On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Esa Ruoho wrote:
a friend helped translate this, off we go
Excellent, many thanks for the xlation
Recall that the magnetic field on the outside of a toroidal coil is null and
simulates that of a coil of infinite length.*
Wrong. wrongwrongwrong. The bfield outside an AIR CORE toroid is null.
If you use a ferrous core, then that rule no longer holds.
However, if you use very low hysterisis material (not steel,) and keep the
core well below saturation, then the core might approach the behavior of
an air-core toroid. But it's not guaranteed.
There is no direct interaction between the magnetic field of the torus with
the magnetic field of the rotor's magnets.
Of course there is. The torus is attracting the magnets. That's a very
strong interaction. If they could keep the core far away from saturation,
then the core might self-shield, so the coil would not couple to the
moving magnets. But that doesn't appear to be what they're doing.
The magnetic field of the
toroidal coil serves only to temporarily depolarize the magnetization of
the ferrite core.*
All in all, this sounds like yet another FE machine which supposedly works
IN THEORY, and so everyone gets excited. To find the error, build a
working closed-loop version (by "working" I mean "closed-loop self-acting,
no batteries added to confuse the issue.")
When they replace the lithium battery with a relatively small
supercapacitor, THAT's the time to get excited. Or not ...since first
we'd have to trust that the whole thing isn't just a simple hoax.
*Continuing: we have a "non-reciprocating" and asymmetric system. There is
no counter electromotive force (Back-EMF) on the toroidal coils of the
stator produced by the rotation of the rotor.
If the magnets bring the core anywhere near saturation, then there will be
a strong mechanical interaction between cores and moving magnets.
Possibly the changing fields will average to a zero induced voltage in the
toroid coil, but that doesn't remove the need for the battery to do
magnetic work on the core by cycling its operating point along the BH
curve.
Add a big mechanical load to the rotor, then measure the average power
supply wattage (or just power it with a supercapacitor to make things
easy.)
The Newman Fallacy: a big spinning rotor to impress everyone, and a
chemical battery having unknown lifetime in that particular application.
SO SIMPLE to add a water pump or whatever known load, and use a supercap.
The current necessary for the
temporary depolarization of the magnetic domains of the ferrite is
independent of the mechanical coupling produced on the shaft of the motor.
Ah, that might be the source of the mistake.
If normally the core is being slightly heated by hysterisis (by moving
it's operating point around the BH curve,) and if the moving magnets end
up reducing this heating yet also simultaneously being mechanically driven
forward ...it would look like a relative violation of energy conservation.
In reality some of the usual energy lost as core heat is getting diverted
to run the motor. But this illusion would be broken if anyone bothered to
try designing a closed-loop system. The battery would gradually run down.
(To fool yourself just use a lithium cell which takes months to run down.
Or to cut through your self-delusion, use a supercapacitor and watch the
voltage slowly drop.)
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty chem washington edu Research Engineer
billbamascicom UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
