The MEG
Jason Dugas
Generator? I'm not sure whether to believe everything that is said about
it. I'm a EE but don't have the fields background to do the analysis of
Bearden's "new" electrodynamics theory. Can't really tell whether there is
something to it or if its bunk. Would like to hear what some of the users
of this group have to say about it. Not to mention, I think Bearden is at
least a social moron-- he writes in a very preculiar way as if to make
things so complicated that people really don't understand what he's saying.
If you've never heard of this device see the following website:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm
Pctchrisgibson
>Has anyone kept up with developments on the Motionless Electromagnetic
>Generator? I'm not sure whether to believe everything that is said about
>it. I'm a EE but don't have the fields background to do the analysis of
>Bearden's "new" electrodynamics theory. Can't really tell whether there is
>something to it or if its bunk. Would like to hear what some of the users
>of this group have to say about it. Not to mention, I think Bearden is at
>least a social moron-- he writes in a very preculiar way as if to make
>things so complicated that people really don't understand what he's saying.
>
>
If they learnt how to use electronic measuring equipment properly and how to
interpret the results they might realise what a load of crap it is.
Chris
Jason Dugas
power in and power out?!!?!?
"Pctchrisgibson" <pctchri...@aol.comma> wrote in message
news:20020619131815...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Repeating Decimal
jdu...@ems.jsc.nasa.gov wrote on 6/19/02 7:53 AM:
At first blush, this paper appears to be crank science, I talked to a
collegue about it. We agree that it is most likely that. It looks like the
investigators are using complex language to obfuscate the physics. For
example, it is hard for be to believe that the theory of general relativity
is reequired to explain what would be a simple source of energy. Moreover,
the energy of the vacuum, if I get their drift, depends upon the zero point
energy of electromagnetic modes. Each mode is excited to a level of h*nu/2
because of the quantized state of a harmonic oscillator. One of the great
unsolved problems in physics is the reconciliation of quantum theory with
relativity theory.
I do not know enough to point out the flaw in the argument. I do not want to
waste my time tracking it down.
One interesting thing that caught my eye was a device similar to that of a
*paraformer*. That device uses a three legged core, similar to what is used
for three phase transformers. The central leg gets magnetized by a winding
on one outside leg in such a way as to change its reluctance because of
nonlinear magnetization. A winding on the third leg starts to work as a
parametric ocillator because of the variable reluctance in its magnetic
path.
This magnetic device is nothing new. I requires a source of power to
operate. I cannot see how ut is essential to the generation of electric
power. It is sort of like a transformer.
Bill
WTH
> Has anyone kept up with developments on the Motionless Electromagnetic
> Generator? I'm not sure whether to believe everything that is said about
> it. I'm a EE but don't have the fields background to do the analysis of
> Bearden's "new" electrodynamics theory. Can't really tell whether there is
> something to it or if its bunk. Would like to hear what some of the users
> of this group have to say about it. Not to mention, I think Bearden is at
> least a social moron-- he writes in a very preculiar way as if to make
> things so complicated that people really don't understand what he's saying.
>
As someone who's had the rather dubious privilege of actually testing
a Bearden-backed invention, I can assure you that the Tooth Fairy is
better grounded in reality than the MEG.
Bearden's technobabble in quite intentional - it sounds impressive to
the layman, but is nothing more than meaningless jargon. When you
point out the logical flaws in his claims, you'll get nothing but
excuses and more technobabble.
You don't need much background in electromagnetics to debunk Bearden.
All you need is a little common sense. Case in point - Bearden claims
the MEG generates at least 20 times more electrical energy than it
requires to operate. So why doesn't he simply take some of the energy
from the output, feed it back to the input, and remove the input
voltage source entirely? If you ask Bearden this question, he'll get
extremely defensive and claim that a "closed-loop" MEG will become
unstable and self-destruct. According to him, you cannot connect the
output of the MEG to its own input.
Okay, let's assume this was true. Being an EE myself, I would claim
that Bearden could take two rechargeable batteries and a battery
charger, connect one battery to the input, connect the battery charger
to the output, and recharge the second battery while the MEG was
running. Then, once the input battery had discharged, he could simply
swap the two batteries and the MEG would keep running. The output
would never be connected to the input, but the MEG would run forever
without an external energy source simply by swapping batteries.
The fact that Bearden will not perform this simple and obvious
experiment to silence his critics is all the proof any electrical
engineer should need that his MEG does not work. Don't worry - your
professors were not lying to you in your thermodynamics and
electromagnetics courses.
WTH
Pctchrisgibson
A very quick glance at that site shows so many holes in their claims that I
didn't even consider it worth looking into in any great detail.
Ferrinstance.... The purported efficiency graph shows input voltage plotted
against output power. What is the use in that ?
Most of the text is an attempt at answering questions that he knows he would
not like to be asked..... without anyone even asking them !
When dealing with AC it is *very* easy to multiply current by amps and produce
a figure that has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the power in a load.
Without going through it carefully (and I find breakfast far more interesting
at present) I can't see exactly where they went wrong but just the phrasing
used is sufficient to tell me all I need to know.
I also suspect that the impressive looking list of phds quoted either do not
exist, do exist but have never heard of him, have heard of him and their story
will be somewhat different, or are the proud possessors of those $75 phds
bought over the internet.
Chris
Jason Dugas
"WTH" <wthw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8047533a.02061...@posting.google.com...
What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this thing!!
Doesn't the thing do SOMETHING if he got past the patent examiners?
As I read the "simple" explanation of the MEG on the website, the theory
made sense from a physics stand point. A magnet's flux is switched from
side to side of a three-legged iron core and in order to maximize the change
in flux coils are used to (and here is where I get some questions) "cancel"
out the magnetic field coming from the magnet. Was I reading this right?
What's the problem with "trying" to produce power in this manner? Is the
science there?
Jason
Pctchrisgibson
[snip]
>What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this thing!!
>Doesn't the thing do SOMETHING if he got past the patent examiners?
>
It's an American Patent. No need to say any more. :)
Chris
Jason Dugas
"Pctchrisgibson" <pctchri...@aol.comma> wrote in message
Pctchrisgibson
Easier than putting top posted replies in the right order. :)
There was a bit of a thread on this a while back. Apparently an American
patented an exclusive OR gate just to test it. The patent was granted. So
rumour has it.
Chris
Repeating Decimal
at jdu...@ems.jsc.nasa.gov wrote on 6/20/02 6:12 AM:
> What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this thing!!
> Doesn't the thing do SOMETHING if he got past the patent examiners?
>
> As I read the "simple" explanation of the MEG on the website, the theory
> made sense from a physics stand point. A magnet's flux is switched from
> side to side of a three-legged iron core and in order to maximize the change
> in flux coils are used to (and here is where I get some questions) "cancel"
> out the magnetic field coming from the magnet. Was I reading this right?
> What's the problem with "trying" to produce power in this manner? Is the
> science there?
Just because a patent is issued does not mean that it is valid. I do not
know if it is official PTO policy, but there is a lot of scuttlebut that PTO
likes the revenue obtrained from patent applicants. The real test comes when
the patent is litigated.
If the flux were switched mechanically, then the generator might work. The
energy would come from the work done to move the magnetic switch. You cannot
extract energy from the magnet more than once. The first time you do, the
magnetism will be destroyed.
Bill
WTH
>
> What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this thing!!
> Doesn't the thing do SOMETHING if he got past the patent examiners?
That is a very popular misconception among the general public. An
invention does not have to function in any practical sense in order to
be patentable in the U.S., nor does it have to be physically built and
demonstrated to a patent examiner. Most people don't realize this,
and crank scientists capitalize on this misconception by using a
patent as "proof" that their inventions work. That's why they put so
much effort into trying to get one.
Bearden did not get a patent on the MEG as a source of free energy.
He got a patent on it as an electromagnetic generator. It was
sufficiently "unique" in its design that (with a little clever wording
in the patent) it made it past the examiner. You can find all kinds
of bizarre patents if you look for them. There are several
"overunity" motors that run on permanent magnets, and even a device
that claims to transmits signals faster than light. Bearden himself
references some of them on his own website.
The USPTO simply doesn't have the people or the expertise to determine
if every patent is truly unique and workable. The examiners just make
the best judgement call they can, and in fact many patents are
eventually overturned as invalid as the result of lawsuits between
companies. No one is ever going to sue Bearden, however, since the
MEG patent is completely worthless to anyone but him and his
co-inventors.
>
> As I read the "simple" explanation of the MEG on the website, the theory
> made sense from a physics stand point. A magnet's flux is switched from
> side to side of a three-legged iron core and in order to maximize the change
> in flux coils are used to (and here is where I get some questions) "cancel"
> out the magnetic field coming from the magnet. Was I reading this right?
> What's the problem with "trying" to produce power in this manner? Is the
> science there?
>
> Jason
No one is going to argue that you can produce power from a magnetic
field. That's how motors, generators, and transformers work. What is
impossible is getting more energy out of an electromagnetic system
than you put in. Bearden can fool himself with bad measurements and
incoherent theories, but he can't fool the laws of thermodynamics.
WTH
WTH
>
> What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this thing!!
> Doesn't the thing do SOMETHING if he got past the patent examiners?
That is a very popular misconception among the general public. An
invention does not have to function in any practical sense in order to
be patentable in the U.S., nor does it have to be physically built and
demonstrated to a patent examiner. Most people don't realize this,
and crank scientists capitalize on this misconception by using a
patent as "proof" that their inventions work. That's why they put so
much effort into trying to get one.
Bearden did not get a patent on the MEG as a source of free energy.
He got a patent on it as an electromagnetic generator. It was
sufficiently "unique" in its design that (with a little clever wording
in the patent) it made it past the examiner. You can find all kinds
of bizarre patents if you look for them. There are several
"overunity" motors that run on permanent magnets, and even a device
that claims to transmits signals faster than light. Bearden himself
references some of them on his own website.
The USPTO simply doesn't have the people or the expertise to determine
if every patent is truly unique and workable. The examiners just make
the best judgement call they can, and in fact many patents are
eventually overturned as invalid as the result of lawsuits between
companies. No one is ever going to sue Bearden, however, since the
MEG patent is completely worthless to anyone but him and his
co-inventors.
>
> As I read the "simple" explanation of the MEG on the website, the theory
> made sense from a physics stand point. A magnet's flux is switched from
> side to side of a three-legged iron core and in order to maximize the change
> in flux coils are used to (and here is where I get some questions) "cancel"
> out the magnetic field coming from the magnet. Was I reading this right?
