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

Re: [MEG_builders] meg results

Expand Messages
  • Jon Flickinger
    Hi Cyril, See comments in your text below-
    Message 1 of 16 , May 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Cyril,

      See comments in your text below-

      Cyril SMITH wrote:

      Hi Jon,
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 4:53 AM
      Subject: Re: [MEG_builders] meg results
       snip.....I would be most interested in hearing about your unproven ideas although I think you may have already stated a great deal in your past postings regarding circulating secondary currents and flux control with the primaries. I have made various circuits in an attempt to test your theory and have not been successful to date, but still trying.
      Firstly is the realisation that in any transformer the secondary "load" has as much influence on the flux as does the
      primary drive.

      Agreed.
       Second the MEG secondary is a resonant circuit of reasonable Q, so there is circulating current between the coil and the capaciatnce which is greater than the current in the load.  This circulating current has a great influence on the flux in the core, much more so than the input drive.  The drive is merely a little tickle to make up for the energy loss per cycle (not really loss because most of it goes into the load).  (Remember Q is energy swapped (from L to C) divided by energy lost per cycle!)

      Also agree on this with the understanding that the energy loss to the load from secondary resonance must be made up in the "tickle" drive without any other outside energy source such as the PM, etc. This has been the mode of nearly all my MEG attempts so far!
       From that viewpoint (the AC flux comes from the secondary, not the primary) how can the LC circuit gain energy from the magnet?  Well if we deliberately switched the magnet in and out of circuit (by physical movement) in synchronism with the AC, then we would pump the AC circuit.  So how can that be achieved without movement?  The only things there to do that are the drive coils.

      Yes.
       The drive coils are alternately switched to a voltage source (low DC impedance, even lower AC impedance if you have electrolytic caps).  If you ignore the DC drive voltage (required only to provide the tickle), the act of shorting a coil is to stop any flux change from occurring (over a time period which is short compared to the L/R time constant).

      OK.

       If the resonant circuit is trying to make the flux change then the flux change is forced outside the core.  You get the radial H that goes with the circular E making the S=E*H energy flow vector.  Some of the flux in the air goes through the magnet, so the magnet can contribute to the energy.

      This would seem to fit with Bearden's comments that the MEG is an oscillator because the picture I get is that flux changes from the secondaries resonance action is "steered" or controlled by the primaries and alternates between core halves. Any contributation of energy from the PM would require less energy from the supply to the primaries and the resultant input current waveform should have less DC offset than normal. This all fits real well but I'm having difficulty understanding how the PM is actually able to contribute to the core flux energy. More study needed here on my part!
       The alternate switching/shorting of the drive coils lets the magnet give energy to each secondary in turn.  The magnet is reset at each switching point and may contribute to the spike seen on the input waveforms.

      I am convinced that the PM has to be contributing to the large magnitude of the spike on the voltage waveform because of my "master/slave" MEG tests in which one primary is driven and the other is slaved into charging it's own supply capacitor. The slave current waveform has no DC offset and appears identical to the published MEG waveform but has little if any flyback energy at turn-off. Therefore I conclude that if both primaries are in this mode, there is not significant flyback energy from primary conduction alone to generate the energy depicted in the patent. It has to be coming from the PM when properly configured.

      IMO, the secondary resonance gets rather complicated because of the various modes we could have. With a high interwinding capacitance secondary, we would have a parallel loaded series resonance network and with a low interwinding capacitance secondary plus external capacitance, we would have a series loaded series resonance network. This is assuming that the secondary inductance is much greater than the secondary to primary leakaage inductance. If not, things would seemingly get even more complicated. Your thots on this are most welcome.

      Have you had a chance to do any testing of this theory?

      Regards,

      Jon

      RegardsCyril

    • BobW
      Re: Jon Flickinger responding to Cyril Smith Jon Way back in May you made an interesting remark in one of your responses to Cyril. You said, The drive coils
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment

        Re: Jon Flickinger responding to Cyril Smith

         

        Jon

         

        Way back in May you made an interesting remark in one of your responses to Cyril.

         

        You said, “ The drive coils are alternately switched to a voltage source (low DC impedance, even lower AC impedance if you have electrolytic caps).  If you ignore the DC drive voltage (required only to provide the tickle), the act of shorting a coil is to stop any flux change from occurring (over a time period which is short compared to the L/R time constant).

        Could you expand on the idea of “shorting a coil stopping any flux change? 

        Thanks

         

      • jonfli
        Hi Bob, I think you re referring to message 904 and if so, it was Cyril that made that remark. Cyril is certainly more qualified to respond to your question,
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Bob,
           
          I think you're referring to message 904 and if so, it was Cyril that made that remark. Cyril is certainly more qualified to respond to your question, but my brief answer would be that in a MEG configuration, shorting a drive coil increases the reluctance of the core that is directly beneath the coil, therefore providing resistance to flux changes in the core under the conditions Cyril states.
           
          Jon
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: BobW
          Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:04 AM
          Subject: RE: [MEG_builders] meg results

          Re: Jon Flickinger responding to Cyril Smith

           

          Jon

           

          Way back in May you made an interesting remark in one of your responses to Cyril.

