OS:MP Magnetic Devices

From PESWiki

The Magnetic Piston and Validation of Free Energy

HOME | Correlated Principles | CAM/CoE Cycle | Magnetic Devices

MAGNETIC DEVICES

Motor and generator technology is substantially mature with corporate development mostly limited to materials improvement. Recently the transistor age has presented new opportunities for advancing synchronous motor technology well beyond clock motor applications. Synchronous motors, particularly stepper and brushless DC versions, are now used in every day appliances. Synchronous motors are seldom chosen for applications requiring high power because of inherent inefficiency. An accounting for inefficient losses in stepper motors cannot be found in the literature and computer modelers of magnetic circuits are notoriously cautious when dealing with the ‘touchy’ subject.

No doubt that the ‘touchy’ aspect of the subject inspires a resurgence of motor research, mostly in garages where curiosity prevails. What may or may not be surprising is that the majority of the promising research seems to be focused on a single synchronous concept. Three of the many patents are shown with the Flynn patent describing many more adaptations of the same concept:

Conceptually all three patents describe synchronous generator processes where substantially conserved energy flux is cyclically transferred between two flux paths and energy is harvested by retarding the amount of flux transferred. The mechanical reactions in all three devices are shear forces between a passive rotor and a stator. All three devices are claimed to work equally well with permanent and electro magnet excitation.

The mechanical work reactions for all synchronous motors and generators also apply to solenoids which can be easier to understand. A simple, denoted class I, solenoid consists of a coil of current carrying magnet wire wrapped around a piece of core magnetic material of near equal length. The core is attracted to central alignment from either direction as illustrated in three representations. Centrally located, the core has equal magnetic force from both ends. Maximum force occurs at two places in opposite directions very near the central position.

Class I solenoids are used to hold valves open or shut and in switching relays where static force rather than mechanical work is the desired reaction. A functionally similar solenoid, denoted class II, is readily applied in the referenced patents where mechanical energy is required.

Magnetic flux is applied across a gap between poles and the core is once again attracted to a central location where ‘s’ would be zero in the illustration and the minimum energy in the magnetic circuit would be determined by the sum of air gap lengths ‘g1’ and ‘g2’.

The Ecklin and Flynn patents juxtapose a pair of class II solenoids to maintain constant flux energy in their magnetic circuits. The pairing is referenced as a class IIIj solenoid schematically illustrated:

The cores are connected so that as one core is filling its air gap, the complimentary core is exiting its gap. The sum of displacements, S1 + S2, is constantly maintained with the cores being attracted to the side with the lesser displacement.

The gap shear forces can be determined across the individual gaps:

The shear force, F_SH, between the two poles shown representing a stator (S) and a rotor (R) is proportional to the magnetic force, F_M, by:

Typically, magnetic materials limit the peak magnetic force, FM, to 70-100 pounds per square inch in practical designs. The shear force, FSH, is a statically determined force. A flaw in the concept demonstrated by the patent examples that the shear force reactions may include intrinsic dynamic forces.

Any dynamic force would be enigmatic. The defining reaction would involve energy opposing velocity but there is no energy sink or source involved in the reaction. The only plausible explanation or theory, if you like, is that flux vectors are altered by relative motion. The Magnetic Piston Project is designed to solve the enigma. The Magnetic Piston, as a machine to validate the existence of free energy, precipitated out of the test plan long before any test fixtures could be built.

Discovery of the Murray Patent was likewise precipitous. A reviewer suggested a third patent reference and recalled a Murray reference in an Australian Journal. Murray’s Dynaflux Alternator has several unique attributes mostly resulting from transferring magnetic flux in axial rather than a radial plane.

Astoundingly the natural attraction is toward a position with the armature rotated 90o from the illustrated position at the point of MAXIMUM energy. The inventor’s description of the device included references to Tesla’s energy transformer work and differential equations. I had to interrupt to ask if what he was saying was the solenoid work exceeded the inductive work and he said ‘of course’ with the caveat that his term was motor work rather than solenoid work. He has already run most of the experiments designed into the Magnetic Piston project. The fourth principle, catalytic predominance, may very likely require revision.

There is more, the Dynaflux Alternator is irreversible and, unlike the other inventions cannot be simply reversed to become a motor. It is also the only single reactant device requiring a single magnet and having a single phase. Uniquely, Murray has shown data indicating 1.76 overunity and we share philosophies that overunity in magnetic devices may be limited to 2.00. His generation efficiency is therefore 88% which is consistent with practical magnetic devices. Murray’s only down fall may have been not having the money or temperament to perform the validating task of feeding the output back into the input and creating a perpetual motion machine with insignificant utility. A corporate executive of a windpower company might be remiss in failing to fire a research staff that did not stay on top of this technology.