> What's the problem with "trying" to produce power in this manner? Is the
> science there?
>
> Jason
No one is going to argue that you can produce power from a magnetic
Don Kelly
"Repeating Decimal" <Salm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:B9364964.16D8%Salm...@attbi.com...
------------
Look at the specs on the scope used and the ranges possible- also the
resistor used for current measurements. It looks as if there is an error, by
a factor of 10 in the "measured" output current- (why use a 10x probe on
measuring current- even 100ma, through a 10 ohm resistor?) This puts the
efficiency of the device into the 30% range.
Also note that the load resistor doesn't get nearly as hot as
expected(Naudin's words)-possibly because the power being dissipated is
1/10th of that claimed.
In general poor science is being vindicated by poor measurements.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Don Kelly
nswer
"Jason Dugas" <jdu...@ems.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:LwkQ8.3967$MR4.17...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
----------
a)A patent doesn't necessarily mean anything.
b)look at conservation of energy- still holds true. Do an energy balance
Jason Dugas
If he patented it as an electromagnetic generator, then just what is one of
those? Does it "generate" electricity? If so, what prevents the COP > 1?
Don Kelly
"Jason Dugas" <jdu...@ems.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:9hMQ8.812$RR1.17...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
-------------
It doesn't "generate" in the sense that it produces electrical energy. It
does take in electrical energy (from a low voltage DC source) and outputs
electrical energy at a higher voltage AC. However, the actual efficiency is
poor about 30% or so. The claim is that more energy is put out than is put
in. That is nice (i.e. the COP>1 or overunity or perpetual motion -all the
same thing) . Whether there is a permanent magnet or an electromagnet
replacing it - no matter- it is the same thing. The flux and the other
windings don't know which is the source. As for COP>1 - there is something
called Conservation of energy - which simply says what you get out is no
more than what goes in- no free ride. This "law" appears in different forms
in magnetic devices, electrical devices, mechanics, chemistry,
thermodynamics and there have been countless attempts to disprove it. None
have succeeded - including this. Please note that a COP as defined for heat
pumps is not "efficiency"- it ignores a major input energy source.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer >
Tim Heise
> > > What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this
> thing!!
machine" who made an apperance on local TV in my town recently; his name is
Joe Newman, a small-time inventor credited with creations like ..."plastic
barbell sets, a mechanical orange picker, and a knife that always lands
point forward."... This electrical quack states that Einstein's famous
equation E=mc^2, occurring at 100% efficiency, is the engine behind what he
claims as "free energy." I seems to me that this man never studied physics,
chemistry, or even political science. Like other "super inventions," Newman
claims his energy machine produces more power than it consumes; something
simply too good to be true, and it is. The man is a complete fraud. The
rest of this news story can be found online at the following URL:
http://www.nbc-2.com/News/stories/061602-energymachine.shtml
Tim Heise
> > > What I don't understand is how this kook could get a patent for this
> thing!!
machine" who made an apperance on local TV in my town recently; his name is
Joe Newman, a small-time inventor credited with creations like ..."plastic
barbell sets, a mechanical orange picker, and a knife that always lands
point forward."... This electrical quack states that Einstein's famous
equation E=mc^2, occurring at 100% efficiency, is the engine behind what he
claims his energy machine produces more power than it consumes--something
simply too good to be true, and it is. On his web site, he used the
following theory (paraphrased my me) to substantiate his claim of power for
nothing: "Take a magnet a place it on a vertical or beneath a horizontal
metal surface. Notice that the magnet sticks to such surface. this is work
being done and is the source of free energy..." Even high-school science
students know that work requires three factors: effort, time, and distance.
If E=mc^2 really did work for Newman, the very physical and chemical
properties of his magnets would change most likely producing dangerous
radioactivity. It seems to me that this man never studied physics,
chemistry, or even political science; he is a complete fraud. The
rest of this news story including a video stream can be found online at the
following URL:
http://www.nbc-2.com/News/stories/061602-energymachine.shtml
Repeating Decimal
dh...@peeshaw.ca wrote on 6/21/02 10:09 PM:
> It doesn't "generate" in the sense that it produces electrical energy. It
> does take in electrical energy (from a low voltage DC source) and outputs
> electrical energy at a higher voltage AC. However, the actual efficiency is
> poor about 30% or so. The claim is that more energy is put out than is put
> in. That is nice (i.e. the COP>1 or overunity or perpetual motion -all the
> same thing) . Whether there is a permanent magnet or an electromagnet
> replacing it - no matter- it is the same thing. The flux and the other
> windings don't know which is the source. As for COP>1 - there is something
> called Conservation of energy - which simply says what you get out is no
> more than what goes in- no free ride. This "law" appears in different forms
> in magnetic devices, electrical devices, mechanics, chemistry,
> thermodynamics and there have been countless attempts to disprove it. None
> have succeeded - including this. Please note that a COP as defined for heat
> pumps is not "efficiency"- it ignores a major input energy source.
> -
To expand a bit on this and my previous explanation, consider energy
expended in switching the flux. Consider a bar magnet. One end is placed
against a core The other end is connected to a rotating armature.
In the diagram, the armature rotates and is shown foreshortened because of
partial rotation. As it rotates flux firs goes through leg A and then Leg B.
Unfortunately, for those trying to get perpetual motion, it takes force, and
therefore energy to move the armature away from leg A after contact is made
with it. Other arrangements, equally pointless, can also be found. For
example, use a permanent magnet rotating on an axis between Legs A and B. In
this case, the flux will reverse twice per cycle, but the force remains.
I hope this diagram shows up reasonably well after going through the net. I
have a Mac, and most Wintel machines have trouble interpreting. I am using
the Courier New font for the diagram.
Bill
Armature
Leg A ••••••••••• Leg B
•••••••••••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
••• ••• •••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Permanent Magnet
Don Kelly
"Tim Heise" <tbh...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fu3R8.16657$Fv1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Two maxims:
Excreta Taurii Cerebrum Vincit (bullshit baffles brains)
There is no point being ignorant unless you can show it.
The Newman machine has been around for quite a while This is just one of a
number of such devices. To attempt to actually try to prove the claims is
not considered to be in good taste (or are simply parts of a great
conspiracy by the oil companies and the government)
Pctchrisgibson
Powered cars were easy to prove. Someone built one and said "look - it works"
and everyone agreed that it was indeed real and that it did indeed work
The same has happened with every other invention throughout history. Think of
hot air balloons, powered flight, thermionic valves, transistors, ICs.
Everything follows this or a similar path. Someone just builds one and lets
lots of people see it working.
It's a good test for reality. "build me one and show me it working - if you
can't do that, fuck off and stop wasting my time"
Chris
WTH
Joe Newman has been peddling his "free energy" machine for more than
20 years. In that time he has sold a lot of books promoting his
invention, has given a lot of seminars to recruit investors, and has
squandered a great deal of investors' money, yet apparently he still
buys his own power from his local electric utility. Go take a look at
http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm for a lot of fascinating
information on his various claims and his bizarre personal behavior.
This NBC article looks like a blatant attempt to find more
suckers...er, "investors" for his energy machine. It looks as if
Newman is running low on cash and is once again trolling news outlets
for free publicity. Anyone notice that the article includes his phone
number at the bottom of the page?
I wonder how many more people are going to lose their hard-earned
money because the journalists at NBC couldn't be bothered to check
into Newman's background before printing this story?
WTH
Tim Heise
> Joe Newman has been peddling his "free energy" machine for more than
> http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm ..........
> This NBC article looks like a blatant attempt to find more
> suckers...er, "investors" for his energy machine. It looks as if
> Newman is running low on cash and is once again trolling news outlets
If this isn't enough, another quack, Dennis Lee, is also promoting a FE
(free energy) machine: The "Sundance Generator coupled to the Hummingbird
Motor."
More info is at the following URLs: http://befreetech.com/index.html and
http://www.jeffry.com/technology/bwt/free_electricity/sundance.htm
After looking at this backyard invention, I don't think that even Butch
Cassidy would fall for this contraption which is simply for the birds.
However, if Butch were alive today, he would make Mr. Lee look like Swiss
cheese...
From reading the site you gave me, I get the idea that both men are
mendacious, deluded wackos. Both have the audacity to use God as witness to
their claims of free energy. I personally feel that God intended for the
physical world to work differently than either man claims; but to argue this
is outside the scope of this NG.....
TBH
Repeating Decimal
at tbh...@sprintmail.com wrote on 6/23/02 11:17 AM:
> From reading the site you gave me, I get the idea that both men are
> mendacious, deluded wackos. Both have the audacity to use God as witness to
> their claims of free energy. I personally feel that God intended for the
> physical world to work differently than either man claims; but to argue this
The true believer wacko who is honest but merely deluding himpself is
probably more of a problem than one who is mendacious. The mendacious one
will probably trip himself up while the true believer is jus that.
Bill
Bill Gates
<Snip>
> suckers...er, "investors" for his energy machine. It looks as if
> Newman is running low on cash and is once again trolling news outlets
> for free publicity. Anyone notice that the article includes his phone
> number at the bottom of the page?
>
> I wonder how many more people are going to lose their hard-earned
> money because the journalists at NBC couldn't be bothered to check
> into Newman's background before printing this story?
>
> WTH
Since when did the newsmedia ever let a few facts get in the
way of a good story??? They're almost worse than lawyers
for screwing up the country.
bg
Jack
something.
I only stumbled onto this subject as a result of a search for
technology related to a hobby robotics project I've started. I
considered that I might convert some of the pneumatic exhaust back to
electricity using a paddle or propeller to drive a DC generator.
However, the law of conservation factored into my thinking; I knew I
couldn't take out more than I put into the system and would thus have
a loss, due to resistance, friction, etc. Thus, I worried that I
couldn't generate enough voltage to recharge the battery. I have no
desire to create a perpetual machine; I just want to extend the life
of the power supply.
I started thinking about other ways to supply more power to the system
or to conserve energy from the system. I considered solar,
piezoelectric (see piezoelectric shoes) and other designs.
Then my mind wandered to radio. I considered that crystal radios,
including the projects in an old electrics kit I have, can function
without batteries, operating only on the energy from the radio signal.
