A new type of electric generator

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by gabana, Sep 1, 2015.

  1. gabana Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    I have a new electric generator design with magnetic field simulations. I'm curious what you think about. Not alternative physics.

    A detailed (3 pages) description is available on my website: http://magnetgenerators.weebly.com/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Wow a generator that only uses mere electricity to create electricity!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Isn't this basic design the same as Tesla's dynamo field winding (gifted to Edison without compensation to Tesla) which caused the rift between the two inventors?

    The field winding 'input' increases the permanent magnet strength because really strong permanent magnets were hard to come by in the days of the current wars. Beyond saturation of a permanent magnet's field and the transformer core material, it doesn't really do very much, does it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It is, at face value, a violation of conservation of energy. So, you must have made an error somewhere.
     
  8. gabana Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Here, the permanent magnet's magnetic field is used for energy production. Therefore not violated the law of conservation of energy.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Permanent magnet's magnetic fields hold very little energy and don't get expended (at least not quickly). If your device were actually doing that, it would stop working in seconds.
     
  10. gabana Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    No.

    In the simulation, there is no saturation in the ferrite core.
     
  11. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Your entire design philosophy for what from memory looks suspiciously like a knock-off of 'Colonel' Tom Bearden's MEG, is based on a fundamental misconception. That the permanent magnet somehow creates an asymmetry in the AC flux linkages between input & output coils. Given you never mention non-linearity, it's clear linearity is assumed i.e. permeability is constant. Hence superposition applies and one might as well throw away that permanent magnet. Only the AC flux linkages matter and they are entirely symmetric wrt to half-cycles and, assuming negligible flux-linkage through the high reluctance path of permanent magnet, even wrt linkages to both output coils. So all one really has is an overweight ordinary transformer having actually more the usual losses.

    In practice the permanent magnet will introduce non-linear but not such as to introduce appreciable asymmetric linkages to output coils. It will rather simply introduce additional harmonics thus in practice unrecoverable power loss - making the 1:1 transformer that much less efficient - already done by opting for a triangular rather than sinusoidal input.
    Finally, I assume you have never actually built and tested your design?
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It looks like you are not taking into account the loss of energy to change the permanent magnets field. I believe you would have to increase the voltage to achieve the desired current due to the impedance from the changes in the permanent magnets field. I am not an electrical guy but that's what it looks like to me.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    A few mistakes:
    1) A DC bias (permanent magnetic field) does not contribute to output power. It provides a bias that is seen during construction of the core and never again.
    2) You have assumed maximum (open circuit) voltage and maximum (short circuit) current, then multiplied them to get a power. That is invalid.
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You are in error as noted above by others. In addition to those shortcomings, it seems you have a mistaken notion of how magnetic coupling and saturation work. I notice toward the end of your writeup you state that "the field lines double at the output coils". So, we should be able to place 100 output coils there and the field lines would double 100 times? In that case, I say: take all the world's copper to build output coils and couple them all to a single sub-picowatt input coil and we can all live like kings for free and all the economic problems of the world are instantly solved.

    Note, you can't build a device that behaves anything like you are advertising.

    What you have presented here is a transformer, improperly simulated, such that the load from output coil 1 is ignored in computing the response at output coil 2, and vice-versa. Simulators have to be programmed properly, or it's "garbage in, garbage out".

    As stated above, once you obtain an efficiency greater than or equal to 100%, you have made a fundamental mistake, in violation of the laws of nature that conserve matter and energy. That should stop you dead in your tracks, as others have mentioned.

    There is nothing magic about magnetic coupling. It still is a slave to conservation of energy. Without that consideration you have an incompletely formulated design which will never work. In design, you must consider all of the constraints, or face failure.

    Note: permanent magnets do not "store energy" as advertised by folks such as yourself. They store magnetic domains, nothing more. Those can be exploited to develop force, not energy. Learn the derivation of power and energy from force and you are on the road to correcting your error.

    Oh, one more thing: the RMS value for something like power is generally used as averaged over time. The idea is find a way to represent the time-average for something like heat dissipation - to figure out if the thing will melt down or not. (For example.) It therefore makes no sense to represent RMS in waveforms as you did. As far as I can tell you randomly picked a triangle wave. It's a no-go. The RMS walue is a static number, or else it makes no sense. So brush up on the meaning of RMS while you're at it.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951

Share This Page