Additional MEG Functions

Figure 7-6 diagrammatically shows the core material inside the input coil for either open-loop operation using an external power supply or closed-loop (self-powering) operation using clamped and governed positive feedback. As can be seen, the B-field and B-field flux are confined to the core material (which is in the form of a closed transformer coil path, as shown diagrammatically in Figure 7-5). The external space surrounding the core material is filled with the uncurled A-potential, due to the Aharonov-Bohm effect being imposed by the core material. The two leads from the input coil are shown at the bottom of Figure 7-6.

Figure 7-6 Input coil for open- or closed-loop operation.

We pulse the input coils with nearly rectangular pulses each having a sharp leading edge and a sharp trailing edge, so that the resulting rapid time-rates of change of the two edges create very large perturbations of the B-flux in the core and of the A-potential outside the core. The large E2-field resulting from the fast rate of change of the perturbed B-field in the core is not localized, but appears in space outside the core. In addition, an E3 field created directly in the coil itself also appears in space outside the core. In addition, the sharply perturbed A-potential outside the core creates a third large E1-field in space outside the core. The net Et-field in the surrounding outside space is the vector summation of the E-fields produced by these processes, or to first order (neglecting the further differentiations)

We also may adjust the pulse width to generate a further Lenz law effect, increasing the three component fields E1, E2, and E3 if desired. To do that, the pulse must be narrow enough to suddenly decay while each of the fields E1, E2, and E3 is still rising and not yet reached maximum. As can be appreciated, considerable pulse shaping and timing can be adjusted for optimization of the output voltage, current, and power when interception and collection from Et is accomplished in the secondary coils. In addition, it can be appreciated that slightly differing materials delay times do occur in the production of E1, E2, and E3. Hence there is appreciable optimization that can be and is accomplished on a given MEG variant and build-up type.

More complex waveforms of various shapes can be used to further optimize the output. It is also possible to accomplish further optimization and control by adjusting the shapes and timing of the feedback signals in the case of the closed-looped MEG system. For the externally powered open-loop version, additional optimization and control can be achieved by adding additional simultaneous pulses fed into the input coils in various fashions.

In addition, the response of the output coils produces feedback into the core material, into external space, and into the input coils. These in fact provide three more E-field return or feedback inputs, so that the total feedback input is

Without doing the more complex iterations for this feedback and feedforward set of loops, to first order the total input EI to the input coil may be considered to be

Equations [7-1], [7-2], and [7-3] are for simple analogy only; in the real MEG, full nonlinear feedforward and feedback analysis techniques must be utilized because of the iterative operations, and much more sophisticated optimization techniques are appropriate. Also, chaotic oscillations can and do appear, and techniques for control of such oscillations are indicated, particularly along the lines indicated by Fradkov and Pogromsky {487} without use of probability etc. Quoting:

"1. There is ... great benefit ofusing the modern nonlinear andadaptive control theory. ...2. There is no need to distinguish periodic and chaotic behavior. Accurate control is possible without accurate prediction. ...3. There is no need to define chaos in order to control it. ...4. There is no need to use probability in order to control systems with seemingly random behavior.

For any given MEG build-up design, one experiments with these optimization and control factors and mechanisms to provide the best performance, and to provide rock-steady performance.

Figure 7-7 shows the output coil for either open-loop operation from an external power supply or closed-loop (self-powering) operation using clamped and governed positive feedback. Here the situation is partially reversed. There are three major inputs to the output coils, and these are (i) the external input from the total outside E-field, (ii) the internal input from the perturbation changes in the confined magnetic flux inside the core through the output coils, and (iii) the ensuing feedforward and feedback from all E-fields.

Figure 7-7 Output coil for open- or closed-loop operation.

Again, this is simply an easy way to visualize the situation to first order. In the real case, sophisticated feedforward and feedback analysis is required and utilized. Optimization usually consists of two steps: (1) the simpler, more direct optimization techniques such as adjusting pulse width, pulse rise time and decay time, actual pulse form, etc., and (2) the deeper and more complex optimization arrived at from detailed feedback and feedforward loop analysis as well as nonlinear oscillation and nonlinear control theory analysis.

In the actual optimization analysis, the feedback and feedforward loops are mathematically endless and thus should be optimized for quick decay and stability. On the other hand, the MEG also has the ability to self-oscillate over the entire unit, in which case the feedback and feedforward loops are optimized for stable self-oscillation of the entire unit. The self-oscillating

MEG is permitted since it is an open system far from equilibrium with its active environment.

So if desired, an entirely different kind of optimization can be utilized for self-sustained nonlinear oscillation and closed loop operation. Because of the gain achieved in the large E-fields produced by the perturbed uncurled A-potential in space surrounding the core, there is sufficient excess energy collection available in the output coils to use the available feedback and feedforward loops in the system itself to achieve system self-oscillation. The system can be operated as a self-oscillating open system freely receiving excess EM energy from its active environment — the local active vacuum, local curvatures of spacetime, and local freely furnished uncurled A-potential and resulting nearly free E-fields from the A-potential's perturbations). As we are writing this, our experiments are now in this direction, and we are preparing the material for filing a formal patent application on this additional process. The patents will be filed, of course, by the time this book is published.

Figure 7-8 Energy gain process usingfeedforward and feebacksubprocesses

A highly simplified block diagram of energy gain process using feedforward and feedback subprocesses is shown in Figure 7-8. As can be appreciated from this high order diagram, the actual feedforward and feedback loops are extremely complex, and a great deal of complex analysis is required for a self-oscillating, stable, controlled system. We also stress that control measures to insure and hold stable self-oscillation must be included in the overall features implemented in this self-powered, self-oscillation variant of the MEG. Not only must we use chaotic oscillation techniques to achieve the self-oscillation, but also we must use advanced techniques for stable control of such nonlinear oscillations, as indicated by Fradkov and Pogromsky {487}.

Figure 7-9 Typical MEG embodiment application on site.

In Figure 7-9, we show a typical diagrammatic embodiment envisioned for the MEG in a household, using a large MEG to later be developed. For interim installations, the single large MEG will be replaced with an array of MEGs together with a synchronizer, as shown in Figure 7-10.

Figure 7-10 MEG self-powering array concept for increased powering applications.

Figure 7-11 shows a MEG unit where additional special collection antennas feeding separate circuits are employed in an "outrigger" fashion. One major advantage of this configuration is that the complexity of close-looping and its control are materially reduced, although the complexity of the MEG build-up and stabilization is increased. Another advantage is the ease with which close-looping for self-powering operation can be achieved, as shown in Figure 7-12. In this case, the external antennas are collected to independent output circuits (not shown) in the output section, and each of these independent outrigger outputs is a COP<1.0 circuit if we count the perturbed A-potential energy input as an "operator's" input. Completely normal clamped positive feedback can be used with sensing and governing, to allow self-powering and self-adjusting to varying loads. The outrigger embodiment can be made to almost entirely avoid the Dirac sea hole current problem.

Figure 7-11 MEG unit with outrigger antennas for extra energy collection.
Figure 7-12 Use ofoutriggerantennas for damped positive feedback method of close-looping.

As can be seen, the MEG has many possible configurations and embodiments, each of which has special advantages and uses. One of the embodiments we discussed is the deliberate use of self-oscillation forced by the feedforward and feedback loops. That is a separate embodiment, and capable of a very high power per pound ratio, but it also requires more sophisticated sensing and control techniques.

Saving Power, Saving The World

Saving Power, Saving The World

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save Power. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Use Renewable Energy As Your Alternative Power Suppliers.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment