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

RE: [Sweet-VTA] Richard claims closed loop operation !

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 To: Sweet-VTA@yahoogroups.com ... Hi Mike. Thanx for your very informed comments on transformers. I thought the following would be of
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004
      To: Sweet-VTA@yahoogroups.com

      --- Mike <mikefurness2002@...> wrote:

      > Perhaps I should add a 'postscript' which was why I
      > joined this group.
      > Common Knowledge, and my training, told me that, as
      > even stated in my
      > previous note, LINES OF CHANGING FLUX generate
      > voltage when cutting
      > conductors!
      > Later we are told that 'in a perfect transformer'
      > all the flux is contained
      > in the core! So what cuts the wire, certainly NOT
      > flux!!!!!
      > I think the answer to all our endeavours lies in
      > this little understood
      > 'IGNORED' effect.
      > Has been called 'MAGNETIC 'A' VECTOR'
      > Mike.
      Hi Mike. Thanx for your very informed comments on
      transformers. I thought the following would be of
      interest concerning the A field.
      Does the ferromagnetic transformer show the
      Aharonov-Bohm effect? (Fri, 27 Feb 2004)

      Bill Beauty has a page on the A vector field effect,
      which to me now has ceased to be something so exotic
      or misunderstandable. Basically the issue seems to be
      that a closed loop doesnt need to have a movement of
      field lines across its windings for it to contain
      induced voltage. The secondary closed loop containing
      magnetic flux changing in time can still have an
      induced voltage on it by the A field vector.

      Heres a reply on the subject to freenrg list.
      This E-mail is regarding Bill Beaty's "Right Angle

      I find some misconceptions at this site, namely

      FIG. 2 A toroidial inductor is interesting because the
      induced magnetic field remains hidden within the iron
      core. If the coil was wrapped around the entire core
      rather than in one spot as shown, then the magnetic
      field would exist only within the iron core. In both
      cases the magnetic field will exist entirely inside
      the core. It is only when the amp-turns of the
      windings exceed the transformer ratings, ie
      saturation, that the magnetic field lines will start
      to emerge in space outside the core. This in turn
      will cause the core to act with less impedance, hence
      a non linear rise of input amperage vs voltage input
      will occur after a certain voltage level is attained.
      This can actually happen after a certain point of
      voltage input and cause a "runaway amperage " level to
      develope, and meltdown of insulation wires may occur.
      At full saturation the iron core is entirely
      ineffective to produce the impedance to the source,
      and the core acts as if it were replaced by air.
      Running a 120 volt rated Neon Sign Transformer at 140
      volts and beyond will start to cause these saturation
      effects, and you will quickly destroy the transformer
      insulation on the windings because of the excessive
      currents that develope from saturation.

      FIG. 3 Even if the coil of wire does not touch the
      core, it still induces a strong magnetic field inside
      the core. The gap between the coil and the iron ring
      can be very large, yet this does not reduce the
      strength of the field within the core.[Note; this is
      where I have a disagreement, see my concluding
      comments on flux density vs cross sectional area
      enclosed by loop] The mmf on the
      core should be reduced by having a larger volume
      inside the exciting windings.

      I am not exactly sure about these definitions, but if
      the inside volume area of the exciting windings is
      doubled, I would venture to say that the mmf on the
      core is halved, and vice versa.

      FIG. 4 Although the magnetic field stays inside,
      something else does come out of the core. The changing
      field within the core produces a field of Vector
      Potential which surrounds the core. This field is
      commonly called the "A-field."

