Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.

nav

Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« on June 29th, 2014, 09:22 AM »Last edited on June 29th, 2014, 09:34 AM
Thane Heins has a way of explaning things which is much easier than Stan Meyer, he is much more transparant in what he says and does and his theories along with some of the testing myself, Angus and a few more people who have been testing bucking coil configurations on a generator, will make this technology much more easier for anyone to undestand.
Lens law is very simple, it states that if we drive a generator with energy, the more load we place on that generator through electrical resistance then the more energy we use to drive the generator. What we are trying to achieve is also very simple, when the generator is under load or the load increases we don't want to spend any more energy driving it.
Now if you wanted to introduce a Thane Heins low reluctance path into a generator it would look like figure 3. Thats how Thane would do it. The path back to the magnet is higher reluctance than the red path and so if both coils are wound the same the back EMF takes the red route and so the resistive load in the generator is not carried back to the magnet.
Now I want you to take a look at figure 4.
Figure 4 is a standard generator with the stator marked N/S fying through it but it has a low reluctance path between L1 and L2. Both coils are wound in the same direction. When the stator is in the position between the core legs the two coils are induced and when the stator passes they both collapse into voltage. We do not want this because both R1 and R2 have a path back to the magnet in the stator and Lens law will not be cancelled.
What we need is for L1 to collapse its voltage into L2 and magnetise the low reluctance path and not the U shaped core.
Take a look at figure 5. When the stator is in the core, magnetic flux loads L1 but not L2 because there is a chunk of the low reluctance path missing.  But when the stator moves away and just before L1 collapses into voltage a chunk of ferrite that is connected to the stator wheel moves into the gap and completes the low reluctance path. L1 collapses into L2 and the two respective R1 and R2 resistors cannot communicate with the stator anymore. Lens law relies on the resistance of the gen communicating with the stator via the motor effect but the motor effect is now in the low reluctance core not in the gen U shaped core.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT STAN MEYER IS DOING THIS IN HIS VIC.
But instead of doing it mechanically he does it electronically. The way he removes the chunk of core is through another inductor that blocks the gen (VIC) core flux path but that inductor is not the same as Angus's bucking coils. The voltage for Meyer's blocking inductor is independant from the rest of the VIC (isolated). This means that instead of complete cancellation like Angus and myself were getting there is huge forward energy and no back EMF.
You can either use a low reluctance path to recycle energy back into the capacitor or you can have resonant coils. Meyer's coils are resonant but his blocking inductor is an isolated voltage that cannot cancel the main inductor.
THE MECHANICAL WAY OF REMOVING A CHUNK OF THE LOW RELUCTANCE CORE AND PUTTING IT BACK CAN STILL BE DONE THOUGH.
Its all about the timing.




Matt Watts

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #1, on June 29th, 2014, 11:45 AM »
Quote from nav on June 29th, 2014, 09:22 AM
Take a look at figure 5. When the stator is in the core, magnetic flux loads L1 but not L2 because there is a chunk of the low reluctance path missing.  But when the stator moves away and just before L1 collapses into voltage a chunk of ferrite that is connected to the stator wheel moves into the gap and completes the low reluctance path. L1 collapses into L2 and the two respective R1 and R2 resistors cannot communicate with the stator anymore. Lens law relies on the resistance of the gen communicating with the stator via the motor effect but the motor effect is now in the low reluctance core not in the gen U shaped core.
That's some sharp thinking there--had to read it ten times to get my head wrapped around it.

What we need is a generator designed to do just this.  I can't quite see how to modify one as yet.  In concept the idea seems pretty simple though--just provide an alternate flux path that is timed mechanically to intercept the back EMF and we're home free.  What I'm not certain of is will this alternate path case drag on the rotor--same as we would get with a legacy generator.

Time to tear through pages of my sketch book and see what I can come up with.

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #2, on June 29th, 2014, 12:32 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on June 29th, 2014, 11:45 AM
That's some sharp thinking there--had to read it ten times to get my head wrapped around it.

