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

Showing the Parameters for Field Self Feedback Loop/ Part ONE

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    SERIOUS MISTAKES ARE MADE IN THIS DOCUMENT! They will shortly be shown. It has to do with the measurements of alternator field resistance. Anyhows this
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      SERIOUS MISTAKES ARE MADE IN THIS DOCUMENT! They will shortly be
      shown. It has to do with the measurements of alternator field
      resistance. Anyhows this document has sat around in word pad for long
      enough; time for publication. The weekend is here and the rest can
      be done later in part 2. The variation of field resistance will raise
      some eyebrows. In this document I say that the field for this
      alternator is 20 ohms, it is not, it is probably about 6 -7 ohms, BUT
      THE REASONS FOR THE ERRORS WILL BE QUICKLY GIVEN. There are some
      quite unbelievable things to be found in investigating the non linear
      nature of the field in an alternator, so amazing that that issue will
      be addressed before the continuation of part two of this article. In
      fact that 6-7 ohm resistance value for the field gives more sense to
      later observations about where the rotational magnetism barrier
      exists. On issue of difference on stator heating vs external field vs
      self enegized where I stopped at the end at this article, no
      significant differences were found, maybe 5 degrees F. The noted self
      energized field method DOES provide for 13% more stator voltage then
      the same amperage input to field from an external source, when
      compared @ .75 A field input, and the theory is then verified via
      expanding and collapsing field accompanied by field rotation in space
      alone. The question becomes is the self energized field method in
      itself more efficient? More parameters then get involved. Ordinarily
      13 % of the expressed wattage output is used to recycle the field
      energy at the measured levels, so that sounds like even steven. The
      figures can be dealt with later, but using identical levels of .75 A
      to field the external source provides the load delivering 10.3 volts
      DC to water cell for a conduction of 2.8 A, while the self energized
      method only produces 9.6 volts enabling conduction of 2.55 A. The
      extra requirements for the externally powered field are 3.5 volts to
      achieve .75 A conduction for field, but in the second example the
      field requirements are taken from the output. So both case examples
      appear to be approximately equal, even though the self energized
      field example appears to generate a higher output voltage, this is
      countered by the requirements of energy required to energize its own
      field. Without further adieu here is the prepared article composed so
      far... Hope the urls are correct...

      Showing the Parameters for Field Self Feedback Loop.

      Provided the alternator is behaving like it should, and outputing
      three lines of stator line current on parametric turn on, the
      following steps can be shown. First we look at this parametric
      ambient output without the fields self feedback loop employed.
      Recall that the three phases attached to the three stator lines are
      Radio Shack MegaCable spiral resonances that provide a 5 fold voltage
      rise or Q factor, provided no load exists between the voltage rises.
      They are specified as Maximum Energy Transfer Resonances,(METR)
      spirals, in that in their unloaded states,(without interphasal loads
      attached between the LC midpoint resonant rises of voltage), they
      will pull the same amount of amperage as would be found if the stator
      phase outputs were instead shorted. This then of course represents
      the maximum amount of resistance that can be put in a coiled form and
      resonated, without that resistance itself causing the current supply
      to be diminished below what it is measured at when shorted. Since we
      have three 120 degree phased circuits with a Q of 5, the measured
      voltage rise between two of these resonant phases is 1.7 * 5 = 8.5.
      This is the interphasal voltage rise. The multiplication Q factor is
      referenced to that found on the stator voltage itself. The fact that
      the resonances are made with resistances that output the maximum
      possible energy transfer also means that the R(load) = R(int) of the
      stator phase itself, which further means that the open circuit stator
      voltage, which is the voltage that would appear without any loads
      attached to the phases: that voltage will appear to be roughly twice
      the voltage that appears when the METR components are attached as
      loads. Thus given the fact that the normal parametric voltage that
      appears without any loads attached is near 2 volts, ( on this smaller
      Delco Remy model); once the METR components are attached this drives
      the former open circuit voltage down to about 50% of the former open
      circuit value, for a stator voltage output close to 1 volt. Thus far
      in this description everything that is observed generally matches
      what is written concerning the principles of maximum energy
      transfer. However a crucial exception is found with the METR
      components that goes against the theory of maximum energy transfer.
