Flyback Energy

I think I was able to watch five minutes before scanning to near the end to see some equipment. The talk at the beginning was about motors and generators, but there were no motors or generators shown at the end. There were no circuit or other diagrams to show how the system "worked".

I'd have to check each of their measuring instruments and their interconnections independently before I could place any credence in anything they purport to show.

That was four years ago. If they actually had a device doing what they claim, then by now they should have a marketable product. When can I go down to the big box store and get one?

From what I can gather from the info given is that they are storing the flyback energy in capacitors,then converting DC to AC at a frequency and phase that matches the input.

The apparent over unity is a result of slowing down the generator,and as the speed decreases,the capacitor network kicks in and reduces rotor magnetic drag to the point of driving the generator beyond it's speed setting,which would create an apparent negative energy consumption.However, this is only a temporary condition,and the generator would eventually coast down to zero speed if the input source power was eliminated,sort of like a pendulum will eventually stop.

Otherwise,they could simply connect the output to the input and the system would continue to run forever:"perpetual motion",which is not possible

Reactive power is simply the power required to maintain the magnetic field,but does not perform any actual work.

The conductors still have to be sized to carry this non working current,and generators must be sized large enough to supply it.

A standard KWH meter will not measure this reactive power.

The reactive power still has to be generated by the power station,and is measured by KVAR meters at industrial installations.The installations are charged a premium for low power factor,and large capacitors are installed to correct this phase shifted power.

Synchronous motors can also be used to correct power factor with variable loads.

There is a point where,theoretically,the power factor would be 100%,but there is a diminishing rate of return as the capacitor size increases and most are satisfied to get the PF around 90%.

This is not "free energy",it is simply a more efficient use of magnetic energy and would only work on inductive loads.

Utility companies install capacitors near neighborhoods to compensate for bulk reactive power,but it is deliberately undersized to prevent capacitve reactance,which can be an even worse condition.

In a fixed,purely inductive load,a properly sized parallel connected capacitor would accomplish the same thing as this complicated device.

I can see the benefit of very fast capacitor switching,to compensate for varying loads,and this would result in lower losses,but not in "free energy".

TANSTAASFL still applies.

Good explanation of the possibilities. Thank you. I didn't have time to watch it, but as a result of what you've explained here, I'll retract one "way" (the big one, the "WAY" one) from my over-unity comment. Clearly, given that no conversion of energy from one form to another (generated to capacitor stored, DC back to AC) can be 100% efficient, and given that, as you've explained, the capacitors COULD "buck" the counter-EMF created in the Gen windings as load increases, but WOULD decay over time, it still isn't going to meet any claims of "free-energy", or even of lossless, load-free generators spinning continuously at no-load speeds even as power take-off increases.

All that said, it is never more clear than in this instance that when you wish to make a claim of a gain in efficiency, particularly when you clearly expect the invention/development of that method of gaining efficiency to result in the finding/development of a bigger bank account for you, it is always wiser to "under-claim" than to "over-claim".

Especially where THIS bunch of professional (and qualified) skeptics is involved!

I'm very much aware of reactive power factor and using capacitors to improve it. In fact, just a few days ago I replaced a blown delta capacitor set on a hydraulic pump at our plant. We have and regularly use a Dent ElitePro™ power meter, which does measure both standard and reactive power, but I'm still trying to convince the powers to be to invest in switched power correction capacitor banks for our electric brazing furnaces, which use saturated reactor transformers to control the energy going into the heaters. These devices commonly run with a power factor of 0.5 or less at a power of around 150kW each.

The last five minutes of the video in your link showed a demonstration of a device using a controller, a switching unit, and a capacitor bank feeding a fairly large edge-wire-wound resistor (I'd guess around 200 Watt; ≈1.3"Ø x ≈10" long) as a load. They had a 'scope showing two very non-sinusoidal waveforms, which I presume represented the voltage and current of the resistor. They also had some digital readouts, with at least one purportedly showing the input power, which went negative near the end. They were controlling the input with a ≈1kW autotransformer, so it is very likely that the "negative input" was actually supplying the magnetic needs of the autotransformer.

In any case, I wouldn't buy one without a money-back-if-not-satisfied guarantee.

Consider a synchronous motor for the pumps and other motors in the plant.

These can operate at 100% power factor,(and more) and can be used to improve the plant PF as a whole.

Here is a link on synchronous motors:http://ecatalog.weg.net/files/wegnet/WEG-the-abcs-of-synchronous-motors-usaem200syn42-brochure-english.pdf

If your plant is being charged a surcharge for PF,it would pay for them to add sufficient capacitors to bring their PF up to the 90% at least.Beyond this PF,it is usually a case of diminished returns.

Most companies will buy anything that will show a 5 year or less ROI.

