User:PaulLowrance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My interests[edit]

I have an interest in working on what most would consider the impossible. Over the past years I've tried to create technology that use ambient thermal energy as a source of energy, which violates 2LoT (2nd law of thermodynamics). Initially this started out testing diodes, which regardless of how much metal shielding the diodes were placed in, the diodes continued to produce DC current & voltage across a load, even in rural areas under ground. This has been verified by various scientists, some with PhD's. This led to my discover of an unknown effect, which shows the diodes are highly sensitive to their ability to produce the DC current & voltage. Even the slightest electrical or heat disturbance to the diodes prevents them from producing the DC current & voltage. After taking measurements on numerous diodes, a pattern began to form. It appeared as if the diodes *stabilized* DC current while *undisturbed* was ~ 10pA DC. BTW, one must use equipment with ultra high input resistance to detect the voltage from most diodes, otherwise the meter shunts most of the voltage. If you're looking for an inexpensive meter, try the AM-240 (AM240) for $40. I have no affiliation with that company. :-) If you know of another meter, then please let me know and I'll add it.

A EE and also a PhD physicists, both by profession, confirmed my measurements & claims about highly shielded & undisturbed diodes & piezos producing DC current & voltage. After confirming this, the EE created a test that consisted of using the diode to charge a piezo element, which he would use to analyze the piezos growth in size, an effect well known about piezo elements. To his surprise, he discovered that the piezo element itself produced DC voltage, and later on discovered it also produces measurable DC current. Actually, this is a rediscovery, as various others have measured the same effect. So I went to Radio shack and bought a piezo element. To my amazement, the piezo produced over 0.4 volts.

The records so far is 0.36 volts for a single diode, and 5.5 volts for a single piezo element. One long term experiment has a piezo element flashing a red LED about 1 to 2 times per day. I would guesstimate that the flash is bright enough to see in a dark room ~ a few hundred yards away. Extremely caution must be taken to not disturb the piezo element.

Somewhere in-between testing diodes I took several breaks, began designing magnetic devices in an attempt to capture ambient thermal energy without macro temperature gradients. The premise is that at a microscopic scale particles are vibrating and contain significant energy (ambient thermal energy), in totality sustained by solar energy.


My home page is http://globalfreeenergy.info/




Possible new effect[edit]

It is know that the hysteresis loop becomes squarer when magnetic cores are compressed perpendicular to the direction of the applied field polarization. This effect is showing very interesting characteristics in regards to my "Tiny Orbo Replication." The cores effective permeability is higher when the magnet is closest to the core at TDC (top dead center). When the magnet moves away from the toroid, the effective permeability is nearly zero. What is interesting is this creates a gain in inductance energy along with a gain in mechanical gain (because the magnet is attracted to the core as they move toward each other). Sean, from Steorn, is inventor of the Orbo, but it appears Steorn was unaware of this toroid compression effect. Steorn claims the Orbo produces excess energy. Perhaps the toroid compression effect is another demonstration of excess energy.

In an ideal experiment, if the effective permeability decreases, then theoretically the current should increase. My scope analysis shows such an increased current effect. In fact, the current was seen to rise by well over 5 times the current as the magnet quickly moved away from the toroid.

The following well known mathematical equation shows why the toroid current increases as the magnet quickly moves away. Magnetic field energy is,

E = 1/2 * B^2 * V / u

where B is the magnetic field strength, V is the volume, and u is permeability. Oscilloscope measurements clearly shows that when the magnet moves away, the permeability decreases (opposite of what is commonly expected) due to the compressed toroid effect. According to the well known above equation, as permeability, u, decreases, the field energy, E, increases. The reason being is that it takes more current to produce the same magnetic field strength. Technically speaking, the reason the current increases is because the toroid expects more current for the core field. IOW, it takes more current in a core with lower permeability to produce the same equivalent magnetic field within the core. So the core expects more current when the core permeability is lower for the same core field. I have verified this numerous times over the years.