           

          You said, “ The drive coils are alternately switched to a voltage source (low DC impedance, even lower AC impedance if you have electrolytic caps).  If you ignore the DC drive voltage (required only to provide the tickle), the act of shorting a coil is to stop any flux change from occurring (over a time period which is short compared to the L/R time constant). “

          Could you expand on the idea of “shorting a coil stopping any flux change? 

          Thanks

           



          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





          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • BobW
          Thanks Jon Yes, a more careful reading did show that it was Cyril that made the remarks. This shorting of the drive coil then prevents flux change near the
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 22, 2002
          • 0 Attachment

            Thanks Jon

             

            Yes, a more careful reading did show that it was Cyril that made the remarks. 

             

            This shorting of the drive coil then prevents flux change near the shorted winding by producing a counter flux…?  The shorted winding would not have any effect on static fields….right?

             

            I understand that the shorted turns kill the transformer action, but I am not sure why it does?

             

            Bob

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: jonfli [mailto:jonfli@...]
            Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:11 PM
            To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [MEG_builders] meg results

             

            Hi Bob,

             

            I think you're referring to message 904 and if so, it was Cyril that made that remark. Cyril is certainly more qualified to respond to your question, but my brief answer would be that in a MEG configuration, shorting a drive coil increases the reluctance of the core that is directly beneath the coil, therefore providing resistance to flux changes in the core under the conditions Cyril states.

             

            Jon

            ----- Original Message -----

            From:
            BobW

            To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com

            Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:04 AM

            Subject: RE: [MEG_builders] meg results

             

            Re: Jon Flickinger responding to Cyril Smith

             

            Jon

             

            Way back in May you made an interesting remark in one of your responses to Cyril.

             

            You said, “ The drive coils are alternately switched to a voltage source (low DC impedance, even lower AC impedance if you have electrolytic caps).  If you ignore the DC drive voltage (required only to provide the tickle), the act of shorting a coil is to stop any flux change from occurring (over a time period which is short compared to the L/R time constant).

            Could you expand on the idea of “shorting a coil stopping any flux change? 

            Thanks

             

             


            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





            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            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





            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • jonfli
            Hi Bob, ... From: BobW To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:03 AM Subject: RE: [MEG_builders] meg results Thanks Jon Yes, a more
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 23, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Bob,
               
              >>>> Inserts below-
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: BobW
              Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:03 AM
              Subject: RE: [MEG_builders] meg results

              Thanks Jon

               

              Yes, a more careful reading did show that it was Cyril that made the remarks. 

               

              This shorting of the drive coil then prevents flux change near the shorted winding by producing a counter flux…? 

               

              >>>> As I understand and experimentation seems to bear out, the core reluctance directly under the shorted coil rises to a point of resisting flux flow. Flux may flow outside the core however under these conditions, and that was how Cyril was applying the concept to a possible MEG theory. You may also "freeze" flux in a core (within limits) by preventing the collapse of a coil's field by clamping or shorting the flyback energy.

               

               The shorted winding would not have any effect on static fields….right?

               

              >>>> Not sure what you mean by static fields but I think the circular E-field around the core would be affected as well as the radial H-field. Cyril has interesting input on this and will cross post if I can locate the info.

               

              If you're referring to the PM's static field, my own opinion is that it would not be affected because my testing has led me to believe that any core bias in the MEG from any PM arrangement is not affected by the control coils. IOW, I don't think the MEG is a flux gate type of device but functions in a mode we're not accustomed to! Cyril has some new insight which may be close to the actual operation of the MEG and he's given me permission to cross post which I plan to do as soon as time permits.

               

              I understand that the shorted turns kill the transformer action, but I am not sure why it does?

               

              >>>> Yes, this is true depending on the coil arrangements. In the MEG which has separation or large leakage inductance between the control and output coils,  shorting has a different affect than if the coils were tightly coupled.

               

              Regards,

              Jon

               

              Bob

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: jonfli [mailto:jonfli@...]
              Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:11 PM
              To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [MEG_builders] meg results

               

              Hi Bob,

               

              I think you're referring to message 904 and if so, it was Cyril that made that remark. Cyril is certainly more qualified to respond to your question, but my brief answer would be that in a MEG configuration, shorting a drive coil increases the reluctance of the core that is directly beneath the coil, therefore providing resistance to flux changes in the core under the conditions Cyril states.

               

              Jon

              ----- Original Message -----

              From:
              BobW

              To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com

              Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:04 AM

              Subject: RE: [MEG_builders] meg results

               

              Re: Jon Flickinger responding to Cyril Smith

               

              Jon

               

              Way back in May you made an interesting remark in one of your responses to Cyril.

               

              You said, “ The drive coils are alternately switched to a voltage source (low DC impedance, even lower AC impedance if you have electrolytic caps).  If you ignore the DC drive voltage (required only to provide the tickle), the act of shorting a coil is to stop any flux change from occurring (over a time period which is short compared to the L/R time constant). “

              Could you expand on the idea of “shorting a coil stopping any flux change? 

              Thanks

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.