by primarily
in Wind Generators employing Permanent Magnets, there is cause for a great deal of Optimism.
But there is a mountain of Science, Engineering Discovery and Design work that still needs to be done
and many questions that need to be answered. This will take time and require a systematic approach.
Just to mention a very few examples; including:
- Does the Loop Coil cause disruption, or interfer with, the Pole Pieces and their Coils?
- Is the device Voltage and Current really isolated (BEMF or Lenz), can it be truely quantified?
- Are the Magnetic and Electric Fields isolated, as someof the literature claims?
- If these anomolies are determined to affect the device; can they reasonably be mitigated
electronically, physically, or by other means?
- Is the device environmentally safe, in both the short term, and the long term?
- Is the device stable over time?
- If the device works out and performs as expected, then it's doubtful cost will enter into the equation.
Once these, and other unforseen concerns are properly addressed, then the Applications Functions can
follow. It willimpact a huge arena - well - pretty much everything found in the modern, and the not so
modern, World.
Properly planning and co-ordinating these challenges will (hopefully) move the process along
quickly while providing some pretty exciting "challenges" along the way!
SL
Here is a patent from 1882 for an electricity generating device invented by GOMEZ
it looks like EEG_EM_New_Technique_TRANSVERSE_FLUX (TF)
GOMEZ 1882.jpg
Hi Bigeasy,
Looks like a very interesting device but hard to tell exactly how it works or what it's supposed to do;
but, at first glance, it does appear that it's a stationary electrical generator.
Diagram blurrs when I enhance it... and unfortunately the text is unreadable; plus the language is
not one I'm familiar with.
Thanks for the diagram - if you've got a hi-res image and a translation that would be really great!
Will look into the patent later when time permits - do you happen to have any more information?
A patent document perhaps, or any other related details that might further help in your concluding
that this Gomez device might, in fact, be similar to the EE_TFG?
His Cores and Coils along with the Controller mechanism do appear to resemble the EE_TFG device.
Obviously the Controller is from a different erra (1882) but it would likely perform the same function.
I'm sure the Transverse Flux (TF) scheme can be found in a number of devices but sometimes it's hard to
recognize, or discover, exactly how its employed. Even the modern patents that appear to use this effect
don't clearly explain Transverse Flux from a technical or scientific operational point of view.
The best I can figure out is TF stems from the Lorentz Force Laws.
SL
Quote from: bigeasy on Feb 16, 2024, 05:35 PMHere is a patent from 1882 for an electricity generating device invented by GOMEZ
it looks like EEG_EM_New_Technique_TRANSVERSE_FLUX (TF)
GOMEZ 1882.jpg
Looks like multiple electromechanical relays or better said 1 electromechanical relay with multiple channels are employed alternating between two sets of coils for each toroid, or a toroid with multiple taps alternating. Simplicity at best !
I think would worth to be debated in a separate thread on its own merits and a solid state relay module with multiple channels could be used for a better reliability as it is the only part to wear
It would be helpful to post patent number and country of origin when posting sections from a patent.
This is the only information I know about this patent if anyone finds other information it's OK.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Daza_G%C3%B3mez
Hello to all,
Many thanks
@bigeasy for finding this jewel!!
Yes, I completely agree we should open a Topic for the Daza Gomez Patent...it was called the "Daza Generator"...very interesting!
However, I could not find anything for that specific patent, except for light descriptions...since there is no number, forget about Google Patents...is not there...most are US based patents, nothing related to Europe on those years-Century...
I will open Topic and transfer all posts here and clean this Solarlab Topic.
Regards
Ufopolitics
Hello again,
Ok, I made the New Topic, dedicated to this specific Gomez patent: The Daza Gomez Toroidal Electrical Generator 1882 (overunitymachines.com) (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,47.0/topicseen.html)
Thank you all
Ufopolitics
@ All,
Started to make the Controller, see enclosed pictures.
Screenshot_20240219_175502.jpg
Pinout_firebeetle_Microcontroller.jpg
BTS-7960_Modul.jpeg
@ All,
Testing the Power Supply with a Microcontroller and BTS-7960, see enclosed pictures.
Power-Supply_MicroController_BTS-7960.pngScreenshot_20240223_115621.jpg
@ All,
PCB Layout UPDATED.
PCB_Bridge_Layout.jpg
@ All,
Low-Cost Microcontroller Firebeetle ESP-32
MC_Firebeetle-ESP32_Picture0002.jpgMC_Firebeetle-_Picture0001.jpg
@ Al,
Is anyone working on this device?
EE_TFG Test Setups for the BTS7960 and L298N Full H-Bridge Modules
These pdf's show a "pictorial view" of the "Test Configurations" which are used in the
preliminary Proof-of-Concept. These allow testing a wide variety of EE_TFG configurations.
You might notice they are similar to the "LinGen" test setup, however, the intricate
LinGen driver sequencing is changed where only one Arbitrary Waveform Generator
is now needed. Also, a new Programmable Power Supply has been added which
allows for a more rapid "pseudo automated" Test Sequencing.
Note the differences between the BTS7960 and L296N input drive schemes.
All the T & M equipment is interfaced to a PC for automated Data Gathering and Logging.
The pdf's are attached but they are Rev level 0.1 for Engineering Use Only. A checked,
detailed schematic is still in development and will not likely be released any time soon.
Testing and validation of the Proof-of-Concept may take some time as there are a number
of various parameters that need analysis, detailed investigation and documentation.
The goal is to produce a in depth technical paper on the EE_TFG concept - either way - pass
or fail!
SL
Dear Solarlab,
Thank You for these Test-Setup diagrams.
It is a very professional approach.
Hi Kampen,
Thanks - For the BTS7960 drive signal the PSG9060 (may of these type of generators work the same)
Channel 1 (CH1) is set to a square wave at the desired frequency and Channel 2 (CH2) is configured
to "track" Channel 1; except the phase of Channel 2 is set to Phase = 180 degrees.
This creates a signal, such that, when one CH is high the other CH is low. Adjusting CH1 allows a range
of signals to be presented to the BTS7960. Note the BTS7960 needs a high signal for BOTH the forward
and reverse (in our case N and S) operation of the H-Bridge. Looks like the Snubbers are included in-chip.
The L298N H-Bridge (two channels - but no internal Snubber Diodes) only needs a single High/Low
signal to "ping-pong" (N/S) the H-Bridges (only needs to use one signal generator Channel).
Hint: When wiring the Coils think about using the "Lever Wire Connectors" which are commonly
used in house AC wiring - just flip them up, insert wire, then flip down (easy rewiring of leads, etc.).
Good Luck with your build.
BTW, This might be of interest - Matrix Flowcode has a "free version" of their flow chart
programming scheme; which also includes a free developer for the ESP32 chip:
https://www.matrixtsl.com/flowcode/ (https://www.matrixtsl.com/flowcode/)
SL
P.S. Do you have an account at Mooker?
Dear Solarlab,
Thank You for making these PDFs, really helpful for a better understanding.
EE_TFG Test Setups for the BTS7960 and L298N Full H-Bridge Modules
These PDFs show a "pictorial view" of the "Test Configurations" which are used in the
preliminary Proof-of-Concept. These allow testing a wide variety of EE_TFG configurations.
Greetings, Alex
MORDEY Patent No 437501 - the Original TFG Generator
https://patents.google.com/patent/US437501A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US437501A/en)
Caution - this is a long post - it relates to my review "highlights" of the
original TFG patent I recently obtained.
Partial extracts from Mordey's Patent, Note the reference to "Electromagnet" within:
"The present invention has for its object a method of constructing an alternate-current
machine having only a single armature coil or winding in place of a considerable number
of such coils or windings. Thus I am enabled to construct alternate-current machines
for any speed and required rate of alternations in which there is but one simple annular
armature-coil and one simple annular fieldmagnet coil, although I sometimes employ a
compound field or fields of ordinary constructions. By these means alternate-current
machines are greatly simplified in construction, while at the same time increased
efficiency is obtained and the diffliculties of insulating in such machines are much
reduced."
"In order that the nature of this invention, which consists in subjecting the single armature
coil or winding to a succession of magnetic inductive impulses, either successively in the
same direction or alternately in opposite directions, and in providing against prejudicial
inductive reactions in the field, may be readily understood... "
"Referring to Figs. 1 and 2, the armature conductor is formed into a simple coil, ring, or
annulus or hollow cylinder A, usually of large diameter and relatively of small radial
depth or thickness, and is preferably supported with its axis in a horizontal plane.
Masses I I, formed of laminated iron or iron wire, are placed around its periphery at
intervals and with spaces between them. These masses, which are shown LJ-shap'ed,
are preferably laminated or subdivided, as shown."
"Alternately in angular position with regard to these outer iron portions I I other
laminated iron masses K K are placed inside the coil A and close to its inner periphery.
These iron masses K K are LJ-shaped, the outer masses I I being placed so that their
ends point toward the axis of the coil, while the inner ones K K have their ends
pointing radially outward."
"It will thus be understood that the single coil or annulus A, which forms the
armature-winding, is contained between two concentric circular rows of masses of
iron I I and K K, the several portions of which alternate in angular position with one
another in the order I K I K around the outside and inside of the armature-coil."
"The number of these inner and outer masses of iron is determined by the required
rate of alternation and by the required rate of revolution of the moving part of the
machine. Thus the number of alternations or complete periods per minute is equal
to the number of revolutions per minute multiplied by half the number of such iron
masses. The disposition of the armature winding A practically does away with any
necessity for working at a high-current density or for limiting the space occupied by
insulating material. The conductors are, in fact, as easily and securely arranged as if
they did not form part of a dynamo."
" It will be observed that by the use of the masses K K (which I call magnetic
short circuiting pieces) all or nearly all prejudicial inductive effects in the magnet
are avoided, the flow of magnetic lines of force in the magnet being maintained
practically constant. Thus the lines of force'pass through the magnet and either
through the pieces I I or K K, according to the position of the poles, or partly
through one and partly through the other when the polse are passing from one
to the other, the magnetic circuit never being interupted."
The several pieces of I I and K K should also be designed with regard to one another
that whether the lines of force are passing through I I or through K K the resistance
of the magnetic circuit should be sensibly be constant. By this arrangement I avoid
useless expenditure of energy, which would otherwise be manifested by the heating
of the poles and core of the magnet and in other ways. This method of providing
for the continuity of the magnetic circuit may be applied in other ways than those
shown in the figures, which, however, sufficiently describe the principle."
"The armature may be used with any suitable form of field magnet or magnets;
but I prefer a simple form of field, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and consisting of an
iron core C, mounted upon the shaft S, passing axially through the center of the
armature-coil A, and having at either end a number of radial arms or projections
n n s s, which come into close proximity to the ends or sides, or both, as in the
arrangement shown of the iron masses I I and K K of the armature, the number
of such projections n n or s s extending radially from each end of the field-core
being equal in number to the masses of iron on the outside or on the inside of
the armature-coil A."
It appears MORDEY did at least contemplate using an "ELECTROMAGNET" in his
1890 US437501A Patent. Of course "Switching of the Electromagnetics" is still
novel - this yields a stationary device with no moving parts and requires no
external fuel or other additional forces for operation.
(Mordey seems to refer to this Electromagnet as a "Field-Magnet" driven by a
field coil or winding F as referenced in the patent - see below)
"The field coil or winding F is within and concentric with the armature-coil A.
This field-Winding F may be wound on and rotate with the field-magnet
C n s and shaft S, but is preferably held stationary on a frame provided for the
support, also, of the armaturecoil and its iron masses, as hereinafter described,
and shown in dotted lines in Figs. 3 and 4. As the figures are diagrammatic this
frame is not shown. Thus the only part of the machine rotated is the shaft S and
the iron of the field-magnet, no collectors or rubhing contact of any kind being
required."
The patent is well written but refer to the "original" as it seems some parts
were omitted during the optical scan translation found in the link. The above
is only a partial paraphrase.
SL
Patent attached:
Original W. M. Morley, ELECTRIC GENERATOR, US437,501 dated Sept. 30, 1890
P.S.
From the Last Paragraph of the Patent Text Body:
"The field may be excited from an external source. or it may be
wholly or partly excited by a commuted current obtained from
the armature."
Recall, this patent was granted to W. M. Mordey on Sept. 30, 1890 !
Have a good one...
SL
An Interesting Paper regarding TFM Used In Wind Generators
An attached paper found in an IET publication contains some good information. Keep in mind
their generator uses "rotating magnets" whereas the EE_TFG replaces these permanent magnets
with Electronically Controlled Electromagnets, thus, the device is rendered stationary.
Hopefully in the next week or two I can find the time to publish an Overview, Conclusion and
Summary of my EE_TFG Project to properly complete this Project's Concept, here on this thread.
The next phase is to put together a formal Paper and tidy up some of the other loose ends.
As a matter of course; IMHO, I've observed that if a thread goes much beyond 10 pages or so
there isn't much to be gained by reading further. There just isn't much more to be presented, by
me at least, with respect to the EE_TFG idea, except boring detailed technical and engineering
data. A better forum would be to embed these in an organized technical brief/paper.
SL
Attached: "Design and FEM analysis of high-power density C-core permanent magnet
transverse flux generator with reduced PM volume"; Ali Muhammad, et. al., The Institute
of Engineering and Technology, Original Research, 07 Nov. 2022.
Cartoon of a few of the (Professionally Fabricated) Laminations
Attached a photo of the Laminations. Left side are two halfs held together with black rubber
bands (one horizontal around one pole [one of the winding locations] and one vertical holding
both poles together).
In the foreground are two 1/2 Pole pieces (#5 & #14). Had to take these pics in the Fab Shop.
Note the packaging in the backgroound - individually wrapped in moisture proof paper.
The slot along the side of #5 is for fabrication alignment, but also serves as a reference for
where the winding is located.
BTW - As you know - I'm not much into posting "cartoons" (of little 'value add' IMHO).
But, I make this exception! (https://overunitymachines.com/Smileys/fugue/wink.png) Since it shows "the real life" behind the 1/2 Pole idea.
Note the Sherline Rotary Table in the background of Pic 1 - used as the coil winder...
SL
Attached - 2 X 1/2 Pole Lamination Core Picture.
A question arose when considering the "Loop Coil" of the EE_TFG. This paper does shed
some light on the subject.
energies article: Energies 2021, 14, 755. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030755 (https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030755)
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies)
Improvement of Transverse-Flux Machine Characteristics by
Finding an Optimal Air-Gap Diameter and Coil Cross-Section
at the Given Magneto-Motive Force of the PMs
Partial extract from the article:
"3.2. Varying Coil Dimensions for Improving the Machine's Characteristics
At the next stage of this study, outer and inner TFM models with the air-gap radius
Rδ, at which the lowest value of cogging torque is reached, are investigated. In this study,
the influence of the winding (coil) dimensions on the stiffness of the external characteristics
(terminal voltage) was determined. When examining TFMs with both an inner and an
outer rotor, the height of the winding was varied. The winding parameters of the outer and
inner rotor TFMs are enclosed in Table 3. This table shows the winding configuration of for
three values of their height: b = 20, 10, 4 mm. For example, the slot section for b = 20 mm
and b = 4 mm, differ by a factor of 5 (520/104 = 5). Having the same number of turns,
(W = 220) and the same filling factor (k = 0.5) the rated current of these windings also
differs by 5 (5.91/1.18 = 5).
Table 3. Winding parameters of the TFM with an outer and inner rotor.