Simple mathematical evidence[edit]

Recently I believe to have discovered a simple mathematical model that proves so-called over-unity or excess energy. Such mathematical proof is based on my magnetic switch designs, which are shown to use Metglas magnetic core material, and is based on measurements. Consider a coil wound magnetic toroid appreciably separated from a magnet. The magnet, pointing toward the toroid, applies a magnetic field on the toroid. The magnetic field is relative to , where r is the distance between the magnet and toroid. The magnetic field produced by the toroid, due to the magnet, is relative to . Therefore, the magnetic field on the magnet produced by the toroid is relative . The total energy from moving the magnet far away to a separation distance of r is thus relative to . As r doubles, the gained energy is 32 times less. Please integrate the equation to see. IOW, if the magnet moves twice as close to the toroid, then the gain in energy (due to the attraction between magnet & toroid) increases 32 times. It takes the same energy to pull the magnet back away from the toroid to its starting position, but if we sufficiently saturate the toroid core by means of current flowing through the toroid coil, then the attraction between the magnet and toroid appreciably vanishes. Please note there is no point where a core is 100% saturated on average over time, due to ambient thermal energy. Of course it takes energy to sufficiently saturate the core. Measurements on Metglas MAGAMP cores indicate that twice the magnetic field on the toroid requires twice the current. The magnetic field on the toroid from the magnet is relative to . Thus the coil current is relative to . Therefore, moving the magnet twice as close to toroid requires 8 times the coil current, and thus according to measurements requires times more energy. Consider two examples. Example 1, the magnet moves from far away to a separation distance of 2r, then sufficiently saturates the core, then moves the magnet back away again. Example 2, same as example 1, except the magnet moves to a separation distance of r. Note, for the sake of simplifying the mathematics, the size of the magnet & toroid are appreciably small relative to the separation distance. In example 2 the mechanical energy gain (output) is 32 times greater than example 1, but example 2 requires 64 times as much electrical energy (input). Therefore, example 1 efficiency is twice example 2. Each time the separation distance (the closest the magnet moves toward the toroid) is doubled in the design, the efficiency doubles; e.g., 25%, 50% 100%, 200%, etc. This is mathematical proof that something very odd is occurring, that indicates over-unity or excess energy. While ignoring losses such as from electrical wire resistance (Joule heating), the math indicates that a design is more efficient when the magnet and toroid are farther apart. That's great when using superconducting wires, but that's presently unrealistic. Using copper wires has appreciable electrical resistance. For each design, there would be an optimum separation distance.

Indeed there’s something very odd occurring. The above two examples considers a worst case scenario, where all of the energy that goes into saturating the core is lost. Real measurements on these experiments using Metglas MAGAMP cores show that roughly all of the inductance energy that goes into saturating the core can be captured back. That places a completely different spin on the problem. So we have an issue when considering real experiments that show the inductance energy is not lost, but can be captured back. In order to properly compare two examples, the input energy from inductance in both examples needs to be the same. Therefore consider the following two examples. Note, once again for the sake of simplifying the mathematics, the size of the magnet & toroid are appreciably small relative to the separation distance. Example 1, a magnet with a volume of 1X moves from a far away distance to a separation distance of 1r, the toroid is saturated, the core moves away. Example 2, a magnet with a volume of 8X moves from a far away distance to a separation distance of 2r, the toroid is saturated, the core moves away. In example 2 the magnet has 8 times the volume as in example 1, but in example 1 the magnet moves twice as close to the toroid. So the magnetic field from the magnet on the toroid is the same in both examples. Therefore, the input energy into the toroid inductance is the same in both examples. Even though the input energy is the same, the output energy (from moving the magnets as they are attracted to the toroid) in example 2 is twice as example 1. This is seen in the following integrals. Example 1: . Example 2: . The in example 2 is because the magnet has 8 times the volume, which produces a magnetic field 8 times the strength on the toroid, which means the field on the magnet from the toroid is 8 times as great. Since the field on the magnet from the toroid is 8 times as great, and there's 8 times as much material, the attraction force between the magnet and toroid is thus times greater. The integral of example 2 is twice as example 1. The results from comparing both examples shows that the *efficiency* doubles when the magnet moves to a separation distance that is twice as far away from the toroid.


Has the Universe provided a loophole, a doorway to excess energy? It appears to be the case.





