What Don Wilson said about Sweet was meaningful. When Sweet prepared a barium ferrite billet, he did it in small steps removing magnetization one small bit at a time repeatedly over hours until Sweet got to the critical level that was optimal.
It was Sweets goal to get the magnetic field right on that cutting edge where it could be shut off with a minimum counter field. Or it could also be that the activation field turned on the field with a minimum of power required. In either case, the change of state between magnetization and non magnetization, between a week field and a stronger field produce the change in flux that produces the movement of current in the output coil(S). In general, the goal over overunity power production is the activation of power production with a activating parameter(s) that consumes less power than it produces. It sounds like Sweet had the knowledge to find that optimum point in the setup of the magnet to reach that point of minimum field activation or deactivation power requirement. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On this rare occasion, I would have to agree with Axil. He wrote: > > *"I would map the magnetic field strengths over the entire face of the > billet, front and back. I would NOT apply any magnetism to it for fear of > changing something. Use only passive magnetic sensors."* > > Since the ferrite will have hysteresis in its curve, and due to the energy > being delivered, I would expect large magnetic field swings that could well > have left a latent image of the magnetic field pattern being excited in the > block. While it may be difficult, mapping the magnetic field direction on > the 6 faces of the block may provide a good clue into how the coils were > wound. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One huge advantage that Brian A has over all other replicators is that he >> has a working billet. As a systems engineer, what I do when reverse >> engineering a old system is to spec it out as well as could be done. >> >> That working billet is the KEY to the system. If I had the billet, I >> would map the magnetic field strengths over the entire face of the billet, >> front and back. I would NOT apply any magnetism to it for fear of changing >> something. Use only passive magnetic sensors. >> >> I would write a specification of the original magnet which would include >> a magnetic map of the field patter that it produced. >> >> I would never run tests on that original billet for fear of changing it >> in some way. >> >> Then I would duplicate the magnetic field patterns produced by the >> original billet so I could run tests to see what the coils did to the field >> pattern. >> >> I would then submit the billet spec to a magnetic specialty company to >> produce a billet that met the billet spec and duplicated the original >> billet. >> >> Such a company is Polymagnet, a magnetic fabricator. >> >> http://www.polymagnet.com/ >> >> I would then verify that the replicated magnet received from the magnet >> fabricator closely followed the billet spec. >> >> With the replicated billet in hand, there are two types of coils to now >> reverse engineer, the actuator coil, and the output pickup cable(S). >> >> The output cable(S) is the one connected to the full wave AC to DC diode >> rectifier. I would identify that rectifier and test how it works, then look >> for some indication of which coils it connected. >> >> I would spec out the AC power source before using it in any way. After >> the spec is written, I would then replicate the actuator power source and >> not use the original one. >> >> I would spec out all coils and replicate them, I would not use the >> originals. >> >> I would do the same for the actuator coil that must be connected to the >> actuator power source(square wave generator). >> >> As much as possible, use the duplicates and not the originals. Document >> those originals as far as possible. Those originals are far too valuable to >> mess up in any way. >> >