Parameter b = 20 b = 10 b = 4
Height of the coil—b, mm 20 10 4
Width of the coil—h, mm 26 26 26
Filling coefficient—k 0.5 0.5 0.5
Coil cross-section—Scoil, mm2 520 260 104
Cooper cross-section—Scu, mm2 260 130 52
Current density—Jn, A/mm2 5 5 5
Number of turns, N 220 220 220
Conductor cross-section—Swire, mm2 1.18 0.59 0.24
Rated current In, A 5.91 2.95 1.18
The 3D FEM models of the single-phase TFM with an outer and inner rotor with
various coil heights are shown in Figure 10a,b. In the first row, the cross-section of the
coils is Scoil = b × h = 20 × 26 = 520 mm2. These are the dimensions of the winding of the
original model, previously shown in Figures 1 and 6. The physical model of the original
coil used in the TFM prototype (Figure 3b) is shown in Figure 11. The second row contains
the models with the cross-section two times smaller than the original one: Scoil = b × h = 10
× 26 = 260 mm2. And, finally, the third row contains models in which the cross-section
of the coil is five times smaller than that of the original model: Scoil = b × h = 4 × 26 =
104 mm2."
(https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?thumbnail=677) (https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?aid=677)
"The above characteristics show that to ensure an acceptable generator performance
at a rated current, it is necessary to reduce the cross section of the generator winding.
Therefore, increasing the cross-section of the coil in TFMs does not always mean increasing
of its output power. This is explained as follows: a winding with a large cross-section has
a magneto-motive force comparable to that of the PMs. Consequently, an increase in the
cross-section of the machine winding is possible to a limited value, after which the TFM
characteristics significantly deteriorate."
In the EE_TFG case; the "PMs" are, in fact, "Electromagnets."
SL
Dear Solarlab,
I am in the process of ordering Laminated Coils.
One more thing need to know, please advise about the core field orientation direction.
Is it in color BLUE or GREEN direction?
Ooops!
Think I found the problem...
Oh well, no harm done - it's only wire and a "too small" dummy load.
Ahhh - the sweet aroma of a frying device just before the flash @^&#$*#
And quite a suprise from such a cute little tiny device - who would'a thought?
The Lesson, after the fact: Simulate "twice" - Test "once!"
Just having a bit of scarry Fun...
SL
[Red squiggly line at zero is the 1A 50kHz input pulse from the H-bridge]
Quote from: kampen on Mar 13, 2024, 02:33 PMDear Solarlab,
I am in the process of ordering Laminated Coils.
One more thing need to know, please advise about the core field orientation direction.
Is it in color BLUE or GREEN direction?
Kind-of got out of sync here a bit - a lot going on, and between the two forums, easy for me to get lost... Hi Kampen,
Not sure what you mean by "Laminated Coils." The laminations are the 1/2 Pole pieces,
and the Coils are wound on the longer end of the 1/2 Poles, as shown.
The generated magnetic fields are primarily in both directions (blue and green in your
diagram), but, as you've likely observed, they appear in all directions (6 degree FOV).
The Laminations are stacked going "into-the-page (from your diagram); there should be
a diagram of the lamination direction that was posted a while back.
With respect to the coils - they are wound as "North" on one side and "South" on the
opposite side of a single Pole configuration (the polarities alternate when wound and
wired correctly as the H-bridge reverses the applied current direction).
You might find something that will help in the Maxwell.pdf found in your Student version at
"Program Files/AnsysEM/Ansys Ttudent/v232/Win64/Help Maxwell -Maxwell.pdf"
Search "lamination" - under "lamination modeling," "Stack Direction." The direction depends
on the Material Coordinate System type as shown in the chart:
=> V(1) is X, V(2) is Y, and V(3) is Z. Depends on what you used for material coordinate;
usually it's the Global CS.
Hope this was a bit of help; but don't jump into fabrication too quicky - make sure you
understand how the system works, in detail, first!
Good Luck... Will be busy for a while designing and testing an automated - high speed-
"square coil" winder. Twenty coils per device adds up quickly and is hard on the fingers!
SL Unfortunately I "Fried" the first pass test before having a chane to analyze it - just had to
"See what she could do!" Wrong - dumb thing is I did the same thing with the initial
"LinGen." Anyway, we'll get there - hopefully to a POC, that is... Looking forward to an
independant evaluation, or two, from these forums.
Splitting the Workload - to allow Looking into an Important Fundamental
A recent discussion with a Colleague stirred a series of questions relating to the Lorentz Force
with respect to some brief observations prior to the EE_TFG meltdown.
It would be significant if a postulation is developed to explain this occurance.
My Collegue's knowledge and experience suggested that, briefly, "the Lorentz Force is
proportional to to the square of the magnetic field" - in other words - the increase is
not linear. He showed the phenomena mathematically (his speciality).
* This is in addition to the B-H Curve of the material used. *
Anyway, to keep the story short, I'm going to look into this in much more detail.
In the mean time; the EE_TFG M19 Testing and Analysis will be conducted by one of
my very capable peers under minimal guidance. The "Test Plan" is somewhat straight
forward but very time consuming (lots of various current, winding, and loop variations
to be considered).
It's extremely important, at this phase, that the mechanism be understood, as much
as possible. Limited work constraints mean not everything can be completed in any
reasonable time frame by only one person.
The basic concept has already been presented so it should not have any real impact.
SL
ETHICS and IMPLICATIONS of a small stand-alone Excess Energy Generator
Hypothetical - Assume a small, but powerful (W input - kW output), was concieved
and proven to function. It requires no input fuel of any kind; has no moving parts;
runs silent; has an infinite operating duration; and is relatively tiny (~6" x 3" x 4").
Would this device be a Saviour or an Enslaver? Who would decide? Who can decide?
Before you make up your mind, here's a few key words to consider:
- FPV..., - Loitering..., Robot..., etc... , etc...
We were taught to be Good Stewards of the technologies we developed. Were we? Are we? Who decides?
Anonymous
Quote from: solarlab on Mar 24, 2024, 09:39 PMETHICS and IMPLICATIONS of a small stand-alone Excess Energy Generator
Hypothetical - Assume a small, but powerful (W input - kW output), was concieved
and proven to function. It requires no input fuel of any kind; has no moving parts;
runs silent; has an infinite operating duration; and is relatively tiny (~6" x 3" x 4").
Would this device be a Saviour or an Enslaver? Who would decide? Who can decide?
Before you make up your mind, here's a few key words to consider:
- FPV..., - Loitering..., Robot..., etc... , etc...
We were taught to be Good Stewards of the technologies we developed. Were we? Are we? Who decides?
Anonymous
Hello SL,
To whoever wrote the above (Anonymous) I will be more than happy to clear some FACTS.
Such Device will definitively be a SAVIOUR; however, it depends on the hands that it falls...
If the inventor, or developer is a greedy person, who only thinks for him, and "to him" all the glory...then runs to the USPTO or EPO, to attempt to "patent" such device on his/her name, or his "assignee corp."...then that is it, end of story...
Normally on this case, the DoE or DoD (USPTO Bosses) will declare such device a "Threat to National Security" Patent would be sized...all reason due that..it will kill all oil industry, World will go into a Caos...etc,etc.
On the other hand, if it is shared, disclosed in full, (like we do here, Open Source) so MANY others across the World could reproduce it...then, and ONLY then, is a Saviour.
And No one, no DoD, no DoE, no USPTO, absolutely NO ONE could legally seize nothing, because there is nothing...it is FREE.
I could expand on this...but this is a "short version" of the Two Outcomes.
Regards
Ufopolitics
Edit: And we are very close to this last part...
Hi Ufopolitics,
Just trying to sort out the delimena - but I suppose it's moot at this point; the concept is already out there
and whether it's "free-to-the-world" or "patented" makes little difference at this point.
Since - It's already been developed and disclosed in full. Hard to put it back in box now!
MIC, and all others, good or bad, I suspose, can use the device either way. Will have to
think-out-of-the-box a bit to come up with a way of attempting to limit the use for good only - that was
kind of Anonymous' point!
Maybe just wait and hope for a more "friendly World state-of-affairs" to develop! Probaby the
only good answer. Or, maybe have it burried by Uncle GOV (of course that only works until the first
one is captured and reverse engineered by the other team).
Still doesn't answer the Ethics question however. Sometimes, it's not so good, to be too good, aye...
Oh well - as they say: "No good deed goes unpunished!" Can hope no one else will really figure it out; as
unlikey as that may be... and it just falls through the cracks, so to speak
Anyway, thanks for sharing your version of the facts, appreciated.
Anonymous
Hi SL,
Just one last thing...
"Whenever You are able to make your own Energy...You can make your own Politics".
Regards
Ufopolitics
Quote from: Ufopolitics on Mar 25, 2024, 12:37 AMHi SL,
Just one last thing...
"Whenever You are able to make your own Energy...You can make your own Politics".
Regards
Ufopolitics
Excellent point (observation) - thanks!
Maybe a real viable approach; might not even take that long either... and
the timing may be "ripe" as well!
The device is simple enough, although lamination costs are still pretty high
but there are work-arounds that might function OK.
Getting the word out to the world is still a challenge however. Need a credible
Youtube-like method - maybe "X" or another similar social media scheme.
Quote from: Classic on Apr 06, 2024, 07:22 AM@solarlab, I guess we are not going to get any updates anymore on this setup ?
Or maybe not yet decided what path to choose, free public open source or patent ?
Hello Classic,
I do not think Solarlab will try to get a patent on this...
The USPTO have already created a specific "Class #" for "Perpetua Mobilia" Status, on any Application proposal where Output is larger than Input...or any "Magnet Motor" which does not require any energy as input.
This "Perpetua Mobilia Status" will render any patent USELESS for trading, assignation to a Third Party or else...so, other than have a nice "Patent Certificate" framed and hanged in your office or home...it is not good for anything else.
But apart from the above, there is a type of "Syndrome" that tend to attack Inventors, once they achieve a proven Overunity Device...I have seen it before...it is a kind of "limbo" la la land state, where inventor no longer want to keep disclosing his invention in the open, but does not want to apply for a Patent either.
The Invention that Solarlab have shown here, does not comply with stated physics related to the Laws of Induction, as a matter of fact, it defies them completely.
And those Laws applies from Maxwell, Faraday all the way up to Lorentz.
Simply because Induction takes place on a PERPENDICULAR (90º) Basis, related to 1- Magnetic B-Field versus 2- Induced Wire(s) Conductor(s).
Solarlab proposal, have both Components completely IN PARALLEL.
And that fact alone, is going to be literally a "war" trying to "legalize" this concept against Magnetism Laws, apart from the OU Factor.
I believe Solarlab is just rechecking again his system, making sure that all parameters are correct first, before keep adding here more material.
So, give him a "brake", please!!... ;D
Regards
Ufopolitics
My, how time flies when you're having fun!
Geez, Ten Days since my last post...
Updates:
1. The Carp49 Laminations are now a week overdue, called the supplier but still no firm shipping
time.
2. M19 Testing is still ongoing - haven't checked the progress lately but there is a lot to it; many
coils to be wound, 20 coils with different number of turns (done by hand) per each sequenced
test run (1-pole, then 2-poles, etc. up to 10); then Loop Coils for each sequence (1-Loop turns,
4-Loop turns, etc. up to 100 Loop turns). A huge number of combinations and permutations.
3. Loop Coils are still done by hand around a Tupper Ware oval bowl. Pole Coils have a what I
call a "Coil Former and Dressing" - might attach a detailed preliminary desgn file (?).
Note: The M19 and Carp49 laminations are the same size so the Pole Coils and Loop Coils will
be used on both in the same configuration.
This is used primarily as a comparison between the M19 and Carp49 materials.
4. Automated Coil Winder using a pseudo-orthocyclic wind pattern on a square bobbin is a bit
tricky to design. Target design uses a rotary table with independant jaw chuck mounted on an
X-Axis. Briefly; one turn then step 1 wire diameter for the base layer, then step back 1/2 wire
diameter, then one turn and step back 1 wire diameter for n number of turns, etc.. This Winder
is needed for small production runs once the optimum # of turns is determined.
4a. An adhesive dispensing needle of appropriate gauge is used as a wire guide to direct the
coil wire very close to the square coil form in an effort to keep the windings neat and tidy.
Needle uses a Leur type attachment so it can be quickly replaced.
4b. A modified 3D Printer stepper motor based Filament feeder (dual gear direct extruder)
with Heat Shrink over the feeder drive serations (keeps from cutting into the wire insulation
and also provides some slippage for the coil wire). The feeder stepper is synchronized closely
with the rotary table to ensure a good tension on the wound coil. Might attach a detailed
preliminary "Orthocyclic Coil_Winder Build Info" desgn file (?).
This Winder approach should also work on a 4-Axis Mill.
5. Flowcode's App Developer is used to drive the Automated Coil Winder using a Modbus
format scheme on the slave modbus stepper controller which also includes the travel stop
switches and so forth. App Developer resides on a PC and the modbus Slave is a micro
controller. All the required stepper motor steps and such are calculated on the PC then sent
to the Slave. This makes it easier to fine-tume the Coil Winder as required. A bit more work
and a learning curve figuring out how it works up-front but more veratile in the end.
6. A lot of study and analysis is still being done on the "EE_TFG" theory-of-operation so it's
still very much a work-in-progress.
AND we still don't know if the EE_TFG concept will perform as the CAE simulation and analysis
suggests.
Also; here's a post I did a while back in another forum somewhat related to the "direction:"
----------------
Conceiving a new technology, or a unique twist to existing technology, can be huge; but its only a
small step in the journey - a viable proof-of-concept based upon many iterative tests and analysis
must follow; that takes a lot of time, effort and money. But again, at the end of this phase you're
only left with a viable, all be it, a unique unexplained technology.
Now you have to explain it, in both scientific and engineering, terms. Again, time consuming and
possibly difficult if the science requires development as well.
Of course another hurdle is acceptance of the concept, especially if it's non-main stream. It has to
be rigorously defended; and even so, some will never acceppt it, that's just typical human nature.
Possibly a better route is just to quietly commercialize or industrialize this new technology and
let it simply speak for itself in a few sought-after applications. It will grow as time goes without
any needed fan-fare. This approach also side-steps much of the discourse, supression and apathy.
Although the search for an excess energy device is the primary goal; once achieved, so what!
But; when it's proven the device works as conceived, implementation then becomes the fun...
There are many examples - zipper, telephone, ICE, radio, flight, x-rays, TV, space, etc. - none of these,
and many others, were not done in a day or two, and they cost much more than a few dollars.
--------------
SL
Quote from: Ufopolitics on Apr 06, 2024, 12:46 PMQuote from: Classic on Apr 06, 2024, 07:22 AM@solarlab, I guess we are not going to get any updates anymore on this setup ?
Or maybe not yet decided what path to choose, free public open source or patent ?
Hello Classic,
I do not think Solarlab will try to get a patent on this...
The USPTO have already created a specific "Class #" for "Perpetua Mobilia" Status, on any Application proposal where Output is larger than Input...or any "Magnet Motor" which does not require any energy as input.
This "Perpetua Mobilia Status" will render any patent USELESS for trading, assignation to a Third Party or else...so, other than have a nice "Patent Certificate" framed and hanged in your office or home...it is not good for anything else.
But apart from the above, there is a type of "Syndrome" that tend to attack Inventors, once they achieve a proven Overunity Device...I have seen it before...it is a kind of "limbo" la la land state, where inventor no longer want to keep disclosing his invention in the open, but does not want to apply for a Patent either.
The Invention that Solarlab have shown here, does not comply with stated physics related to the Laws of Induction, as a matter of fact, it defies them completely.
And those Laws applies from Maxwell, Faraday all the way up to Lorentz.
Simply because Induction takes place on a PERPENDICULAR (90º) Basis, related to 1- Magnetic B-Field versus 2- Induced Wire(s) Conductor(s).
Solarlab proposal, have both Components completely IN PARALLEL.
And that fact alone, is going to be literally a "war" trying to "legalize" this concept against Magnetism Laws, apart from the OU Factor.
I believe Solarlab is just rechecking again his system, making sure that all parameters are correct first, before keep adding here more material.