      What is supposed to happen when a load is made to match R(int) of the
      source is that the identical R(int) resistance as R(load) will make
      for a condition where the derived currents with those loads should
      also be half of the current found on short of the outputs. Instead
      what actually happens is that we see no dimunition of the observed
      short currents: the currents found with the resonances are identical
      to the currents found on short. The following jpegs show the stator
      voltages, the stator line amperages, the individual phase amperages,
      the DC voltage and amperage across the water cell after two of these
      interphasal voltage rises are rectified by sets of full wave
      rectifiers, referred to as MIDPT (2-3)(1-3)DC Volts, and the
      remaining full wave rectification MIDPT (1-2)DC Volts, which is the
      voltage available for application towards the fields self feedback
      loop. The amperage on the field feedback loop is also shown, where it
      is prooved that the field has a non-linear resistance by comparing
      its resistance for two modes of higher voltage operation, where the
      fields effective resistance is found by merely dividing the fields
      impressed DC voltage by its resultant amperage. The only further
      complication that needs to be noted is the technical difference
      between what occurs with a series resonance, and how it is driven
      towards the direction of a parallel resonance. When the amperages on
      the METR phases themselves exceed the amount of current that should
      appear by its stator line delivery, we surmise that the "extra"
      amount of amperage that has developed is due to the circuits
      beginning to operate in the direction of displaying parallel
      resonance, which yields a resonant rise of amperage vs the actual
      amperage being inputed by its connected stator line. When no
      interphasal currents are passed between the resonances, this
      represents the condition of the highest possible series resonant rise
      of voltage, and also the highest amount of amperage delivery to those
      phases. However once we procure currents between those resonances by
      the addition of interphasal loads, similar to what happens when loads
      are placed on the ordinary stator outputs, the presence of the load
      will drop the former unloaded Q resonant rise of voltage down
      according to the manifested ratio of delivery stator line currents
      vs actual phase currents. This will be seen once the first self
      feedback loop example is provided, whereby then the % of resonant
      rise of amperage can be determined for each stator line junction. If
      this principle, (of resonant amperage rise), were to be exploited to
      the fullest possible degree, three shorts placed between the three
      resonant rises of voltage would turn the circuits completely from
      the actions of three series resonant rises of voltage to that of
      three phases of circuits showing resonant rise of amperage. It
      should also be recognized that this resonant transformation of
      voltages appearing between the MIDPT.s of each METR phase as
      interphasal loads can either act as a small voltage rise OR a step
      down of voltage, where BOTH of these aspects are necessary for an
      immediate starting reaction for the fields self feedback loop. Since
      the field has no other connection then its internally generated
      voltage, generated as an interphasal load current; at the start of
      the process it relies totally on the availability of current on that
      branch which is derived from the parametric situation that is
      encountered. Thus the first jpeg will show what that initial
      parametric condition consist of. In fact if a straight connection
      between a rectified stator output and field were employed in that
      initial condition, with the METR phases also attached as loads; no
      effective self feedback effect would be seen at all; since the
      presence of the METR loads has reduced the parametric stator voltage
      50%, down to a level near 1 volt, which in the actual situation of
      the initial parametric situation, interphasal currents are also
      present, which allows the parametric stator voltage to appear
      slightly higher at about 1.4 volts. However we need at least 1.7
      volts to enable the self feedback process to start to work; so
      INITIALLY a voltage HIGHER then the output stator voltage is required
      to start the action of the feedback loop. Once the feedback loop has
      started working however after a certain amount of output is made, the
      situation reverses itself and a voltage LOWER than the voltage that
      appears on the stator output is required for the fields demand;
      otherwise a runaway magnetic chain reaction would occur between the
      stator output and its generated field output occurs in which the
      entire system will quickly go into saturation overload, which makes a
      peculiar loud whining noise so that we immediately know when this has
      occurred. In fact the regulated voltage that must appear across the
      field has a rather narrow margin of operating values, compared to the
      rest of the circuits, and this is due to the fact that the field's
      resistance varies tremendously in its expressed resistance according
      to its imposed voltage. To get an idea of those parameters involved,
      when the field voltage is low enough so that hardly any amperage
      issues through the field, it may register a resistance 5 times higher
      then its actual resistance when no movement is occurring; which for
      this alternator appears as 20 ohms with no field rotation, but for
      voltages that input only a small amount of amperage after the field
      movement has come to its operational rpm the field's resistance may
      appear as high as 100 ohms. This may explain why straightforward
      feedback schemes may take as long as 20 to 30 seconds to start
      operating, as numerous feedback loops are only slowly incrementally
      increasing the output stator voltage to be recycled: but once in
      operation to the point where the stator voltage that appears is
      enough to make the fields resistance appear below its non rotational
      value: the opposite undesirable effect of overload saturation then
      quickly appears in an instant of time. This is why in the past that
      self feedback schemes were deemed a difficult control issue; in that
      we are faced with two opposite extremes; either practically no effect
      is observed, and then it almost instantaneously changes to a
      situation where an excessive effect is obtained. This excessive
      feedback effect is also shown by the fact that once the stator
      voltage has reached values in the 20-30 volt range, the fields
      resistance may only register as ~ 5 ohms. As will be futher seen; to
      show the variance between the actual stator voltage, and the needed
      field voltage to assure a stable operation for a highest stator value
      of 22 volts, only 4.2 volts need appear across the field. To further
      show the non-linearity involved with the field voltage vs stator
      voltage, if we increased the stator voltage 60% to a value near 35
      volts by changing the conditions of the feedback loop, the field
      voltage to accomplish this only rises 33% to a value of 5.6 volts.
