James Ian Johnston
Give businesses the chance to profit by cleaning up the environment - the methodology is now available
04 Feb 2012
Some time ago I wrote a series of ditties hoping that someone might read them. They may have but in any case I received the number of responses I could count on my fingers even if I only had one arm(or even just a few fingers).
Almost as a demonstration of how bad luck follows a fellow such as me, the bit that the patent office modifies(in my case they added a completely new text), had two glaring errors in it. Coupled with the fact that the diagrams looked as if they had been scanned underwater, you might say that everything went swimmingly.
Regardless, in between then and now I’ve been at it again, not the sauce, but testing, reconfiguring and trying to find ways to promote what I've found for the sake of the environment.
The good news is that I now have conclusive proof that the braking due to induction CAN be eliminated in its entirety. This is something I was not allowed to say in the patent specification as it “contravened existing laws”. I think this just might be more a discovery than an invention but who am I to know ?.
A little while ago I found a website that enabled me to get what I have to a rather large company who as well as other things develop and utilise renewables. Having heard nothing for several weeks I decided to write again, merely as a closure. What helped me to decide was that I found a business article in a newspaper mentioning that this particular company had just lost 2.5 billion pounds sterling due to the high price of gas. I mentioned this and the response was immediate (around a day).
One of my philosophies is that climate cleanup will only occur if big business can profit by it. This was a wish-list item that I had when I first started my project. Engineering incorporating the principles of the GBC could start this process off. What was required of me to continue this happy interlude was, however, the provision of an independent assessment. And guess what ? The assessment is proving to be as difficult to do as the initial attempt at recognition(which itself is still in progress).
So, I have a proven idea which is almost impossible to sell. What to do ? I decided to go back to basic principles and reduce my explanation of what I had to individual mechanisms that are known to work i.e. magnetism and coils, almost back to the bits that brightened the face of Faraday. I posted a short note to the said(or not) company and I’m waiting for a reply. I know it got there because the (not said) website told me so.
I’ve included the note following; there is an accompanying PDF…
(start of doc)
Generation, old geometry
Generating flux sources (magnets) 50mm square, type 2 anisotropic ferrite blocks.
Generating coils 80mm diameter 18mm deep, wound from 1.7mm enamelled copper.
Two magnets fly over the generating coils simultaneously, one above and one below. The magnetic polarity is opposite (attracting), kept apart by supporting rotors. The gaps between magnets and generating coil are ideally less than or equal to 1mm.
Straight-line flux of a width of 50mm is therefore concentrated through a thickness of 18mm of enamelled copper coil for a length of 80mm.
The rate of change of flux is maximal for a length of 50mm as the magnets move into the coil area, is negligible for the 30mm as the magnets travel within the coil area and again maximal for a length of 50mm as the magnets move off the coil area.
Compensator, old geometry, new testing
Compensator flux sources (magnets) identical to generator.
Original compensator fixed coils 50mm diameter 26mm deep, wound from 1.7mm enamelled copper.
The depth of 26mm was arbitrary.
One magnet flies over two compensation coils(the original specification refers to four coils; this has been found to be unnecessary for the reasons cited below). The magnetic polarity of the fixed coils is synchronised to be matching therefore repelling at the time of maximum rate of change of flux within the generator.
What we now know
Because of the geometry (tightly wound generating coils with no void area) the number of braking points per generating coil for the test rig is two, at the points of maximum rate of change of flux. Logically, as two magnets are affecting each generating coil, each fixed compensation coil should be affecting two magnets.
We now know that we can establish equivalence of flux levels by increasing the number of turns on the fixed coils by a factor of two and retaining the original single magnet to be affected by those coils.
Therefore, given that the generating coils are 18mm deep, if the compensation is to be maximised the compensation coils should be 36mm deep, ignoring any losses inherent within the diodes used for the FWR.