So, give him a "brake", please!!... ;D
Regards
Ufopolitics
Hi Ufopolitics,
Actually the concept of "Transverse Flux (the Loop Coil and the Poles being perpendicular [orthoganol])" is not patentable, see
referenced patents below. All of these use the Transverse Flux scheme.
The same configuration is used in the EE_TFG design (similar to many TFMG wind generators - see the referenced papers).
BUT the patentable part is where the "Permanent Magnets (PMs)" are replaced by "Electronic (controlled) Electromagnets"hence, the "EE" part of the "EE_TFG." Such a simple change (modification) to the current "Art" brings with it a huge change in the overall device characteristics.
No longer a need for any rotating permanent magnets or a rotating propeller or other driving mechanism. This new novel
device has NO MOVING PARTS and DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EXTERNAL INFLUENCES to facilitate operation.
The EE_TFG still does need a power source, briefly, to start the operation - initially power up the electronics and provide
an initial current for the Pole Coils (3.3VDC @ 50mA) for probably less than a second (still to be tested and determined).
Electronic control of the electromagnets replace the rotating permanent magnets while retaining the bennefit of seperation of
the electric field and the magnetic field - Lens Law is virtually eliminated as are the BEMF effects as well as torque drag
(notching), etc. This drag is explained in detail in some of the attached papers and is a major source of development for
current Art wind generator devices. These adverse effects (found in current motors and generators) fill many books and
papers and are explained in many differing ways.
One area where the EE_TFG patent might stand a chance of being overturned is where "Mordey - US437501" last paragraph
before the Claims states:
"The field may be excited from an external source, or it may be wholly or partly excited by a commuted current obtained from the armature." Modey's patent attached.
Other patents using the "transverse flux" concept include: US447921, US514907, US567423, US570012.
Also, IMHO, Dr. Holcomb has basically "broken the glass ceiling," so to speak, regarding the "Perpetua Mobilia" with
respect to future patents.
And yes, the EE_TFG is still a work in progress - so far, so good!
SL
BTW, a Provisional Application runs for the period of a year so there is plenty of time to
consider many options and explore many avenues!
Dear Solarlab,
Does the Coil Lamination need to be ANNEALING treated?
(https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?thumbnail=860) (https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?aid=860) (https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?thumbnail=860) (https://www.mooker.com/attachment.php?aid=860)
Ufopolitics,
The attached pdf, I hope, explains the patent concern a bit more.
Kampen,
My longer comments are found in the other forum; but the short answer is "Annealing is probably a good idea."
Regards,
SL
A repost of the original Post #2 of this thread hopefully will help in possibly understanding a bit better
the basic EE_TFG device discussed here.
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=219
Further posts go into more detail of the device's development as well as the CAE analysis.
Some Preliminary BACKGROUND and STUDY Information
If your new to the Transverse Flux (TF) concept these links will help explain the idea. Although they
focus on generators using Permanent Magnets (PM's) used in Wind Generators, you can easily
substitute the PM rotating disc with fixed "Electromagnets" driven by a simple "Full H-Bridge" electronically.
Principle of TFPM Generator:
https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.html
Animated video of the simplified operation (using PM's):
https://www.pengky.cn/zz-direct-drive-turbine/transverse-flux-generator/transverse-flux-generator.mp4
A video of a TF Motor design and build from Mr. Kuhn (student at Altoon Penn State University):
https://altoona.psu.edu/video/35096/2020/12/14/transverse-flux-motor
Again, simply replace the PM's with an Electromagnet and you'll get the idea of this new EEG_EM concept.
Replacing the Permanent Magnets found in the TFPM Generator, as described above, with Electronically
controlled Electromagnets forms the EE_TFG discussed in this thread. It's as simple as that.
Replacement of the Permanent Magnets involves simply winding a "pole coil" on the extended portion of
each half pole lamination.
Two half poles for a Pole where each "bridge part" of the Pole contains one or Loop windings (typically 2 Loop
windings but there can be many [?]) per device.
The EE_TFG controller uses the 2 Pole Electromagnets of each Pole (device can contain many seperate Poles,
8 in the case of the analyzed EE_TFG) to mimic the rotating Permanent Magnet disc.
Hope this helps!
SL
@ Solarlab,
Thank You for your reply and explanation.
Ref.: ANNEALING Coils
....The short answer is I suspect that would help increase the performance of the lamination BH.
It appears you can substantially modify the basic soft iron properties
with respect to the B vs H characteristics; as well as Br, etc. using certain annealing schemes......
I will order one set (8 pcs.) of Laminated Coils with Annealing Processed Electrical Steel and one set without Annealing.
Then we can measure and find out the difference.
Quote from: kampen on Apr 07, 2024, 11:05 AM@ Solarlab,
Thank You for your reply and explanation.
Ref.: ANNEALING Coils
....The short answer is I suspect that would help increase the performance of the lamination BH.
It appears you can substantially modify the basic soft iron properties
with respect to the B vs H characteristics; as well as Br, etc. using certain annealing schemes......
I will order one set (8 pcs.) of Laminated Coils with Annealing Processed Electrical Steel and one set without Annealing.
Then we can measure and find out the difference.
Hi Kampen,
Attached a pdf relating to Annealing of the Laminations (including my engineering costs for both M19 and Carp-49).
Looking forward to your progress and measurements.
SL
F.Y.I.
Please be Advised - The EE_TFG now moves into the Final Development Phase:
As of this morning we have partnered with several companies to further push the EE_TFG
into the final phases of production and marketing. This agreement covers the full spectrum
of resources required to properly field the many target device applications in a timely
manner on a on a large scale at a reasonable cost.
We will help this Group overcome a major hurdle on their way to helping secure a cleaner
environment; while enabling us to move forward. This unique grouping has all the
resources needed for further development and a good track record for innovation on
a broad scope.
This collaboration brings together, as a "Unified Group," the Resources, Processors, R&D,
Manufactures and Users - these are nearly all seperate entities - I haven't seen this type
of organization and co-operation before but considering the "subject" and "magnitude,"
maybe I'm just not all that suprised! Very optimistic for the near-term future...
We bring to the table the experience in Engineering and Technical skills needed, plus, when
completed, we can step back and relax in relative comfort.
Been A Very Iinteresting Journey
I hope some of you enjoyed following along with the design and development of the
EE-TFG (and related subjects) as much as I did presenting them from the initial conceptual
idea through to the final analysis.
It's been an extremely interesting journey over the last several years; and very rewarding
in a multitude of technical study, analysis and other ways.
How It All Came About
The negotiation was an amazingly simple process; initial phone conversation; a few brief
conferences; and, after a "meeting of the minds on many common goals;" following a
somewhat detailed technical demonstrations; a rather lengthly engineering and contractual
meeting; and the detailed written offer, via courier, (it even shocked my attorney); it's done!
Although not sure, initially, what exactly the best course might have been for further
development and implementation of the EE_TFG; after reviewing everything, especially
the numbers (significant, ++), the decision became crystal clear...
[I'm still a bit shakey at the magnitude of it all, actually!]
Take care and good luck chasing your dreams... It can, and will, happen!
Best regards,
SL (Solarlab - SAEC)
SL,
I've just recently joined this forum and I have a comment/question on your EEG_EM concept and project. If I understand correctly after studying your simulations and explanations, you state that your input typically consists of a 3v dc source and a +- 50ma constant current for an input power calculation of 3*.05 = .15 watts.
However, I could not seem to find where your sim shows the input voltage at V_pole across the Lwinding_N1/S1 poles. This voltage should be equal to dE=di*L/dt . In your sim t=100us and L is unspecified so, lets' assume a rather conservative L=20mh for one pole pair. This now means the voltage across this pole pair will be .05*.02/100e-6 = 10v. This means we now have a compliance voltage for the constant current source of 10-3=7v which contributes an additional 7*.05 = .35 watts to the input power.
I'm probably missing something here so please forgive my ignorance in this matter!
Regards,
Pm
SL,
After more consideration, I was wrong in part of my analysis in my previous post! The "dt" used in the calculation of "E" should have been the rise time used which is 10ns and the "di" should have been the sum of the +- currents or [100ma]. This of course raises E considerably but for the short rise time period. If we ignore this power loss, we then need to look at the relatively constant voltage on a pole pair of coils. I will use your first example back in the second part of your paper "TFG_Z03_TR_A-phi_OutCoil_5_100mA-20t".
40 turns 20mA -> In = 0.06W Out = 8.04W + 2.3W 4 turns Output Coil 100 ohm R Load
I will assume that 40 turns is for the pole pair total. I will also assume the coupling or k=0.9 . Then we will calculate the output voltage with E = (P*R)^.5 = 28.35v . The turns ratio is 10:1 so the input voltage would be Vin = Vout*10*k = 255v . This is now the magnitude of the input voltage that the +- constant current generator will 'see'. The actual compliance voltage for the generators is 255-3 = 252v which now results in a Pin = 252*.02 = 5.04 watts. The initial power consumed by the 3v supply would have to be added to this.
If 40 turns is for each pole pair, then the numbers are as follows: Vin = Vout*20*k = 510 with the compliance voltage = 507. This would result in a Pin = 507*.02 = 10.14 watts.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
As you are probably aware; since this is a Transverse Flux (TF) scheme,
the input Pole coils (sets the laminated core poles magnetic strength) and the
output Loop coil (sets the induced output EMF) are not related.
This EE_TFG is not, and has no relationship to, a transformer.
Read the entire thread, and all related attachments, clearly and
in detail, for a better understanding of Transverse Flux (TF).
Your post assumptions and calculations are incorrect for TF
analysis and can be misleading (at least I hope they are myopic assumptions
and not an attempt to go down another Rabbit Hole)!
Regards,
SL
(still enjoying a long overdue vacation - checking the "views" - wow - 11,000!)
SL,
Thank you for your response to my analysis. The EE_TFG is very much a transformer IMO. The difference is, your primaries are constant current driven but otherwise standard transformer induction is is effect. I stand by my analysis and I think you will understand my position when you actually build a working device.
However, I, along with yourself and others who read this thread are hopeful your device works because we need energy independence. So I will not comment any further so you can continue on with the development of your EE_TFG without any distraction.
Good luck and success with your efforts!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on May 15, 2024, 12:03 PMSL,
Thank you for your response to my analysis. The EE_TFG is very much a transformer IMO. The difference is, your primaries are constant current driven but otherwise standard transformer induction is is effect. I stand by my analysis and I think you will understand my position when you actually build a working device.
However, I, along with yourself and others who read this thread are hopeful your device works because we need energy independence. So I will not comment any further so you can continue on with the development of your EE_TFG without any distraction.
Good luck and success with your efforts!
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
Until you study "Transverse Flux" in detail, including "Lorentz Force Law" (as opposed to Faraday), along with the TFPM Wind
Generators (shown on the first page of the thread); you might conclude the TFG is some sort of "transformer."
But that's simply wrong - look at the physical TFPM configurations.
Also, constant current has nothing to do with it. Plus, the only correct way to properly analyze the TFG device is using a professional
"3D Transient Computer Aided Engineering(CAE) Suite; although some attached papers have attempted an analysis using analytics.
Have a look at the PM Wind Generator Video presented on the first page of this thread and ask yourself: "Is this a constant current transformer?" - Of course it's not!You are entitled to your opinion - but in this case it is simply wrong and you are misleading yourself and possibly others.
(BTW, the technique is valid and works better than expected! Try it yourself... you have already been given everything you need.)
SL OK - back to relaxing and enjoying my vacation - only in Port for several hours to get a few supplies and check the internet... [300 baud boat Sat Link just doesn't cut it anymore :) ] Have a good one!
SL,
The TFPM designs on the first page of this thread are all simply single phase alternators. No gain mechanism is seen. Are you claiming these basic devices produce excess energy?
I did not claim these PM devices were constant current, I said YOUR EE_TFG device is fed a constant current so correct me if I'm wrong. I see you are using a +-100ma constant current generator driving a 33 ohm resistor that then is connected to your input coils. From this, you deduce that your input power is simply 330mw but this is not the whole picture of the input power.
As I stated earlier. you must include the voltage that will be present at the junction of the 33 ohm resistor and the input coils to arrive at the true input power. The voltage present at that point, will be the ratio of the total primary turns to secondary turns times the coupling factor times the output voltage across the load. To prove this, simply measure this voltage on your 3D sim!
I am not intending to mislead anyone so if you don't approve of my responses, by all means delete them!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on May 17, 2024, 12:37 PMSL,
The TFPM designs on the first page of this thread are all simply single phase alternators. No gain mechanism is seen. Are you claiming these basic devices produce excess energy?
I did not claim these PM devices were constant current, I said YOUR EE_TFG device is fed a constant current so correct me if I'm wrong. I see you are using a +-100ma constant current generator driving a 33 ohm resistor that then is connected to your input coils. From this, you deduce that your input power is simply!IY 330mw but this is not the whole picture of the input power.
As I stated earlier. you must include the voltage that will be present at the junction of the 33 ohm resistor and the input coils to arrive at the true input power. The voltage present at that point, will be the ratio of the total primary turns to secondary turns times the coupling factor times the output voltage across the load. To prove this, simply measure this voltage on your 3D sim!
I am not intending to mislead anyone so if you don't approve of my responses, by all means delete them!
Regards,
Pm
PM,
Again, let me repeat, you are dead Wrong!
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE THREAD AND APPLY SOME TECHNICAL INSIGHT * THEN BUILD ONE FOR YOUR SELF EDUCATION!
If you have a different scheme or idea please start your own thread and present it rather than pollute this EE_TFG presentation. TIA.
I have no desire to argue about a design that works; and at 300 Baud it's of no value added anymore. Also, you can delete your unrelated
and unresearched "Opinion" posts yourself!
Thanks...
SL
Hello to All,
@solarlab:
This is Your Thread/Topic, where you have
partially disclosed your Method(s), and where You have claimed certain Properties that Apply to your device.
Now, it is entirely on Your Side/End, to offer a response to ANY Members, that in a very polite way, have approach to ask you, related ANY doubts they may have.
Just like Partzman did. (I have been watching since the very beginning, this discussion)
Concluding, that it is entirely on your end, to Prove Your Claims are exactly as you have cited.
So far you have not proven HERE, anything with a REAL BUILD, on a VIDEO, with all the right measurements.
And until you do so, any member is allowed/entitled to ask You, any technical questions they may have, related to Voltage/Amps, etc,etc Input, as also Output, and-of course- related to a "Simulation" that is ALL you have done so far.
As you are supposed to POLITELY, respond, giving ALL these requests in Detail.
Regards
Ufopolitics
Furthermore,
And NO, I will NOT delete the posts made by Partzman here!!
PM has ALL the right to ask you, whether you like it or not...and like I wrote before, the BURDEN OF PROOF is COMPLETELY on YOUR END, SolarLab.
Ufopolitics
Quote from: Ufopolitics on May 17, 2024, 03:59 PMFurthermore,
And NO, I will NOT delete the posts made by Partzman here!!
PM has ALL the right to ask you, whether you like it or not...and like I wrote before, the BURDEN OF PROOF is COMPLETELY on YOUR END, SolarLab.
Ufopolitics
No Worries,
Should the USPTO, EPO or any other issuing authority require a functional EE_TFG or
related application device, one can easily be provided upon request.
At this stage of development these (official) organizations are the only ones that
need to be satisfied - so, that's the only focus. And I don't think they use Youtube!
As far as this forum's demands go - there is no need to "open that can of worms."
We all remember the POC videos, posts, etc., relating to Ruslin, Kapanadze, Don Smith,
and many -many - others.
Only a fool would bring that "rath of crap" upon themselves!
The EE_TFG concept was presented as an Educational introduction to a new technique
[Transverse Flux] that is capable of producing Excess Energy - thats all, that was it.
To make it into something more is really "beyond the scope!"
Agree - the "BURDEN OF PROOF is COMPLETELY on YOUR (my) END";
HOWEVER that lays solely with the Patent Issueing Athorities (should they require one), and not at the demands of some Forum!