      In the situation of complete resonant rise of amperage
      obtained by employing a WYE short across the triple delta series
      resonant rises of voltage, we obtain Q times more current inside the
      phase then what its stator line delivery wire will input as the input
      current. This situation is not encountered in the self feedback
      scheme since all the interphasal loads always consist of real
      resistances. However the situation is mentioned so that the theory
      can show what is the MAXIMUM amount of current obtainable on a
      interphasal current pathway; and this amount should be 1.7 times the
      current that would exist if the outside circuits were pure
      reactances, and this establishes a maximum current that can be known
      once the stator voltage is known, so that we can say the interphasal
      circuit is "current limited" to so and so of a value given the specs
      of the imposed stator voltage. Since the reactances are known to be 7
      ohms at 480 hz, we can say that @ of a 7 volt stator, the interphasal
      current should be current limited to 1.7 amps. Again because
      resistances are always present on these interphasal pathways, the
      actual current on those pathways will always be quite lower that what
      the branch has as a current limitation. Dealing with the theory also
      explains how the actual current input to the tanks will be found,
      which gives us a figure to base the possible resonant rise of
      amperage upon. What makes this possible is that the tank circuits
      increase the effective impedance of the circuit Q times further then
      what the actual reactance impedance of the individual matched L and C
      reactances provide for. Now for the cases of series resonances as
      loads, the reactances are cancelled so that (ideally in a perfectly
      resonating circuit) only the R(load) value appears as the resistance.
      If all the capacitive reactances were shorted out, so that the
      circuits then appeared totally as inductive reactances, since the Q
      of the circuits is found to be 5, making the circuits appear in the
      reactive state would also increase the AC resistances of the circuits
      5 fold. If the circuits were further manipulated so that the
      reactances appeared in parallel to one another, as occurs in three
      phase when a WYE short is employed between the LC midpoints of three
      equal DELTA series resonances; where equal reactances in parallel is
      what occurs in a tank circuit, then the AC resistances of the
      circuits would then appear 25 times higher then for the case when the
      reactances are cancelled by being wired in series. But inside the
      tank circuits themselves we would find the original amount of current
      that would appear if the circuit were merely a reactance dictated
      current, which again is a 5 fold higher AC resistance value compared
      to the case of series resonance where the reactances are cancelled.
      So essentially a 5 fold higher AC resistance figure is made to appear
      as if it were a 25 fold higher AC resistance towards its actual
      source of current, which is how the actual input current to the tank
      can be 5 times less then the actual current in the tank itself in
      this example of circuits with a Q of 5, which is the principle of the
      resonant rise of amperage. And because of the special METR condition
      that the loads of the series resonances themselves drop the open
      circuit voltage 50% downwards because of its low apparent AC
      resistance, when the circuits are changed to parallel resonances that
      appear with 25 times more AC resistance, THEN that new load will be a
      condition where the load itself barely causes the open circuit
      voltage to drop at all. Now in the parametric condition ~2 volts
      appears as the open circuit stator, which as noted is driven
      downwards towards 1 volt when the unloaded METR components are added
      as loads. BUT when we additionally allow interphasal currents to
      exist between the resonances, this also drives the circuits in the
      direction towards becoming more resembling that of a tank circuit,
      thus making the circuit appear to the source as a higher AC
      resistance, which further entails that less of a load vs open circuit
      voltage drop then occurs. The first jpeg shows the amount of voltage
      available for this job, after the water cell has made a voltage
      reduction itself on its interphasal voltage rise. To make a sensible
      self feedback loop using water as the voltage control factor, very
      little baking soda as electrolyte is employed, this is to keep the
      voltage across the cell relatively high, as this voltage also governs
      how much voltage will be available for the field self feedback loop.