I realized that such a circuit functions on very low power, but I
considered the entire electromagnetic spectrum and naively wondered if
I could somehow accumulate a useable potential. Thus, I started
surfing the net for ideas, and of course, I found a lot of
questionable material about free energy, etc.
I recall reading years ago--I think I saw it in _Crack in the Cosmic
Egg_ or _Stalking the Wild Pendulum_--that a cubic inch of vacuum
contains somewhere on the order of 10^38 ergs of energy. I remember
wondering how one could possibly tap into that energy. However, if
somehow these people have achieved "overunity"--and I have my doubts,
I suspect that despite the inventors' outlandish claims of sucking
energy from the fourth dimension of the "vacuum", the surplus could
possibly come from a source almost everyone seems to have overlooked.
Could they possibly have built a transducing antenna?
I have read about Tesla's energy transmitters and receivers. I also
found a blurb about a company using radio to recharge the battery for
an artificial heart without any transcutaneous wires.
Also, I read something about extending the effective size of an
antenna by passing an alternating current through it. Though I do
question the veracity of the document (only due to my own lack of
knowledge and experimental corroboration), the MEG does essentially
the same thing by passing the alternating current through the input
coils.
It makes more sense to me that the MEG simply focuses abundant
electromagnetic waves/energy and converts it to useable electricity.
Unless they completely shielded the unit from electromagnetic waves in
the atmosphere to rule this out, it seems that they've reached a bit
far to explain any unexplained phenomena resulting from experiments...
assuming they haven't erred in their measurements or outright lied.
Of course, since Bearden reportedly can't/won't connect the output
current to the supply, I remain skeptical.
Jack
Bill Shymanski
the inventor
shows you all the zeros on his monthly power bill. "
" I wonder what the vinters buy, one half so precious as what they sell",
etc. - and
shoemaker's children go barefoot.
Bill
"Jack" <strang...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9698f553.02062...@posting.google.com...
Jack
> My advice has always been "Don't buy any stock in a free-energy device 'till
> the inventor
> shows you all the zeros on his monthly power bill. "
> " I wonder what the vinters buy, one half so precious as what they sell",
> etc. - and
> shoemaker's children go barefoot.
>
> Bill
Bill,
Nobody's taking my money.
I noticed this is alt.engineering.electrical. I'm not an engineer, but
let's reverse engineer this electrically... just to waste time.
I thought of an even simpler way to explain the questionable claims.
According to my copy of _Basic_Electricity_:
"The output voltage from a generator depends on the conductors cutting
through the lines of force. You know that the induced emf is
proportional to the number of turns, flux density, and speed with
which the flux lines are cut. Clearly, this will be true for any
generator. We can write this as:
E = mZN / 10^8
where E is the voltage output, m is the number of magnetic lines per
pole, Z is the number of armature conductors interacting with the
field m, and N is the speed of the armature in revolutions per second
(rps). The constant 10^8 is used so that all the factors come out as
volts."
Similarly:
"The voltage output from an ac generator is similar to that from a dc
generator except that we must deal in rms voltage in ac circuits. The
rms voltage, E per phase, is given by
E = 2.22mZf
where m is the number of flux lines per pole; Z is the number of
conductors in series, per phase; and f is the frequency in Hz."
Now, will the input coils permanently shift the flux of the magnet, or
will the flux rubber band when one removes the current?
Does it take more or less energy to change the lines of magnetic flux
than the energy induced in the output coils by those lines of flux
passing through the "turns" in the "armature" (ie, the output coils)?
If, as claimed in MEGpaper.pdf, the magnet doesn't demagnetize in the
latest device, and if, as claimed, the MEG achieves COP > 5, a
difference in the amount of energy required to change the lines of
flux and the energy induced in the wire would explain any COP > 1 more
easily than claiming that it comes from part of that 10^38 ergs in a
cubic centimeter of vacuum, which we could tap directly or indirectly
any time we use energy to do work.
How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a permanent
magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the power
used to alter it?
Here, I don't attempt to prove or disprove the claims about the MEG. I
don't have the background to do so. However, answering the above
questions will prove or disprove the claims better than crying Law of
Conservation or by claiming that the device somehow reaches into some
vacuum that we can't independently observe.
Jack
Bill Shymanski
news:<hC7S8.1800$c67....@news1.mts.net>...
> > My advice has always been "Don't buy any stock in a free-energy device
'till
> > the inventor
> > shows you all the zeros on his monthly power bill. "
> > " I wonder what the vinters buy, one half so precious as what they
sell",
> > etc. - and
> > shoemaker's children go barefoot.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Bill,
>
> Nobody's taking my money.
>
> I noticed this is alt.engineering.electrical. I'm not an engineer, but
> let's reverse engineer this electrically... just to waste time.
>
> I thought of an even simpler way to explain the questionable claims.
>
If, as claimed in MEGpaper.pdf, the magnet doesn't demagnetize in the
> latest device, and if, as claimed, the MEG achieves COP > 5, a
> difference in the amount of energy required to change the lines of
> flux and the energy induced in the wire would explain any COP > 1 more
> easily than claiming that it comes from part of that 10^38 ergs in a
> cubic centimeter of vacuum, which we could tap directly or indirectly
> any time we use energy to do work.
>
<snip>
>
> Here, I don't attempt to prove or disprove the claims about the MEG. I
> don't have the background to do so. However, answering the above
> questions will prove or disprove the claims better than crying Law of
> Conservation or by claiming that the device somehow reaches into some
> vacuum that we can't independently observe.
>
> Jack
Being an engineer, I tend to be empirical. However, the principe of
conservation of energy
is so massively useful that I'm loathe to abandon it until *someone* shows
me a monthly
power bill with lots of zeros in it.
I've got a 23 kW electric furnace...I'd purely LOVE to run this on 4 kW from
Manitoba Hydro
and the rest of the energy coming from whatever voodoo quackology is being
plugged on
that web site. But somehow I doubt that this particular perpetual motion
machine is any
better founded than the last 1,000,000 free energy schemes that are at best
the product of
ill-informed or careless experimenters, and at worst are calculated frauds.
Show me the zeros. Show me one basement laboratory where *all* the lights
are being run
by the free power gadget, and you'll convert me. Not for nothing is my
middle name Thomas.
Bill
Don Kelly
"Jack" <strang...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9698f553.02062...@posting.google.com...
--------------
This is a simplification which doesnt apply to this case- it is one of those
expressions which are considered useful for rotating machines but really
mask the principles involved. The basis for this expression is related to
the pertinent expression
E=Derivative with respect to time of N(Phi) where Phi is the flux linking N
coils.
Using this and the geometry and speed factors of the machine one can get the
expression you give.
The key point is that the voltage depends on the time rate of change of flux
in the coil. The permanent magnet provides a constant bias flux whose time
rate of change is 0. It doesn't contribute anything to the operation or lack
thereof of the device. The permanent magnet could be replaced by an
electromagnet with a DC current source -the rest of the magnetic circuit
wouldnt know the difference (NB the effect of saturation is specifically
excluded) In particular, if the permanent magnet was removed, the devie will
work as well-i.e. poorly
-------------.
> Similarly:
>
> "The voltage output from an ac generator is similar to that from a dc
> generator except that we must deal in rms voltage in ac circuits. The
> rms voltage, E per phase, is given by
>
> E = 2.22mZf
>
> where m is the number of flux lines per pole; Z is the number of
> conductors in series, per phase; and f is the frequency in Hz."
>
>
> Now, will the input coils permanently shift the flux of the magnet, or
> will the flux rubber band when one removes the current?
>
> Does it take more or less energy to change the lines of magnetic flux
> than the energy induced in the output coils by those lines of flux
> passing through the "turns" in the "armature" (ie, the output coils)?
>
> If, as claimed in MEGpaper.pdf, the magnet doesn't demagnetize in the
> latest device, and if, as claimed, the MEG achieves COP > 5, a
> difference in the amount of energy required to change the lines of
> flux and the energy induced in the wire would explain any COP > 1 more
> easily than claiming that it comes from part of that 10^38 ergs in a
> cubic centimeter of vacuum, which we could tap directly or indirectly
> any time we use energy to do work.
>
> How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a permanent
> magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the power
> used to alter it?
-------
Not a great deal but the result may wel be to turn the magnet into a piece
of unmagnetised junk.. In this device the permanent magnet is not cycled to
the point where its flux is changed.
---------------->
> Here, I don't attempt to prove or disprove the claims about the MEG. I
> don't have the background to do so. However, answering the above
> questions will prove or disprove the claims better than crying Law of
> Conservation or by claiming that the device somehow reaches into some
> vacuum that we can't independently observe.
>
> Jack
----------
If youu have looked at the Naudin site, the data from a test of the MEG
looks good at first glance but there is clearly a significant error in
measurement- that ccan be seen from the specs of the scope used along with
the data . A 10x probe on the voltage measurement is needed but definitely
not on the measurement of current as indicated. That and other comments
(unexplained low heating of the load resistor and other things) point to an
error by a factor of 10- i.e. efficiency in the order of 30-50% which is
pretty poor for what boils down to a transformer.
As for the permanent magnet - if you provide a high enough mmf to the
magnet, you can change its magnetization - typically you will demagnetise
it. In this device the permanent magnets flux doesn't change- the magnet
simply sits there. The change in flux in the remaining sections of the core
depends on the connected exciting windings. The output is dependent on the
rate of change of the flux- the rate of change of the part of the flux
produced by the permanent magnet is 0, Nada, Zilch. A normal magnetic
circuit analysis confirms this.
The extraction of money from the gullible is the apparent only purpose of
this device. It is really an inefficeint transformer fed from an electronic
supply.
As for Conservation of energy-it has appeared in different forms in
different disciplines - It hasn't been shown by any examples to be wrong.
Thus, if there is an apparent contradiction of this., flags are raised-
There better be a damned good explanation and corresponding solid
experimental evidence- so far nobody has done so and this is not from lack
of trying. Beardon's mathematical(?) analyses not withstanding.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Jack
as bunk. I just see a possible loophole here.
> This is a simplification which doesnt apply to this case- it is one of those
> expressions which are considered useful for rotating machines but really
> mask the principles involved. The basis for this expression is related to
> the pertinent expression
> E=Derivative with respect to time of N(Phi) where Phi is the flux linking N
> coils.
> Using this and the geometry and speed factors of the machine one can get the
> expression you give.