      Bearden often notes things about this Aharonov-Bohm
      effect which was noted in the late fifties. In 1959
      Aharonov and Bohm published a fundamental paper in
      Physical Review which pointed out the QM implications
      of potentials as the real entities, while force fields
      were the real effects. Soon after the publication of
      the Aharonov-Bohm effect. experiments showed that, if
      the magnetic field is trapped inside a long solenoid ,
      a phase shift still is induced in the two slit
      electron experiment, even though classically, no
      contact of the enclosed magnetic field and the moving
      electrons occurs. These are Beardens comments, which I
      dont quite exactly understand, which perhaps others
      can elaborate on. I do think I understand the premise
      in far simpler words. The A field is perpendicular to
      the B field. We have two laws to understand the same
      phenomenon. The first law is the more familiar one
      which states that when a magnetic field line crosses
      an orthogonal conductive wire by moving through space
      at right angles to that wire, such as occurs when we
      rotate a magnet pole at right angle to the wire, a
      voltage is induced in that wire that can cause
      electron movement in that wire as a consequence of the
      magnetic lines of force transversing the wire at right
      angles. The second interpretation to me merely
      restates the A-B effect WHERE NO MAGNETIC FIELD
      CROSSES THE WIRE. Here the induced voltage is
      dependent on the enclosed flux (density) change
      encompassed on the interior volume area of the loops
      containing that flux change. Hence for the
      ferromagnetic transformer, the induced voltages and
      currents on the secondary already show this AB
      principle, since the magnetic field lines are confined
      to the core, and do not intersect the secondary
      windings, but those windings do recieve emf acording
      to delta B/ cross sectional area of flux change.(
      which gives the flux density) If we increase that
      cross sectional area, ie , increasing the distance of
      the transformer windings from the core, this of course
      also changes the flux density in the area enclosed by
      the loops, since the flux density itself is the amount
      of flux divided by the cross sectional area
      encompassed by the loops. Less flux density/cross
      sectional area of enclosed loops must then translate
      to a smaller induced emf. In summo something very
      exotic or mysterious is seemingly made that way by
      ASSUMING that the transformer example implies a wire
      crossing magnetic lines of force, which in actuality
      is only a convenient assumption that never actually
      occured. Sincerely HDN

      (Now some further comments on your interesting post

      > When you wind a secondary, & draw power, the
      > secondary flux opposes the
      > primary, the flux in the transformer core tries to
      > drop, causing reflected
      > impedance, & primary current increases to maintain
      > the 'status quo', so the
      > core flux remains constant. There are many other
      > 'peripherial'
      > considerations to consider, but minor to main
      > diccussion.
      If the core flux is dependent on the amp-turns of the
      primary input, and the amount of amps on those turns
      increases as we draw power, wouldn't the increase of
      the mmf by the increased amp-turns also imply an
      increased core flux, and not a constant value as you
      seem to be implying here?
      > When you get to 'serious power' levels, the larger
      > core can give a larger
      > core factor, so less turns for same inductance, more
      > area for cooling, &
      > less turns on secondary. From memory only, as my
      > work centres on high
      > frequency devices, a small 1 - 5 VA transformer may
      > have 10 turns per input
      > volt, and a large utility one maybe 2 turns per volt
      > or less, hence the
      > cooling fins you see on them! On 'switchmode'
      > devices,
      If I understand correctly this would describe the new
      solid state neon sign transformers that output some
      20,000 hz. I am eager to learn about these devices, so
      if you have any corresponding URL's that might
      increase my knowledge in this area, they would be
      appreciated. Wouldnt we have to use a special ferrite
      core for those devices, as silicone iron starts
      becoming innefective around 500 hz?

      with their
      > frequencies of maybe 10 thousand times higher
      > frequency, 4 - 20 volts per
      > turn is achievable, thus allowing a (UK) 400v
      > rectified input, to feed a
      > transformer with only 40 turns on the primary & 1
      > (one) turn only on the
      > secondary for 10 volts out! (Not quite that simple,
      > but sufficient for
      > example).
      > I have also done considerable work on 'automotive'
      > alternators, They all
      > require a 'controllable' field, due to speed & load
      > changes, which is
      > derived from output windings. Usually a bleed from
      > battery to energise, but
      > there are some (Motorola, Prestolite) which have a
      > small embedded magnetism
      > to make them 'self starting'
      Seven of Nine Reasons for Gyroscopic Conclusions
      jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com- Sat, 22 May 2004
      Think of a ferromagnetic metal as a carrier of
      uncohered electron spins. If the spins are random in
      three dimensions no magnetism is observed. If they are
      cohered in that the spins lie predominantly all in one
      plane, all in the same direction of spin, then we see
      magnetism. Think of these orbiting electron orbits as
      molecular gyroscopes. That means when we spin the
      metal, a gyroscopic reaction occurs on the
      "incorrectly" oriented spins, that tends to "push" the
      incorrect spins at an angle that forces a precession
      so that these spins all become aligned, exactly as a
      collection of randomly oriented gyroscopes on a
      spinning disc would behave. Thus macroscopic metallic
      spin itself creates a small amount of magnetism, but
      not quite the amount of magnetism that would be
      released if the metal were made into an electromagnet.
      The difference between rotational magnetism and
      electromagnetism can be detected with alternator
      experiments when we spin the field without it being
      energized. A certain amount of rotational saturation
      exists, and if the electromagnetism effect has not
      surpassed that value, it adds very little to the field
      magnetism already present. Following is a past posting
      concerning this matter...
      Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:22 pm
      Subject: Dispelling the Remanent Magnetism of Field
      Rotor Theory