      The cell electrodes are steel rulers immersed in about 9 inches of
      water, where the rulers also employ three 3/8 in blocks of Sr Fe as
      spacers.

      Parametric Electrolysis/ Voltage Available For Field Self Feedback
      Loop

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/Dsc00742.jpg

      Stator voltages vary from 1.4 volts to 2 volts. Given a stator line
      output of .47- .48 A that splits between the phase lines of delivery,
      we obtain a small voltage rise to 3.46 DC volts enabling .23 A across
      the cell for a acting resistance near 15 ohms. If the water cell were
      instead directly connected to the parametric stator voltage output
      after diode rectification we would expect hardly any current at all
      since no voltage rise were employed, and generally we need at least
      two DC volts across this cell before any appreciable amperage will be
      recorded. A brief test was made in which all the METR spirals were
      removed, and instead phase 1 was directly connected to a full wave
      rectification hooked to the identical water cell which means that the
      water cell is now unballasted by any intervening METR spirals. An AC
      short of a single phase in the parametric state will normally yield
      about 1.25 A. If three of these shorts were employed on all three
      phases, those current limited sources would then appear to allow a
      reduced value of .75 A on each phase. And since the METR spirals
      themselves will conduct the same value as the shorts will show, when
      three phases of METR spirals, (with open circuit or no load
      interphasal connections) are attached to the parametric outputs they
      also will conduct about .75 A. However the 3 Amp rated diodes
      themselves used in the rectification bridge themselves appear to
      present a formidable resistance to the parametric source of
      amperage. Thus after rectification, and making a test of the DC
      short current from the current limited supply of the parametric
      source, we find that the open circuit voltage of 1.9 AC parametric
      volts has been reduced to 1.5 volts AC, and the spec.s of the DC
      short show that .575 DC volts enables 190 ma on short. This is at
      least a 6 fold reduction of a single parametric current supply, made
      at the cost of converting the AC to pulsed DC via use of 4 diodes as
      a full wave rectification. If this output were to be recycled back to
      field, as a straight DC pulsed rectification, we might find that it
      takes 20 or 30 seconds to take effect before a runaway uncontrolled
      magnetic chain reaction between connected field and stator currents
      begins to appear. This is apparently because the supply of 190 ma is
      just below the critical value to get things to recycle as an
      instantaneous action. When we instead use the higher source of
      voltage made by METR resonances for the fields self feedback loop,
      the actions of recycled currents manifesting themselves as further
      larger stator current output are more or less instantaneous. And
      additionally since the currents available from such a source are
      also "current limited" by the impedance of the outside METR
      reactances, we have no danger of an uncontrolled magnetic chain
      reaction from occurring, as long as the METR voltage rise itself is
      limited by the load of the water cell, which exhibits a non-linear
      resistance according to the voltage that is imposed on it. The
      resonances act as a gate that will only allow so much current to be
      used for the purpose of field recycling. So for comparison purposes
      here the unballasted cell is compared to the METR ballasted one. The
      same cell hooked directly to the rectified parametric stator voltage
      showed that 1.5 VAC became 1.35 Volts DC that enabled a conduction
      of only 4 ma! This has something to do with the voltage threshold for
      electrolysis, where a certain voltage must be reached before
      appreciable currents will develop across the water cell. Apparently
      when only 1.35 DC volts are applied across this cell, the acting
      resistance of the cell is 1.35/.004 = 337.5 ohms. In contrast with
      the METR ballasted method we obtain 3.46 Volts DC enabling 230 ma,
      thus the METR ballasting method applied to the parametric state has
      enabled some 57.5 times more amperage to develope across the cell
      compared to the unballasted comparison. Those results are due to two
      factors, the resonant rise of voltage that has occurred, and also the
      non-linear resistance of the water cell that decreases its resistance
      upon encountering higher input voltages.