> The key point is that the voltage depends on the time rate of change of flux
> in the coil. The permanent magnet provides a constant bias flux whose time
> rate of change is 0. It doesn't contribute anything to the operation or lack
> thereof of the device. The permanent magnet could be replaced by an
> electromagnet with a DC current source -the rest of the magnetic circuit
> wouldnt know the difference (NB the effect of saturation is specifically
> excluded) In particular, if the permanent magnet was removed, the devie will
> work as well-i.e. poorly
Simplistically paraphrased from _Basic_Electricity_:
A wire carrying a current produces a magnetic field. Magnetic lines of
force repel each other, never crossing or uniting. If you place two
magnetic fields near each other, the magnetic fields will not combine,
but will reform in a distorted flux pattern.
The MEG pulses current into the input coils introducing a dynamic
magnetic field. This magnetic field will affect the flux lines of the
permanent magnet. If the changing flux lines cut through the output
coils, they will induce current in the output coils.
I haven't analyzed the circuit closely enough, but I would surmise
that the orientation of the input coils to the output coils would not
explain an increase in voltage (ignoring the possible measurement
error.)
If the changing lines of force cut through the output coils, it will
affect the voltage and current.
> > How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a permanent
> > magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the power
> > used to alter it?
> -------
> Not a great deal but the result may wel be to turn the magnet into a piece
> of unmagnetised junk.. In this device the permanent magnet is not cycled to
> the point where its flux is changed.
This ignores the magnetic field produced by the current through the
input coil. The magnetic lines of force will change in the permanent
magnet--and the magnetic field of the input coils will have different
patterns than standalone coils due to the magnetic field of the
permanent magnet. Any lines of force cutting through the output coils
will induce current. Will it produce any significant EMF? I don't
know.
> If youu have looked at the Naudin site, the data from a test of the MEG
> looks good at first glance but there is clearly a significant error in
> measurement- that ccan be seen from the specs of the scope used along with
> the data . A 10x probe on the voltage measurement is needed but definitely
> not on the measurement of current as indicated. That and other comments
> (unexplained low heating of the load resistor and other things) point to an
> error by a factor of 10- i.e. efficiency in the order of 30-50% which is
> pretty poor for what boils down to a transformer.
You're probably right! I've noted this observation by others before,
but I haven't yet found the detail on the site.
> As for the permanent magnet - if you provide a high enough mmf to the
> magnet, you can change its magnetization - typically you will demagnetise
> it. In this device the permanent magnets flux doesn't change- the magnet
> simply sits there. The change in flux in the remaining sections of the core
> depends on the connected exciting windings. The output is dependent on the
> rate of change of the flux- the rate of change of the part of the flux
> produced by the permanent magnet is 0, Nada, Zilch. A normal magnetic
> circuit analysis confirms this.
Again, you've ignored the magnetic field in the input coils. Will your
repetition make it true? :o)
> As for Conservation of energy-it has appeared in different forms in
> different disciplines - It hasn't been shown by any examples to be wrong.
> Thus, if there is an apparent contradiction of this., flags are raised-
> There better be a damned good explanation and corresponding solid
> experimental evidence- so far nobody has done so and this is not from lack
> of trying. Beardon's mathematical(?) analyses not withstanding.
IF--a big IF--If it takes less power to alter the magnetic field than
the power induced in the conductors through which the lines of force
pass, we have a new paradigm. However, Beardon's confusing and
irrelevant math indicates either a stretch of the imagination to
conform to experimental observations OR blatant misinformation
designed to confuse. Time will tell.
Don Kelly
"Jack" <strang...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9698f553.02062...@posting.google.com...
---------
Your source is simplistic -and somewhat misleading. - try going beyond
that source -even if you don't go as far as Maxwell's equations. The concept
of magnetic lines of force is convenient but they do no more than act as a
visualisation of the direction (and to some extent, the strength) of the
total magnetic field at any time. They don't actually exist. What does exist
is a magnetic flux density at any given point which has a strength and
magnitude dependent on all sources (i.e. permanent or current carrying
conductors in the region as well as the presence and geometry of magnetic
materials. This will change the flux density and direction at any given
point- hence the distortion in comparison to the original fields considered
individually. -because the field with all sources is not the same as a
simple sum of the fields with each source individually-It may be but that is
dependent on the situation.
The visualisation is useful and the results of flux plotting methods may be
best expressed in terms of a graphical or "lines of force" approach.
Certainly they have been applied in some flux plotting techniques (the same
techniques may be applied to fluid flow or electrostatic fields) - but the
basic relationships are determined through Maxwell's equations. They help
us visualise but that is all they are- a visualisation.
-----------------
> The MEG pulses current into the input coils introducing a dynamic
> magnetic field. This magnetic field will affect the flux lines of the
> permanent magnet. If the changing flux lines cut through the output
> coils, they will induce current in the output coils.
---------
Actually, within the limits of operation of a permanent magnet the flux
density at the poles is constant. It is not intended to operate beyond the
flat portion of its B-H characteristic If the flux is decreased the magnet
will become junk. What you need to do is consider Kirchoff's Laws as applied
to magnetic circuits. In the absence of leakage flux (a reasonable
approximation for a completely iron core) the mmf or ampere turns around a
closed loop is 0. That is the sum of NI enclosed by the loop =the sum of the
H*l drops around the loop where B=mu*H
The sum of fluxes at any junction in the magnetic device is also 0.
Use these in your analysis.
>
> I haven't analyzed the circuit closely enough, but I would surmise
> that the orientation of the input coils to the output coils would not
> explain an increase in voltage (ignoring the possible measurement
> error.)
--------
Try turns ratios.
---------------
>
> If the changing lines of force cut through the output coils, it will
> affect the voltage and current.
-------
Right- it will affect the voltage induced. The current will depend on the
load and the voltage- not the flux per se.
------------
>
> > > How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a permanent
> > > magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the power
> > > used to alter it?
> > -------
> > Not a great deal but the result may wel be to turn the magnet into a
piece
> > of unmagnetised junk.. In this device the permanent magnet is not cycled
to
> > the point where its flux is changed.
>
> This ignores the magnetic field produced by the current through the
> input coil. The magnetic lines of force will change in the permanent
> magnet--and the magnetic field of the input coils will have different
> patterns than standalone coils due to the magnetic field of the
> permanent magnet. Any lines of force cutting through the output coils
> will induce current. Will it produce any significant EMF? I don't
> know.
------------
Changing "Lines of force" cutting a coil will not produce current- they will
produce an EMF E=d(N*phi) /dt which may in turn produce a current.
I am not ignoring the field produced by the input coil. As for it changing
the flux in the magnet - slightly but only slightly- and that only because
the permanent magnet is not ideal. In such a situation any flux change in
the left leg implies a corresponding flux change in the right leg and little
or no change in the flux of the permanent magnet.
The permanent magnet contributes nothing. What you have is a poor
transformer. In fact if you replaced the magnet by a piece of the core
material the device would be an extremely lousy transformer. With the
permanent magnet- it is merely a poorly designed transformer.
-----------
>
> > If you have looked at the Naudin site, the data from a test of the MEG
------------
No- I did not ignore the field produced by the input coils. I have analysed
enough magnetic devices not to do that.
This device has a left, a right and a center section of which the center
section is a PM
The input winding is on the left and the output is on the right
Ignoring leakage we have
(1)Phi(left) =Phi(center) + Phi(right)
In addition we can write
(2) NI(left) -H*l(left) +NI(right) -H*l (right) =0
and (3) NI(left) -H*l(left) =NI(center)-H*l(center)
Note that the flux phi =B*Area and B=mu*H
A permanent magnet operates on the top of a flat topped B-H curve so that
its flux (phi(center) ) is essentially constant. Within the limits of the
magnet NI equivalent of the magnet can change but B will not change
appreciably (i.e. it may drop or rise by 2-5% or so). Ignoring such changes
and taking the derivative of (1) we will get
d(phi(left))/dt = 0 + d(phi(right))dt as d(phi(center)/dt =0
Eleft =Nleft*d(phi(left)/dt Eright=Nright*d(phi(right)/dt
i.e. as in an ordinary transformer
As for equations 2, 3 - these also hold but one must separate the AC and DC
components. The permanent magnet simply produces a "DC" bias which, unless
saturation is involved or the permanent magnet is overdriven (and killed)
has no effect on the AC relationships. The magnet core simply acts to shunt
some of the AC flux so that, in general, the ratio of the voltages in input
and output are not Nleft/Nright but are something less than that- i.e. a
lousy transformer. The greater the variation of the flux in the center, the
poorer the transformer will be an "off the top of the head gut feel (based
on experience and theory)analysis."
-----------------------
> > As for Conservation of energy-it has appeared in different forms in
> > different disciplines - It hasn't been shown by any examples to be
wrong.
> > Thus, if there is an apparent contradiction of this., flags are raised-
> > There better be a damned good explanation and corresponding solid
> > experimental evidence- so far nobody has done so and this is not from
lack
> > of trying. Beardon's mathematical(?) analyses not withstanding.
>
> IF--a big IF--If it takes less power to alter the magnetic field than
> the power induced in the conductors through which the lines of force
> pass, we have a new paradigm. However, Beardon's confusing and
> irrelevant math indicates either a stretch of the imagination to
> conform to experimental observations OR blatant misinformation
> designed to confuse. Time will tell.
----------------
The IF is an ISN'T. Any reasonable magnetic circuit analysis indicates
this. It is a relatively easy matter to run an energy balance analysis of
this device.
Yes- Cons. of energy can be and is applied to electromagnetic devices - with
results that agree with experimental data. and established theory. Any good
Electromagnetic Energy Conversion text will cover this.
My opinion, regarding the science in this , is unprintable.
Take care,
Jack
Thanks for the explanation.
Bill Shymanski
If conservation of energy doesn't apply to this device, why should any
*other* known physics apply, either?
Bill
"Don Kelly" <dh...@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dDaT8.92637$s82.6...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
daestrom
> looks good at first glance but there is clearly a significant error in
> measurement- that ccan be seen from the specs of the scope used along with
> the data . A 10x probe on the voltage measurement is needed but definitely
> not on the measurement of current as indicated. That and other comments
> (unexplained low heating of the load resistor and other things) point to
an
> error by a factor of 10- i.e. efficiency in the order of 30-50% which is
> pretty poor for what boils down to a transformer.