Most utilities charge for PF,and it is usually a pretty stiff penalty to compensate for having to build larger transformers and generators to produce this non-work-performing energy,as well as larger conductors to carry it.

If you can show them the $$$ numbers on the capacitors,they may listen.

Here is a link to an online calculator.

https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/power-factor-calculator.html

The best place to locate the capacitors is as close to the load as possible,with as many discrete loads as possible.

If trying to correct for a whole plant at large,a central location is usually chosen for convenience,usually at the point of service to the plant.(First stage transformers and switch gear).

In the video,it appears that they are measuring the current through the resistor,which includes flyback current,but on the instruments,they are only measuring the working current,which as I stated previously can not be measured conventionally.

This would appear to produce more energy (heat) in the resistor than is being put out by the generator, if the measurement on the generator output does not account for PF.

I may be way off base with my analysis,but it seems to fit the results I have seen.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

By definition:

In electrical engineering, the power factor of an AC electrical power system is defined as the ratio of the real power flowing to the load to the apparent power in the circuit, and is a dimensionless number in the closed interval of −1 to 1. A power factor of less than one means that the voltage and current waveforms are not in phase, reducing the instantaneous product of the two waveforms (V × I). Real power is the capacity of the circuit for performing work in a particular time. Apparent power is the product of the current and voltage of the circuit. Due to energy stored in the load and returned to the source, or due to a non-linear load that distorts the wave shape of the current drawn from the source, the apparent power will be greater than the real power. A negative power factor occurs when the device (which is normally the load) generates power, which then flows back towards the source, which is normally considered the generator.

This definition and diagram are from the Wikipedia page on power factor. With Apparent power being the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed by reactive power and real power this ratio must always have a magnitude no greater than one.

Synchronous motors can operate in a LEADING power factor mode,and can thus improve power factor of a plant.

See the link above in my post#17.

Yes, a synchronous condenser motor can become overexcited to exactly correct a facility poor power factor. It does this by adding exactly the correct amount of negative reactive power. Since the power factor is calculated by magnitude as real/apparent with apparent power (|S|), Real power (|P|) and Reactive power (|Q|)

Real power must always be equal or smaller in magnitude than apparent power thus the power factor cannot be greater than 1.

I agree with what you say,but I have seen instances where there was too much capacitance on a system,and the voltages increased to the point of causing premature motor and`equipment failures.

I remember this happening at a plant when they removed 1500 1.8 hp motors,and it took several weeks for them to be removed.The voltage in the plant rose as the motors were removed and soon everything in the plant began to fail due to over voltage.These caps were on the utility side of the feeder and many of them had to be removed to get the voltage back to normal.

It does not fit the definition for more than 100% PF,but it is a leading power factor.

The utilities said the problem was a over unity power factor (100%+) causing the problem.Obviously a misnomer.

I guess a leading power factor could be called a negative power factor?

If not,what would be the proper term for it?

A negative power factor is probably the correct terminology. Negative power factors happen when a motor is acting as a brake or generator. It can be hard to tell what a third party meant when incorrectly using a technical term.

I am confused. Power factor and power consumption. If a load is net inductive it is lagging power factor. If net capacitive it is leading. Normal loads, like motor running a pump, consume power. If a motor is over run (acting as a brake, regenerating) it acts as a generator and consumes negative power (puts power back into system). Power factor is a ratio, has no direction and therefore no sign.

Power factor most definitely has a sign. From the cited Wikipedia page:

A negative power factor (0 to −1) can result from returning power to the source, such as in the case of a building fitted with solar panels when surplus power is fed back into the supply.^[6][7][8]

Makes for a good way to generate a spark for our infernal combustion engines.

Can you give the "Cliffsnotes" version?

"The Dynaflux Alternator Is One Of The Amazing Machines Invented By Jim Murray. It Demonstrates That Electricity Can Be Produced Without Making The Generator Harder To Turn! This Proves That Electricity Can Be Generated At Much Higher Efficiencies Than Is Commonly Believed. It Even Leads To The Understanding Of My SERPS Device That Demonstrated
47 TIMES THE INPUT at the 2014 Energy Conference!"

Oh,,,that....

Free Energy? really?!?!

Haha, I do like the comments though...

Is that DYNAFLUX inductor the complement of the FLUXGATE capacitor?

One of the things Tesla was working on was a mechanical oscillator.

"An oscillator that was among the exhibits Tesla demonstrated at the World's Columbian Exposition in 1893."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator

If you connect this to a structure and pump it at the structure's resonant frequency, stored vibrational energy will build up in the structure, much as a child can pump up a swing.

So, for example, the structure were pumped with 100 watts power over some time and then the stored energy were released in a short period of time, (perhaps by failure), the amount of output power would be many times the input power, and it would appear that there was an energy amplification.