What we need is a generator designed to do just this.  I can't quite see how to modify one as yet.  In concept the idea seems pretty simple though--just provide an alternate flux path that is timed mechanically to intercept the back EMF and we're home free.  What I'm not certain of is will this alternate path case drag on the rotor--same as we would get with a legacy generator.

Time to tear through pages of my sketch book and see what I can come up with.
Oh thats very easy, you attach your chunk of low reluctance core to a linear motor and have a reid switch operate it which is driven by the stator magnets. Or a relay driven my a reid switch. Or you could just have the chunk pass through the gap mechanically. Personally I like the linear motor.
Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #3, on June 29th, 2014, 01:17 PM »Last edited on June 30th, 2014, 09:20 AM
Any spring loaded servo will do. You attach the servo to the chunk of low reluctance core so that the chunk is out of line under spring power. You then attach a magnet on the stator so its timed to hit the reid switch at the right time. Doesn't need anything massive or the like, just a 12v servo, see attached picture.

andy

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #4, on June 29th, 2014, 10:25 PM »
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT STAN MEYER IS DOING THIS IN HIS VIC.
But instead of doing it mechanically he does it electronically. The way he removes the chunk of core is through another inductor that blocks the gen (VIC) core flux path but that inductor is not the same as Angus's bucking coils. The voltage for Meyer's blocking inductor is independant from the rest of the VIC (isolated). This means that instead of complete cancellation like Angus and myself were getting there is huge forward energy and no back EMF.
You can either use a low reluctance path to recycle energy back into the capacitor or you can have resonant coils. Meyer's coils are resonant but his blocking inductor is an isolated voltage that cannot cancel the main inductor.

Helo Nav
Can You explain more about blocking inductor and the voltage for Meyer's blocking inductor which is independant from the rest of the VIC (isolated). I dont understand it fully. Thank You very much.
Andy

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #5, on June 30th, 2014, 08:49 AM »Last edited on June 30th, 2014, 08:54 AM
Quote from andy on June 29th, 2014, 10:25 PM
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT STAN MEYER IS DOING THIS IN HIS VIC.
But instead of doing it mechanically he does it electronically. The way he removes the chunk of core is through another inductor that blocks the gen (VIC) core flux path but that inductor is not the same as Angus's bucking coils. The voltage for Meyer's blocking inductor is independant from the rest of the VIC (isolated). This means that instead of complete cancellation like Angus and myself were getting there is huge forward energy and no back EMF.
You can either use a low reluctance path to recycle energy back into the capacitor or you can have resonant coils. Meyer's coils are resonant but his blocking inductor is an isolated voltage that cannot cancel the main inductor.

Helo Nav
Can You explain more about blocking inductor and the voltage for Meyer's blocking inductor which is independant from the rest of the VIC (isolated). I dont understand it fully. Thank You very much.
Andy
I have established that if you try to use bucking style coils shorted out that there is massive cancellation of the voltage and magnetic field. If there is a bias on one of the coils, Lens law is still cancelled but the bias voltage tends to drive the generator in a positive motor effect. However, I tend to think that the bias voltage and the positive motor effect are inversely proportional and you lose.
But what we have established in tests is that if two coils are wound opposite on the same core then because of the left to right rule their respective collapse will cause cancellation in the magnetic field. Therefore when it comes to Stans Vic he isolates one of the coils with an independant ground, this coil is the blocking coil opposite to the coil which has the diode near it.
This independant coil is variable so that he can vary the cancellation of the magnetic field in the core. Now here is an important fact: On most of Stan's schematics there is an isolated ground at B- (61) figured below and it is important to know why its there. If the lower inductor is variable and this inductor is of a lower value after cancellation then the upper inductor will become the dominant voltage and positive voltage is available at B+(71). Because the lower inductor is still at 100% cancellation then there is no ground voltage available for the capacitor to equal the charge of B+(71). All that the isolated ground does is provide a negative potential for the capacitor.
So I would build my lower variable inductor so that I could tune it from 80 - 120% of its opposite coil and see how much voltage we keep on the top inductor while still keeping the magnetic flux cancelled. But you must supply an independant ground for the cap to play with.

andy

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #6, on July 1st, 2014, 12:35 AM »
Nav
Thank for your ansver and sharing.
andy

freethisone

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #7, on July 1st, 2014, 02:42 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zISLh7PfYYY#ws

what if each side is one coil, but two coils per sides. wraped  and biased, and functioning as 4 coils. a primary, and a secondary.