With respect to the "Forum" it's completely irrelevant and immaterial - if it works, Great;
if it doesn't - So What!
So, I'll just leave it there... Have a good one and take care!
SL
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMNo Worries,
Nope, I, do not worry...EVER.
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMShould the USPTO, EPO or any other issuing authority require a functional EE_TFG or
related application device, one can easily be provided upon request.
They should, but unfortunately they do not ask for a "working device".
Reason WHY, the USPTO is full of B.S. "Patents" that do not work.
And this FACT, is plainly PATHETIC.
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMAt this stage of development these (official) organizations are the only ones that
need to be satisfied - so, that's the only focus. And I don't think they use Youtube!
You are VERY WRONG, PLUS, VERY MISINFORMED,
USPTO DOES USE YOUTUBE:
As a matter of FACT, they have a FULL USPTO YOUTUBE CHANNEL (https://www.youtube.com/@USPTOvideo)
Now, the USPTO, may not need to be "satisfied", as you wrote above...HOWEVER, HERE, ON THIS WEBSITE...:
ANY CLAIMS WRITTEN ON OVERUNITYMACHINES.COM, DO HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY REPLICATIONS
I AM NOT GOING TO ACCEPT/ALLOW ANY B.S CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY REAL PROOF!!
IT WILL COMPLETELY SET ANY SITE THAT ALLOWS "CRAPPY IDEAS" INTO A "HOLE FOR ALL B.S WITHOUT REAL PROOF"
Not here pal.
I SAID THAT SAME PROCEDURE SINCE THE START OF THIS SITE (Nov 19 2023):
IT IS A BUILDER'S WEBSITE AND MAINLY OPEN SOURCE.
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMAs far as this forum's demands go - there is no need to "open that can of worms."
We all remember the POC videos, posts, etc., relating to Ruslin, Kapanadze, Don Smith,
and many -many - others.
Only a fool would bring that "rath of crap" upon themselves!
I would say the COMPLETE OPPOSITE...
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMThe EE_TFG concept was presented as an Educational introduction to a new technique
[Transverse Flux] that is capable of producing Excess Energy - thats all, that was it.
Producing "Excess Energy" as "EDUCATIONAL" with absolutely ZERO PROOF??!!
LOL
Quote from: solarlab on May 17, 2024, 07:38 PMTo make it into something more is really "beyond the scope!"
Agree - the "BURDEN OF PROOF is COMPLETELY on YOUR (my) END"; HOWEVER that
lays solely with the Patent Issueing Athorities (should they require one), and not at the
demands of some Forum!
With respect to the "Forum" it's completely irrelevant and immaterial - if it works, Great;
if it doesn't - So What!
So, I'll just leave it there... Have a good one and take care!
SL
Thanks for being so honest SL, and YES, I will take care ...OF IT!!
Ufopolitics
ATTENTION TO ALL MEMBERS
This type of Claims (without REAL Proof) you are going to see them everywhere...and here there are no exceptions.
More likely, what these so called "Inventors" are looking for...is that YOU, the Experienced Members and Builders, would help them CORRECT ALL WRITTEN.
Then, since they are just Applying "Provisionally" they can correct any errors at the time of the REAL APPLICATION PRESENTATION, thanks to you.
And NO, the USPTO does not require any proof about a "working device"
BUT INVESTORS, WHO COME WITH THE MONEY "UP FRONT" DO !!So, these "smart guys" get a fully working device, but NOT because they prove it based on their REAL WORK, EXPENSES AND TIME WASTED...
BUT, BECAUSE YOU, THE EXPERIENCED MEMBERS HELP THEM IN THE "PROCESS"
Otherwise, it could be just like Solarlab wrote himself..."He don't care" if it works or not.
BUT, RELATED TO THIS WEBSITE, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS.
IT IS A COMPLETELY WASTE OF TIME, TAKING IT AWAY, FROM REAL BUILDS HERE, THAT DESERVE MORE ATTENTION AND INTEREST.
This Apparatus Disclosed here, it is NEVER going to work, basically about the main design Solarlab presented originally here:
TFG_Functional_Block-Schematic_Diagram_01.png
IMHO, Induction in great percentages, does NOT take place this way!!
IMO, In order to "PUSH" INDUCTION ON A WIRE SUCCESSFULLY,
IT MUST ALSO HAVE THE SAME SHAPE/CONFIGURATION OF ITS INDUCTOR, AND THAT IS A COIL
FACING (AN)OTHER COIL(S).
MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATED BY INDUCTOR COIL MUST FACE THE "SECONDARY" OR "FIELD OUTPUT COILS"... NOT IN A TRANSVERSE SCENARIO LIKE SHOWN ABOVE.
And to "verify" what I am writing here, All of you Builder's out there, you can make a simple "Test setup" for real of a similar Design, as on Image above...then see the Micro-Volts and Micro-Amps it would be Generating... ;D
Then you are very welcome to post your results here.
For now, I will leave this Topic open, and you can write here whatever opinion you please...
Have a good one...
Regards
Ufopolitics
Hello to All,
I just now, received this "Notification" from Member Solarlab:
QuoteNOTICE of impending ACTION - Re: Misappropriation of Intellectual Property
ufopolitics,
Please be advised that your attempt to hijack (misappropriate), and most likely profit from, the
intellectual property of SL (Solarlab) further formal actions will follow -
"Unless you immediately REMOVE all SL (Solarlab) original posts and other related content, including
original CAE, diagrams, and other content."
Using this original author content for purposes not intended by the author would be considered
"Unjust Enrichment" amongst other things.
This is the first, and only, informal NOTIFICATION.
Thanks for your attention and action regarding this matter.
SL (Solarlab)
We, at OUM, do NOT need this CRAP to "profit" in any shape or form, from a NON PROVEN CLAIM.
Therefore, I will be CLEANING UP THIS SITE from this Topic here, after I give some time for you ALL to read it.
Now I ask you, solarlab, aren't you "protected" by filing a "Provisional Patent?
Ufopolitics
Wowza!
A simple, innocuous question gets asked and the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
Quote from: Electro on May 18, 2024, 12:57 PMWowza!
A simple, innocuous question gets asked and the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
Hello Electro,
"A simple question" that was NOT answered properly, but with insults and whole bunch of crap, simply AVOIDING to give the right answer...
Why not just give the right answer?
[color=var(--input-txt-color)]
Regards[/color]
Ufopolitics
@solarlab Hello Sir,
I want you to realize that You have, willingly, on your own decision, to Open a Topic at OUM, an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
And this fact, allow Us to handle this matter in whichever way we (the Administration at OUM) decides to act.
If We (The OUM Admin) decide to erase your Topic completely, I want to clarify that it WILL NOT BE due to any kind of "Legal Notifications" intimidations.
And if we decide Not to delete it, but to Archive it/Close it, but still being readable, we are completely protected by the Open Source License plus the Creative Common License Laws.
Otherwise, the reason not to permanently delete this Topic, would be due, that many Members here, have already participate on it, giving their ideas and contributing in many aspects to your original idea.
And all data is recorded here and date stamped.
We know perfectly well Our Rights, basically related to the handling of any Material Disclosed on an Open Source Forum.Please behave accordingly.
Lorenzo et Al
Hello to All Members,
We, the Admin, have decided, as in any Democracy, to let the Members decide with their Vote, what they want as a final result here.
Above this Topic is a Poll, where you can vote, whichever way you want this matter to be resolved.
Also, you can leave your comment/opinion below.
Thanks for your participation!
Lorenzo et Al
Do not delete please. It will serve better the whole purpose of open source for anyone whom may want to patent and abuse free open source.
Well ... I am going to ask again: why would someone whom seek a patent protection will present a device/theory on open source forum ? ... And then, after getting probably some remuneration (as stated or suggested) want to retract all presented material ?
Have anyone forced in the first place respective individual to post or disclose anything on this forum or/and other forums ? Or it was just a strategy to create a leverage on intended investors to extort a remuneration like: you pay what I ask or will go free for everyone !
It is quite obvious then why no clear answer to questions is given. If the device works it is clear that something has not been disclosed/released to public, if doesn't work it may just be a fraud and everything posted here may serve any interested (third) party.
Using in this way an open source forum is an abuse at least.
Everything presented should stay public as it is now ... this is my opinion and how I see the facts.
Quote from: Classic on May 19, 2024, 05:37 AMWell ... I am going to ask again: why would someone whom seek a patent protection will present a device/theory on open source forum ? ... And then, after getting probably some remuneration (as stated or suggested) want to retract all presented material ?
Have anyone forced in the first place respective individual to post or disclose anything on this forum or/and other forums ? Or it was just a strategy to create a leverage on intended investors to extort a remuneration like: you pay what I ask or will go free for everyone !
It is quite obvious then why no clear answer to questions is given. If the device works it is clear that something has not been disclosed/released to public, if doesn't work it may just be a fraud and everything posted here may serve any interested (third) party.
Using in this way an open source forum is an abuse at least.
Everything presented should stay public as it is now ... this is my opinion and how I see the facts.
Classic,
Just could have been that the information was presented in a pseudo-psyop
fashion to flush out the opponents to OU.
To study how many and how well this group is organized and how they operate.
Maybe a cleaver way to discover a great deal of insight into that dark side
of the equation. Gather data and connect-the-dots, so to speak.
Exposing their scenario will be very helpful in the future for other developers!
Just IMHO of course!
SL
Quote from: Lorenzo et Al on May 18, 2024, 02:13 PM@solarlab
Hello Sir,
I want you to realize that You have, willingly, on your own decision, to Open a Topic at OUM, an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
And this fact, allow Us to handle this matter in whichever way we (the Administration at OUM) decides to act.
If We (The OUM Admin) decide to erase your Topic completely, I want to clarify that it WILL NOT BE due to any kind of "Legal Notifications" intimidations.
And if we decide Not to delete it, but to Archive it/Close it, but still being readable, we are completely protected by the Open Source License plus the Creative Common License Laws.
Otherwise, the reason not to permanently delete this Topic, would be due, that many Members here, have already participate on it, giving their ideas and contributing in many aspects to your original idea.
And all data is recorded here and date stamped.
We know perfectly well Our Rights, basically related to the handling of any Material Disclosed on an Open Source Forum.
Please behave accordingly.
Lorenzo et Al
Should be an interesting case - US Copyright Law vs Open Source Forum "mis-appropriation" of copyright material!
Quote from: solarlab on May 19, 2024, 02:51 PMQuote from: Lorenzo et Al on May 18, 2024, 02:13 PM@solarlab
Hello Sir,
I want you to realize that You have, willingly, on your own decision, to Open a Topic at OUM, an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
And this fact, allow Us to handle this matter in whichever way we (the Administration at OUM) decides to act.
If We (The OUM Admin) decide to erase your Topic completely, I want to clarify that it WILL NOT BE due to any kind of "Legal Notifications" intimidations.
And if we decide Not to delete it, but to Archive it/Close it, but still being readable, we are completely protected by the Open Source License plus the Creative Common License Laws.
Otherwise, the reason not to permanently delete this Topic, would be due, that many Members here, have already participate on it, giving their ideas and contributing in many aspects to your original idea.
And all data is recorded here and date stamped.
We know perfectly well Our Rights, basically related to the handling of any Material Disclosed on an Open Source Forum.
Please behave accordingly.
Lorenzo et Al
Should be an interesting case - US Copyright Law vs Open Source Forum "mis-appropriation" of copyright material!
@solarlab Sir, We have NOT "appropiated" absolutely anything!You are the Author of this Topic, as also you have ALL Copyrights about its design.
You have not been muted in any way here, so you can keep exposing your updates or not, it is your decision.
However, I would like to emphasize (again) that
it was Your Solely Decision, to Open a Topic on an Open Source Forum.
So, please search and read about Open Source Platforms Disclosure.
We have submitted the decision about this Topic on a Poll Vote by our Members.
And We would resolve it according to whatever final results are.
End of this conversation.
Lorenzo et Al
Quote from: Lorenzo et Al on May 19, 2024, 03:17 PMQuote from: solarlab on May 19, 2024, 02:51 PMQuote from: Lorenzo et Al on May 18, 2024, 02:13 PM@solarlab
Hello Sir,
I want you to realize that You have, willingly, on your own decision, to Open a Topic at OUM, an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
And this fact, allow Us to handle this matter in whichever way we (the Administration at OUM) decides to act.
If We (The OUM Admin) decide to erase your Topic completely, I want to clarify that it WILL NOT BE due to any kind of "Legal Notifications" intimidations.
And if we decide Not to delete it, but to Archive it/Close it, but still being readable, we are completely protected by the Open Source License plus the Creative Common License Laws.
Otherwise, the reason not to permanently delete this Topic, would be due, that many Members here, have already participate on it, giving their ideas and contributing in many aspects to your original idea.
And all data is recorded here and date stamped.
We know perfectly well Our Rights, basically related to the handling of any Material Disclosed on an Open Source Forum.
Please behave accordingly.
Lorenzo et Al
Should be an interesting case - US Copyright Law vs Open Source Forum "mis-appropriation" of copyright material!
@solarlab
Sir, We have NOT "appropiated" absolutely anything!
You are the Author of this Topic, as also you have ALL Copyrights about its design.
You have not been muted in any way here, so you can keep exposing your updates or not, it is your decision.
However, I would like to emphasize (again) that it was Your Solely Decision, to Open a Topic on an Open Source Forum.
So, please search and read about Open Source Platforms Disclosure.
We have submitted the decision about this Topic on a Poll Vote by our Members.
And We would resolve it according to whatever final results are.
End of this conversation.
Lorenzo et Al
Lorenzo,
Although not very high on our agenda; a slot has been set aside to discuss the deteriorating
events over the past few days with respect to our OM EE_TFG thread and risks, including further
defamation. This will take place during our weekly project status gathering on Friday.
What started as an "Educational" presentation has clearly degraded into something else
so it might be prudent at this point to seek clairification for all concerned as we move forward.
Please submit a "single source of contact" (here or via PM) where written correspondence(a USPO name and address) can be directed to. Thanks in advance - this saves needless time and expense.
Regards,
SL
Quote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 03:59 PMLorenzo,
Although not very high on our agenda; a slot has been set aside to discuss the deteriorating
events over the past few days with respect to our OM EE_TFG thread and risks, including further
defamation. This will take place during our weekly project status gathering on Friday.
@solarlab You (solarlab) are the only one that have started this sequence of unfortunate -and deteriorating- events on your own Topic.
Just by deciding not to give the right (technical) answers requested by Member Partzman.
And, instead You decided to get involved in all kind of "discussions" that had absolutely nothing to do with the original questions asked.
In other words, You ignored or evade completely from giving the right and simple answer.
Your behaviour and negation to respond was in an open violation of Forum Rules.
You could have been more "polite" than what you have written as a response.
To the point that Member Partzman ask me to delete his account definitively from Over Unity Machines in an Open Post.
Quote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 03:59 PMWhat started as an "Educational" presentation has clearly degraded into something else
so it might be prudent at this point to seek clairification for all concerned as we move forward.
Like I have written before and above, only You have started this series of unfortunate events.
Quote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 03:59 PMPlease submit a "single source of contact" (here or via PM) where written correspondence
(a USPO name and address) can be directed to.
Thanks in advance - this saves needless time and expense.
Regards,
SL
You can contact Us here by P.M. or write to overunitymachines@gmail.com and send it on pdf format, anything you please.
It will save you ink, printer usage and any other expenses.
Please behave accordingly
Lorenzo et Al
Hello,
It is obvious this guy is looking for more trouble...
In my opinion, I would have deleted this Topic and ban his membership account a long time ago!!
This is like a ROTTEN TOMATO in the middle of a great website.
JG
@solarlab You know what your behavior here so far is tempting me to do?
To BUILD FOR REAL (not in any "Virtual Simulation") YOUR SETUP.And to show the Results EVERYWHERE, Including on My YouTube Channel with a PUBLIC Video.