      Well strictly speaking a ferromagnetic steel probably
      does generate magnetism by spin alone, which is even
      justified by considering that a gyroscopic reaction to
      electron spin orbits would justify this appearance. In
      any case the arguments used to say that remanent
      magnetism of a alternator field rotor are responsible
      for the currents generated by the unenergized field of
      a spinning alternator: those arguments would seem to
      be like the janitor sweeping the discordant elements
      under the rug. Essentially a small unknown phenomenon
      doesnt EXACTLY produce ratios of electrical action
      comparable to the real operation of the device, and
      then we are dealing in potential unknowns, as to how
      much electrical power can be obtained by mettallic
      spin alone? The electrical power we obtain in that
      circumstance might be highly efficient vs the motive
      amount of input, and truly here we are bordering on
      DePalma ideas himself, which to say the least was
      controversial some years ago. In any case using the 3
      phase air core principles; and appropriate resonances
      attached to the 3 phased inputs I was able to energize
      a 20 inch neon tube on one ended disharge which
      requires 500-600 volts, and this was made from
      ferromagnetic spin of a 480 hz alternator with
      unenergized field alone. Here is a sampling of

      1) Once the diodes from a car alternator are removed,
      and a three phase AC conversion of outputs made for
      pure form of conversion of its motional spin emf of
      the rotor to electrical energy without that DC
      conversion, a remarkable increase of output occurs.

      2) If we then add resonances as a filter to that
      output, and THEN rectify that output interphasingly, I
      was able to produce motion on a small 9 volt motor,
      which means motion is literally transfered through
      wires by spin, with parametric principles. The
      ordinary (unergized field)car alternator (with
      internal diodes outputing DC) of course should not
      accomplish that delivery as its output voltage is
      considerably reduced.

      3) There is a "correct direction" for inputing DC
      current to the field. The wrong direction will result
      in less stator output given the amount of field

      4) Remarkably The actual DC resistance of the field is
      affected in a very non-linear manner prior to the
      point where electromagnetism of the field rotor
      exceeds the pre-existant rotational magnetism.
      Initially the field appears as a much higher DC
      resistance than is actually measured without motion of
      the field rotor taking place.

      5) Rotational field "Saturation" is a consequence of
      the above observation, where little stator increase
      of output from alternator is made until where the
      elecrtromagnetic field effects surpass the rotational.

      6) DC feedback of parametic stator effects to field to
      increase that pre-existant parametric output were once
      thought impossible by this researcher, until later
      trials many years later showed that in some
      circumstances , a delayed reaction occurs, but once it
      occurs a magnetic chain reaction occurs in the field,
      instantly becoming magnetised to its highest
      saturation point, and causing overload on the
      alternator, all accomplished through ferromagnetic
      spin alone. This Demon of a Beast has never been tamed
      by this observer, [Post note; This has now been
      controlled via use of a water cell inserted into
      alternator resonant circuit to control the voltage on
      the field feedback loop] but it should be possible
      zener diodes. This then could be a self energized
      field, made possible by the electrical energy of spin
      alone, but controlled in such a manner that the
      excessive feedback of that loop does not occur.