Hi Don,
I think this is a key element in their 'data'. I've seen scopes that come
with a 10x probe that has a small pin. The function of this is to short the
BNC connector's collar to a isolated ring on the front of the scope housing.
When the scope 'sees' the ring shorted to the BNC connector, it 'knows' a
10x probe is installed and will re-scale the display. (forgive all the
antropomorisms)
It would be a simple matter to absent-mindedly, (or maliciously) cause the
readings of a scope to be off by a factor of ten. A different
manufacturer's 10x probe, or a judicous use of side-cutters could render the
pin inoperative. Then the scope would report voltages 1/10th of actual.
Or, simply shorting the ring to the BNC when *not* using a 10x probe would
cause the display to report 10x.
So showing 'scope-snapshots' is pretty useless unless you describe the exact
probes used, and whether a 10x adjustment is properly displayed or must be
manually applied.
daestrom
Don Kelly
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:W2tT8.82922$GY.29...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I agree with the above but the auto-sensing of the presence of a probe is
something I didn't know. I saw no mention of this in the specs given by
Tektronics for this particular scope.
The problem with this scope and the tests made is that it would be
necessary to have a probe for voltage measurement because the voltages
measured are too high for direct measurement. No mention of this is made.
For current measurement in the order of 20 or even 200ma using a 10 ohm
resistor, the values are well within the normal ranges of the scope- so why
a 10x probe there?. Shunting the resistor with the scope's input impedance
is not a concern. This indicated a confusion as to where the probe was
actually used. In addition it was mentioned that the 100K load resistor did
not get as hot as it should have at the power level claimed. This was
explained(?) by "radiation" However, taking the voltage claimed and 1/10th
the resistance, the calculated current is about 1/10 of that claimed-
supporting my questioning of the instrumentation.
However, the results giving an efficiency greater than 100% were what the
observer wanted to see so his faith was not shaken.
It's been a while since I looked at this site but I am still shaking my
head..
SparksRFlyin
>
<snip>
>
> I agree with the above but the auto-sensing of the presence of a probe is
> something I didn't know. I saw no mention of this in the specs given by
> Tektronics for this particular scope.
> The problem with this scope and the tests made is that it would be
> necessary to have a probe for voltage measurement because the voltages
> measured are too high for direct measurement. No mention of this is made.
> For current measurement in the order of 20 or even 200ma using a 10 ohm
> resistor, the values are well within the normal ranges of the scope- so why
> a 10x probe there?. Shunting the resistor with the scope's input impedance
> is not a concern. This indicated a confusion as to where the probe was
> actually used. In addition it was mentioned that the 100K load resistor did
> not get as hot as it should have at the power level claimed. This was
> explained(?) by "radiation" However, taking the voltage claimed and 1/10th
> the resistance, the calculated current is about 1/10 of that claimed-
> supporting my questioning of the instrumentation.
> However, the results giving an efficiency greater than 100% were what the
> observer wanted to see so his faith was not shaken.
>
> It's been a while since I looked at this site but I am still shaking my
> head..
> --
> Don Kelly
> dh...@peeshaw.ca
> remove the urine to answer
Sort of related. I was using one of the new fangled Fluke
190 series scopemeters the other day. I had a 10x probe on
Channel A and a current probe on channel B. I figured I'd
change the Channel B input to 1x so I could eliminate the
"Do I multiply or divide the shown millivolts by 10?"
question and then I'd only have to account for the mV/A
scale of the probe. To my surprise the Scopemeter had a
Current Probe setting and even let me put in the mV/A to
match the Current Probe. The B trace was scaled to the
actual amps the probe was seeing. I thought this was cool.
Sparks,
--
Registered Linux User 268035 http://counter.li.org
Reboots required since 10/27/2001 Linux 0
Rarely Used Win: CtrlAltDel 27 OnOffButton 11 Unplug 15
daestrom
> I agree with the above but the auto-sensing of the presence of a probe is
> something I didn't know. I saw no mention of this in the specs given by
> Tektronics for this particular scope.
I'm not saying for sure that Tektronics have this feature, but I've worked
with a few that do. Unless one understands the instrument, it is easy to
make a mistake. I always do a 'it-situ' test with a known source to verify
the setup before making critical measurements. And it would be an easy
thing to doctor/misunderstand. Simply testing the scope against a known
amount of current would catch this kind of thing.
Textronix has a large write-up on the use of probes for those interested.
http://www.tektronix.com/Measurement/App_Notes/ABCsProbes/60W_6053_7.pdf
Page 11 of the document (page 15 in Acrobat Reader) explains the 10x
situation in detail.
> The problem with this scope and the tests made is that it would be
> necessary to have a probe for voltage measurement because the voltages
> measured are too high for direct measurement. No mention of this is made.
> For current measurement in the order of 20 or even 200ma using a 10 ohm
> resistor, the values are well within the normal ranges of the scope- so
why
> a 10x probe there?.
Good point. Maybe by throwing enough '10's around, the smoke confuses
enough people about the correct decade. 10 ohms, 10x probe, 1/10 scale....
Yeah, sure, 100ma/V
>Shunting the resistor with the scope's input impedance
> is not a concern. This indicated a confusion as to where the probe was
> actually used. In addition it was mentioned that the 100K load resistor
did
> not get as hot as it should have at the power level claimed. This was
> explained(?) by "radiation" However, taking the voltage claimed and 1/10th
> the resistance, the calculated current is about 1/10 of that claimed-
> supporting my questioning of the instrumentation.
> However, the results giving an efficiency greater than 100% were what the
> observer wanted to see so his faith was not shaken.
>
One of the things I find curious is the use of flourescent tubes and 'xenon
tubes' to demonstrate the output power of the unit. Now, I don't recall
everything about flourescent lights, but I do remember a science experiment
in school where we were able to light a standard flourescent tube by holding
one end in our hand and placing the other near a Tesla coil. Bulb lights
beautifully, but I'm quite sure the current needed to generate 15 watts
wasn't being sent through my hand. Is the high-frequency of this device
(something like 24khz) contributing to some sort of trick here?
> It's been a while since I looked at this site but I am still shaking my
> head..
Oh, I agree with you on that. I'm just looking for the holes in this
'science' in order to debunk it.
I went back to the web-site, and ran across another item that begs
explanation. Focusing on the 'MEG v3.0 Test Run # 2' data, I printed out
the black&white scope traces and manually integrated the area under the
curves for power in the input and the output scope-shots. My crude methods
show a input power of 4.1 watts and an output of 10.3 watts. Okay, since I
find that hard to believe, I keep looking.
So then I looked at the frequencies. The input current frequency seems to
be the same as the output frequency. Hmmmm.... is that right?? The
explanations and the animation of 'cross-flux magnetic gates' shows that
each input coil is pulsed once for a complete cycle of the magnetic flux.
That's *two* pulses of the input current, one to each coil, for each cycle
of the flux!!!
One complete cycle of the flux would coincide with one cycle of the output
current right?
So either the data is from separate test runs at different frequencies, one
input coil's power is not measured, the system does not use two input coils
or some other vital piece is missing.
The measurements of 'MEG v2.1 TESTR21-1' show current and power into one
input coil with a frequency that matches the output. I would expect the
opposite coil to have the same waveform but shifted by 180 degrees. Thus
the total input current should have a fundemental frequency twice that of
the output. Also notice that 'M RMS' is used for output power despite the
Textronix reply stating this is meaningless.
Anyway, off to the neighbor's graduation party, so long....
daestrom
Jack
> that source -even if you don't go as far as Maxwell's equations.
Sure, let's make this complicated.
> The concept
> of magnetic lines of force is convenient but they do no more than act as a
> visualisation of the direction (and to some extent, the strength) of the
> total magnetic field at any time. They don't actually exist. What does exist
> is a magnetic flux density at any given point which has a strength and
> magnitude dependent on all sources (i.e. permanent or current carrying
> conductors in the region as well as the presence and geometry of magnetic
> materials.
Splitting hairs.
> This will change the flux density and direction at any given
> point- hence the distortion in comparison to the original fields considered
> individually. -because the field with all sources is not the same as a
> simple sum of the fields with each source individually-It may be but that is
> dependent on the situation.
> The visualisation is useful and the results of flux plotting methods may be
> best expressed in terms of a graphical or "lines of force" approach.
> Certainly they have been applied in some flux plotting techniques (the same
> techniques may be applied to fluid flow or electrostatic fields) - but the
> basic relationships are determined through Maxwell's equations.
Ok, boys and girls. What three factors influence the output of a
standard generator or alternator?
1) The strength of the magnet, which determines the amount of change
in the magnetic field through the conductor.
2) The number of turns in the armature.
3) The speed of the conductor passing through the magnetic field
> They help
> us visualise but that is all they are- a visualisation.
So what actually happens has nothing to do with it?
[snip]
> Right- it will affect the voltage induced. The current will depend on the
> load and the voltage- not the flux per se.
Absolutely. In a standard transformer, no load in the secondary coil
will induce a back EMF in the primary coil, and a very small current
will flow in the primary coil. Add a load to the secondary coil, and
current will increase in both the primary and secondary coil.
> ------------
> >
> > > > How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a permanent
> > > > magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the power
> > > > used to alter it?
> > > -------
> > > Not a great deal but the result may wel be to turn the magnet into a
> piece
> > > of unmagnetised junk.. In this device the permanent magnet is not cycled
> to
> > > the point where its flux is changed.
So by your reasoning, standard electric motors and generators will
fail before long due to the demagnetization of the magnets in them?
> ------------
> Changing "Lines of force" cutting a coil will not produce current- they will
> produce an EMF E=d(N*phi) /dt which may in turn produce a current.
Thanks for catching my misstatement. Right. A changing magnetic field
will induce an EMF in a coil. See my explanation of secondary current
above.
> I am not ignoring the field produced by the input coil. As for it changing
> the flux in the magnet - slightly but only slightly- and that only because
> the permanent magnet is not ideal. In such a situation any flux change in
> the left leg implies a corresponding flux change in the right leg and little
> or no change in the flux of the permanent magnet.
It seems to work slightly differently than you would like to imagine.
Here's a primer based on experimentation and observation:
http://www.flynnresearch.net/Table_of_Contents.htm
In fact, they had a patent for a device very similar to the inventors
of the MEG BEFORE the MEG patent, and they contrast the differences:
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices.htm
They also have a very nice side-by-side graphical comparison
contrasting the change in flux of a standard transformer (no magnets),
a transformer with one permanent magnet (like the MEG) and a
transformer with two permanent magnets:
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices_2.htm
Which do you think will be more efficient?
