Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: help needed for MEG tuning

Expand Messages
  • Norm Fletcher
    In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a Biased transformer . Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the input
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 3, 2006
      In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a "Biased
      transformer". Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the input frequency/
      voltage so that the output is a perfect sinewave. (believe me, that's the trick!) Only then is
      the output a result of only switching the flux of your magnet. Right now, the primary is
      producing external flux and that flux is intercepting the secondaries. The MEG has become
      a transformer (like the rest of us) with a COP<1

      > Hi, it's me again,
      >
      > I have some updates and some graphics. Theses graphics show one of my
      > biggest challenge into understanding and making work the MEG.
      >
      > This one:
      > http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
      detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=7824re2.jpg&.src=ph
      >
      > is a graph of the voltage at the entry of my Coils. The graph is
      > "inverted" because when the tension is zero, it means that there is
      > some current going in. If you refer to JL Nadin's design, I am
      > reading the tension between the Fets and the input coils. As you can
      > see in this picture, there is a lot of resonnating freqencies in
      > there. On the graph, I have chosen a frequency that minimises the
      > effects. Well at least the "first big peak" of the high frequency in
      > there. I was wondering if any of you observed phenomenon like these
      > on their MEG or mine just has too many parasites
      > (capacitorS/inductors/resistors)
      >
      > By the way, the reason why the tension goes on the minus side is
      > because I added a protecting diode to bloc the current and protec my
      > Fets. But even without this protective diode I still have the
      > resonnating effect.
      >
      > Also, on this graph:
      > http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
      detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=5edfre2.jpg&.src=ph
      >
      > You can see both of my output (tension divided by 6 with a 66kohm
      > total resistor)
      >
      > I have been trying to figure out what is causing that "bump" on the
      > sinus wave. If you look carefully, you can see it is only on the
      > "upper" side of the graphic. If I push up the frequency, I can
      > diminish the bump-effect, but my COP is going down very fast... That's
      > why I was wondering if anyonw had this effect or could explain (or
      > give a good hint)
      >
      > This graph is kind of giving me an idea,
      > http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
      detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=d250re2.jpg&.src=ph
      >
      > It is a graph showing the entry (1) with the output (1). As you can
      > see, there is a phase between the output and input, which is leading
      > me to think that the bump and the high frencies mentionned before are
      > linked somehow...
      >
      > I know this mail is getting long, that's why I won't talk right now
      > about the other aspect of COP based on average DC current vs RMS
      > current. (curious peaple can look into the other pictures in this album)
      >
      > Thank you for reading and commenting. I really like to read you
      > comments. I've read a lot of previous message now, it is very
      > instructing.
      >
      > Ccool
      >
    • Wayne Robey
      On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:56:48 -0000 Norm Fletcher wrote ... I have 2 comments, for which I hope to see a reply: Since the core is
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 5, 2006
        On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:56:48 -0000
        "Norm Fletcher" <fletchmo47@...> wrote
        > In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a
        > "Biased transformer". Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the
        > input frequency/voltage so that the output is a perfect sinewave.
        > (believe me, that's the trick!) Only then is the output a result of only
        > switching the flux of your magnet. Right now, the primary is
        > producing external flux and that flux is intercepting the secondaries. The
        > MEG has become a transformer (like the rest of us) with a COP<1

        I have 2 comments, for which I hope to see a reply:
        Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg. From previous posts indicating that keeping the field created by the primary in the core is critical, it would follow that this coupling would be large. As the thickness to width (c/b) of the secondary increases, the coupling of the secondary to the core decreases. At some point the coupling to the primary could be loose enough to clearly observe the self resonance of this core. You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance be what you are tuning for?


        --
        _______________________________________________

        Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

        http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
      • Norm Fletcher
        ... secondary on it s leg. You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance be what you are tuning for? OK Let me see
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 18, 2006
          --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Robey" <robeyw@...> wrote:
          >
          > Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always couple highly to the
          secondary on it's leg.

          You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance
          be what you are tuning for?

          OK
          Let me see if I can make clear what I've been trying to point out. You make an excellent
          point in the first statement "Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will
          always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg".
          It's just that we don't want ANY coupling. Before you think I just don't understand
          transformers I'd like to point out that a perfectly successful MEG is NOT a transformer. It is
          a dual closed flux pathway with 2 flux switches.
          Consider a MEG core with output coils and magnet as we see on the patent. Now, instead
          of input coils, we cut an air gap in the core and put in that gap a "magic" material that
          would act as a switch for the flux. The 'magic' stuff would react to a low power electronic
          input by radically changing it's permeability from very permeable to perhaps the
          permeability of air. It would do this without introducing flux into the core. The only flux in
          the core would be the magnet's.
          The primary coils described in the MEG patent, IF wound properly, IF excited with a
          correctly shaped waveform, IF firing at exactly the right frequency, will, in theory, give us
          an over-unity condition. The problem arises in the delicate balance of necessary "IF"
          conditions that must be met for a successful experiment. What I'm suggesting is that we
          knock out some of these "IFs" by dropping the input coils as they are described in the
          patent and work on some kind of flux switch for the core instead. This could be a new,
          specially designed coil, or an exotic array of metals or something else. What Dr. Bearden
          has said all along is that we need to stop thinking along the lines of traditional
          transformer building. Anyway, that's what I've been working on.

          Norm
        • Brent Selleck
          Very well said.... and I await your results eagerly... ... From: Norm Fletcher To: Sent: Tuesday,
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 19, 2006
            Very well said.... and I await your results eagerly...


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Norm Fletcher" <fletchmo47@...>
            To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:48 PM
            Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: help needed for MEG tuning


            > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Robey" <robeyw@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always
            >> couple highly to the
            > secondary on it's leg.
            >
            > You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this
            > secondary resonance
            > be what you are tuning for?
            >
            > OK
            > Let me see if I can make clear what I've been trying to point out. You
            > make an excellent
            > point in the first statement "Since the core is not continuously
            > saturated, the primary will
            > always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg".
            > It's just that we don't want ANY coupling. Before you think I just don't
            > understand
            > transformers I'd like to point out that a perfectly successful MEG is NOT
            > a transformer. It is
            > a dual closed flux pathway with 2 flux switches.
            > Consider a MEG core with output coils and magnet as we see on the
            > patent. Now, instead
            > of input coils, we cut an air gap in the core and put in that gap a
            > "magic" material that
            > would act as a switch for the flux. The 'magic' stuff would react to a low
            > power electronic
            > input by radically changing it's permeability from very permeable to
            > perhaps the
            > permeability of air. It would do this without introducing flux into the
            > core. The only flux in
            > the core would be the magnet's.
            > The primary coils described in the MEG patent, IF wound properly, IF
            > excited with a
            > correctly shaped waveform, IF firing at exactly the right frequency, will,
            > in theory, give us
            > an over-unity condition. The problem arises in the delicate balance of
            > necessary "IF"
            > conditions that must be met for a successful experiment. What I'm
            > suggesting is that we
            > knock out some of these "IFs" by dropping the input coils as they are
            > described in the
            > patent and work on some kind of flux switch for the core instead. This
            > could be a new,
            > specially designed coil, or an exotic array of metals or something else.
            > What Dr. Bearden
            > has said all along is that we need to stop thinking along the lines of
            > traditional
            > transformer building. Anyway, that's what I've been working on.
            >
            > Norm
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Main page:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders
            >
            >
            > To post a message to this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
            > MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.