      7) 7 easy reasons for dispelling the remanent
      magnetization of field rotor myth. Once the field is
      ACTUALLY energized, and then turned off, we see an
      increase of parametric readings. THAT is that totality
      of remanent magnetisation effect, which of course is
      lost after a certain time after motion of the field
      rotor has ceased. It is ONLY that amount of increase
      that should be attributed to remanent magnetism of the
      field pole faces, and of course the ordinary
      parametric levels of operation are then seen when that
      remanent magnetism ceases to be present...


      Again another post on this matter;
      Several years ago I started working with
      the concept of a self energized field for an
      alternator. By taking one of the three phases of AC
      output, and rectifying it back to DC current for the
      field, which is a rotating electromagnet, a runaway
      magnetic chain reaction occurs, causing the alternator
      to go into overload. This process can start from an
      unenergized field, because of remanent magnetization
      of the field rotor, because the assembly actually also
      acts as a parametric generator,(Delta L on the stator
      windings over time acts when the pole faces rotate
      inside the stator core, causing a changing inductance
      to be recorded on the stator windings, which is the
      principle of a parametric oscillator), and thirdly due
      to the fact that metallic rotation itself of a
      ferromagnetic metal causes a gyroscopic reaction of
      the free unpaired electron spins in the electron cloud
      of the metal, with the macroscopic result that
      metallic spin in of itself also causes a weak magnetic
      field to be exhibited. This is also prooved by the
      fact that there is a different efficiency of result in
      the field's rotating electromagnet dependent on which
      polarity we input DC amperage through the field. If
      the DC field amperage creates a magnetic field in the
      same direction as what the spin itself establishes,
      that is the CORRECT polarity to use in establishing
      the field, and if it is in the opposite direction, it
      must fight the natural tendency of the magnetic field
      that itself is estqablished by spin, hence the wrong
      direction of DC amperage input means less efficiency
      of the alternator per input of the DC fields amperage.
      Going even further with DC field studies, it is found
      that both BACK emf effects exist; when the fields
      amperage creates a magnetic field below that of the
      pre-existant magnetic field made by rotation, and even
      more importantly FORWARD emf effects can be shown,
      where the field starts loosing resistance after
      exceeding the rotational pre-existant magnetic field
      of the field rotor. This also is easily proovable,
      where the DC resistance of my field rotor is 20 ohms
      when not moving, some 100 ohms at the lowest levels of
      amperage introduction to the field after rotational
      movement is established, and finally it becomes around
      5 ohms at the point of action I use in experiments.