> The permanent magnet contributes nothing.
Nothing? Go back to the three factors which influence the output of a
generator or an alternator?
> What you have is a poor
> transformer.
Okay. I get it. Faraday's observations have nothing to do with this.
> In fact if you replaced the magnet by a piece of the core
> material the device would be an extremely lousy transformer.
Remove the magnet, and you have a standard transformer. According to
my reference, a standard transformer has an efficiency of > 97%.
> With the
> permanent magnet- it is merely a poorly designed transformer.
And Farady's experiences have nothing to do with it whatsoever? Why do
you want so badly to call this a fraud?
[snip]
> > > As for the permanent magnet - if you provide a high enough mmf to the
> > > magnet, you can change its magnetization - typically you will
> demagnetise
> > > it.
Let me get this straight. When you place one magnet near a second
magnet, the second magnet will demagnetize the first magnet?
> In this device the permanent magnets flux doesn't change- the
> magnet
> > > simply sits there.
Let me get this straight. When you place one magnet near a second
magnet, not only will it will it demagnetize the first magnet, it
won't affect the flux? Try the old iron filing experiment, and get
back to me.
> The change in flux in the remaining sections of the
> core
> > > depends on the connected exciting windings. The output is dependent on
> the
> > > rate of change of the flux- the rate of change of the part of the flux
> > > produced by the permanent magnet is 0, Nada, Zilch. A normal magnetic
> > > circuit analysis confirms this.
Back to basics....
> ------------
> No- I did not ignore the field produced by the input coils. I have analysed
> enough magnetic devices not to do that.
> This device has a left, a right and a center section of which the center
> section is a PM
> The input winding is on the left and the output is on the right
> Ignoring leakage we have
> (1)Phi(left) =Phi(center) + Phi(right)
> In addition we can write
> (2) NI(left) -H*l(left) +NI(right) -H*l (right) =0
> and (3) NI(left) -H*l(left) =NI(center)-H*l(center)
> Note that the flux phi =B*Area and B=mu*H
> A permanent magnet operates on the top of a flat topped B-H curve so that
> its flux (phi(center) ) is essentially constant. Within the limits of the
> magnet NI equivalent of the magnet can change but B will not change
> appreciably (i.e. it may drop or rise by 2-5% or so). Ignoring such changes
> and taking the derivative of (1) we will get
> d(phi(left))/dt = 0 + d(phi(right))dt as d(phi(center)/dt =0
> Eleft =Nleft*d(phi(left)/dt Eright=Nright*d(phi(right)/dt
> i.e. as in an ordinary transformer
So Flynn Research's observation that an electromagnet with one or more
permanent magnets has more strength than an electromagnet with no
magnets means absolutely nothing because...?
>
> As for equations 2, 3 - these also hold but one must separate the AC and DC
> components. The permanent magnet simply produces a "DC" bias which, unless
> saturation is involved or the permanent magnet is overdriven (and killed)
> has no effect on the AC relationships. The magnet core simply acts to shunt
> some of the AC flux so that, in general, the ratio of the voltages in input
> and output are not Nleft/Nright but are something less than that- i.e. a
> lousy transformer. The greater the variation of the flux in the center, the
> poorer the transformer will be an "off the top of the head gut feel (based
> on experience and theory)analysis."
Okay. So if I replace the magnets in a generator with stronger
magnets, it will actually reduce the output? I have to laugh. Perhaps
you should go back and look at your theory/analysis.
[snip]
> My opinion, regarding the science in this , is unprintable.
After looking at the flaws in your "science"(?), you might rethink
that opinion.
daestrom
the
> > load and the voltage- not the flux per se.
>
> Absolutely. In a standard transformer, no load in the secondary coil
> will induce a back EMF in the primary coil, and a very small current
> will flow in the primary coil. Add a load to the secondary coil, and
> current will increase in both the primary and secondary coil.
No load in the secondary coils means no current. No current means it
doesn't induce anything. The 'back emf' you're describing is caused by the
continously changing flux levels in the armature. A load current in the
secondary reduces the total flux in the armature so that less 'back emf' is
induced into the primary. It is the reduction in 'back emf' that allows
more primary current to flow.
<snip>
> So by your reasoning, standard electric motors and generators will
> fail before long due to the demagnetization of the magnets in them?
A permanent magnet is demagnitized if it is exposed to a strong enough mmf
in the opposite polarity. He said the magnet in the MEG 'is not cycled to
the point where its flux is changed'. You jumped to the wrong
interpretation that his statement must be false because 'standard electric
motors' don't fail.
'Standard electric motors and generators' use electromagnets, not permanent
magets. Those special motors that do use permanent magnets do not cycle the
flux in them down to zero, or anywhere near zero. So no, they won't fail.
> > I am not ignoring the field produced by the input coil. As for it
changing
> > the flux in the magnet - slightly but only slightly- and that only
because
> > the permanent magnet is not ideal. In such a situation any flux change
in
> > the left leg implies a corresponding flux change in the right leg and
little
> > or no change in the flux of the permanent magnet.
Here I think Don may have missed the detail that the input coils are *not*
wound on the main core. They are in fact on small cores of their own
mounted at right-angles to the main flux path in the main core (the
'cross-flux' position of MEG 3). With this arrangement, no appreciable flux
from the input coils 'cuts' the output coils. The only flux cutting the
output coils is from the permanent magnet.
The input coils only serve to saturate a local portion of the main core. In
doing so, the input coil flux effectively 'pinches off' the flux of the
permanent magnet preventing it from dividing equally between the two
magnetic paths. Instead, most of it is diverted to the path whose input
coil is off.
>
> It seems to work slightly differently than you would like to imagine.
> Here's a primer based on experimentation and observation:
> http://www.flynnresearch.net/Table_of_Contents.htm
Flynn's research shows a trivial way to make an electromagnet of a given
strength using only half the current for a given winding. Although an
electromagnet of his design is indeed stronger for a given DC current, it
has the disadvantage that an equal amount of DC current is required in the
opposite direction to 'turn off' the magnetic field. If it were used to
pick up scrap metal in a junk yard, it would not 'let go' of all the scrap
when the current is switched off.
His use of a permanent magnet may increase the force of his electromagnet,
but there is no zero-point-energy, COP > 1.0, or other mysterious
unexplained phenomenon.
> In fact, they had a patent for a device very similar to the inventors
> of the MEG BEFORE the MEG patent, and they contrast the differences:
>
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices.htm
>
> They also have a very nice side-by-side graphical comparison
> contrasting the change in flux of a standard transformer (no magnets),
> a transformer with one permanent magnet (like the MEG) and a
> transformer with two permanent magnets:
>
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices_2.h
tm
>
> Which do you think will be more efficient?
You/Flynn seem to be thinking that increasing the total flux going through
the output coil will output more power. This is not true.
When there are no moving parts (transformers, not generators), it is *not*
the absolute magnitude of the flux that determines the emf induced in the
secondary. It is the rate-of-change of the flux. Conventional transformers
change the flux polarity from one direction to the opposite to induce a
voltage in the secondary.
Yes, the same can be accomplished if you bias the flux with a permanent
magnet and simply change the flux from zero to maximum, always keeping the
same polarity. But it isn't 'revolutionary' or more efficient. In fact,
for a given output, you would need twice as large a core to avoid saturation
limitations.
>
> > The permanent magnet contributes nothing.
>
> Nothing? Go back to the three factors which influence the output of a
> generator or an alternator?
Again, I remind you that it is the rate-of-change of flux in a transformer
that is important, not the absolute magnitude.
In generators/alternators you have 'relative motion'. The conductors must
'cross the lines of flux' to be effective. When there are no moving
conductors, the 'flux lines' must cross the conductor by
expanding/collapsing.
>
> > What you have is a poor
> > transformer.
>
> Okay. I get it. Faraday's observations have nothing to do with this.
Faraday has everything to do with it. But what Don said is not a
contradiction of Faraday just because you say so. You just want to ridicule
those who disagree with you.
>
> > In fact if you replaced the magnet by a piece of the core
> > material the device would be an extremely lousy transformer.
>
> Remove the magnet, and you have a standard transformer. According to
> my reference, a standard transformer has an efficiency of > 97%.
Here again, I believe you both miss the point that the input coils are
mounted on separate cores at right-angle to the main core. Remove the
permanent magnet, and you have two input coils that don't interact with the
output coils at all and you have nothing. BUT, that doesn't mean the MEG
has a COP > 1.
>
> > With the
> > permanent magnet- it is merely a poorly designed transformer.
>
> And Farady's experiences have nothing to do with it whatsoever? Why do
> you want so badly to call this a fraud?
Because it is a very misleading presentation of technology. Despite their
assertions, I don't believe for a minute its COP is greater than 1.0. Yet
they continue to advertise it as such. What reason do they have for this
other than fraud? Misguided??
Standard electromagnetic theory explains everything discussed except their
inability to use measuring instruments properly. Standard electromagnetic
theory even explains why it is a poorer transformer than conventional.
> > > > As for the permanent magnet - if you provide a high enough mmf to
the
> > > > magnet, you can change its magnetization - typically you will
> > demagnetise
> > > > it.
>
> Let me get this straight. When you place one magnet near a second
> magnet, the second magnet will demagnetize the first magnet?
If one magnet is stronger than the other by enough margin, yes it will
actually reverse the polarity of the weaker magnet (demagnitize it from one
direction and re-magnitize it in the opposite). Put a large magnet over a
floppy disk sometime and see how the weak, little magnets on the floppy's
magnetic surface are demagnitized/remagnitized by the large magnet.
Oh wait, if a strong mmf can't demagnitize a permanent magnet, then these
words can't be recorded on the news server's hard disk!!! Gee....
<snip>
> So Flynn Research's observation that an electromagnet with one or more
> permanent magnets has more strength than an electromagnet with no
> magnets means absolutely nothing because...?
Flynn's Research shows that mmf's can be somewhat 'additive' (up to the
point near saturation). But since the input coils are at right-angle to the
permanent magnet's flux path (his 'cross-flux' position) it is relavent. If
you look at the older version of MEG where the input coils are mounted on
the main core, Flynn's Research is still not directly applicable since it
is the rate-of-change of flux that is key to transformer behavior, not
absolute strength.
