Bedini's Kromrey Converter

[Matthew Jones]

Actually that is already around

https://www.htw-saarland.de/fut/fue-...tovic_2002.pdf

He cast materials, either barium or alnico, and through a small electrical charge he can vary the strengths the direction of the pole and whether it is on or off.

Floyd sweet actually cast barium ferrite magnets that when introduced to a charge would start to oscillate between the poles.

I believe from what I can learn from them that the process they are/were using are identical.

I have been steady trying to get more info from the guy but have yet to get
a response. Unfortunately Ford Motor Company owns the right to the research.

Cheers
Matt

[Turion]

My Attempt

Just finished putting together my attempt at a Kromrey. Ran it for a few minutes to determine if there were any bugs, found a couple, and will be taking some of it apart to address those issues. Like all first attempts, it is a work in progress. No results to report yet. Pictures attached. Mine isn't nice and round like you see in all the videos, but it's easier to find the center of a square, and I am lazy!

[baroutologos]

I was looking my experiment photos based on magnetic flux alteration principle and i was wandering...

We know that magnetism behaves more or less as electrism. It permeats some materials like a current whereas others do not. All those are known.

...
* Electricity can be switched with ease by opening/closing a small switch even though that switch carries enormous power.
We have invented also for electricity semiconductors. Materials that their conducting/non conducting status can be altered by a small stimulus.
For magnetism there is not any.

Hello there Mr Jones,

Being currently involved in magnetic experiments being inspired by Melichenko and Orbo tehnology testing various concepts and behaviours, I was thinking about the issue of creating magnetic circuits that will act as "semiconductors" or just as hydralic setups.

I was considering the utilization of a permanent magnet in a MEG-like setup that theoretically (LOL here) shows some promise.

Please take your time and give a second thought with a critical mood.

Diagram 1

is the plain non-functional MEG for the known reasons. (any B-flux alteration at any leg will make the the pick-up coils respond in contrast to controlling coils resulting in null net energy effect)

Diagram 2

is based upon the Orbo somehow concept.
The toroids or rectangular trasnformer like legs will act as diodes.
This scheme can work only during demagnetization part.

That means. A controlling coil pulses. The main PM flux is being directed to one double C core and returns
Both "C"s if identical are having same flux strenth. In one C a coil is wound.
This coil has a diode in order to respond to the demagnetizing current or during PM B-flux removal.
The stimulus for the B-flux removal is the feeble controlling coils.

Naturally the coil will respond to the B-flux drop with a current that opposes that drop. In flux terms will oppose the flux created by controlling coils.

BUT, since the CC core is a closed system or something like a diode, this opposing Lenz law flux will be restricted inside the CC1 part and hoppefully would not reflect to the controlling coils.

What's your view on this since you bear considerable experience on the magnetic setups?


ps: By the way, from my pulsing experiments so far, this plan seems to bear some functionality.

[Matthew Jones]

I'll have model finished in the morning of this. I'll be able to answer a little better after I look at a few things.
I haven't had much experience with these static type generators.

Matt

[baroutologos]

Have you starting working on my suggestion?

Me i do not posses double C or CI cores yet. Only EI, so i wait them to arrive.
By the way, my experinece on the field is quite limited since i have been involved in Tesla technologies mainly.

By the way this suggestion is based on two underline assumptions.

1) Magnetism behaves as electricity or any fluid flow that prefers the path of least resistance to go. (true)

2) A feeble magnetic flow can control a seriously larger magnetic flow, if the material that flows is far from its saturation point.

I have seen several arrangements on this in the internet and consider it natural.
I think Naudin in his MEG section has said the same thing. By the way, i have not experienced this myself and do not know for sure.

[baroutologos]

Anyone knowning regarding magnetic circuits, IF the attarction force is linear to the B-flux going through?

Links for that?

[Matthew Jones]

I can't answer that last one.

I have tried 4 models and tried to get the reaction you show in your drawings. It doesn't show up.
That doesn't mean but so much, I have seen several cases that won't model and work or do model and don't work. But sometimes its an indicator.

I haven't enough experience with a static type generators to know one way or the other.

I would like to know of your progress, so keep us informed, Please.

Cheers
Matt

[baroutologos]

Experimental Facts

We all know, the MEG and its working assumptions.

(i know this is not a MEG thread, there is not any, anyway so because of the magnetic mechanics nature of my experiments i will post info here)

In order to investigate some concepts i assembled a setup according p1.
I immedietely observed that each "plug" if fit correctly (without many gaps - that was my big problem, tiny gap will seriously alter flux gating), will have an equal amount of flux.

I can tell "equal" because the force needed to push it apart and break the magnetic circuit is almost even. What is interesting is that if you remove one "plug" and try to remove and the other one, (that will have double flux now) you gonna need not x 2 force but considerably higher.

Regarding the Coils, those were wound so as to formulate an north-oposing pole at the Permanent Neo Magnet Static field, thus redirecting the flux to the other plug. (MEG like)

....
Questions: How much contrary flux need to be generated by a coils in order to switch the flux?

There has been a sense in this forum that a tiny flux can control a larger one (in a magnetic circuit with two paths of equal impedance) since magnetism behaves as a fluid and prefers going to the least resistance path.