Let me know, I am willing to give MY TIME AND MONEY, to prove Your Claims are either FALSE or REAL.
This will end all this discussion.
You want me to?
Let me know HERE, in the OPEN.
Ufopolitics
Quote from: Ufopolitics on May 21, 2024, 05:44 PM@solarlab
You know what your behavior here so far is tempting me to do?
To BUILD FOR REAL (not in any "Virtual Simulation") YOUR SETUP.
And to show the Results EVERYWHERE, Including on My YouTube Channel with a PUBLIC Video.
Let me know, I am willing to give MY TIME AND MONEY, to prove Your Claims are either FALSE or REAL.
This will end all this discussion.
You want me to?
Let me know HERE, in the OPEN.
Ufopolitics
(from a recent PM):
Ufopoitics,
As has been stated all along, many times, this TF method has proven to generate
excess energy in PM Wind Generators (and other devices). The original patent
was provided along with many technical papers where the physical results closely
match the CAE Analysis results - in most cases within a few percent.
Therefore it's very likely a device where the PM's are replaced by Electromagnets
should yield similar results. This configuration (EM's replaced the PM's) was
Analyzed many times with the results showing excess energy generation. These
CAE results were given many times in the thread.
If someone supposedly "skilled-in-the-art" can not comprehend the TF scheme
or read the CAE Analysis there is nothing more I can do to educate them further.
However, when ignorance of the concept and provided results degrades to
Deformation behaviour (as you yourself posted) then the defense must move
to another level - that's where we are at now.
The only way to "prove or disprove" the TF Electromagnetic functionality to
those claiming "it doesn't work" is for them to "Build One Themselves." That's
also how Deformation works - if you can prove the device does not work based
upon a "true replication of the device in question" then the claim of "if doesn't
work" is proven - otherwise the functionality of the presented evidence is valid.
Trying to get something that the original inventor and author is not ready to provide by Bullying or other Coercive Methods is simply not the way it's done.
I came here to introduce a relatively little known method and hopefully provide
some educational insight - of course you know this, as do most others.
Now, you can do whatever you want as the Board Owner. Except use copyrightmaterial you are not granted permission to use, nor propogate deformation without the proper backup requirements.
It's not complicated!
SL
Quote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 06:42 PM(from a recent PM):
Ufopoitics,
As has been stated all along, many times, this TF method has proven to generate
excess energy in PM Wind Generators (and other devices). The original patent
was provided along with many technical papers where the physical results closely
match the CAE Analysis results - in most cases within a few percent.
Therefore it's very likely a device where the PM's are replaced by Electromagnets
should yield similar results. This configuration (EM's replaced the PM's) was
Analyzed many times with the results showing excess energy generation. These
CAE results were given many times in the thread.
If someone supposedly "skilled-in-the-art" can not comprehend the TF scheme
or read the CAE Analysis there is nothing more I can do to educate them further.
However, when ignorance of the concept and provided results degrades to
Deformation behaviour (as you yourself posted) then the defense must move
to another level - that's where we are at now.
The only way to "prove or disprove" the TF Electromagnetic functionality to
those claiming "it doesn't work" is for them to "Build One Themselves." That's
also how Deformation works - if you can prove the device does not work based
upon a "true replication of the device in question" then the claim of "if doesn't
work" is proven - otherwise the functionality of the presented evidence is valid.
Trying to get something that the original inventor and author is not ready to
provide by Bullying or other Coercive Methods is simply not the way it's done.
I came here to introduce a relatively little known method and hopefully provide
some educational insight - of course you know this, as do most others.
Now, you can do whatever you want as the Board Owner. Except use copyright
material you are not granted permission to use, nor propogate deformation
without the proper backup requirements.
It's not complicated!
SL
Hello Solarlab,
First, can I ask you very simple to answer questions:
Have you given ALL information here, on this Topic, as to Replicate your setup AS IS?
For example, like I have given on my Figuera Development here?
Are you interested in other Members here to Replicate your Setup?
And to make sure you understand me, again, I will tell you that I am NOT interested -at all- to use anything related to your Patent Application, Copyright or even a Trademark.
I am just asking that you answer to any member requests related on how your Build could be replicated.
Because, after all, that is the MAIN REASON WHY, this website was open.
To SHARE, DEVELOP AND BUILD.
What I am asking is not complicated either.
At least, I think so.
Ufopolitics
Quote from: Ufopolitics on May 21, 2024, 06:55 PMQuote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 06:42 PM(from a recent PM):
Ufopoitics,
As has been stated all along, many times, this TF method has proven to generate
excess energy in PM Wind Generators (and other devices). The original patent
was provided along with many technical papers where the physical results closely
match the CAE Analysis results - in most cases within a few percent.
Therefore it's very likely a device where the PM's are replaced by Electromagnets
should yield similar results. This configuration (EM's replaced the PM's) was
Analyzed many times with the results showing excess energy generation. These
CAE results were given many times in the thread.
If someone supposedly "skilled-in-the-art" can not comprehend the TF scheme
or read the CAE Analysis there is nothing more I can do to educate them further.
However, when ignorance of the concept and provided results degrades to
Deformation behaviour (as you yourself posted) then the defense must move
to another level - that's where we are at now.
The only way to "prove or disprove" the TF Electromagnetic functionality to
those claiming "it doesn't work" is for them to "Build One Themselves." That's
also how Deformation works - if you can prove the device does not work based
upon a "true replication of the device in question" then the claim of "if doesn't
work" is proven - otherwise the functionality of the presented evidence is valid.
Trying to get something that the original inventor and author is not ready to
provide by Bullying or other Coercive Methods is simply not the way it's done.
I came here to introduce a relatively little known method and hopefully provide
some educational insight - of course you know this, as do most others.
Now, you can do whatever you want as the Board Owner. Except use copyright
material you are not granted permission to use, nor propogate deformation
without the proper backup requirements.
It's not complicated!
SL
Hello Solarlab,
First, can I ask you very simple to answer questions:
Have you given ALL information here, on this Topic, as to Replicate your setup AS IS?
For example, like I have given on my Figuera Development here?
Are you interested in other Members here to Replicate your Setup?
And to make sure you understand me, again, I will tell you that I am NOT interested -at all- to use anything related to your Patent Application, Copyright or even a Trademark.
I am just asking that you answer to any member requests related on how your Build could be replicated.
Because, after all, that is the MAIN REASON, this website was open.
To SHARE, DEVELOP AND BUILD.
What I am asking is not complicated either.
At least, I think so.
Ufopolitics
Quote from: Ufopolitics on May 21, 2024, 06:55 PMQuote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 06:42 PM(from a recent PM):
Ufopoitics,
As has been stated all along, many times, this TF method has proven to generate
excess energy in PM Wind Generators (and other devices). The original patent
was provided along with many technical papers where the physical results closely
match the CAE Analysis results - in most cases within a few percent.
Therefore it's very likely a device where the PM's are replaced by Electromagnets
should yield similar results. This configuration (EM's replaced the PM's) was
Analyzed many times with the results showing excess energy generation. These
CAE results were given many times in the thread.
If someone supposedly "skilled-in-the-art" can not comprehend the TF scheme
or read the CAE Analysis there is nothing more I can do to educate them further.
However, when ignorance of the concept and provided results degrades to
Deformation behaviour (as you yourself posted) then the defense must move
to another level - that's where we are at now.
The only way to "prove or disprove" the TF Electromagnetic functionality to
those claiming "it doesn't work" is for them to "Build One Themselves." That's
also how Deformation works - if you can prove the device does not work based
upon a "true replication of the device in question" then the claim of "if doesn't
work" is proven - otherwise the functionality of the presented evidence is valid.
Trying to get something that the original inventor and author is not ready to
provide by Bullying or other Coercive Methods is simply not the way it's done.
I came here to introduce a relatively little known method and hopefully provide
some educational insight - of course you know this, as do most others.
Now, you can do whatever you want as the Board Owner. Except use copyright
material you are not granted permission to use, nor propogate deformation
without the proper backup requirements.
It's not complicated!
SL
Hello Solarlab,
First, can I ask you very simple to answer questions:
Have you given ALL information here, on this Topic, as to Replicate your setup AS IS?
For example, like I have given on my Figuera Development here?
Are you interested in other Members here to Replicate your Setup?
And to make sure you understand me, again, I will tell you that I am NOT interested -at all- to use anything related to your Patent Application, Copyright or even a Trademark.
I am just asking that you answer to any member requests related on how your Build could be replicated.
Because, after all, that is the MAIN REASON, this website was open.
To SHARE, DEVELOP AND BUILD.
What I am asking is not complicated either.
At least, I think so.
Ufopolitics
Ufopolitics,
To your first question, as it relates to the EE_TFG;
YES, including dimensions, one configuration and suggested
material specifications (2), possible windings, etc.. (with many many iterations and results included).
Next, if other members understand the concept properly, then the decision to replicate the TFG would be up
up to them.
Further, there should be no additional questions regarding the EE_TFG if all the information presented in the
20 some pages is studied in detail. It's all given as known at the time of publishing! Input waveforms are not
discussed since there are too many variations to catagorize - these are best done in the CAE Analysis.
In closing - I do not have the time nor desire to go down each Rabbit Hole (what color wire, etc.). A bit of
research on the builders part goes a long way! This is a "Work-in-Progress Reaserch Project" - there is No
"Paint-by-Number" book to reference... A lot of the design and engineering relies on 3D Transient CAE.
HINT: Clamp-on Current Meter (TF)!
OK, Bye Bye - we'll see what Friday brings!
SL
Quote from: Ufopolitics on May 21, 2024, 05:44 PM@solarlab
You know what your behavior here so far is tempting me to do?
To BUILD FOR REAL (not in any "Virtual Simulation") YOUR SETUP.
And to show the Results EVERYWHERE, Including on My YouTube Channel with a PUBLIC Video.
Let me know, I am willing to give MY TIME AND MONEY, to prove Your Claims are either FALSE or REAL.
This will end all this discussion.
You want me to?
Let me know HERE, in the OPEN.
Ufopolitics
Ufopolitics,
By all means:
"To BUILD FOR REAL (not in any "Virtual Simulation") YOUR SETUP" Might be prudent to also include your material "B-H Curves" as well, for verification reasons;
and FEA results for comparison (as many of the papers have included).
Good Luck!SL
Quote from: solarlab on May 21, 2024, 09:31 PMUfopolitics,
Might be prudent to also include your material "B-H Curves" as well, for verification reasons;
and FEA results for comparison (as many of the papers have included).
Good Luck!
SL
Thanks for the recommendations SL...
However, I am sorry but I disagree, I believe in order to make just a BASIC PROOF OF CONCEPT, your device design will show "automatically" a gain, if the results are going to be on the positive side.
I am sorry, but based on my years of experience building Machines on the search for OU...you can tell right off, if a device, a setup, is going to work or not, without spending a lot of money on "precious and hard to get materials" that "comply" with the B-H Curves and all related to Ferrous Electromagnetic properties...
Yes, I agree that by using the "specific" materials and grades, treatment, etc,etc...it will increase the performance...but not really if we are talking about an OU Machine.
An OU Machine will let you know it would be excellent, right from the first ROUGH Testing, with cheaper materials and not even that "sophisticated" assembly.
For example, on my Figuera latest Development, I started with such a rough setup, that I have not even shown it on photos, much less on videos...it was an ugly MF, very rough built, I even use my plastic gun to hold wire from coils together...it looked like a deformed mass of wires and melted plastic...
But you know what?...it worked beautifully...it told me on the first test that I was on the right track...the results were very positive.
And right now we are all seeing what can be done with it...and is still in the very beginnings of its development stages.
And this is where majority of Inventors fail, because they get frustrated that after spending so much money and time on special this and that, to build such a beautiful setup...it did not work as expected.
Then they give up...it has happened to me (except, I did not give up), that is why I am sharing my experiences.
Anyways, thanks!
Ufopolitics
EDIT 1: Of all the things that an Electromagnetic Over Unity Machine is composed off, the one Component that We have to pay more attention above anything else...are the Magnetic Fields and their Interactions...and "visualizing them in action"...if you can do that...then all the rest is just complementary ...and yes, adding them would definitively enhance your setup.
Take it or leave it...
Ufopolitics,
Your post probably belongs in the Figuera thread - not really related to the EE_TFG device.
- You are of course free to approach the design process any way you see fit, but it might be
insane to repeat the same pseudo design process over and over if you continue to reach the
same results.
Just a few other points:
- All so-called "researchers" here appear to have the same problem - they are not Design
Engineers; but instead, mearly "hackers." It's clearly seen in their posts, shown work and
presentations.
- There is an abundance of "Crowd Mentality" and "Chase the Shinny Object" displayed as well;
unfortunately that also bleeds into the "Witch Hunt" mentality that has been demonstrated.
- Inflated egos coupled with a lack of technical knowledge and the lack of reading ability
for comprehension doesn't improve the situation either. It's a hostile environment if you
dare challenge the moob, call them out, or don't kiss their ass.
There's a BIG difference between Professional Design Engineering and Physics and being
an inflated Hobby Hacker who believes he's (or she's) a legitimate Researcher. Those that
can, do - those that can't, do not. [Any dead fish can swim with the stream, as they say].
Just "My Humble Opinion" of these "OU Forums" based on my observations, however.
I liken these OU Forums to an RC Flying Model Airplane Club. They're technically
interesting, sometimes expensive, social, and are a lot of fun. BUT, you're still not
an Aerospace Engineer nor an Airline Pilot or a "Top Gun," so don't fool yourselves.
Harsh - yea - MAYBE - but - IT HAS TO BE SAID! Now - let the rage and fury begin...
Best regards and no offense intended - just my opinion based on observation and fact.
Regards,
SL
Quote from: solarlab on May 23, 2024, 03:17 PMUfopolitics,
Your post probably belongs in the Figuera thread - not really related to the EE_TFG device.
- You are of course free to approach the design process any way you see fit, but it might be
insane to repeat the same pseudo design process over and over if you continue to reach the
same results.
Just a few other points:
- All so-called "researchers" here appear to have the same problem - they are not Design
Engineers; but instead, mearly "hackers." It's clearly seen in their posts, shown work and
presentations.
- There is an abundance of "Crowd Mentality" and "Chase the Shinny Object" displayed as well;
unfortunately that also bleeds into the "Witch Hunt" mentality that has been demonstrated.
- Inflated egos coupled with a lack of technical knowledge and the lack of reading ability
for comprehension doesn't improve the situation either. It's a hostile environment if you
dare challenge the moob, call them out, or don't kiss their ass.
There's a BIG difference between Professional Design Engineering and Physics and being
an inflated Hobby Hacker who believes he's (or she's) a legitimate Researcher. Those that
can, do - those that can't, do not. [Any dead fish can swim with the stream, as they say].
Just "My Humble Opinion" of these "OU Forums" based on my observations, however.
I liken these OU Forums to an RC Flying Model Airplane Club. They're technically
interesting, sometimes expensive, social, and are a lot of fun. BUT, you're still not
an Aerospace Engineer nor an Airline Pilot or a "Top Gun," so don't fool yourselves.
Harsh - yea - MAYBE - but - IT HAS TO BE SAID! Now - let the rage and fury begin...
Best regards and no offense intended - just my opinion based on observation and fact.
Regards,
SL
@solarlab,
First, it is not going to be within the scope of my "BASIC POINT OF PROOF" to spend over $7,600.00 USD,
in just laminations because of a specific material that you have recommended, as you have shown purchase receipts on page 20, post 98 of this Topic:EEG_EM_New_Technique_TRANSVERSE_FLUX (TF) (Provisional Patent Applied for) - Page 20 (overunitymachines.com) (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,16.msg1297.html#msg1297)
Related to ALL you have written above, on your beliefs according to the "Non-Scientific" approach, or "some" not having the capability to do so...
I will definitively NOT respond.