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #8, on July 1st, 2014, 08:25 AM »
Angus had it worked out to a degree but instead of driving a cap with the bias voltage it turned out he was using the bias to drive his generator faster and lost the battle. He had a 16 volt bias that disappeared when he loaded the coil up with resistance but after switch on that 16 volts went into the positive motor effect. Meyer charged a cap with his, thats the difference.

andy

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #9, on August 7th, 2014, 12:47 AM »Last edited on August 7th, 2014, 12:58 AM
Quote from nav on June 30th, 2014, 08:49 AM
I have established that if you try to use bucking style coils shorted out that there is massive cancellation of the voltage and magnetic field. If there is a bias on one of the coils, Lens law is still cancelled but the bias voltage tends to drive the generator in a positive motor effect. However, I tend to think that the bias voltage and the positive motor effect are inversely proportional and you lose.
But what we have established in tests is that if two coils are wound opposite on the same core then because of the left to right rule their respective collapse will cause cancellation in the magnetic field. Therefore when it comes to Stans Vic he isolates one of the coils with an independant ground, this coil is the blocking coil opposite to the coil which has the diode near it.
This independant coil is variable so that he can vary the cancellation of the magnetic field in the core. Now here is an important fact: On most of Stan's schematics there is an isolated ground at B- (61) figured below and it is important to know why its there. If the lower inductor is variable and this inductor is of a lower value after cancellation then the upper inductor will become the dominant voltage and positive voltage is available at B+(71). Because the lower inductor is still at 100% cancellation then there is no ground voltage available for the capacitor to equal the charge of B+(71). All that the isolated ground does is provide a negative potential for the capacitor.
So I would build my lower variable inductor so that I could tune it from 80 - 120% of its opposite coil and see how much voltage we keep on the top inductor while still keeping the magnetic flux cancelled. But you must supply an independant ground for the cap to play with.
Nav
I was performed  test with two inductors - diference in they value is 10%  , i was able keep  the magnetic flux cancelled it charges cap 220 micro F/400V to 140V but when I connected water cell voltage is 2,5V  , connected independant ground like in your schematic to
provide a negative potential for the water cell - voltage is still 2,5V.
thank for your ansver and advice.
andy