> >
> > As for equations 2, 3 - these also hold but one must separate the AC and
DC
> > components. The permanent magnet simply produces a "DC" bias which,
unless
> > saturation is involved or the permanent magnet is overdriven (and
killed)
> > has no effect on the AC relationships. The magnet core simply acts to
shunt
> > some of the AC flux so that, in general, the ratio of the voltages in
input
> > and output are not Nleft/Nright but are something less than that- i.e. a
> > lousy transformer. The greater the variation of the flux in the center,
the
> > poorer the transformer will be an "off the top of the head gut feel
(based
> > on experience and theory)analysis."
>
> Okay. So if I replace the magnets in a generator with stronger
> magnets, it will actually reduce the output? I have to laugh. Perhaps
> you should go back and look at your theory/analysis.
You should laugh. You're getting a lot of excercise jumping to all sorts of
conclusions with your logic. Again, you think the strength of the flux in a
transformer is important. What Don said is true. A simple, constant bias
of the flux will not improve transformer operation. It is the changing flux
that matters.
As you know (you posted earlier), generators use a fixed flux and generate
emf by moving the conductors at right-angle to the magnetic field. So if
you replace the magnets in a generator with stronger magnets, AND keep it
spinning at the same speed, you get a higher voltage output not lower.
Using the 'flux-lines' model this is explained because the conductors are
crossing more 'lines' of flux in a given time.
Generators have to have 'relative motion' to induce emf from a magnetic
field. Transformers have to have a changing magnetic field.
Don Kelly
"Jack" <strang...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9698f553.0206...@posting.google.com...
> > Your source is simplistic -and somewhat misleading. - try going
beyond
> > that source -even if you don't go as far as Maxwell's equations.
>
> Sure, let's make this complicated.
>
>
> > The concept
> > of magnetic lines of force is convenient but they do no more than act as
a
> > visualisation of the direction (and to some extent, the strength) of
the
> > total magnetic field at any time. They don't actually exist. What does
exist
> > is a magnetic flux density at any given point which has a strength and
> > magnitude dependent on all sources (i.e. permanent or current carrying
> > conductors in the region as well as the presence and geometry of
magnetic
> > materials.
>
> Splitting hairs.
--------
Not really
---------
>
> > This will change the flux density and direction at any given
> > point- hence the distortion in comparison to the original fields
considered
> > individually. -because the field with all sources is not the same as a
> > simple sum of the fields with each source individually-It may be but
that is
> > dependent on the situation.
> > The visualisation is useful and the results of flux plotting methods may
be
> > best expressed in terms of a graphical or "lines of force" approach.
> > Certainly they have been applied in some flux plotting techniques (the
same
> > techniques may be applied to fluid flow or electrostatic fields) - but
the
> > basic relationships are determined through Maxwell's equations.
>
> Ok, boys and girls. What three factors influence the output of a
> standard generator or alternator?
>
> 1) The strength of the magnet, which determines the amount of change
> in the magnetic field through the conductor.
>
> 2) The number of turns in the armature.
>
> 3) The speed of the conductor passing through the magnetic field
>
> > They help
> > us visualise but that is all they are- a visualisation.
>
> So what actually happens has nothing to do with it?
-----------
The visualisation of the field in terms of lines of force doesn do anything
except give us a picture. I'm not saying that this picture is not useful but
I am saying that it is just a picture. A line in this pucture is simply
shows the direction of the field. A multiplicity of lines shows whether the
field is strong or weak. Useful but not directly quantitative. To find a
quantitative value from the lines one can do either a crude or a more
complex field analysis and from basic principles (yes it is back to Ampere
or one of Maxie's equations in the static case). The field strength is not
given by the "lines of force" that are drawn. The field itself is not a
visualisation. Whiel I do accept points 1 to 3, nothing I have said
conflicts with them. Certainly a pretty picture of "lines of force" doesn't
give the necessary information for item (1). Perhaps you are confused in
that in some systems of units the magnetic field intensity is expressed in
terms of "lines per square inch" which is just a name for a unit which is
defied in terms of other values.
Nice try. no cigar.
----------
> [snip]
>
> > Right- it will affect the voltage induced. The current will depend on
the
> > load and the voltage- not the flux per se.
>
> Absolutely. In a standard transformer, no load in the secondary coil
> will induce a back EMF in the primary coil, and a very small current
> will flow in the primary coil. Add a load to the secondary coil, and
> current will increase in both the primary and secondary coil.
---------------
How can no load or no current in the secondary induce an EMF in the
primary?. Unless there is a current in the secondary, the primary has no
way to even "know" if it exists.
Is this what your reference says? .
Remove the secondary and leave the primary- same back emf and same no load
or magnetising current. There will be a voltage induced in the secondary and
if a load is applied secondary current flows, cancelling some of the primary
ampere turns- oops- this means a reduced back emf and thus primary current
increases restoring the ampere turn balance and also the original back emf
(ignoring resitstance and leakage inductance) . Your explanation is a bit
off in principle but it is OK in the observed results. >
> > ------------
> > >
> > > > > How much 'power' does it take to alter a magnetic field in a
permanent
> > > > > magnet? Does that magnetic field snap back when one removes the
power
> > > > > used to alter it?
> > > > -------
> > > > Not a great deal but the result may wel be to turn the magnet into a
> > piece
> > > > of unmagnetised junk.. In this device the permanent magnet is not
cycled
> > to
> > > > the point where its flux is changed.
>
> So by your reasoning, standard electric motors and generators will
> fail before long due to the demagnetization of the magnets in them?
---------
NO I did not say or imply that. How do you get that idea? Even permanent
magnet motors do not extract energy from the magnets nor are these magnets
pushed to the point where they will demagnetise.If you extract energy from a
permanent magnet - you destroy its magnetism. It doesn't have much energy in
the first place.
In the case of DC motors, there will be rotor produced flux which will
increase the magnetisation at one side of the stator pole and decrease it at
the other producing, in general a net reduction in flux (armature reaction)
If the stator has permanent magnets this will also occur but the
demagnetising ampere turns are small enough that the pole flux is not
appreciably changed and will return to normal- the magnets are not pushed
past the top part of the flat-topped B-H curve.
> > ------------
> > Changing "Lines of force" cutting a coil will not produce current- they
will
> > produce an EMF E=d(N*phi) /dt which may in turn produce a current.
>
> Thanks for catching my misstatement. Right. A changing magnetic field
> will induce an EMF in a coil. See my explanation of secondary current
> above.
---------
Seen it- it is somewhat in error but correct in observed results.
------------------
>
> > I am not ignoring the field produced by the input coil. As for it
changing
> > the flux in the magnet - slightly but only slightly- and that only
because
> > the permanent magnet is not ideal. In such a situation any flux change
in
> > the left leg implies a corresponding flux change in the right leg and
little
> > or no change in the flux of the permanent magnet.
>
> It seems to work slightly differently than you would like to imagine.
> Here's a primer based on experimentation and observation:
> http://www.flynnresearch.net/Table_of_Contents.htm
>
> In fact, they had a patent for a device very similar to the inventors
> of the MEG BEFORE the MEG patent, and they contrast the differences:
>
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices.htm
>
> They also have a very nice side-by-side graphical comparison
> contrasting the change in flux of a standard transformer (no magnets),
> a transformer with one permanent magnet (like the MEG) and a
> transformer with two permanent magnets:
>
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices_2.h
tm
>
> Which do you think will be more efficient?
-----------
Nice graphics but no backing either mathematical or otherwise. I'll still
go with conservation of energy- until proven otherwise- this doesn't do that
but I will take a little time to go over it. Also there appears to be a
confusion , at first glance between increasing force and doing work.
Increasing force is easy -put two magnets together and they will hold more
than a single magnet. So? that doesn't mean that the magnets will do more
work it just means that the total magnetic field has stored energy in
excess of that of a single magnet. Stored- you can borrow it but must give
it back.
>
> > The permanent magnet contributes nothing.
>
> Nothing? Go back to the three factors which influence the output of a
> generator or an alternator?
-------------
True- the field is necessary for producing flux but that is all it does. I
should have said that the permanent magnet contributes nothing to the output
in this case.
The energy in a generator or alternator is supplied by the mechanical
driving source and this is converted, ignoring all losses to electrical
energy in the armature. The field contribues 0, nada,zip, to this energy.
This is true for a motor as well.
>
> > What you have is a poor
> > transformer.
>
> Okay. I get it. Faraday's observations have nothing to do with this.
-------------
The field of a permanent magnet is steady-it produces no d(phi)/dt in the
stationary winding. You can have an emf induced in a winding by a permanent
magnet (Faraday) but there has to be a relative motion. You can also have a
stationary system with a varying field and get an emf. That is waht we
have here- it is not a generator or motor.
------------
>
> > In fact if you replaced the magnet by a piece of the core
> > material the device would be an extremely lousy transformer.
>
> Remove the magnet, and you have a standard transformer. According to
> my reference, a standard transformer has an efficiency of > 97%.
-----------
True but a standard transformer doesnt have a magnetic shunt- essentially
all the primary flux links the secondary. That is a major factor in its
design. In this device the center part and the secondary path are in
parallel- shall I write the ampere turn and flux equations for you for this
case? Now, if you removed the magnet and didn't replace it, you would have a
decent transformer (maybe 95% -design is such that 97% or better is not
likely).
-------------
>
> > With the
> > permanent magnet- it is merely a poorly designed transformer.
>
> And Farady's experiences have nothing to do with it whatsoever? Why do
> you want so badly to call this a fraud?
---------------
You keep quoting Faraday but you are trying to misapply it. The motor
equations that you originally started with are not applicable. I also dealt
with that above. Unless there is a damned good deal of evidence and
reasoning that conservation of energy is violated, I will remain
unconvinced. This evidence is not on the Naudin site and Beardons' theory is
also very unconvincing. Also even a cursory analysis of the magnetic device
using well known principles of analysis indicates that it doesn't do what is
claimed. Fair enough?
---------------
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > As for the permanent magnet - if you provide a high enough mmf to
the
> > > > magnet, you can change its magnetization - typically you will
> > demagnetise
> > > > it.
>
> Let me get this straight. When you place one magnet near a second
> magnet, the second magnet will demagnetize the first magnet?
------------
read "IF" In some cases -yes. Ican demagnetise a permanent magnet quite
easily with coil and an current source- it is commonly done.