Quote from: solarlab on May 23, 2024, 03:17 PMHarsh - yea - MAYBE - but - IT HAS TO BE SAID! Now - let the rage and fury begin...
And so,
I am also asking to All Members here, not to descend into the same level of degrading insulting comments, as has been displayed above by member solarlab.
That is NOT the reason why I have built this Website.
Ufopolitics
I just wish to thank solarlab for his post, as it has inspired me to get on with building faster and more energetically than ever before. ;D
@solarlab, there is no rage or furry, just some disappointment ... I can't see in what you have exposed so far anything new. You just have hacked a wind generator and it took you few years of simulations on computer ... to be confirmed by a working device yet.
It seems to me you only want to destroy open source community by any means, while I can see some observations you made being true to some extent, but presented in such a manner to insult. Trolling and creation of flame wars.
Yet, the cost of manufacture is out of scale due to lack of knowledge on real science ... people applying for patents +150 years ago have shown far more understanding of phenomena than what I am seeing now, where these "inventors" only copy their work and eventually add some innovations.
I have describe this trend or phenomenon seen and I just observed there is almost nothing new, but the very same inventions, where some individuals try to patent Laws of physics.
Where we can read in an original patent +100 years old that any other method can be used to obtain the same effect very well described and we see a new patent for the same object using the very same effect but using different terms in accordance with "latest" mainstream science approach ... I only understand there is a desire to extend the life of old patents.
Also, fabrication costs for this "new" devices is only there to show we can not obtain access to cheap energy ... which is far away from any trace of truth.
Your type of behaviour is not new to open source forums and you are not the only one doing it.
Just to oppose such actions I have refused to build anything that cost more than £200, using +100 years old patents and taking advantage of off the shelf components and infringe any possible "new" patent that might prevent it.
I have found myself that just exposing on open source free energy forums do not work for large scale and we need to make them cheap and easy to replicate, gift them away to those whom, need together with building instructions and we may change the world for better.
Analysing wide spread of patents for power generation I can conclude that almost every country in the world already have access to harvest energy for free and "national security" grounds to ban inventions/innovations have no applicability anymore unless such "national security" coincide with very specific interest of bigoilco and international monetary system.
I hope not many will follow your way.
Quote from: Classic on May 24, 2024, 03:01 AM@solarlab, there is no rage or furry, just some disappointment ... I can't see in what you have exposed so far anything new. You just have hacked a wind generator and it took you few years of simulations on computer ... to be confirmed by a working device yet.
Classic -
Congradulations; you've nearly figured out how the EE_TFG works!
One more simple step - Replace the Rotating Permanent Magnets in the PMTF Wind Generator with
fixed Electromagnets. Then mimic the signal waveform created by the rotating permanent magnets
using the fixed electromagnetcs driven by an electronic controller!
Eliminates a variety of drawbacks in the current PM wind generators; including having to rotate the disc
containing the magnets.
The EE_TFG is now fixed and requires no external source [wind or other] to drive it. Plus, no moving parts.
Pretty simple aye! And the Transverse Flux "EE" concept is very straight forward; a series of electromagnetics driven in unison
with a Simple Loop of Wire inside the "U Shaped" laminations for the Output.
Just a hacked (modified) PMTFG Wind Generator (with lots of technical reference papers, including performance
and design data as well).
Enjoy, and have a great Memorial Day weekend!
SL PS - the CAE Analysis does help a lot when actually designing; e.g. How much current is required in an
elecctromagnet to mimic, or respond in a similar fashion, to the permanent magnet, etc..
Is it even possible? What will it look like? What results can be achieved? What will other input signals give?
BASIC PROOF OF CONCEPT DEMANDS
Let me put this, and other similar demands, for a basic proof of concept (POC) to bed
right now.
There is -NO - Basic Proof Of Concept available at this time.
As you know, or should have known, prior to extensive testing and evaluation internally
and by a large number of other agencies (Quality, Environmental, FCC, Power (grid and
companies), OSHA - just to name a few) there is no proof that these devices will function
in a nominal and safe fashion, over time, and within their specified enviroments.
Therefore, it would be premature to assume the concept will meet any, or all, functions
in an operational sense. To claim so would be foolish a best, and rather stupid, at worst.
Full requirements testing can take some time - a year or more - before that's all complete
there is simply no complete verifiable POC. This is a very new and unique concept.
In the interim the EE-TFC's unique concept as an educational presentation along with
the projected (WAG) design and Analysis Data (CAE) is all there is. It was meant to
spark a new way of thinking about how electromagnetics might work to achieve some
real excess energy generation. This is evidenced in current art PMTF Wind Generators.
So, in closing let me state again:
"There is - NO, I repeat NO - Basic Proof Of Concept available at this time. However,
when completed, the data will likely be regarded as "Project Proprietary, Confidential, Technical
and Business Information." This is typically SOP...
Hope this clears things up!
Regards,
SL
"Trust me, bro, it works!"
And thus endeth the fun.
"Trust me bro. I repeat: trust me bro, it works!"
Design Engineer, solarlab
Quote from: solarlab on May 25, 2024, 05:22 AMBASIC PROOF OF CONCEPT DEMANDS
Let me put this, and other similar demands, for a basic proof of concept (POC) to bed
right now.
There is -NO - Basic Proof Of Concept available at this time.
As you know, or should have known, prior to extensive testing and evaluation internally
and by a large number of other agencies (Quality, Environmental, FCC, Power (grid and
companies), OSHA - just to name a few) there is no proof that these devices will function
in a nominal and safe fashion, over time, and within their specified enviroments.
Therefore, it would be premature to assume the concept will meet any, or all, functions
in an operational sense. To claim so would be foolish a best, and rather stupid, at worst.
Full requirements testing can take some time - a year or more - before that's all complete
there is simply no complete verifiable POC. This is a very new and unique concept.
In the interim the EE-TFC's unique concept as an educational presentation along with
the projected (WAG) design and Analysis Data (CAE) is all there is. It was meant to
spark a new way of thinking about how electromagnetics might work to achieve some
real excess energy generation. This is evidenced in current art PMTF Wind Generators.
So, in closing let me state again:
"There is - NO, I repeat NO - Basic Proof Of Concept available at this time. However,
when completed, the data will likely be regarded as "Project Proprietary, Confidential, Technical
and Business Information." This is typically SOP...
Hope this clears things up!
Regards,
SL
Scientific Proof Of Concept:(AI Overview) Scientific proof of concept (POC) is evidence that demonstrates the feasibility of an idea, product, or business plan. It's a screening phase that helps determine if an idea is worth pursuing and can be brought to life. POCs are often performed by project managers in the early stages of development to avoid investing too many resources before the idea has been validated.(Form Labs (https://formlabs.com/blog/proof-of-concept-poc/)) Proof of concept (POC) refers to an initial test of an idea, method, or product to show its potential and feasibility in real-world settings. A proof of concept occurs during the ideation phase of a project—before extensive design and engineering work actually begins on the project—and usually consists of a small and relatively simple or undeveloped version of the desired final result.Here are some examples of POCs in different fields:- Drug development: Clinical trials are used to determine if a new drug is safe and effective.
- Engineering and technology: A rough prototype, such as a breadboard, can be constructed to demonstrate the functionality of an idea.
- Software development: A prototype can be created to test assumptions and gather feedback from potential users.
A POC can help identify potential pitfalls and convince an organization that they are on the right track. It can also reveal that a proposal that seems great on paper may not be viable and should be revised or discarded.*****************************************
Proof of Concept speaks by itself...it should be done BEFORE we get involved in developing an "Idea, Invention or any Product" and spending too much on it.
It is the BASIC MODUM OPERANDI in any Scientific Development.
And it MUST BE DONE IN
REAL WORLD SETTINGS (as written above), NOT in "Simulations".
Ufopolitics
CONCLUSION of the EE_TFG LECTURE SERIES
(ELECTRONIC ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSVERSE FLUX GENERATOR)
This concludes my "EE_TFG Educational Lecture Series."
It presented some very interesting and novel ideas that might be useful in developing
Excess Energy devices and machines from small generators to Industrial grade.
Along the way some modern Engineering concepts and practices were introduced, many
of which appear to be "new" to these threads but are, in fact, used throught the field
(Magnetic Circuits, B-H Curves, modern CAE Analysis and Simulation *1 , etc.).
My typical "CAUTIONARY NOTE" is added since the EE_TFG device can be scaled thus
forming a lethal output - but I'll keep it brief since the extensive CAE Analysis and
Simulation results speak for themselves.
*** WARNING *** HIGH VOLTAGE and HIGH CURRENT POTENTIAL *** WARNING ***
LINGEN EE_TFG SIMULATION (based on the original design investigation/analysis)
Have a wonderful, SAFE, and productive Summer!
SL [Solarlab]
*1 - See the Ansys website and many of the attached papers for examples.
Simulation says: 1057W from 0.3W...
"Design Engineering": apparently, the only field (or walk of life) where actual experimentation is usurped by simulation.
Quote from: Electro on May 29, 2024, 03:47 PMSimulation says: 1057W from 0.3W...
"Design Engineering": apparently, the only field (or walk of life) where actual experimentation is usurped by simulation.
Electro,
You are more than welcome to prove that Maxwell 3D Transient it doesn't work as advertised!
And if you can show it doesn't work within a few percent - let Ansys know, they are more
than responsive to valid comments and concerns...
Or, show us here, in detail, where you have tried it and had your CAE Analysis FAIL.
Please include a copy of your Notes to Ansys here - we would all be interested in your
conclusions and the Ansys response.
It has worked for me, and many others, over a variety of projects (space, hydroelectric, mil,
automotive, industrial, commercial, etc.) many many times and the deviation is minimal.
SL
Speaking for myself, and likely some of the other "Top Guns" and "dead fish swimming with the stream" on this forum, I say YOU show some proof and put it to rest once and for all. I'm certain your investors will have, or will, demand such a lot more stridently than I can.
We want pudding back on the menu.
Quote from: Electro on May 29, 2024, 04:36 PMSpeaking for myself, and likely some of the other "Top Guns" and "dead fish swimming with the stream" on this forum, I say YOU show some proof and put it to rest once and for all. I'm certain your investors will have, or will, demand such a lot more stridently than I can.
We want pudding back on the menu.
I've done my part - not it's your turn.
Or you can always just leave the Sand Box!
AND, as you all know - Ansys has an educational version and offers
a two week (+) free Full Version...
So, no more excuses ACE, show us all that it doesn't work - if you can!
Quote from: solarlab on May 29, 2024, 07:50 PMQuote from: Electro on May 29, 2024, 04:36 PMSpeaking for myself, and likely some of the other "Top Guns" and "dead fish swimming with the stream" on this forum, I say YOU show some proof and put it to rest once and for all. I'm certain your investors will have, or will, demand such a lot more stridently than I can.
We want pudding back on the menu.
(correct typo - not => now)
I've done my part - now it's your turn.
Or you can always just leave the Sand Box!
I won't get into how pathetic and inept you guys are; except to say there are at least a half
dozen ways you can prove to yourselves that the EE-TFG concept can be constructed and
shown, even in a small way, for less that $50 (see the previous "Hint") and thats Not Including
a professional 3D CAE Analysis, to which you all have free access to as well.
Wow, what a super group! Not one thinker in the bunch by the look of things... at least
so far it looks that way!
BTW - the expensive Laminations are "Lab Grade Certified" from the Base Material through
the Processing Stages and Final Fabrication as shown in the documentation.
As is required for further study and analysis.
Your better just to move on, back to your shinny objects and things, IMHO!
"Those that can - DO; Those that can't - BASH."
Well - BASH AWAY - nobody's listening anymore... at least not me.
I'll wait for some real technical discussion and arguments - zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Good Night All!
Hello everyone,
solarlab actually helped me get up to speed in Ansys maxwell to make simulations when simulating the TF-EEG (or what to correctly call it) on the Mooker forum. Which I appreciate. However I came to the same conclusion as partzman here. Solarlab's simulations contain a current source (AFAIK), which is a source that can supply constant current no matter the voltage required to push the current through. When I modified the simulation to be powered by a voltage source, let's say at 12V (enough to push current through 100 turns of copper wire of any thickness), the results were not as optimistic. But still, I thought it is something worth building, so I got one C core pair to start with, and when I started thinking about how to wind the coils, for one C-core pair, the output coil that normally runs through the windows of each C-core pair defaults to a normal coil wound around one of the legs of the C-core. Therefore a transformer with two primaries and one secondary. And that had extinguished my interest in this device.
It is possible that the situation is different with more C-core pairs (as is in solarlab's design), where the output coil, or "secondary" goes through the windows of many C-core pairs, but that remains to be built, tested, AND presented. Maybe one day.
Jim @ Mooker also tried to replicate with ferrite cores and he was impressed by the input/output effectiveness, but said it is still missing that one last bit for overunity (as is any highly-efficient transformer for that matter :D ).
Personally, unless some sort of proof is presented that this can give higher output than input by solarlab or someone else, I will focus my efforts elsewhere.
Kloak: your point about the current source is bang on. There is no chance of supplying the motive force for 2 electromagnetic coils from 3V and 100mA, let alone for 16 coils (8 x 2)!
I would love to see the ANSYS diagram of the core showing the magnetic lines of flux inside the window area (even with this idealized current source).
'Lectro
ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING as it relates to Excess Energy Generation
It's worth noting that for both Electric and Magnetic Fields there appears to be
two phenomena that are of interest:
- CLOSE COUPLING where the wire coils, two or more, are in a "close proximity,"
tightly wound, such as in a transformer or motor windings, etc.
- LOOSE COUPLING where the wire coils, two or more, are in a "loose proximity,"
loosly wound and/or are in a "near proximity."
This configuration is found in the EE_TFG, Don Smith, Ruslan/Kapanadze
and other devices.
The terms "Close and Loose" are arbitrarily used here.
There doesn't appear to be a lot of research into this phenomina that relates
specifically to excess energy generation but a general observation of these
devices might have merit, and be worthy of further review and study.
ALSO:
PS - see: https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=224 for more insight
into some of the concerns expressed above, and;
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=367 the concern regarding
the mixed (linear Spice vs excess energy 3D Magnetics CAE) analysis.
The 12V vs 3.2V required to push 50mA through 16 series or series/parallel,
10 turn coils, no idea where the concern is; basic Ohms Law I guess?
SL
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.
One of the many things Ansys does really well.
See their website, including the many examples when you get minute...
Quote from: Electro on May 31, 2024, 07:47 PMThe 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
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.
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
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "R&D" and "BUILD_TO_PRINT"
This will be brief but hopefully will explain how I, and a small group of others
on this Forum (2 or 3), approach development of excess energy (some call it OU)
Devices.
"IDEAS" are inspired from simply thoughts, patents, papers, books, etc..
To further investigate the "IDEA's" possibilities more research is conducted.
This appears in many forms; piecewise fabrications and tests, sometimes full
blown preliminary construction builds and tests, and anything in between.
My primary approach is to construct a "Wild-Ass-Guess" (WAG) of the "IDEA"
on paper, generally using Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software that can be
further ported to a full blown professional "3D Computer Aided Engineering"
(CAE) platorm which allows performing a series of Analysis and Simulation on
the paper design "IDEA". CAE has a very good track record and is used often.
CAE also allows unlimited modifications in nearly every aspect to the "IDEA"
without the need for physical changes to the WAG.
This includes, but is not limited to changes in RESISTOR values, input of many
driver configurations and waveforms, changes to both the input and output
winding configurations, and so forth. Also, a variety of CAE approaches can
be used, for example; Magnetostatic, Eddy Current, and 3D Transient. Each
approach can yield various parameters to form a more complete picture.
Once an "IDEA" shows merrit with respect to a full CAE Analysis, generally
the "IDEA" will comfortably move to a Second Stage of Development.
This second stage of development has not been publicly released.