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #10, on August 7th, 2014, 08:58 AM »Last edited on August 7th, 2014, 09:00 AM
Quote from andy on August 7th, 2014, 12:47 AM
Nav
I was performed  test with two inductors - diference in they value is 10%  , i was able keep  the magnetic flux cancelled it charges cap 220 micro F/400V to 140V but when I connected water cell voltage is 2,5V  , connected independant ground like in your schematic to
provide a negative potential for the water cell - voltage is still 2,5V.
thank for your ansver and advice.
andy
Hi Andy, I am glad you were able to keep the magnetic flux cancelled and charge a cap in the process but what you must understand is that the water fuel cell in the configuration you have it is not acting like a normal capacitor. If you charged the 220 micro F/400V to 140 volts with no problems and your amp meter is happy then you have half of the problem solved. You will not charge 2 plates or tubes to the same voltage because of the laws of capacitance, square law and part of Ohms law. Here is what I would do: Lets say that you successfully stole the 10% without it effecting the amp meter on the input side, build a system that works on the same 10% figure but this time build it so that it charges the 220 micro F/400V 50 times quicker than your previous system and works so that the 10% you stole is of a much higher voltage. When you build your fuel cell, start with two tubes 10 cm long with a gap of 1mm between the tubes - one inside the other, but insulate the tubes with a suitable dielectric layer. There will come a point where the tubes will have absolutely no choice but to have capacitance between them. The voltages will then set off towards infinity. BUT.........remember this, there will come a point where the tubes will reach dielectric breakdown because of the high voltages, when this happens you must be able negate this problem by gating the frequency of the VIC to slow down the voltage build up on the tubes.
Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #11, on August 7th, 2014, 09:39 AM »
Just to add, if you want to automate your sytem to monitor for dielectric breakdown of the tubes then do what Meyer did. You add a coil on your vic that monitors forward flux or you could possibly do it with a digital amp meter. When there is a breakdown in the dielectric property of the tubes then that will be picked up as probably as an increase in amperage. Stan phase locks loops that difference into the gating system so as soon as the change is detected the phase lock loop will gate the operating frequency till the breakdown stops. On a digital amp meter for example, as soon as the system reaches perhaps 520mV as opposed to a normal reading of 480-500mV then the phase lock would be connected to the gating frequency not the main frequency and brings it back down to normal levels. The reason it is on the gating frequency is because Stan's coils are resonant and he cannot play with the main frequency to stop dielectric breakdown.

andy

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #12, on August 8th, 2014, 12:57 AM »
Nav
Thank for ansver. What is the factors from which depend how it charges the 220 micro F/400V 50 times quicker than  previous system? Bigger core, more turns and thick wire diameter of two bucking inductors,  frequency, primary turns and wire diameter and voltage?
thank
andy

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #13, on August 8th, 2014, 10:26 AM »
Quote from andy on August 8th, 2014, 12:57 AM
Nav
Thank for ansver. What is the factors from which depend how it charges the 220 micro F/400V 50 times quicker than  previous system? Bigger core, more turns and thick wire diameter of two bucking inductors,  frequency, primary turns and wire diameter and voltage?
thank
andy
Use the laws of electronics to determine how many winds you need but if it only charges the cap to 140 volts then you need a higher voltage at an higher frequency. So perhaps you could start off with 12vdc in the primary input driven by a PWM of 200 turns of 24 gauge, then on the secondary 8000 turns of 28 gauge. This would give you 480vdc output of the secondary. Then you can wind one bucking coil at 2000 turns and the other 1800 turns, then your 10% will be of much higher voltage and perhaps a bigger testing cap needed. But becareful because you will be dealing with high voltages at these levels.

Gunther Rattay

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #14, on August 8th, 2014, 10:39 AM »Last edited on August 8th, 2014, 10:50 AM
Quote from nav on August 7th, 2014, 09:39 AM
Just to add, if you want to automate your sytem to monitor for dielectric breakdown of the tubes then do what Meyer did. You add a coil on your vic that monitors forward flux or you could possibly do it with a digital amp meter. When there is a breakdown in the dielectric property of the tubes then that will be picked up as probably as an increase in amperage. Stan phase locks loops that difference into the gating system so as soon as the change is detected the phase lock loop will gate the operating frequency till the breakdown stops. On a digital amp meter for example, as soon as the system reaches perhaps 520mV as opposed to a normal reading of 480-500mV then the phase lock would be connected to the gating frequency not the main frequency and brings it back down to normal levels. The reason it is on the gating frequency is because Stan's coils are resonant and he cannot play with the main frequency to stop dielectric breakdown.
if your theory is correct there is a 2 steps frequency control:

1st step realizes a phase lock loop feeding in a resonant condition phase shift signal
2nd step realizes a gating enable function depending on continious or peak voltage detection

then you shall run into the following problem:

as soon as the pulse oscillation is stopped by the gating the resonant pulse disappears and after restarting the pulsing your oscillator must restart to tune in to the resonant frequency.

My PGen pulse generator overcomes that problem by storing last frequency information during the gating phase so that last resonant frequency can restart immediately. that can´t be done by a 4046 pll generator with moderate interfacing. that step needs a microcontroller.