Possible solid-state excess energy design[edit]

I'm still reconfirming my device that is based on my magnetic theory. The device consists of two magnetic cores. One magnetic core is a common ferrite core that is cut in half. The other core is the key to success, a MAGAMP core, part number MP1903P4AS, made by Metglas. The Metglas MAGAMP has the highest known permeability of any commercial core, over 1 million. It is exceptionally non-linear. The MP1903P4AS core comes encased inside a hard plastic casing that is split in two down the middle. The top half is removed, where the metallic core sits exposed inside the bottom half of the plastic casing. The metallic MP1903P4AS core is momentarily removed from the bottom casing so the edges around the plastic casing are shaved down on two ends. The two ends will not be wound with enameled coated copper wire (magnet wire). The two ends are free from wire and plastic casing so the ferrite core can fit on top without air gaps. This allows the half ferrite core to fit on top of the MP1903P4AS toroid, which increase the ferrite cores effective permeability by a significant amount. The inductance of the cores is meaningless for this setup because of the exceptionally non-linearity characteristics of the Metglas MAGAMP core. Although the resistance is 0.80 ohms for the ferrite core, and 0.42 ohms for the MP1903P4AS core. The wire gauge used is 26 AWG. The MP1903P4AS core has two windings, which are connected to each other in-series, and therefore are essentially one coil. The reason for two windings is to leave a space in the middle so the ferrite core can fit tightly against the MP1903P4AS metallic core. Both of the MP1903P4AS cores are wound in the same rotational direction so their inductance adds up, not subtracts. So you can envision a wound toroid with an empty slot down the entire middle. First the ferrite core is pulsed. Then the Metglas MAGAMP core is pulsed immediately after. Across both coils is a diode that goes to a capacitor to collect the energy from the collapsing magnetic field. The timing & amount of current in each toroid is critical. The ferrite core current should be kept low enough so that it does not significantly saturate the MP1903P4AS core. The MP1903P4AS core current should not be high enough such that it does not significantly reduce the effective permeability of the ferrite core. The LTSpice circuit is -->

