Spirit of Ma'at: "Free Energy & Alternative Energy, Part II" Vol 2 No 8
or, for those of us who
love acronyms, R O A D S
by Ryan Hopkins
I am currently in the process of building a magnetic device which utilizes in its operation the concept of geometrical asymmetry. The concepts involved in its operation have been utilized both in the Interference Disc Generator and in Bill Muller's demonstrated overunity device, as well as Doug Konzen's replication, in addition to Konzen's overunity symmetrical pulse motor, which he has successfully paired together.
For my own satisfaction, as well as to satisfy the purpose of readers, I will now make a reasonable attempt to describe the complex relationships inherent in such a machine.
Geometrical asymmetry in motor/generators deals with a mismatch of varying degrees between the rotor and stator.
Some consideration of this idea can bring about many possibilities for such combinations. However, for simplicity's sake I will describe a system which closely resembles the Muller devices.
This device consists of a rotor with, for example, eight magnets and a stator consisting of one plate on each side of the rotor, each of which contains seven electromagnet coils.
The 7/8 mismatch causes a forward-biased precession. In other words, at any one point, only one magnet can be fully matched to a pair of coils. I shall refer to this matching point as the "symmetry point."
An appropriate control system would sense this condition and send a pulse of current to the aligned coil pair in order to overcome the magnetic reluctance. Here, the electrical input would equal the aligned magnet's force. This is a critical stage, because it directly shows that at this moment all the other magnets and coils are mismatched symmetrically. It is this condition that gives rise to the possibility of tapping energy from the rotor.
In order to move the rotor 1/7th of a full rotation, an opposition force equal to the full strength of one magnet must be applied at whichever magnet/coil pairing is matched.
This approach is uniquely different from what Tom Bearden has referred to as "forced symmetry" in conventional electromagnetic devices, which are always designed with symmetry between the rotor and stator, and thus have a comparatively larger magnetic reluctance force to overcome.
Keep in mind that the larger, fine-grade Neodymium magnets can be found as high as 50MGOe (maximum energy production).
For the purposes of this example, I will use simplified math. For real-world calculations, the lines of force referred to below would be magnetic flux density, amperes/volts, and conversions between them. The ratio system remains the same, but could use some computer simulation to plot percentages exactly.
Let us assume that each magnet contains 2 lines of force, or 1 per side, for a rotor total of 16.
In order to move the rotor 1 full revolution, 14 pulses (7 per side), equal to 1 line of force per pulse per side, must be input. That's two pulses per 7th.
So, the input force is 14 lines of force total per RPM.
What are the other six coil pairs and seven magnets doing? Not only do the mismatched forces equal out at the symmetry point, but they also are equal for the transient spaces, as well. Whichever coil isn't being pulsed is collecting stray magnetic flux.
Assume for this example that the coil pairs are numbered clockwise. The percentage of coil-to-magnet match for pairs 2 and 7 will be approximately 90 percent per side. For pairs 3 and 6, 50 percent per side. For pairs 4 and 5, 10 percent per side. This means that the lines of force available from the mismatched coils is 300 percent, or 3 lines of force per side.
What this means is that at any given point in the rotor's movement, 6 total lines of force are available to be tapped and used through induction.
The next step is to calculate the total lines of force available per revolution, which is derived by simple multiplication of 6 times 7, that is, 42.
This means that the input per revolution is 14 and the output per revolution is 42! The ratio of out versus in would thus be 300 percent.
The process of creating cores for the wound coils seems to involve getting the most nonlinear flux-transducing response possible for the sake of cutting magnetic reluctance.
It has been said this can be done with microcrystalline and amorphous steel, which leaves possibilities for metglas (very expensive), iron filings cast with epoxy (cheap), or, probably better, a combination of the two.
An additional improvement can be made by rotating the coils of one side of the machine so that the disk's magnets interact with them in a ping-pong fashion.
For generators with super-high flux densities, these systems could be made with several multiple-magnet-layer disks to maximize size efficiency and output density. In theory, such a unit with, say, three disks, and two-magnet/two-coil layers instead of one, the magnetic reluctance would drop dramatically. It may be found that this is because the amount of input will increase minimally due to varying alignments in the rotors resembling a spiral, matched to straight radial coils.
The cross-coil alignments can be staggered so as to work in slightly offset unison, using the waves of magnetic flux traversing the conductor cores between and outside of the rotors.
In the example given above, it may be surmised that the coils may be staggered by thirds, effectively dampening the rotor's magnetic reluctance to one-third of the force of one magnet, or 0.6. This yields an input of only 4.66 (lines of flux per rotor) * 3 (rotors) = 14; and an output of 42 (lines of flux) +9.44 (extra due to reluctance reduction) or 51.6 * 3 (rotors) = 154.8!
In other words, this configuration puts out 11.1 times as much energy as it takes in (154.8/14): in other words, the theoretical efficiency is more than 1000 percent!
For the reader, please be aware that the examples given are just that: examples. They are ballpark estimates using symbolic math of the kinds of forces such a system will encounter.
My intention for this information is that it be used by others (such as myself!) in order to build machines, simply to prove the concept of overunity.
While the socioeconomic structure of many parts of the world frowns upon such technology, its proliferation may be used wisely if guided correctly by those who disseminate such information.
As for now, let this information be used in such a manner. I will be making available new details on my own progress when the building and testing of my own prototype of the concept is complete.