      From the jpeg we see that 2.9 DC volts are available for the
      fields self feedback loop from the remaining MIDPT's (1-2)'s voltage
      rise. This voltage rise, or more appropriately the existant voltage
      on MIDPT (1-2) will generally be about half that found on MIDPT's (1-
      3)(2-3) full wave rectifications joined together to provide a common
      DC amperage output , but at this lowest parametric level this ratio
      is larger. Paradoxically if we choose to add all three MIDPT DC
      rectifications to the water cell; this does not increase the voltage
      beyond what two of them provide. A simple test performed at the
      parametric level can show this fact. The wires to the cell are
      disconnected, and its DC voltage registered. With one rectification
      between METR midpoints we see that a 1.1 average stator voltage will
      produce a reading of 8.4 Volts DC between two of the resonances.
      Adding the second rectification between all three of the resonances
      then produces a 10.8 Volts DC reading, with the same 1.1 average
      stator voltage reading. Adding the third rectification shows that
      the output remains at 10.8 DC volts. Since the interphasal q factor
      is 8.5, (1.7 *5), and we are starting from a stator near 1.1 average
      volts, the addition of the second rectification in common with its
      neighboring rectification appears to have increased the Q factor, but
      this is a delusion brought on by meter artifacts. When we are reading
      from a single rectification, the output is actually in the form of a
      DC pulse, therefore the meter commonly records the average value of
      the DC pulse, or its rms value, and not its peak voltage value. When
      two of the rectifications are procured together this is actually
      combining sets of DC pulses that are 120 degrees out of phase,
      therefore when one set of DC pulses has reached its zero value, the
      neighboring set of DC pulses is not at its zero value, and this fills
      in the DC signal so that we see a more steady state DC value that
      should have a small amount of DC ripple. The rms value of that more
      constant DC voltage reading with a small DC ripple will obviously be
      higher that what the rms reading for a single pulsed DC will
      provide. So by the above observations we conclude that two of the
      MIDPT voltage rises does the same job as three of them do, and
      proportionally going from one MIDPT rectification to two of them
      shows a larger DC voltage rise reading because the DC pulses have
      been smoothed out and now more closely approach the actual peak value
      of the pulses themselves. Two full wave MIDPT rectifications is
      topologically the same as three of them, since two full wave
      rectifiers hooked in common output across two delta phases also
      leaves a diode pathway across the third delta phase, although we have
      not yet specifically placed a full wave rectification across that
      phase. Later we add that rectification that does supply an extra
      voltage, but it is routed to a different destination, that of the
      fields self feedback loop. This leaves us an extra DC voltage
      source that is redundant to the purposes of the water cell, but it
      can be used for the fields self feedback loop. Again if the ordinary
      parametric stator voltage were to be used for this purpose, it would
      lead to a runaway remagnetization chain reaction of the field, which
      will be seen once the loop is employed, where in that situation
      involving an actual current energized field; the voltage across the
      field will be regulated to appear far lower then the actual stator
      voltages. In the beginning however the voltage across the field will
      appear slightly higher then what the parametric conditions supply at
      the stator voltage level: (2.9 volts vs 2 volts for the highest
      stator voltage in this example) All these complications exist because
      of the fact that the fields resistance itself, like the water cell,
      has a non-linear resistance according to the voltage imposed upon it,
      which will be proven using examples of a 22 volt stator vs a 35 volt
      stator. In this situation we have first determined that provided a
      3.46 DC voltage level appears across the cell, this will leave 2.9
      volts available on the third rectification. Next we measure the
      ability of that 2.9 volts to supply current, this is done by shorting
      out that rectification. Also interesting is the fact that employing
      this (rectified) short across two of the MIDPT's of the resonant
      phases, does not significantly shut down the currents still available
      on MIDPT's (1-3)(2-3) rectifications. This is still logical since
      the short across MIDPT's 1 and 2 will drive those resonant voltages
      on those phases down to near zero, but the MIDPT of phase 3's voltage
      rise has not specifically been shorted with that one leg of
      interphasal short on (1-2), which leaves its resonant rise still
      available to supply current.