Version 4 SHEET 1 880 680 WIRE -816 48 -832 48 WIRE -832 128 -928 128 WIRE -784 128 -832 128 WIRE -784 144 -784 128 WIRE -752 144 -784 144 WIRE -448 144 -464 144 WIRE 192 144 -160 144 WIRE -928 208 -928 192 WIRE -832 208 -928 208 WIRE -784 208 -832 208 WIRE -752 208 -784 208 WIRE -432 208 -464 208 WIRE -416 208 -432 208 WIRE -320 208 -336 208 WIRE -160 208 -160 144 WIRE -32 208 -160 208 WIRE 80 208 -32 208 WIRE -160 240 -160 208 WIRE -32 240 -32 208 WIRE 80 240 80 208 WIRE -848 272 -864 272 WIRE -752 272 -784 272 WIRE -432 272 -432 208 WIRE -432 272 -464 272 WIRE -912 336 -912 320 WIRE -752 336 -784 336 WIRE -448 336 -464 336 WIRE 144 336 144 304 WIRE 240 336 224 336 WIRE 240 368 240 336 WIRE -160 384 -160 320 WIRE -128 384 -160 384 WIRE -32 384 -32 320 WIRE -32 384 -64 384 WIRE -16 384 -32 384 WIRE 80 384 80 320 WIRE 80 384 48 384 WIRE -752 400 -784 400 WIRE -448 400 -464 400 WIRE -912 432 -912 416 WIRE -160 432 -160 384 WIRE 80 432 80 384 WIRE -784 464 -800 464 WIRE -752 464 -784 464 WIRE -448 464 -464 464 WIRE -96 512 -112 512 WIRE 144 512 128 512 WIRE -752 528 -784 528 WIRE -368 528 -368 464 WIRE -368 528 -464 528 WIRE -352 528 -368 528 WIRE -256 528 -272 528 WIRE -160 544 -160 528 WIRE 80 544 80 528 WIRE 80 544 -160 544 WIRE 192 544 80 544 FLAG -912 432 0 FLAG -912 320 V+ FLAG -784 528 0 FLAG -448 144 V+ FLAG -816 48 V+ FLAG -784 208 Trig FLAG -784 464 Trig FLAG -864 464 0 FLAG -864 272 0 FLAG -784 400 Out1 FLAG -448 464 Out2 FLAG -448 400 V+ FLAG -384 336 0 FLAG -784 336 V+ FLAG -320 208 V+ FLAG -96 512 Out1 FLAG 192 544 0 FLAG 144 512 Out2 FLAG 144 224 Out1 FLAG -256 528 Trig2 FLAG -368 400 0 FLAG 144 400 0 FLAG 192 144 V+ FLAG 240 432 Trig2 SYMBOL Misc\\battery -912 320 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 0 8 24 Left 0 WINDOW 3 8 90 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 13V SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m Cpar=10p SYMBOL Misc\\TLC556 -608 240 R0 WINDOW 0 -3 103 Center 0 WINDOW 3 -2 128 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U1 SYMATTR SpiceLine VDD=9V RONX=1.0 SYMBOL res -816 32 M0 WINDOW 3 34 66 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 33K SYMBOL res -816 112 M0 WINDOW 0 30 44 Left 0 WINDOW 3 17 78 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1Meg SYMBOL diode -912 128 M0 WINDOW 0 14 68 Left 0 WINDOW 3 -35 93 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName D1 SYMATTR Value 1N914 SYMBOL cap -800 448 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 2.2n SYMBOL cap -784 256 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName C2 SYMATTR Value 0.1µ SYMBOL cap -448 320 M90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName C3 SYMATTR Value 0.1µ SYMBOL res -320 192 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 3.3K SYMBOL nmos -112 432 M0 WINDOW 0 -27 32 Left 0 WINDOW 3 57 71 VLeft 0 SYMATTR InstName M1 SYMATTR Value irf540n SYMATTR Prefix X SYMBOL ind -176 224 R0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value "" SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.80 Rpar=100Meg Cpar=0 SYMBOL nmos 128 432 M0 WINDOW 0 -29 29 Left 0 WINDOW 3 57 84 VLeft 0 SYMATTR InstName M2 SYMATTR Value irf540n SYMATTR Prefix X SYMBOL ind 96 224 M0 SYMATTR InstName L2 SYMATTR Value "" SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=0.42 Rpar=100Meg Cpar=0 SYMBOL schottky -128 400 R270 WINDOW 0 32 32 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 -2 41 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName D2 SYMATTR Value 1N5404 SYMATTR Description Diode SYMATTR Type diode SYMBOL res 128 208 R0 WINDOW 0 31 52 Left 0 WINDOW 3 31 50 Invisible 0 SYMATTR InstName R5 SYMATTR Value "" SYMBOL res -256 512 R90 WINDOW 0 -18 27 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 -23 29 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R6 SYMATTR Value 3.78K SYMBOL schottky 48 400 M270 WINDOW 0 32 32 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 -1 29 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName D3 SYMATTR Value 1N5404 SYMATTR Description Diode SYMATTR Type diode SYMBOL Digital\\inv 304 368 R90 WINDOW 0 25 74 VRight 0 SYMATTR InstName A1 SYMBOL Misc\\battery -32 336 R180 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 0 8 24 Left 0 WINDOW 3 8 90 Invisible 0 SYMATTR InstName V2 SYMATTR Value 13V SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=10m Cpar=10p SYMBOL res 240 320 R90 WINDOW 0 0 50 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 21 45 Invisible 0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMBOL cap 128 336 R0 WINDOW 0 29 46 Left 0 WINDOW 3 24 64 Invisible 0 SYMATTR InstName C5 SYMBOL cap -384 400 R0 WINDOW 0 20 19 Left 0 WINDOW 3 18 52 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName C6 SYMATTR Value 10n TEXT -784 88 Left 0 ;V1 & V2 are charged 1500uF capacitors TEXT -272 72 Left 0 ;Set R4, R5, & C5 so Out2 pulse starts\nright after Out1 pulse ends. Values will\nvary depending on A1 (CMOS inverter).






Nine Excess Energy designs[edit]

The following 9 designs, in FEMM, are based on the premise of changing the cores effective permeability. Such designs acts as a magnetic switch if you will.


Excess energy design 3 - design c3b - pr a.gif

I'll outline one of these designs, as this applies to all 9 of these designs.


Mode A: First, by means of a coil the large core is magnetized (not saturated). During this magnetization the small inner core coil is off (no current). Next, apply sufficiently current through the small inner core coil to sufficiently decrease to effective permeability. This greatly decreases the effective permeability of the small inner core, and therefore the effective permeability of the larger core also decreases since it relies on the effective permeability of the small inner core; e.g., if we complete remove the small inner core, then there's an air gap in the large core. The end result is that there's excess energy.