      > You stated that you couldn't exceed 40 volts?
      No, what I meant here was that I wouldnt want to
      operate past 40 volts for prolonged time periods
      because of excessive stator core heating. Actually the
      alternator I have used in experiments is a Delco Remy
      model that is not a large amperage output model. About
      50 or 60 volts output I start hearing significant
      bearing knocking noise so I dont press the issue and
      operate in sensible power output ranges.
      > probably because the unit
      > wasn't going fast enough, a 12 volt bobbin probably
      > saturates at about 18
      > volts, so more core current just causes rapid
      > heating.Voltage out (assuming
      > constant energisation) is directly proportional to
      > speed, rate of change of
      > flux,(as in tacho- generator) so much more voltage
      > is available if you run
      > the device faster.
      Yes my pole face field rotor has 7 pole faces, where I
      have first tested at 190 hz, and now at a medium rpm
      range that outputs 480 hz. Since frequency may also
      be an issue with ferromagnetic stator saturation I
      wish to keep things below 500 hz, as I have taken out
      the diodes to explore the effects of attaching
      resonant circuits to the AC output. I have also found
      that attached transformers seem to have a non-linear
      rise of impedance in accordance with increasing the
      frequency input. I would think that operating near 500
      hz would be operating near the top limit for
      ferromagnetic transformers. These transformers
      sometimes also bleed off a lower harmonic into the
      sound spectrum producing a whine noise that resembles
      a high pitched musical note. Plexiglass plate
      capacitors used in 480 hz high voltage resonances
      produce this musical note whine at a very high volume.
      > As a precursor to designing a high speed
      > generating set, I did some
      > experimenting with a prestolite 24 volt 175 amp
      > truck alternator. The core
      > was energised from a seperate 24 volt constant
      > supply, rectifiers were
      > changed for high voltage 800V PIV devices & unit was
      > run into a very large
      > water cooled variable resistance nerwork.
      > The speed at which the rotor started to 'grow' was
      > at 24,000 RPM, off load
      > voltage was about 310 volts,(declining rapidly with
      > load), maximum
      > continuous power out, 26KW
      Hmm, I am jealous now, I need to set up a alternator
      that has more guts and power, your work sounds
      > An interesting discovery was that (as per
      > transformer) when the 'ampere
      > turns' in the stator equalled the ampere turns in
      > the core, (at 175 amps)
      > the unit would give no more, even into a short
      > circuit load, & therefore
      > unloaded the prime mover & didn't overheat. maximum
      > power out was obtained
      > by suitable load matching.
      This sounds somewhat interesting because when I
      arranged things according to the principle of maximum
      energy transfer and resonated those resistances made
      into the form of a spiral, I was also able to output
      larger amperages without any significant stator
      heating occuring. It is only when I put interphasal
      loads on the resonance's voltage rises that
      significant stator heating then is observed. I called
      the spirals METR components, {Maximum Energy Transfer
      Resonances}. What seems to go beyond the established
      electrical theory is that they obey the aspect that
      the voltage drop in comparison to open circuit voltage
      will be about 50%, but acoording to theory there is
      also supposed to be a corresponding 50% drop of
      amperage compared to the value obtained when shorting
      out the outputs. Instead these resonances obtain the
      same value of amperage that will be found when the
      outputs are instead shorted. The METR components were
      made by making R(load) ~ = to R(int) which was found
      by noting what voltage appeared across the outputs
      when shorted, and the dividing the obtained amperage
      by the obtained voltage, giving a value near a half
      ohm for this particular Delco Remy alternator.
      Everything had to be duplicated for all three phases,
      or else different values for R(int) were obtained. A
      short on two phases produces more current on the
      phases then for the case when all three phases were
      > It was decided that this arrangement would not be
      > ideal, so I called in
      > outside help to design a 90,000RPM direct drive
      > alternator (genset to be
      > powered initially with Russian cruise missile
      > engine, 50KW at 90,000RPM)
      > Permanent magnet, no brushes at that speed, Output
      > voltage 210 off load & 90
      > volts full load, boost transistor to take this to
      > the 800v required for PWM
      > line invertor.
      Whew how in the hell can bearings stand such an
      excessive rpm! I also have a set of paired bus
      alternators that I think are known as reluctance
      alternators. Those alternators have a cup shaped field
      that does not revolve! Instead a tight clearance is
      involved where a set of rotating pole faces rotate
      around this metallic cup. The pole faces "grab" the
      fields magnetism by being a path of least reluctance.
      Since the field itself does not rotate, there are no
      brushes or slip rings in that model.
      > Whole device intended to weigh 40KG (90 pounds) &
      > highly portable. Still
      > have some very large transistors laying around.
      Each of the bus alternators also probably weigh at
      least 90 lbs also. They even have inputs for oil
      cooling like a transmission! These are some monster
      machines that need a 240 volt AC motor to turn the
      pair which outputs 360 hz.! The stator windings are
      made from varnished thick copper bus bar type windings
      intersecting segments of laminated silicone iron. The
      pole faces rotate just underneath this assembly. Only
      59 stator winds are around the circle, making for 18
      winds per phase. I have not turned this machine on for
      several years, as the smaller alternator provides for
      a convenient tool for researching effects of
      resonance, and also I dont have 240 VAC in the garage
      and must use a long extension cord taken from the air
      conditioning 240 outlet. Since these alternators are
      paired by a variable connection pulley, this gives the
      option of making a special 6 phase system, where any
      desired phase angle between the two 3 phase systems
      can be procured. Spent a lot of money on that project!
      The AC phases are also isolated, meaning that they can
      be outputed in either delta or wye, or in perfect
      > Sorry to have wandered so far 'off topic' thought
      > it might have some
      > general interest.
      Enjoyed the interchange of information... Thanks, it
      wasnt off topic for me...HDN
      > Mike.
      > Mike. J. Furness.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.