      Short Measurement of MIDPT (1-2)'s 2.9 Volts for Fields Initial
      Current Supply on Self Feedback Loop
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/ Dsc00743.jpg
      The short across MIDPT (1-2) reduces the voltage to .2 DC volts
      enabling a supply of .128 A: this affects a drop across the water
      cell where the output now is lowered to 3.06 DC Volts enabling .15 A,
      for an acting cell resistance of 20.4 ohms. Other previous
      measurements with an external field have shown that the ability of
      MIDPT (1-2)'s potential to supply current, with the DC water cell in
      place, will be only a slightly higher current then what the normal
      field currents demand involve. This insures the ability of the
      fields self feedback loop to function without runaway effect, the
      supply will always only be slightly higher then the demand. However
      given the fact that the field employs an actual resistance as a load,
      it still does seem amazing that the amounts of current develope only
      slightly lower then what the actual ability of the source is to
      supply them. In fact the short measurement may be somewhat
      irrevalent. Earlier experimentation with water saturated with the
      proper amount of baking soda showed that .128 A to field was
      insufficient to enable the self feedback loop to work in a dramatic
      way, in that the .128 A would only be slightly increased once the
      self feedback loop was employed. Then it was determined that at
      least .25 A should be necessary for a dramatic takeoff to occur.
      With a very conductive solution the plates had to be almost entirely
      removed from the water solution, with only an inch or so immersion,
      so that the voltage across the cell would reach higher amounts, thus
      the voltage across the feedback loop also would increase to get the
      feedback loop to perform efficiently. Thus it seems safe to conclude
      that it is NOT the amount of amperage entering the feedback loop that
      determines how far up the operation will be increased, but rather it
      is the effective VOLTAGE that appears across the field initially that
      determines how far the effect will rise to. While initially this
      does not seem to make a lot of sense, the fact that the field ALSO,
      like the water cell: has a non-linear resistance according to the
      voltage imposed on it, with that additional consideration the facts
      seem to jive a bit better. This is why the best (self- feedback)
      effects are made with water that only has a small amount of
      electrolyte, (with this size of a cell for experimentation) so that
      the voltage reduction across the cell is not as severe. Now the self
      feedback loop can be connected and the results for these conditions
      looked at.

      Connection of 2.9 DC Volts from MIDPT (1-2) for a Self Magnified
      Field Feedback Loop @ 21.9 Volts Power Output Phase
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/SEF/ Dsc00745.jpg

      We can actually make a distinction between the SELF MAGNIFIED
      feedback loop, and the ordinary feedback loop. Suppose for example
      we started with a cell that only supplied 2.2 DC volts availability
      on the initial feedback loop. At the start before the field self
      feedback circuit was connected we may have seen a 1.4-2 voltage
      distribution at the parametric stator voltage level. After the
      feedback loop was connected perhaps we see a result of an average 6
      volt stator voltage appearance. The feedback loop has worked to
      provide an increase of output, so technically we can say it is
      working. But during this working we may have found that the initial
      2.2 volts available for the feedback loop has been decreased to ~ 1.9
      volts, because of the added load of the field. The voltage
      availability compared to open circuit vs the new condition of an
      actual load provides for a voltage drop below what the initial
      conditions provided for. This of course is the standard action of
      electrical circuits, a load always decreases the open circuit
      voltage. In contrast for a SELF MAGNIFIED field self feedback loop,
      instead of a voltage reduction of the initial field voltage
      occurring, instead we see a voltage that gradually cycles upwards
      until an equilibrium point is reached. This equilibrium point took
      about two minutes to be reached. In some situations where a higher
      voltage output is negotiated, and the feedback loop is in place
      before the actual turn on of the alternator; the output voltage may
      occur instantaneously, so nothing here is necessarily written in
      stone, but in this trial the voltage slowly cycled upwards until
      phase 1 reached about 22 volts. In fact the initial starting
      temperature of the water cell can have quite a bit to do with how
      much voltage initially appears across the cell, as a colder cell is
      less conductive. During a colder start up at nightime a day before
      these tests were made, the output went instantaneously to 35 volts on
      phase 1. If we wished to obtain 35 volts for this example, we need
      only briefly raise the plates halfway out of the water, at which
      point about 45 volts will appear, and when the plates are dropped
      back to their normal position, 35 volts will appear, which then will
      slowly cycle downwards back towards the 22 volt level in about 20
      minutes. Again the temperature of the water cell (mostly dictated by
      the environmental temperature) has quite a bit to do with what
      voltage will appear. Now the "phasing" of the DC pulses that are
      procured from MIDPT (1-2) should be closely in phase with the AC
      pulses that occur on phase 3. The phasing issue is geometrically
      shown by drawing a triangle within a triangle, where the inner
      triangle is connected to the midpoints of the outer triangles METR
      resonances. The phase of the inner triangles action is identical to