Mode B: Large core *must* have high magnetic viscosity. Small core *must* have low magnetic viscosity. First, the small core is magnetized near saturation. Next, the large core is magnetized. Next, the energy contained in the small core is *rapidly* captured, thus resulting in no current in the small coil. Next, energy contained in the large core is captured at a normal rate.


The small magnetic core could be a Metglas core with ultra high permeability and low magnetic viscosity. Try the longitudinally annealed, and also the transversely annealed. The large core should have high magnetic viscosity.


Excess energy design 3 - design c3b - pr b.gif


Excess energy design 3 - design c - pr.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c3 - pr.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c4 - proof.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c5 - proof.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c2 - proof.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c5b - proof.gif



Excess energy design 3 - design c3b - pr c.gif





Three examples[edit]

The following consists of some of my magnetic designs.



Magnetic based excess energy design #1:

Excess-energy-design-1.gif

Requirements: The magnetic material ***must*** have high magnetic viscosity (magnetic lag). The type of magnetic viscosity must be microscopic magnetic viscosity, such as microscopic eddy currents caused by magnetic avalanches (Barkhausen effect). To reduce losses, large scale eddy currents should be reduce as much as possible. A laminated iron core qualifies for both requirements, where the laminated core prevents large scale eddy currents. Another option, perhaps better, is ferrofluid. Ferrofluids are known for high magnetic viscosity. Certain types of ferrofluids can have extraordinarily high magnetic viscosity. Certain types of ferrofluids have high coercivity, and significant losses, which are not recommended for this design.


Step #1: The first stage consists of magnetizing all rods in the same polarity such that they would magnetically attract if they were near each other. There's no hurry here. Magnetizing the rods too fast is inefficient. Also, it is important that both rods be magnetize to roughly the same magnetic field strength. You can use a magnetic field meter to measure the field at both ends of each rod to verify the field strengths are close.

Step #2: Remove the voltage source from the rods, to be replaced with an appropriate load. Begin moving the rods together so they form a longer rod. It is *extremely important* that the rods move toward each other *faster than the magnetic material can appreciably react*. That is why the rods *must* have high magnetic viscosity. Such magnetic viscosity is one of two keys behind capturing ambient thermal energy by means of magnetic materials. For this reason, prior to making the Excess Energy Design #1, some tests should be conducted to verify how fast the rods must move into full alignment to form one rod. A small air gap between each rod is acceptable. Tests should be conducted to see how long it takes the magnetic field to collapse by only 5%. If it takes 1ms for the cores to collapse 5%, then that's how much time the rods have to move into full alignment to form a longer rod.

Step #3: Give the rods sufficient time to allow the magnetic field to completely collapse. This time may be longer than you think, but the time depends on the particular magnetic material. Over time, Ambient thermal energy will increase the magnetic disorder. As a starting point, try 0.1 seconds just to be safe.

Step #4: Move the rods away from each other to the starting position. There is no required speed this time. After the rods are in their original positions, wait a bit, around 0.1 seconds just to be safe. After you verify that it's producing excess energy, then you can decrease the wait time for each step.



Magnetic based excess energy design #2:

Excess-energy-design-2.gif

Reguirements: Both permanent magnets (black material in animation) ***must*** have high magnetic viscosity. Also, equally important, the speed at which the PM's are move toward each other must be faster than the magnetic viscosity such that the magnetic field from the PM's should not change more than ~ 5% (of what they would normally change when given enough time) while the two PM's move toward each other, and of course the load must be engaged in time.

Both PM's are made of the same magnetic material. If the PM's have low resistivity, then lamination is recommended.


Step #1: Both coils are open circuit.


Step #2: Still open circuit. PM's are rapidly moved toward each other. You can move just one PM if you like. Again, the time from start to finish must be extremely fast. See Excess Energy design #1 for details.


Step #3: Once the PM's stop, immediate engage the loads to start collecting the energy. The PM's will drop in field strength, depending on coercivity, which is a good thing here. Use the load that captures the most energy.


Step #4: Move the two PM's apart as fast as possible. Again, same issue as Step #2. The total time from moving the PM's apart should be significantly less than the magnetic viscosity.