But energy equals power times time, and the amount of energy released would be equal to or less than the energy put in by the oscillator.

I'm guessing that this is what these guys are doing, using electrical resonance.

Any generator/alternator driving an open circuit will turn easily. That is if the bearings are not poorly designed or failing.

Wow! Way, WAY over unity! I think that won't work!

I've been keeping up with the work of these guys for some time, and what I can tell you is that they start their design work by NOT assuming the system is closed.

In "normal" electronics we assume a closed energy system, and this is so because descrete analysis is much easier and generally correct. But in an induction system, the magnetic fields created enter the space around the inductor, and become part of the energy space around the indutor, Gains are seen when the energy in the magnetic field that went out of the circuit comes back into the circuit in a faster rate than it went out, AND has some of the energy of the space it went out into coming back in with it.

The other important bit they are working on is the elimination of reverse EMF when this occurs. Timing and switching are done in such a way, that back EMF is re coupled into the system in the forward direction again.

Nothing that they are doing breaks any physical laws. They are just not making their motors based on an assumption of loss of energy in a closed system. Some of the energy is in the primary mover of the system and some of it is in the space around the system. This is how they are getting around the design constraints of Lentz's Law. The montra to recite when designing such systems is "Don't destroy the dipole, recycle it."

They are definately doing things that are not "textbook" because the textbook assumes a closed system. They are exploring the areas of physics that we don't completely understand, including magnetic fields. I have done a couple of very simple magnetic field experiments that defy conventional analysis and no engineer or scientist I have ever met can explain in terms of closed energy systems.

The easiest one to do and ponder over is Leedscalnin's "magnetic flywheel". Here is an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=832qz3s1M-s

There is nothing magic about a changing magnetic field generating a voltage/current in a solenoid. The act of removing the permanent magnet from the U-bolt requires an external force*distance, which is an INPUT of energy, part of which is converted from magnetic to electric energy by the solenoids.

The length of time sitting on the wall has nothing to do with anything, other than some loss of magnetism by the "permanent" magnet. High precision measurement of the electric energy "created" by a precisely controlled movement of the magnet away from the U-bolt over time would show a slight decline in the output over time, due to weakening of the magnetic field.

There are no permanent magnets in the experiment, and the energy that is holding the bar in place against the constant pull of gravity, for two years in this case, cannot be acounted for by the energy of the 9v battery applied for the second or so it was applied. Why is the magnetic charge NOT diminished by the gravity pulliing on the device even after 2yrs? The energy of the charge is microscopic compared to the maintenance of the connection of the bar to the solenoid and the TIME it maintains it.

This gets down to the fundamental properties of magnetic fields and magnetism. How is it that the solenoid and bar can remain bound against gravity for that period of time? Why is the field not "used up" and "discharged"? What makes a permanent magnet permanent? Why is the field in a permanent magnet not used up over time in a permanent magnet motor? I have yet to read or hear any explaination that makes any sense in a Newtonian manner and by Newtonian laws.

There is no magic here. What is here is a failure to explain the energy "expended" over time in this closed system using known understanding magnetic fields. Most engineers wave the question off by saying the magnetic field was created by x amount of energy and when the bar is separated, x comes back out, and the rest is magnetism, for two years against 1G acceleration....Not a satisfactory answer if conservation of energy is to be applied to this closed system.

If the unit weighs y kg and pulls on the bond for x yrs, how much energy must be present in the system to maintain the bond for x yrs? How much juice would you use if it were an electromagnet lifting the unit? How much juice would you use if it was just torque on a motor shaft holding there?

I could just stack the thing up on a table and it will stay "bonded" for two years. But the table is solid. Is a static magnetic field "solid" in some way? We use it that way for sure. But what is it? Really?

My WAG is magnetic hysteresis. I don't trust any of the information an over unity advocate provides at all.

"There are no permanent magnets in the experiment"

I was assuming that the Bar was a permanent magnet, and I still believe it was, one way or another. If the bar was not originally a permanent magnet, then for the experiment to work, either the bar or the "U" or both (most likely the bar) had to be made of a steel that is hard enough to retain magnetism (become a permanent magnet). When they originally connected the battery to the solenoid, the magnetic field of the solenoid magnetized the hard steel. If that were not the case, the bar would have fallen off immediately after the battery was disconnected.

No work or energy is required for anything to to support any object against gravity! Floors, tables, shelves, hooks, etc. do it all the time, and they have no energy input. There is no reason for energy to be lost while the assembly hangs on the wall for two years, or for any other period of time.

It DOES require work/energy to separate the magnet from the U, and part of that energy is converted from mechanical to electrical energy sufficient to light the LED.

I too figured the bar to be a PM, but during the demo it is demonstrated to not be so.

