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