We now know that the diode losses can likely be compensated for, but this concerns only the test rig as full scale implementation would render such losses insignificant.
The flux yielded by an electromagnet is given by the simple formula NI where N is the number of turns and I the current flowing through them. This means that it is possible to reduce the copper diameter of the compensator coils and for the same physical size of coil yield more turns hence more flux and greater compensation force. This of course depends on the ability of the copper to carry the required current.
This has been tried and the equivalence of flux levels proven, which prompted the creation of this document.
Enamelled copper of 1.06mm diameter was used to wind two compensation coils with an overall size of the 1.7mm copper wound coils. On a percentage basis, this results in a 37.6% increase in flux.
Comparing the compensation, the 1.7mm wound coils resulted in the ability to reduce the input current due to induction by approx.63.6%, explained as follows:
The figure “GBC Old Geometry Extended Testing” is an annotated graph of the test results. The horizontal line marked “33/34” is a marker for the speed attained when an input current of 3.7A is applied to the rig with 26mm deep 1.7mm diameter enamelled copper coils are connected in series with the left and right legs of the FWR. They are connected but not mounted on the rig.
The intersection with the unloaded performance line indicates vertically the total possible compensation i.e. if the compensation results in an input current of the value on the vertical the braking effect is eliminated.
In this case (1.7mm copper) the maximum input current reduction is 1.1A (3.7 – 2.6) marked X in the figure. The green vertical line marked 1.7mm copper indicates the current reduction with compensation to maintain the rig at the speed and volts measured prior to the compensation coils being physically mounted. The reduction is 0.7A, as a percentage of the reduction possible is 0.7/1.1*100 or 63.6%.
The 1.06mm wound coils were originally tested and compared on the same basis i.e. using the same possible reduction, the percentage input current reduction was 81.8% . This at least illustrates the increase in compensation given greater flux.
However, the resistance of the copper has to be a factor in the compensation measurement. In the figure, marked Y, the total possible compensation is 1.0A due to the decrease in load(increase in resistance). The reduction measured is 0.9A (reduction of input current to 2.8A), the compensation allowing the rig to maintain the speed and volts measured prior to the compensation coils being physically mounted (in this case a speed of 35/36). As a percentage, the measured reduction is 0.9/1.0 or 90%. There is of course a margin of error due to rig build inaccuracies.
Increasing the depth of the 1.7mm/26mm coils by 9.78mm(37.6% of 26) is equivalent. This would then result in a total depth of 35.78mm which is approaching 36 (2 x 18 for the generator).
For completeness, several oversized coils were wound and tested. The levels of flux were greatly increased but for the compensation to work as described the level has to match rather than exceed the generator braking. What happens if we exceed the generator braking force is that the speed does indeed increase but causes the timing synchronisation to become erratic resulting in a reduction in output volts and a distortion in the output waveform.
For a full size implementation (a retrofit for existing mainly salient pole generator designs) the moving winding element of a compensator can be minimised, the difference being made up by increasing the windings on the fixed coils. This minimises any addition friction on the shaft bearings.
The matching areas of compensator magnet and coils are not as important as flux magnitude and positioning.
There appears no reason why the net compensation of braking due to induction should not achieve 100%.
(end of doc)
The last line says it all. If it wasn’t so cold out in the garage I’d be out there testing today.
The next stage (carrying on regardless) is to take what I now have and carry out a feasibility study towards what I call a flux harvester. I spent more money some time ago on NIB magnets. Apart from nearly losing a finger when opening them (I read the precautionary notes after that) they look pretty well ideally suited for the job. In terms of the second law of thermodynamics, most people forget that magnetism is one of only three naturally occurring forms of energy i.e. there’s gravity, low radiation and magnetism. When you add a magnet to a structure you are adding energy to that structure. That energy can be harvested, especially if you have the capability to neutralise the forces that would otherwise prevent you from doing so.
Wish me luck. Regards Jim. PS. Happy New Year.