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #15, on August 9th, 2014, 11:01 PM »Last edited on August 9th, 2014, 11:11 PM
Quote from Gunther Rattay on August 8th, 2014, 10:39 AM
if your theory is correct there is a 2 steps frequency control:

1st step realizes a phase lock loop feeding in a resonant condition phase shift signal
2nd step realizes a gating enable function depending on continious or peak voltage detection

then you shall run into the following problem:

as soon as the pulse oscillation is stopped by the gating the resonant pulse disappears and after restarting the pulsing your oscillator must restart to tune in to the resonant frequency.

My PGen pulse generator overcomes that problem by storing last frequency information during the gating phase so that last resonant frequency can restart immediately. that can´t be done by a 4046 pll generator with moderate interfacing. that step needs a microcontroller.
I don't get what you are trying to say.
If you have a pair of resonant coils running at perhaps 20Khz with an output voltage of 2000v and a diode in series that half rectifies the waveform, as soon as you gate it to stop dielectric breakdown, all you are in fact doing is introducing time into the induction equations of the coils.
For example, if you had a simple LC circuit between a inductor and a cap and the inductor was overloading the cap on discharge causing a breakdown in the LC circuit, you could gate the input frequency of the inductor with time intervals so that the LC circuit will operate. The main frequency of resonance will remain the same except it will be in controlled bursts.
Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #16, on August 9th, 2014, 11:30 PM »
To add to that:
If you had an LC circuit that you designed so that the voltage in the cap is set to do work and that work requires a certain voltage potential that is variable depending on circumstances then there will come a point when dielectric breakdown will be inevitable.
In my opinion Stan's two resonant charging chokes are not resonant with each other, they are resonant with the fuel cell but the fuel cell's work load is a moving target constantly. If the voltage potential of the cell gets too high it will ark across the cell plates and the electric field of high voltage will break down instantly. That arking will be seen by Stan because he monitors the amps going into the chokes. When that happens Stan gates the frequency so that he can stop the arking and bring the cell plates back into line with the work being done. Stan's frequency between his choke and his cell will always remain the same just like an LC circuit so his resonant frequency will remain the same. The gating has nothing to do with resonant frequency, the gating is to stop his cell from having too high a voltage potential.

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #17, on August 10th, 2014, 12:03 AM »
But getting back to Andy, he is cutting off amp flow by using bucking style coils, one of which cancels the back EMF in the VIC but also cancels the potential of the other coil. By making one of the coils variable then one of the coils still has a voltage potential that WILL NOT be seen by the amp meter on the primary of the VIC.
This is for everyone studying this: If you have enough voltage coming out of your secondary going into the two charging chokes, even though one choke will cancel most of the energy of the other (between 75-90%) there will still be high voltage to charge a cap without the amp meter noticing on the primary.
To make best use of this would be to form an LC circuit between the STOLEN energy and the cell tubes but the LC CIRCUIT IS RESONANT WITH THE STOLEN ENERGY FROM THE COILS AND NOT THE COILS THEMSELVES. Think about it!

andy

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #18, on August 10th, 2014, 12:32 AM »Last edited on August 10th, 2014, 12:48 AM
Nav
I dont give you details of my setup, it is:
primary 61 turns 0,5 mm. dia L=9,3mH
L1 1100 turns 0,13 mm dia  L=3,37H
L2 1200 turns 0,13 mm dia  L=3,78H
Diode BYV 27-600V
All coils are on old TV flyback core.
I dont use secondary coil, Primary coil is the replace of moving magnet of generator.
andy

nav

Re: Cancelling Lensing in a generator part 2, Meyer vs Heins.
« Reply #19, on August 10th, 2014, 01:47 AM »
I would introduce a secondary and copy Meyer's VIC and have the secondary produce an high voltage output into the two resonant chokes. The bias potential and its frequency must be in line with the fuel cell though in an LC type circuit.
It is the windings on the bias that are resonant with the fuel cell not the coils themselves.