NOTE that only the Initial RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT (R&D) Stage of the
EE_TFG was presented in the FORUMS, that is, only the "IDEA" phase.
This was the very preliminary investigation part (a new and novel concept).
The intent was simply to stimulate further thought as Educational only.
Many iterations and data were presented to support the initial findings.
Any resistor values, current values, winding values, etc. found in the
material are for research and analysis purposes only.
So, THE FORUM PRESENTATION OF THE EE_TFG "IDEA" IS A CONCEPT
ONLY for educational purposes, and it is -
NOT A BUILD-TO-PRINT SCHEME, IT'S SIMPLY "FOOD FOR THOUGHT"
THE INITIAL "IDEA" PART OF A VERY PRELIMINARY R&D PROJECT ONLY!
If you are looking for a "Build-to-Print" scheme or device to evaluate or critique,
this is not it!
Look elsewhere...
SL
PS - I would have not invested in expensive Laminations if the "IDEA" had no merrit, IMHO.
and I've been investigating this concept for a long time and will continue to do so!
Quote from: partzman on Jun 01, 2024, 09:31 AMElectro,
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
PM,
Hopefully most of your concerns were answered in the above post - that is, the various resistance and other
changes in the CAE analysis as it progressed and as these changes were evaluated.
For example: the 20nS "ratchet" was to evaluate whether the performance could be increased by changing the drive
waveform from a sine wave (PM rotation) to a square wave - turns out the performance an be increased many times
by this simple waveform modification. I could go on-and-on but it would be redundant at this point.
Your cited paper is interesting but only deals with transformers and not the Transverse Flux phenomena.
If you still believe the EE_TFG device is conservative that's fine.
BTW; I'm not into the Silly Reindeer Tantrum Game of
"Prove us wrong," - a long way past that stage. IF you believe it's all BS then just move on to the next Shinny Thing.
I'm not here to try and convince anyone of anything, it would be a "zero sum game" at best, and a huge impossible
task even if I had the time or desire, of which I don't.
So, here's the information I've developed - use it or not, your choice. Me; I've had more than enough s*** from you
guys to last a lifetime - do it for yourselves, or not!
IMHO, most of you do not have the skill nor ability to achieve such a task...
Attached a paper that actually focuses on Transverse Flux:
Transverse Flux Machine — A Review, BENEDIKT KAISER AND NEJILA PARSPOUR,
Institute of Electrical Energy Conversion, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany SL
Sorry, forgot to ask:
"What would a Proof look like?" {Not that that's likely to happen}
[keep in mind there are no electronic devices allowed in the Lab - yea, my rule
when I owned the place - to protect the privacy and security of clients, etc.]
Just asking for a friend! Plus, I don't do YT or the Web for the same reasons...
SL
I guess any free resource provided here can not form part of any patent restrictions and I mean all free testing and new ideas. Normally they will be part of open source general knowledge and science. Hopefuly ufopolitics and Lorentzo can confirm this. Otherwise this is going to be just madness where anyone can land here with an "an idea with merits" and pending patent for this idea, create a flame war to obtain free analyse/testing and fishing for new tips/improvements to make them part of his patent.
It is obvious, that not everyone on this or other forums have the skills or ability or resources for such endeavour and individuals like solarlab is taking advantage off. And his attitude as considering himself/herself better than anyone else is based on almost nothing else than access to a lab and an idea with merits.
So, I am questioning again why someone with a pending patent expose the potential patent on an open source forum ? The attitude of the claimant can narrow down number of answers. I only trust my instincts and nothing else.
Quote from: solarlab on Jun 01, 2024, 05:33 PMSorry, forgot to ask:
"What would a Proof look like?" {Not that that's likely to happen}
[keep in mind there are no electronic devices allowed in the Lab - yea, my rule
when I owned the place - to protect the privacy and security of clients, etc.]
Just asking for a friend! Plus, I don't do YT or the Web for the same reasons...
SL
SL,
First let me say that when I ask for proof, I am hoping that you will provide measurement means of your claimed device. These measurement results would show positive or negative results. I would honestly hope that you are correct with your ANSYS analysis and the device works as advertised because as I've stated before, we need such a device to gain energy independence!!!
However, how convenient you possess no test equipment in your lab! OK, well how about some independent verification? My lab is quite capable for example and at no charge!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Classic on Jun 02, 2024, 08:56 AMI guess any free resource provided here can not form part of any patent restrictions and I mean all free testing and new ideas. Normally they will be part of open source general knowledge and science. Hopefuly ufopolitics and Lorentzo can confirm this. Otherwise this is going to be just madness where anyone can land here with an "an idea with merits" and pending patent for this idea, create a flame war to obtain free analyse/testing and fishing for new tips/improvements to make them part of his patent.
It is obvious, that not everyone on this or other forums have the skills or ability or resources for such endeavour and individuals like solarlab is taking advantage off. And his attitude as considering himself/herself better than anyone else is based on almost nothing else than access to a lab and an idea with merits.
So, I am questioning again why someone with a pending patent expose the potential patent on an open source forum ? The attitude of the claimant can narrow down number of answers. I only trust my instincts and nothing else.
Classic,
SL at present, has filed a Provisional patent as noted in his first post. Basically then, he has 1 year to file a formal application from the date the Provisional was logged at the USPTO. Now the kicker is, one can not change any of the content of function of the provisional patent when filing the formal application. The advantage of filing a provisional is to secure a date for your IP at a relative low filing fee but there is no examination at this time. This will all follow at the formal application.
If the yearly deadline is passed with no formal patent application filing, the Provisional patent IP becomes prior art.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman & Classic:
You "kids" should move on to something where you actually have a bit of experience at
plus know something about.
Each post you make shows more and more that you have nothing to contribute to the
EE_TFG concept except nonsense and unrelated jibberish.
You have not responded to even one of my questions, rebuttals or explainations. That
pretty much says it all! The only reason you both are here is to fight - but it takes two
for that to happen and I refuse to lower myself to that level (learned that in Troll class).
But, I'm sure that won't happen, since your jealously and hatred of me, and my work, will
remain your "prime driving force" - which has nothing to do with the pursuit of excess
energy!
Start your own projects - it's great therapy if nothing else!
Your constant OT harassment it's really unfair to those who are engauged in doing actual
"real research" on the subject... This also includes all threads where you post.
SO, GIVE IT A REST - We all know your opinions and views, you have expressed them a
thousand times. Just forget your childish reactions, sand-box behavour, hate, and loathing.
Nothing is going to change at my end - the devices are in-the-works - so there is only
one other course available to you both; Grow Up!
SL
SL,
I'm ignoring your rant above.
OK, now down to business. I have enough 1" U-I core material in M-19 by Magnetics to build a complete 8 station system plus the L298N half bridges but, before I go to all that trouble to build, test, and document my version of your EE_TFG, I decided to check out a single stage using an EC-52 ferrite core set with the middle legs removed.
The N and S pole windings are 200T each and the loop windings are 50T each all wound in 8-34 Litz and the layout is as you describe. The loop windings are circular and ~8" in diameter.
The input signal source is a Rigol DG4162 driving a 3/4 bridge (diode to supply on 2nd phase) at 6kHz, 50% d/c. The DC supply is 64v supplied by a Rigol DP832. Measurements were taken with a Tek MDO3034 and a Tek TCP0020 current probe with the input energy calculated by the scope Math and the output calculated from the current probe measurements. The loads on the loop windings are Caddock non-inductive 100 ohm, 1% film resistors.
Without taking up forum bandwidth, I will simply state the results rather than displaying the scope traces, etc.
The results were input energy Uin=201.9Uj, recovered input energy Uinrec=62.6uJ, and the total output energy Uout=141.7uJ. This results in a net efficiency of 141.7/(201.9-62.6) = 1.017 . Although a slight gain, these results could be the result of measurement error and component tolerance.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman,
So - good to hear it worked for you! Even without any design effort and using a ferrite core.
Nice work - thanks for the info...
SL
Partzman,
I wonder if you can clarify the "64V" on the DC supply - that Rigol is a 30V unit.
Also, what led you to use 6KHz?
SL,
Thanks and you're welcome!
Electro,
Actually mine will reach 32v DC maximum. I did use the free upgrade with higher resolution and this may be a result of that but I can't remember as it was done some time ago! The 2nd supply is fixed with the negative terminal attached to ground, but the 1st supply is floating so the two can be series connected for a total 64v DC.
I chose the 6kHz frequency as the B-H curve is safely below the saturation level of the EC-70 core material for this arrangement. Also, as the frequency is raised, the efficiency begins to fall off.
Pm
Here is a two section version of the previous test done with one section of the EC-70 core set for comparison. All other parameters are the same such as load, frequency, turns, etc.
The first scope pix shows the Pin=2.628w over 83.84us for a Uin=220.3uJ .
The third is the recovery back to the supply or Prec=394.3mw over 83.36us for a Urec=32.9uJ .
The second (sorry for the out of order) is the total Pout=1.106w over 167us for a Uout=185uJ .
Therefore, the efficiency for this test is 185/(220.3-32.9)=.987 or 98.7%.
Regards,
Pm
2Sec Pin.png
2Sec Pout.png
2Sec Prec.png
A bit of a design aid/check from an old post:
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=519
SL
solarlab (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31)QuoteWith respect to the EE_TFG it appears the Lorentz Force Law is the only one that might
reasonably apply when explaining the operation of the Transverse Flux generator;
both in the permanent magnet generators (TFPM) and the proposed Electromagnet
(EE_TFG) devies [magnetic field applied at right angle to the coil which creates
current in the coil].
Absolute fallacy. The Lorentz force is a mathematically derived expression from the empirically proven Ampere force. The Ampere force occurs only when electric source potentials discharge through a conducting circuit. Hence Ampere force, Current force and Magnetic induction, around a conductor, are a single phenomenon. Current force in the phase circuit is a phenomenon not related to the principle of EMF generation, it is a process of utilisation of the generated electric potential. While the potential on the conductor has the principle of induction of anapole moment [toroidal magnetic dipole].
The Lorentz force, is a derivative mathematically of the Ampere force, which is empirically determined. The Ampere Force, is the Electromagnetic Induction of the conversion of electric force lines (EMF - E) into magnetic force lines of Magnetic Induction (Bi): [ curi Bi = - dE/dt ] or by Maxwell in the electrical system of measurement: [curl H = dD/dt + J] another entry [curl B = μ0J + μ0ε0(dE/dt)], as you see what a problem in electrodynamics.
I tried to put it in clear language.
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=1160
Partzman's pictures were worth 10000 of Solar's words.
Sorry Solar - you lost me forever at "it's just ohm's law" when powering AC into a coil when discussing impedance. In fact, I believe you referred to my questions concerning impedance as "word salad".
Pictures, or GTFO, as the kids like to say!
Quote from: rakarskiy on Jun 22, 2024, 04:30 AMsolarlab (https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31)
QuoteWith respect to the EE_TFG it appears the Lorentz Force Law is the only one that might
reasonably apply when explaining the operation of the Transverse Flux generator;
both in the permanent magnet generators (TFPM) and the proposed Electromagnet
(EE_TFG) devies [magnetic field applied at right angle to the coil which creates
current in the coil].
Absolute fallacy. The Lorentz force is a mathematically derived expression from the empirically proven Ampere force. The Ampere force occurs only when electric source potentials discharge through a conducting circuit. Hence Ampere force, Current force and Magnetic induction, around a conductor, are a single phenomenon. Current force in the phase circuit is a phenomenon not related to the principle of EMF generation, it is a process of utilisation of the generated electric potential. While the potential on the conductor has the principle of induction of anapole moment [toroidal magnetic dipole].
The Lorentz force, is a derivative mathematically of the Ampere force, which is empirically determined. The Ampere Force, is the Electromagnetic Induction of the conversion of electric force lines (EMF - E) into magnetic force lines of Magnetic Induction (Bi): [ curi Bi = - dE/dt ] or by Maxwell in the electrical system of measurement: [curl H = dD/dt + J] another entry [curl B = μ0J + μ0ε0(dE/dt)], as you see what a problem in electrodynamics.
I tried to put it in clear language.
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=1160
@rakarskiy,
I DO AGREE with your post above in a 100%!!
Lorentz "Force", plus the rule of "Right Hand sticking finger up"...and a charged
single conductor inside a magnetic field is all pure B.S. a FALLACY!!
All his work messed up the entire way the REAL ELECTRODYNAMICS IS BASED ON!!
First, Lorentz completely removed all the CURL CALCULUS (Thanks for adding them back on your equations!!) out of all electromagnetic equations.
To replace it by "straight up" vectors, and Rigid Tensors...which is NOT the way Magnetic Fields are!!
A very simple example was brought up by solarlab on the linked pages (thanks S.L.!!):
LORENTZ_RULE_SINGLE_WIRE.PNG
And these "Laws" above leads to a simple analysis of how a Brushed Motor works:
SINGLE_COIL_ANALYSIS_1.jpg
AND THAT IMAGE ABOVE IS A COMPLETELY WRONG ANALYSIS, IT CAN NOT BE ANYMORE FURTHER AWAY FROM REALITY!!
When on this world, have you ever seen -IN REALITY- a motor where its armature coil is based on a SINGLE WIRE CONDUCTOR??!!
This is purely a SHORT CIRCUIT!!...NO MOTOR WILL EVER RUN BASED ON THIS CONFIGURATION!
But Lorentz had to use a "single wire" -no matter what- to demonstrate his FALLACY, which went all the way to all Electrodynamics up to now is the way we are tought in any Engineering School in the World.
Problem is -as an advantage to his Fallacy to be more credible- that by using his "single wire analysis" we would not even think that such single wire could ever generate a FULL Magnetic SPATIAL Field within that single loop of wire...
So, up to now, you look up/search for the "Magnetic Field at Rotor-Armature in any DC Brushed Motor"...and you would NOT be able to find a real, straight forward answer!!
Ufopolitics
EXCEPT HERE!! : REAL ANALYSIS, AS AN EXAMPLE ON DC BRUSHED MOTORS
This is the REAL DEAL HERE:
MULTIPLE_LOOPS_COIL_ANALYSIS_MAYA.png
First,
a truthful analysis must consist on a Coil which is based on MULTIPLE LOOPS of wire (and now the Lorentz Law on a "single wire" simply went through the window, flying)
Just because this is THE WAY that real Motors and Generators work!!...But, now we have "Resistance" & "Inductance", plus an EMF that whenever adding a "current" (I), this Coil WILL GENERATE A VOLUMETRIC SPATIAL FIELD WTHIN THE ROTOR COIL.
Then all the "straight up Forces" based on a single wire will be WRONG!!
PLUS, there would NOT BE ONLY ONE "Stator B-Field" from North Inner Polarization to South...
BUT TWO "B-Fields", one at Stator (Bs) PLUS another one at Armature/Rotor Magnetic Field (Ba), as reflected on Image above by the Two Blue Arrows.
And...the "Straight Up" Magnetic Forces shown before (on wrong analysis) would NOT only be TWO, BUT FOUR (4)!!
There would be Two for Repulsion (Fr1 + Fr2) Forces and Two for Attraction Forces (Fa1 + Fa2)
And these forces are NOT "straight up" BUT in an ANGULAR CONFIGURATION...
These Four (4) Curl Force Vectors are on each Quadrant of the Gap between armature-stator.
This Lorentz Law was merely constructed to deviate us all completely from the realities of Electromagnetism.
Ufopolitics
Thanks for the opìnions re: Lorentz Force Law - "it can't be correct ...".
Well FWIW many Physics types around here also agree with me, so
I'll stick with it until another more fitting one is presented - anyone can
Bash a postulation, but few can actually create one!
Rotating magnetic fields, as in a motor, just doesn't fit for TF.
SL
Quote from: solarlab on Jun 22, 2024, 02:49 PM[...]
Rotating magnetic fields, as in a motor, just doesn't fit for TF.