      the outer segment that is parallel to the inner one. And the segment
      bisecting phase 1 and 2 is parallel to the outer phase 3. This means
      that the voltage pulse from MIDPT (1-2) voltage peak, if the
      resultant amperage were in phase with the DC pulse, we would expect
      phase 3 to have the highest resultant voltage from the pulsed DC
      going through the field. However because of the reactance of the DC
      field rotor, a time delay occurs between when the DC voltage appears,
      and when the resultant DC amperage appears. This time delay dictates
      that the next adjacent phase, which is phase 1, recieves the majority
      of the rotating magnetic flux produced by the field rotor. Hence in
      order of induced voltage on each phase we find the most on phase 1,
      then phase 3 where the pulse starts from, and the least amount of
      rotational magnetic flux on phase 2 which probably sees the most
      portion of zero current between the DC pulses. On phase 3 where the
      DC pulse in voltage timing is thought to originate from we find 19.7
      volts. On phase 1 where the majority of the actual amperage timing of
      the pulse is thought to exist timing wise we find 21.9 volts. And on
      the remaining phase where it is thought the DC pulse goes back down
      to zero timing wise, we find only 15.5 volts. The fact that each
      phase apparently receives a differing amount of magnetic flux change
      by the internally generated timing of the fields DC pulse may have
      other important ramifications. We have actually combined the
      principles of a transformer, that employs an emf generated by a
      changing magnetic field in time, with that of the alternator that
      employs a changing magnetic field by virtue of flux leakage in
      spatial rotation. When phase 1 is receiving the majority of magnetic
      flux change from the fields source of rotation of flux leakage, that
      magnetic field movement is further enhanced by the fact that the
      field is also expanding and collapsing during its rotation, hence
      this is comparable to having the field actually move faster through
      space in its rotation to achieve the same volume of flux change on
      that stator segment. Hence we imagine that this practice has caused a
      more efficient conversion of field energy into stator output energy,
      since we have decreased the amount of field energy required by
      comparing that of a DC pulse requirement vs that of a steady state DC
      value, thus less energy should be expended on the field for that
      comparison, and yet on the output side for at least one of the
      effected phases noted as the highest power output phase we have
      increased the flux change that would occur at that rotation by
      addition of the fields movement in BOTH time and space. One may
      counter that: yes, well one phase might have an increased efficiency
      of generation, but what about the remaining phases? Again that
      argument might be used in reverse in that the phase receiving the
      least amount of flux change might also be receiving a great
      efficiency due to the argument often used to explain parametric
      effects, which is the remanent magnetism of the pole faces. So in
      actuallity even though the source of mmf may have collapsed to zero,
      if we rely on the often cited remanent magnetism argument, than for
      that weakest phase some of the fields magnetic effects are actually
      being obtained for free! And finally to conclude at the end of this
      paper some stator heating experiments will be conducted where it is
      also surmised that the stator core heating losses should also be
      minimised with an internally generated and timed DC pulse via field
      self feedback loop. Since we have three different stator voltages
      being outputed at approximately 5 volts separation: we should be able
      to run the alternator at the middle specified voltage on all three
      phases, and also noting the amperage output on the stator lines for
      comparisons we can measure the stator heating effect for the
      situation when an externally applied constant amperage is inputed to
      the field. Then this can be compared to the internally generated DC
      pulsed field method. Associated with these observations is also
      another plus, where it is thought that the majority of the stator
      heating effects is not brought upon by the actual loads involved, but
      rather the highest heat losses are found when the stator core
      approaches saturation values. This is noted because the alternator
      can seriously overheat at higher output voltage levels, even when no
      loads are attached to the outputs! Apparently even though the
      internal stator wiring is made in WYE configuration, a one ended
      internal circulation of stator winding currents developes via the
      phasing differences created by the moving field rotor, so that
      currents actually flow between the phases, even though no loads are
      placed on the outputs. So as far as stator saturation effects are
      concerned, the predominant parameter involved is not the current
      being generated, but rather it is the voltage being generated. And if
      it is also the amount of flux change being encountered on the stator
      segment that causes this effect, because the flux is also being
      changed in time the higher amount of flux that intersect the stator
      windings is only briefly being encountered at the peak of the DC
      pulse. What all this is leading up to is the fact that with the self
      energized field method employing an internally timed DC pulse, we may
      be able to operate at higher peak voltages without excessive heat
      generation on the stator output then would be the case for when the
      alternator is operated with an externally operated constant amperage
      field.
      ENDICH>>> SO FAR..
      HDN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.