>
> > In this device the permanent magnets flux doesn't change- the
> > magnet
> > > > simply sits there.
>
> Let me get this straight. When you place one magnet near a second
> magnet, not only will it will it demagnetize the first magnet, it
> won't affect the flux? Try the old iron filing experiment, and get
> back to me.
------------
I didn't say this. Nor did I imply that. IF- and it depends on conditions,
one magnet can reduce or reverse the magnetisation of another, weaker
magnet. The geometry of the sitution and the B-H characteristics of the
magnets are of importance. If the reverse field applied to a magnet is high
enough, the magneit can be forced over the knee of the B-H curve - even down
to 0. If the permanent magnetis not pushed over the knee of the curve, it
will retain its magnetism. Note that the presence or lack of a magnetic
material in the region of the magneti can have an effect on its field
strength. Permanent magnets are made so that, without the presence of iron
in its vicinity, the gap between the poles is such as to prevent it from
naturally "going over the hump" and demagnetising. In the old days one
always used a "keeper" across a permanent magnet so that it would retain its
field strength.
-----
>
> > The change in flux in the remaining sections of the
> > core
> > > > depends on the connected exciting windings. The output is dependent
on
> > the
> > > > rate of change of the flux- the rate of change of the part of the
flux
> > > > produced by the permanent magnet is 0, Nada, Zilch. A normal
magnetic
> > > > circuit analysis confirms this.
>
> Back to basics....
---------
with which you seem to be having problems. It appears that you didn't
understand the above.
--------------------
---------
Flynn research does not seem put numbers on the results but I will look
again. What I have seen so far doesn 't make me want to buy shares. Now if
you have an electromagnet which acts in the same direction as the permanent
magnet, you may or may not increase the pole face flux density but you will
increase the effective ampere turns available - i.e. the field will be
stronger at a distance from the pole- just as it would be if you took two
permanent magnets aiding each other. No big deal here. The strength of the
maximum field alone is not the critical factor. The changing field is
critical. I said that before- basic theory 001
-------------------------
>
> >
> > As for equations 2, 3 - these also hold but one must separate the AC and
DC
> > components. The permanent magnet simply produces a "DC" bias which,
unless
> > saturation is involved or the permanent magnet is overdriven (and
killed)
> > has no effect on the AC relationships. The magnet core simply acts to
shunt
> > some of the AC flux so that, in general, the ratio of the voltages in
input
> > and output are not Nleft/Nright but are something less than that- i.e. a
> > lousy transformer. The greater the variation of the flux in the center,
the
> > poorer the transformer will be an "off the top of the head gut feel
(based
> > on experience and theory)analysis."
>
> Okay. So if I replace the magnets in a generator with stronger
> magnets, it will actually reduce the output? I have to laugh. Perhaps
> you should go back and look at your theory/analysis.
--------------
No- you should read what I said. This is not a generator. I am just
analysing a rather simple magnetic circuit - you keep trying to bring in the
moving coil machine- a different device altogether.
A stronger magnet in a generator will increase the output- I don't deny
that- Note that this is not a generator with a winding in motion in a
field. It is the case of a winding stationary with respect to a field which
has both steady and time varying parts- the time varying part is the part
which produces a voltage. The steady part does not.
Don't try to apply an expression for a rotating machine to a stationary
device. How much does a generator produce with any constant strength of
magnet if the rotor is not turning? There are several ways of looking at
Faraday E=d(N*phi)/dt
one is N varying( uncommon) and another is phi varying with time In the
latter there are two possibilities - Phi constant an the winding moving
(speed voltage) or the winding fixed and flux Phi varying with time
(transformer voltage). The device under consideration is the latter. The
generator is the speed voltage case.
------------
> [snip]
> > My opinion, regarding the science in this , is unprintable.
>
> After looking at the flaws in your "science"(?), you might rethink
> that opinion.
----------
No, but I should, if I were you, read some other book than the reference you
quoted earlier. I do not see where you have caught flaws -what you have
seen as flaws appear to be a lack of understanding on your part. If you can
point out a real flaw in this rough analysis, please do so- if I have made a
mistake, then I will admit it. So far, it appears that you do not have the
background knowledge to do so.
Don Kelly
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0FqU8.83503$uk2.33...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
------------------snip--------------------
> Here I think Don may have missed the detail that the input coils are *not*
> wound on the main core. They are in fact on small cores of their own
> mounted at right-angles to the main flux path in the main core (the
> 'cross-flux' position of MEG 3). With this arrangement, no appreciable
flux
> from the input coils 'cuts' the output coils. The only flux cutting the
> output coils is from the permanent magnet.
>
> The input coils only serve to saturate a local portion of the main core.
In
> doing so, the input coil flux effectively 'pinches off' the flux of the
> permanent magnet preventing it from dividing equally between the two
> magnetic paths. Instead, most of it is diverted to the path whose input
> coil is off.
-----------------------
Thanks for the correction- I may have been looking at an earlier MEG (on the
Naudin site) without this feature or had completely missed this feature. I
agree with your analysis.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
-----------snip-------------------
>
Don Kelly
"Don Kelly" <dh...@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:erSU8.117652$Lf2.8...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
After a night's sleep, I have again looked at Daestrom's comments and would
like to give a little better answer than the hasty one I sent last night. I
still agree with your analysis but I do find that I did consider the device
correctly- coming from another approach.
I have looked again- it was the MEG 3 that I was addressing. Your way of
expressing it is different than mine but the result is the same. I still
agree.
However, I note that saturation was explicitly a NO-NO in the article on
this device. If you use the NI loop equations that I gave as well as the
flux balance that I gave, and for the sake of simplicity, assume that the
magnetic path is at least piecewise linear about the bias point set by the
magnet- then an approximation can be made by use of superposition.
phileft +phimanget=Phiright (true even if non-linear) can be broken down to
(phileftac -phimagnet/2)+phimanget=(phirightac+phimangnet/2)
taking time derivatives d(phileftac)/dt =d(phirightac)/dt and that is all
that is going on- the permanent magnet bias has no effect. In fact the bias
will affect linearity but, as you have pointed out, the situation will
effectively be the same with saturation. In addition the permanent magnet's
flux is not quite constant and this will reduce the effectiveness of the
device. I still find it a lousy transformer.
I have also looked at the Flynn site- nothing new or exciting here. I do
note that Flynn is confused (deliberately?) about the difference between
power and force. Your (Daestrom's) comments throughout have been very well
presented and expressed.. Thank you.
daestrom
> After a night's sleep, I have again looked at Daestrom's comments and
would
> like to give a little better answer than the hasty one I sent last night.
I
> still agree with your analysis but I do find that I did consider the
device
> correctly- coming from another approach.
> I have looked again- it was the MEG 3 that I was addressing. Your way of
> expressing it is different than mine but the result is the same. I still
> agree.
I noticed on the Naudin site a link to another individual's experimentation
with MEG.
http://www.execpc.com/~mbauer/meg.html
On the 12/16/00 entry he states, "The output didn't change with the magnet
in the core or when it was out. So no permanent magnet flux switching
occurred......"
So there is at least one direct experiment that counters the free-energy
claims.
> However, I note that saturation was explicitly a NO-NO in the article on
> this device. If you use the NI loop equations that I gave as well as the
> flux balance that I gave, and for the sake of simplicity, assume that the
> magnetic path is at least piecewise linear about the bias point set by the
> magnet- then an approximation can be made by use of superposition.
> phileft +phimanget=Phiright (true even if non-linear) can be broken down
to
> (phileftac -phimagnet/2)+phimanget=(phirightac+phimangnet/2)
> taking time derivatives d(phileftac)/dt =d(phirightac)/dt and that is all
> that is going on- the permanent magnet bias has no effect. In fact the
bias
> will affect linearity but, as you have pointed out, the situation will
> effectively be the same with saturation. In addition the permanent
magnet's
> flux is not quite constant and this will reduce the effectiveness of the
> device. I still find it a lousy transformer.
Well I agree that phleft+phimagnet=phiright. No problem with that. But if
the input coils don't saturate the main core locally, how is the cross-flux
design supposed to work? Since the input coils are on separate cores, and
these cores share a small section of the main core, I'm not sure how the
field from the permanent magnet and the input coil would interact to vary
phileft/phiright. I *assumed* it was by saturating the main core and thus
lowering its permiability.
If not saturation, is it possible the input coil flux is simply 'pushing'
the permanent magnet flux so it can only 'flow' in a smaller cross-section
on the side with the active input coil?
The Cross-flux design:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg4cf.htm
daestrom
Don Kelly
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qsoV8.96499$uk2.37...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
-----------
The diagram I saw was a 3 legged core with the magnet providing the centre
core. That diagram is the basis for what I said. (It is the MEG3) If enough
mmf is added to the left leg to counter the magnet's mmf then the flux in
that leg is 0 but the magnets flux is not changed so there is an increase in
the flux in the right leg.
I would have
NIleft -HL left =NImagnet (1)
NIright -HL right =Ni magnet (2)
phileft +phi magnet +phi right =0 (3)
This is on the basis of all phi into the junction and +NI in the direction
to produce into the node flux
Then as the magnet is essentially a constant flux (current source analog)
whe can assume NI magnet can vary (and will- the operating point will shift
back and forth on the top of the magnet's B-H curve)
If NIleft =NImagnet then the flux in that leg of the core will be 0. However
phimagnet is still the same so 0 +phimagnet +phi right =0. That is what I
assume you meant earlier.
The rest follows.
Having said that I then looked at your reference below which is the MEG4
while I was looking at the MEG3. which is as above. The performance data for
the Meg3 is what I had originally questioned. I note that the MEG 4
information consists only of artwork - pretty but there is nothing to
indicate that this is what is happening. The cross-flux idea appears to have
a separate core for the cross flux such that ideally there is no linkage
between it and the main core. The pretty pictures show changes in the flux
which don't make sense.
------------
> If not saturation, is it possible the input coil flux is simply 'pushing'
> the permanent magnet flux so it can only 'flow' in a smaller cross-section
> on the side with the active input coil?
--------
It appears that may be a factor if anything can be made from the pictures
but also note that the PM flux density varies quite a bit- so I am very
sceptical about this active diagram of the flux patterns along with the
complete absence of any test data such as was given for the MEG3. Sure a
cross flux idea has worked -in rotating machines such as the amplidyne but
here the windings do appear decoupled so the apparent coupling is suspect.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
>