Hi George, > I have been working on methods for variable reluctance > overunity for many years with some suggestive but > not completely convincing results. I would be interested in > trying other permeability varying techniques such as RF > excitation if the variation in permeability is greater than > 10%.
For some reason, this seems like deja vu all over again. I suppose at the bottom line this 'snake' idea is perhaps just a potentially more efficient configuration for a 'flux gate'? I tried to get on escribe to find some of the older posts, but I guess it is still down. Anyway I found some of my notes going back a decade on trying to get a flux gate to go OU. It wouldn't work for me but maybe a snake (toroid) configuration would do better.Actually, it should do a lot better - come to think of it. One of the simplest ways of creating a low-powered flux gate would be by using high frequency through a ferrite. Permeability varies with frequency strongly in many ferrites. There used to be a graph on this site: www.ferronics.com showing how frequency effects permeability in a T type ferrite [MnZn]. Looks like at 0-100KHz it has about 10,000 mu and starts to drop off past 100KHz. At about 1MHz the permeability is about 2500 mu....that's a %75 reduction. The trick would be in getting this ferrite very thin. and using hundreds of gates in series instead of just one or a few. This permeability variation in ferrites should be usable, but I have tried MnZn personally and could not make it work in a de Rivas type configuration. Apparently in that type config (de Rivas and the MEG, as well) whenever the b field is forced to make this 'choice' - 1) either to do useful work while being switched within high permeability material ,or 2) jump out of the high permeability material into surrounding space, instead of doing OU work, even if the field lines have to stretch many times further than the shortest path through the low permeability core. The later 'choice' is always made. If you want OU you have to somehow eliminate all options, i.e. by constructing a very high reluctance 'surround' I suppose you could do this by making a surround using superconductivity (RTSC), which is probably the path the Mark Goldes is pursuing, since he has access to this kind of material, or maybe your 'surround' can be made out of very good diamagnetic material like some of the newer graphites... or both. With the graphite at least, one could probably 'pot' the whole device. Hah - lets see the flux lines try jump out of a perfect diamagnetic surround! Actually it probably wouldn't be that hard as diamagnetism is so much weaker. Anyway, I guess the message of all of this is that nature abhors free-energy ! worse even than a vacuum... which is not to say that it is impossible... just demanding. You have probably seen the older Elman patent and Richardson # 4077001 -1978 Electromagnetic Convertor With Stationary Variable-Reluctance Members and US Patent #4,006,401 by Villasenor de Rivas which describes what seems like the best design for a flux gate (or at least, prior to the snake toroid ;-) ABSTRACT: (Richardson) A dc/dc converter comprising a permanent magnet having spaced-apart poles and a permanent magnetic field extending between the poles of the magnet. A variable-reluctance core is disposed in the field in fixed relation to the magnet and the reluctance of the core is varied to cause the pattern of the lines of force of the magnetic field to shift. An output conductor is disposed in the field in fixed relation to the magnet and is positioned to be cut by the shifting lines of permanent magnetic force so that a voltage is induced in the conductor. BTW the Richardson device was apparently efficient but was not OU. According to Fred Epps by way of Mark G, the Elman device uses a high-frequency current to vary the permeability of a "core of magnetic material" (presumably steel, since ferrite wouldn't be invented for another 50 years). I'll try to locate some other info if escribe ever resumes, Jones