He does carefully locate the bar before energizing the horseshoe; likewise he seems careful to select the same orientation and surface each time, makes me wonder about the carefully machined surfaces that I see.

Intriguing, all the same.

Apparently you saw a different video than I did. The one I saw was the one "two years later".

Your observation of the "carefully machined surfaces" is totally logical; the smaller the air gap, the stronger the magnetic field for a given solenoid current.

As I said, the bar may not have been a permanent magnet initially, but it became one when the current flowed through the solenoid(s).

I see only standard high-school level physics; nothing intriguing.

The Physics ladled out in high school should tell you that a 1 second shot of a 9 volt battery will not a permanent magnet make from an iron bar.

It (the bar) either has persistence or it has not.

I see a bit of residual magnetism which, as redfred points out, is likely hysterisis.

Then you had a poor high school physics teacher, as least as it relates to electricity and magnetism!

A few milliseconds (thousandths of a second) is plenty of time to magnetize a a bar of good steel. In fact, a common method of magnetizing large magnets is to charge a bank of capacitors, then suddenly connect them to the high voltage side of a large transformer, with the low voltage, high current side of the transformer connected to a "coil" of copper wrapped around the material to be magnetized. I put "coil" in quotes, because that "coil" may well consist of a single loop of copper.

It has been well over 50 years since I had a job where one of my tasks was magnetizing the permanent magnets of magnetrons for both military and cooking purposes. Some of these magnets were so powerful that I once walked too close to one, and it pulled my pocketknife out, right through the cloth of my pants!

The secondary of the transformer was a single "U" of Ø 2" copper rod. Each end of that rod was reduced to Ø 1" and threaded. The loop was completed by placing a 1"x2" copper bar with Ø 1" holes for each end of the "U", and tightening two 1" copper nuts. A single press of the button connected the charged capacitors to the primary of the transformer, and their charge was dissipated in a few milliseconds, causing a very large current to flow in the secondary loop for approximately the same few milliseconds, and the magnet was done!

"It (the bar) either has persistence or it has not." That makes it sound like there are only two possible levels of hysteresis. In fact there is nearly a continuum of possible values. The best magnets available in WWII were made of AlNiCo. By today's standards, an AlNiCo magnet is very poor.

Yes, it is hysteresis! A good permanent magnet is made from a material with an extremely high hysteresis value.

I remember in high school seeing a Collpits oscillator that had a neon bulb in the circuit,and once powered up,the power was disconnected and the input shunted.The neon bulb continued to flash for a very long time after the input power was disconnected.The energy was simply shuffled around the circuit till losses consumed the energy.No magic,just simple physics.

The visiting instructor said there was one in the Smithsonian that had been running for years,but I could not find a reference for it.

A very boring video.

The guy is more interested in getting face time than getting down to it.

The basis of his argument is groundless.

The object could hang forever,and no work would be performed.

PT Barnum was right: "There is a fool born every minute."

Considering the Earth's population, it is not surprising to see such a video.

I have seen devices marketed to correct power factor in homes.It is simply a capacitor with a glorified name,and the only savings would be in reducing the heat loss of the conductors feeding inductive loads,such as AC,Refrigerators,Freezers,etc.

The savings would be almost immeasurable,since the resistance of the house wiring is very small.The resistance of 1000 ft of AWG#12 is only .808 ohms,so do the math.

Standard KWH meters do not measure or charge for PF.

The power grid uses transformer-to-transformer conversion,a mostly inductive load.

If not properly corrected with capacitors,this will result in excessive current and losses in the transmission lines and transformers.

HV DC Power transmission is more efficient,using High Temp Superconductors,even after including the cost of refrigerating the lines.

At the point where the Canadian grid connects with the American grid,this method is used.It makes phase matching easier,because the voltage is DC and must be converted to AC anyway to match phases.

This method is also used in the connection between the EAST/WEST grid connection in America.

Prior to this development,phase matching between grids required converting AC to DC,then back to AC to match phases,involving much more equipment and associated losses.

Several islands are now connected to the mainland with HV DC connections,and I think China is probably the leader of the pack at this point in time.

A transformer presents a predominantly inductive load only when the secondary is unloaded or has an inductive load.

"...Prior to this development,phase matching between grids required converting AC to DC,then back to AC to match phases..." Actually, PSTs (Phase Shifting Transformers) were used to interconnect between out of phase systems before the development of competitively/economically priced DC converter stations, which also have the advantage of frequency matching as well.

Based on well understood power transformer and OLTC (On Load Tap Changer) technology, many of these units are still in service providing phase angle and power flow control between and within large systems.

Regarding some of the comments regarding back EMF, be thankful it's there, because if there is no net EMF then there is no MMF in the air gap, and therefore no torque to move the rotor. The rest of the discussion is good ole' overunity stuff masquerading as science.