Magnetic based excess energy design #3:

Excess-energy-design-3.gif

This is a top view of the cores. There are two different types of magnetic cores in the above design. The left U shaped core is high magnetic viscosity, such as laminated carbon steel. The right U shaped core is low magnetic viscosity. There's a small air gap between both cores. According to FEMM, the air gap helps in matching the permeability differences between both cores, if there's a difference.

There are four coils in this design. The left U core has two coils, and the right U core has two coils. The image is considered a slice across the core so you can see the magnetic fields involved.

In the animation the coils are either red or blue. Red represents a voltage source. Blue represents a load.

Step 1: Apply voltage in all coils. The coil polarities are setup such that the magnetic field produced by both cores will repel.

Step 2: The voltage sources on both cores are removed and replace with a load. The right U core will flip considerably faster due to low magnetic viscosity. The load on the right U core is high enough such that the right core magnetic field will flip fast enough before the high viscosity core (left U core) changes much.

Step 4: Wait long enough for the fields to collapse, and the magnetic material to recover.


It's possible that a Metglas AMCC-320 core (half of it) would work for the right U core (low viscosity), but tests would have be performed to verify this.

The left U core could be made from MIG welding wire, carbon steel. It shouldn't be too thin. Cut the MIG wires to size, and bend to form a U shape. Then paint. Then glue together to form the final laminated carbon steel core.


The following circuit is for the completed self-running excess energy design #3, the solid-state design -->

Excess-energy-design-3h-all-photo.gif

The capacitor, C1, should be large enough so that the current pulse through the coils does not appreciably drain the capacitors by too much. Capacitors C2 & C3 don't have to be as large. Depending upon how much current goes through the coils depends how many coil turns, but C1 may need to be as high as 40000uF, a large capacitor. Although C1 should be as low as possible to keep the losses as low as possible.

The 1N5404 diodes have a peak reverse breakdown of 400V. You'll need that kind of breakdown voltage. Although the 1N5404 are not Schottky diodes! I have not searched for an appropriate Schottky diode, but it is highly recommended that you use a Schottky diode to reduce losses and improve the diode switching speed.

In this Spice circuit design I used part number SGS5N150UFTU for the IGBT because of its high breakdown voltage of 1500V. That is obviously an over kill because the 1N5404 diode, which has breakdown of 400V. At a future time I'll find a better matched IGBT & diode part numbers. You could find a Schottky diode near 1500V, and then you could use higher voltages, or you could find another IGBT that has lower breakdown so long as it's a better IGBT (faster and/or higher current).

You could use MOSFET's instead of IGBT's.

The IGBT's or MOSFET's may need a driver. The TLC555 timer output is not the best. TLC555 output doesn't have much driving power, nor is it a fast switch. So that's another detail that could be improved.

R2, the 30Mohm resistor controls the duration from pulse to pulse for the timer, and could obviously be adjusted, but at first it's best to make it close to 30Mohms. If there's a problem with the circuit, a short or whatever, then you don't want to be pumping too much power into the components. So R2 merely controls how many pulses per second. Eventually you could lower it, but make sure you give ambient thermal energy sufficient time to do its thing.

The capacitors C1, C2, & C3 should obviously be charged before starting the circuit. Although, if you want, you could only charge C1, and then run the circuit for a bit to allow the circuit to automatically charge C2 & C3. Depending on D1, D2, & the IGBT's, a good start for the above circuit would be to charge C1 to about 3 volts and C2 & C3 to about 350 volts. Obviously C1 will discharge while C2 & C3 charges.

The above circuit is for the final self-running machine. Before building the above circuit, you should omit the the two parts of the circuit to make it easy to debug and fine-tune. Here is the circuit you should use first -->

Excess-energy-design-3h-photo.gif

The above circuit omits to the small circuits that contain switches. This will decrease the losses, and therefore could make the difference between detecting excess energy and not. So what you would do is *manually* measure the voltage on C1, C2, & C3. Then run the machine with the above simplified circuit for a few seconds or so, then quickly measure the voltage on C1, C2, & C3 again. Calculate the total energy before and after. The only reason you would not use the above simplified circuit first is if your voltage meter input resistance is less than 10Mohms. If it's less than 10Mohms then it could be too difficult to quickly measure the voltage on the capacitors because the voltage meter will discharge the caps too fast. I highly recommend the AM240 digital multimeter by Amprobe!!! It's input resistance is outrageously high, well above 10000Mohms! It just purchased one for $40. It's an amazing DMM. So if your voltage meter input resistance is less than 10Mohms, then you may as well build the complete circuit (first circuit), the self-running circuit.