This is fundamentally wrong. I found out experimentally, that in order to halt the flux from going to a plug and being redirected to the other, a magnetomotive force or an opposing flux generated by the powered coils is needed that is equal (more or less) in strength with the magnetomotive force of the flux entering the leg at relaxation state. (diagram a-b)

This will result in a Null flux state in side of the working coils
YouTube - flux becomes null at powered leg.MPG

Now, if you underpower the controlling coils, a lesser B flux will enter the specific plug and the same increase will be noted at the opposite one.
This flux reduction-addition is linear to coil's power.
If now coil is overpowered, flux will flow to the specific plug at the opposite direction (and will be enhanced at the other plug respectively).

YouTube - under-powered coil lead to not re-directing the B-flux.MPG
YouTube - correct-powered coils null flux.MPG
YouTube - over-powered coils lead to magnetic reversal of poles.MPG

An interesting thing to note is that the flux "manipulation" works in the same manner either in the "push" or "pull" mode. The controlling coils if powered to "pull" the flux instead of "push", the same and opposite results were seen.

How i concluded the above
....

I made a dynamometering platform (p2,3)
Then I made a lot of experimenting there. First of all the setup alone with the permanent magnet (tested two neomagnets for more accurate results). i wound also new coils and made carton coils (too much labour! diagram "arrangement specs")

First in a closed magnetic circuit i tried to pull off one plug and measuring Force. Forced need for the weaker neo-magnet is equal 1,5 Kgr. (small scale)

If i remove the top plug and double flux permeats the one remaining, the force need to remove it goes around 5 Kgr. (same behaviour both magnets) (diagram c & d)

...
After experimenting with the coils, i found that a typical null flux in a plug (plug is eaily detached) is achieved by pumping 0.35A of current to the controllimg coil pairs. (small deviations between both coil pairs)

In the dynamometering platform, i found out that the Force needed (1.5 kgr) to remove a plug in the closed magnetic circuit with the coils powered at 0.35A is equal to the case of diagram (c) of the PM alone. (diagram e)
This fact talks a lot.

The magnetomotive force as i said, it must be equal to the one this plug experiences by the magnet at relaxation state.


Relationship between flux and attraction
...

As you know the larger the flux that permeats a closed magnetic circuit the larger the attraction of its materials. (more difficult to break it apart)
By how much?

Below is a some experimental results from my dynamometering platform.
A pair of coil (black-one) powered at:

0.1Amp forced needed to break the circuit (without magnet) 0.1Kgr
0.35Amps ------------------------------------------------ 1.5Kgr
0.65 Amps ----------------------------------------------- 5 Kgr
1 amps ---------------------------------------------- cannot break it with hands

By knowing that the flux of an electromagnet is the product of Amps x turns,
then you see a 3.5 times bigger flux requires 15 times greater force.
And an almost double flux requires a magnetic circuit breaking force of 3+ times. (exponential increase)


ps:

from the above data, all those who built flux-gating setups they should much better to decrease flux permeating their gates to decrease cogging.

[simonx2]

missing things...?

Hi

I see that this conversation again tends to move in different direction... Please stay on topic.

Did any of you found german (or GB) and french patent? I did and what really intrigued me is that they are a bit different from US patent.
The coils connection pattern is similar but when I saw this it hit me like a thunderbolt... I haven't noticed it in us patent at first time, totally overlooked it! There is only one slip ring! Nobody mentioned that far to this point.
In FIG.5 (US pat.) we clearly see that one end of last coil is connected to shaft and at the same time to the armature!!!! Same thing but described more precisely is in GB patent... see for yourself. So it means that the current is passed through the coils, laminated iron cores, shaft and also generator housing which holds the stator magnets. Totally screwed setup! This thing changes all.
It reminds me a bit small homopolar motor made from battery, screw, neodymium magnet and copper wire. Current goes through the magnet and it spins...
Something really strange here gentlemen... I'm waiting for your clues...

PS: sorry but english is not my mother language.

Simon

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Has anyone noticed that the output polarities from the kromrey are the same polarity. If I'm interpreting the wiring diagrams correctly that is what i see. It also appears to be series/parallel configuration. I don't recall all the posts in this thread, did anyone generate any power with this and if so could you explain how you had the coils wired. Thanks.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

This is a pic of the diagram and I marked stator magnet polarity and the induced polarity at the points shown on generator armature. Notice how like polarities are output.
http://a.imageshack.us/img203/872/kromreygenstanley.jpg
peace love light
Tyson

[dllabarre]

This is a pic of the diagram and I marked stator magnet polarity and the induced polarity at the points shown on generator armature. Notice how like polarities are output.
http://a.imageshack.us/img203/872/kromreygenstanley.jpg
peace love light
Tyson

Which patent did you get this diagram from?

[SkyWatcher]

Hi dllabarre, that is from patent US 3,374,376.
peace love light
Tyson

[simonx2]

John Bedini in Kromrey converter-part 10 movie, draws on blackboard "conventional" N-S version. Intuition tells me that this won't work...
I thought that monopole version is correct one (M. B. King-scalar current)? Can we achieve the same results with both arrangements...?
I saw on youtube two replications, both in monopole configurations. I assume it gives pulsed dc output. Why then J. Bedini use bridge rectifier on the output...? Or his machine works in N-S mode which gives ac output, then it is all clear...? Please enlighten me because I feel like I'm stuck.

[Matthew Jones]

Doesn't matter what magnet arrangement you use it is going to give you AC and need to be rectified. Test for yourself.

Matt