SL
SL,
If you are using any type of alternating currents (that vary from + to -) as the excitement input, no matter if it is square, pyramidal, saw-tooth or sine, you are just generating a "rotating magnetic field"
As in Tesla's Induction Motor on the 1800's.
And btw, on this example that I have presented on DC Brushed Motors above...there are NO fields rotating there, both static.
Ufopolitics
TF does fit the Lorentz Force Law profile nicely...
In TF the "B" is always at right angles for both "N" and "S" to the fixed wire (loop coil),
that's why the output numbers remain high as can be seen in the simulations.
You could just vary the "N" without the "S" and get results but the BR would not work
in your favour... The flip to "S" resets the BR.
Yes, you can use a number of various input waveforms, including Sine, but a Sine Wave
is very inefficient. An added "bonus" (vs magnets) which I didn't spend much time on.
Note: that the EE_TFG has no moving parts, rotating or otherwise - it's completely fixed.
It does not relate well, or at all, to motor operation.
Electro - I'm sure you will be missed a great deal! ;D
SL
Who said I'm going anywhere? I find this utterly fascinating!
Like many others, I'm sure, I can't wait to see the "patent" you've got "pending" on a generator that has a mind-boggling gain (from 0.3W*8 to 1065W), and the discussion thereafter on said patent.
Won't be long now, right? 6 more months or so... ;)
Quote from: Electro on Jun 22, 2024, 05:32 PMWho said I'm going anywhere? I find this utterly fascinating!
Like many others, I'm sure, I can't wait to see the "patent" you've got "pending" on a generator that has a mind-boggling gain (from 0.3W*8 to 1065W), and the discussion thereafter on said patent.
Won't be long now, right? 6 more months or so... ;)
As well - I'm looking forward to reviewing YOUR generator, or any other work, you have done, on anything! :D
my device: That'd be really neat, to be sure, but this is a discussion of YOUR device.
Pictures, or GTFO.
Partzman is wanting to (ably) test the gain. Pretend he's a patent examiner.
Quote from: Electro on Jun 22, 2024, 06:48 PMmy device: That'd be really neat, to be sure, but this is a discussion of YOUR device.
Pictures, or GTFO.
Partzman is wanting to (ably) test the gain. Pretend he's a patent examiner.
Well, the subject has "Now Changed" - and We will discuss YOUR devices.
This "shift" should prove far more interesting than the old boring EE_TFG stuff.
Partzman only has to do a brief analysis and optimized design to get his "overunity"
kluge past the 1~1.001 stage.
Also; to add a twist, let us add a discussion relating to:
"The Lorentz force formula and Maxwell's equations are two distinct physical laws, yet the two methods yield the same results".
Looking forward to it with excitement!
SL
Electro,
It appears you missed these previous posts:
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=1495
"There is - NO, I repeat NO - Basic Proof Of Concept available at this time.
However, when completed, the data will likely be regarded as "Project Proprietary,
Confidential, Technical and Business Information." This is typically SOP...
It would, of course, include any information, including pictures, data, etc., that would involve anything
generated during the "Design and Development" phase. Disclosure simply doesn't happen at this stage!
No matter if it's a new Toy or a >T$ device...
https://overunitymachines.com/index.php?msg=1470
You are, of course, free to re-engineer the concept based on already presented information!
So quit "beggermanding (begging and demanding - new word); it's engraved in stone!
SL
"Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.
We are all different, but the laws by which energy works are the same. Unfortunately official science ignores many facts of these laws. All synchronous generators with cores (winding on rods or stacking in a groove) work on the type of EMF induction based on the anapole moment at the focus of the annular magnetic flux (Anapole). A striking example of the anapole moment is the Experiment of Christian MONSTEIN (Switzerland. 1997 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mHOgWWpmCxG8JMIktZYakVRy_Z6YkCh-/view)).
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivkWJkF5go2eDPrwMzT76wPm3x2Ers93y54F2Ayh6jn14G1pyiPpAVN-rZN1uIeFu_wyhh-WzNdW37bGrJAaS76J56Tsxbh4sNxw7Y1TDl8Y30woDtBpYoi9n1pbDcqcSU0L62jmKtTH784h9cHFogLI0IIrso4s1uEJRAeDBNVeWQ_pzVdeHPZd1UV4Q/s802/2023-08-23_085423.jpg)
To calculate the no-load EMF, engineers use the transformer EMF formula, generators are calculated on the basis of the magnetomotive force. In textbooks you the principle of operation indicate a frame generator, where the magnetic flux lines of force cut the phase wire, which is completely untrue for the operation of a core generator. This investigation of the two inductions I published in my paper: [The invention of the electromagnetic generator (https://rakatskiy-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2023/02/over-unity-system.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp)].
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8jXtYqXZINCrYGK4mTg1sy8H36bhVrqr0Lt_CkfoWe17ygtAj9SjMsMNjl91-_O1934s4c3jg2o28OkXoFXqDg0HoNWBrzCf1n3-RWGBPMul13LeTOV803n4UP5xstWy4-QRg3IjI6libYd9GK6FUm_qYtnFGmGL5Aq2YP-v3wlKSrh_mX1ztE27ZiBY/s1401/2023-11-16_085139.jpg)
I further established that IF there is another EMF (excitation) at the focus of the magnetic flux - opposite to the generator EMF, the latter will not occur and you get - intercurrent mutual induction, transformer type. If there is a variable excitation electromagnet you will get a transformer, if there is a constant electromagnet and a change of magnetic flux you will get a generator. Unfortunately I had no EMF (in the secondary winding) at all neither transformer nor generator at cascade excitation of windings. I came to the conclusion that a split core is needed for excitation and winding stacking. At the present moment I do not conduct research due to deterioration of health, but all that above I have confirmed experimentally.
PS
Also there is a moment when self-induction of Magnetic field around a conductor (curl E = - dBi/dt) is taken as induction from change of magnetic field.
Quote from: solarlab on Jun 22, 2024, 08:57 PMAlso; to add a twist, let us add a discussion relating to:
"The Lorentz force formula and Maxwell's equations are two distinct physical laws,
yet the two methods yield the same results".
Looking forward to it with excitement!
SL
Hello SL,
Of course the two methods yield the same results!
That was supposed to be Lorentz's "job" goal.
Remember that Maxwell was FIRST, right?
They have made us all believe He was doing it to "synthesize/restructure" and so, "upgrading" Maxwell's Equations...
In reality what Lorentz did was to "extract" completely from the root of Maxwell Equations, everything that had to do with magnetic spatial waves, vortexes, curl functions, etc, etc...
To give us a "charged single wire behavior" within a magnetic field, and a totally ridiculous "method" (which have zero scientific methodology) to use the RIGHT HAND and positioning in a "certain way" to be able to "see" the forces alignments...pathetic!!
As "the coil" as we all know it, carrying "the charge", was completely erased.
Why?...because a "coil" WOULD ALWAYS GENERATE A
SPATIAL MAGNETIC FIELD, whenever it is charged!!...while a single wire will not, only a weak and small field on its surrounding surface...easy to be CONVENIENTLY DISREGARDED!!
Lorentz wiped out all Curl Calculus and Torsion Forces to replace them by straight up vectors of force and tensors.
Which is completely off the reality...of how it really works.
And, of course it will render the same results, as Lorentz Force is just a cheap, distorted copy of the Maxwell's Magnetism reality.
However, I have to admit, Lorentz did an impeccable job, to the point, up to now, we are still believing it is "the only way"...
As some opinions (ignorant IMHO) may say that it supersedes Maxwell Equations.
And I consider that "assumption" completely pathetic.
Ufopolitics
Well I'll bow out here (or GTFO as electro would say).
A series of lectures by Feynman and many articles and papers
are likely incorrect - or not... but I'll go with their conclusions
anyway!
Have a good one,
SL
Quote from: solarlab on Jun 23, 2024, 03:50 PMWell I'll bow out here (or GTFO as electro would say).
A series of lectures by Feynman and many articles and papers
are likely incorrect - or not... but I'll go with their conclusions
anyway!
Have a good one,
SL
Good luck SL!!
Thanks
The work I've done so far based on my analysis, design and theory seems
to perform amazing good so I'm happy with that. Plus the applications
development is moving along nicely.
A bigger task than it might first appear; lots of peripheral parts to sort out
and integrate; but it's extremely interesting and quite exciting - the motivation
amongst the extremely talented team members is very high as well!
Hope you fellows can finally crack the Figuera device at some point as it
appears to be quite similar, fundamentally, to the EE_TFG.
It's all extremely interesting IMHO!
SL
First line at the top of this site says Open Source not patents. If it is thought you have anything of value, a patent will only bring you a federal gag order and all things secured.
We have a quote at my job from Colin Powell that puts it straight. "There is no limit to great things we can do if we care not who gets the credit". Lets make the world a place to live instead of a prison.
thay
Quote from: thaelin on Jun 24, 2024, 01:12 AMFirst line at the top of this site says Open Source not patents. If it is thought you have anything of value, a patent will only bring you a federal gag order and all things secured.
We have a quote at my job from Colin Powell that puts it straight. "There is no limit to great things we can do if we care not who gets the credit". Lets make the world a place to live instead of a prison.
thay
Thaelin,
Thanks for your concern; but it's a bit myopic! Guess I'm a little more optomistic!
The World is a big place but through technology it's shrinking rapidly and there
are many, many, options out there. Also, what's wrong with giving credit where
credit is due? (you may work for free but I can't; and I bet CP gets a paycheck also).
Anyway, to help get you (and CP) out of your bubble, check out these links:
China's Canton Fair 2024 AMERICA Wants New Energy Vehicles BANNEDhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0cH51zHZJI
China's Canton Fair 2024 AMERICA Wants BANNEDhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYRkxl3Au-E
And this is just one country!The US is only hurting itself, and it's citizens, with their foolishness - but it
probably won't be for much longer...
I've discussed this "
Free Be" subject ad-nosium so I won't elaborate.
It costsa lot of money to develop and field a product... and open source doesn't pay
any of it! When you try "open source" on your next product; see how it works
out for you - maybe the OS group here will throw millions into it, maybe.
Plus; what's wrong with having to pay your fair share for a product that's been
provided to you; with a return policy and warrantee?
Lots of choices in this World, if you know how and where to look!
SL
Forgot to add this link - a "test drive" - interesting to say the least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhHvqKoFSGs
SL
@solarlab, it seems that you ignore the most important thing: all global transactions involving energy must be done in USD ... do I need to explain any further what this means ?
What it would hurt more: free access to tech or banning the tech ?
Also, I did not see your opinion of how it may be possible to handle any "thing" we all seek here and not be shelved/destroyed/banned, even if you have asked ufopolitics about ... no answer from either side or any third side.
As well your attitude do not help either for any progress trying to throw insults everywhere ... some people are already imune to such or they may not pick up the challenge.
And all of these just because some "society" wants to keep the power to dictate how much freedom an individual or other societies can have !
I am almost certain your device works as you claim if know what you doing, it won't be the first nor the last, as far as I am aware there are already many patents using the same principle but employ different methods ... and yes, methods makes all the difference when you start to manufacture as they are cost related.
Open loop, close loop or no loop imply different methods and different gradients (or source if you prefer) to be exploited. The energy is one and the same in the whole universe and it manifest in everything "dead" or "alive".
Some "scientists" are looking for miraculos superconductor, ignoring the fact that energy can be transmitted instantly (faster than speed of light) in magnetic field for example ... such material can have indeed beneficial effects, but resistance ca have beneficial effects too ... what it can be transferred instantly it can't do harm on its path but when resistance get in the way it is a different story.
Quote from: Classic on Jun 24, 2024, 07:09 AM@solarlab, it seems that you ignore the most important thing: all global transactions involving energy must be done in USD ... do I need to explain any further what this means ?
What it would hurt more: free access to tech or banning the tech ?
Checked the news lately?
Saudies, et. al. dumped the petrol dollar a while back .......... keep up man!
SL
Quote from: solarlab on Jun 24, 2024, 08:45 AMQuote from: Classic on Jun 24, 2024, 07:09 AM@solarlab, it seems that you ignore the most important thing: all global transactions involving energy must be done in USD ... do I need to explain any further what this means ?
What it would hurt more: free access to tech or banning the tech ?
Checked the news lately?
Saudies, et. al. dumped the petrol dollar a while back .......... keep up man!
SL
Is this all you have to say ? This is old news and I don't want to swap "american dream" for chinesse "freedom".
Or it was a hint of your direction ?
I keep an eye on food and water in the meantime, especially on how water price evolved in last 20 years
Yea, that's all I have to say - when it gets this stupid the best thing to do
is just shake your head and walk away..... footsteps fading . . . . .
Tick tick tick tick...
Hi, maybe I read it wrong, but I can't find a reason why the legs of the core can't be the same length. Can someone explain this to me? Thank you
Quote from: Barbucha on Oct 28, 2024, 06:06 AMHi, maybe I read it wrong, but I can't find a reason why the legs of the core can't be the same length. Can someone explain this to me? Thank you
If someone plan to manufacture 200000 of them per week would be easier.
Also during test would be easier to slide off windings and try different windings
Quote from: Barbucha on Oct 28, 2024, 06:06 AMHi, maybe I read it wrong, but I can't find a reason why the legs of the core can't be the same length. Can someone explain this to me? Thank you
If you are making the cores from electrical steel (or any other material) laminations, it allows you to cut the core from a rectangular shape, thereby eliminating waste.
laminations.png
Quote from: Barbucha on Nov 14, 2024, 06:33 PMHI, Question why the link doesn't work https://www .mooker.com/thread-47-post-608.html#pid608 . (https://translate.google.com/website?sl=auto&tl=cs&hl=cs&client=webapp&u=https://www.mooker.com/thread-47-post-608.html%23pid608)
Thank you
Hi Barbucha, there were at least two threads on the Mooker forum that were related to building the transverse flux excess energy generator that have been ultimately deleted by Solarlab because there was some...let's say incongruence between what Solarlab and some other people on the forum thought "open source" meant. In my eyes that was unnecessary. Solarlab shared more than enough information for anyone (who has the skills) to build the device.
Hi, thanks for the info. Yes, I use Google translate, but since some translations are not really identical, I have the original versions of the pages open at the same time, which do not show these problems. Mainly, attachments cannot be opened through it. However, I was interested in the EEG_EM issue and out of curiosity I started to build a replica. I wonder what the result will be. If there is interest from your side, I can inform the forum about the result of the replica. Let me know if I should post these results.
It would be great if you could share your results. How many cores are you using?
Hello, good, since there is interest in my replication, some initial information about the construction. I am using 8 cores as per design. The difference is that I decided not to use electric steel cores, but ferrite CF297 type U cores, but smaller size 18x25mm due to the price. In my opinion, even a reduced construction should confirm the viability of this theory. If the replica will work, I want to try large U cores made of CF194A/275 material, or GT100 electrical steel type special C cores, which are intended for applications up to 20kHz and I think would be suitable for this application because of their electromagnetic properties. However, I don't know their price yet. But I'm afraid that cores made of this material will only be available in China, and with the cost of shipping, it won't be cheap. But it will certainly be much cheaper than custom made cores. Continuation after initial exams. Until then, happy hunting.
Hello Barbucha, in some, if not all the design documents you can see the acronym WAG, which means wild-ass guess ;D The number of cores is in no way optimized, just the arrangement. If sourcing the materials is a challenge, you could start with 2 or 4 cores. I started with just 1 core and when I was about to wind it, it occurred to me that I would just be winding a normal transformer with one looser winding. It looks different from two cores and up.
Hello kloakez. For now, I have a finished holder for 8 cores. I also have the coils already wound. I want to make the modulation flexible using an Arduino with adjustable frequency and duty cycle. It could be useful. AI had the program for the Arduino written by him. It turned out pretty well. Just a few adjustments were enough. We'll see what it will do. In the worst case, it won't work. Nothing worse can happen.