The energy stored in a capacitor is --> E = 0.5 * C * V^2 where E is the energy stored in the capacitor in Joules, C is the capacitance in farads, and V is the capacitors voltage. So measure the energy in both capacitors before and after running the machine to see if the net energy increased.

Switches S1 & S2 should be low resistance solid-state switches. If time permits, I'll find a part number.

The windings for the low & high magnetic viscosity cores could be critical. My advice is *not* to wrap the copper windings to close to the core-- Leave a gap. Also, try to make the windings as short (width wise), and as close to the short gap (the gap between both cores) as possible, but the windings should not be too short, otherwise the losses from the copper wire resistance will be too high.

As you see there are four IGBT's paralleled. They are paralleled to decrease the resistance. This will help so long as the net IGBT capacitance is low enough and able to switch faster than the low magnetic viscosity can keep up with. You can do the same for the diode D1. That is, you can parallel more D1 diodes to decrease the net forward voltage, but again the net capacitance increases.

One requirement is that the magnetic field produced by the low & magnetic viscosity core be the same. To test this, first you need to know how much current the circuit produces in each coil (L1, L2). So current in L1 is X1 amps, and L2 is X2 amps. Next, separate the coils. Then pump X1 amps through L1 core and measure the magnetic field at the face of the core (where the gap would be). Then test the other core, pump X2 amps through L2 core and measure the magnetic field at the face of the core. The magnetic field *must* be as close as possible. If the magnetic field in L1 & L2 are different, then you'll need to either add or subtract more windings to one or both of the coils. Then rest again. Repeat until the magnetic fields are equal.





Magnetic viscosity measurements[edit]

My magnetic viscosity measurements: taken from January 2009


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Material type: Ferrite - non permanent magnet.

Permeability: Unknown. Probably the typical 125 permeability ferrite rod loopstick material.

Material shape: rod. 2 inches long. 0.4 inches diameter.

Total windings: Unknown. A wild guess is 100 turns.

Peak current prior to open-circuit: 0.22 amps

Core saturation percentage: Unknown. The core was most likely far from being saturated.

Magnetic viscosity: 0.5us for the field to decay 50%


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Core type: Wire-laminated carbon steel rod.

Material shape: 2.05" long, 0.31" diameter.

Total windings: Unknown. A wild guess is 70 turns.

Core saturation percentage: Unknown.

Magnetic viscosity: 20us @ 11.2 amps for full decay

Magnetic viscosity: 25us @ 24.7 amps for full decay


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Core type: Ferrite rod - non permanent magnet.

Material shape: rod. 2 inches long. 0.4 inches diameter.

Total windings: Unknown. A wild guess is 100 turns.

Core saturation percentage: Unknown.

Magnetic viscosity: 3.2us @ 7.6 amps for full decay

Magnetic viscosity: 3.5us @ 17.2 amps for full decay


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Core type: Metglas AMCC-320, Magnetic Alloy 2605SA1, nanocrystalline & amorphous..

Material shape: Two U-shape cores face to face. Closed loop. 5.08" long by 3.11" wide.

Total windings: 23 turns

Pick-up coil: Just 1 turn! Nearly zero capacitance.

Core saturation percentage: Nearly 100%

Magnetic viscosity: 60us @ 7.2 amps for full decay


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Core type: Metglas AMCC-320, Magnetic Alloy 2605SA1, nanocrystalline & amorphous..

Material shape: Two U-shape cores face to face, but separated by 0.7" (1.8cm)-- an air gap. See previous post for core dimensions (close loop core).

Total windings: 23 turns

Pick-up coil: Just 1 turn! Nearly zero capacitance.

Core saturation percentage: Unknown.

Magnetic viscosity: 0.3us for full decay. I did not bother testing the current. The short duration of 0.3us is so low that it could be due to parallel capacitance.


Test: Magnetic viscosity.

Core type: Piece of natural magnetite..

Material shape: It's somewhat round, but slightly longer in one direction. It's about 1.3" diameter.

Total windings: ~ 20 turns.

Pick-up coil: 3 turns.

Core saturation percentage: Unknown.

Magnetic viscosity: Less than 0.2us for full decay.