Author Topic: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner. (Read 291738 times)

synchro1 · « **Reply #315 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:41:18 PM »

This is what a Piezo actuator circuit looks like:

synchro1 · « **Reply #316 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:56:01 PM »

"The 'field' reversal within the armature relates to atomic domain (electron spin axis) alignments within it, and likely starts at some magnet related centre-line field bulge acting upon the armature surface domains and inducing symmetrical but oppositely polarised waves of reversal which avalanche outwards and through the entire armature".

The polarity shift is merely exciting the fields in the diametric magnet stack and generating a current, not triggering a "Field Reversal" of atomic domain like in Gary's soft iron keeper!

conradelektro · « **Reply #317 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:59:23 PM »

Well, the Piezo actuator http://www.allmotion.com/EZPZ23-HR1description.htm is a bit too steep for me, price wise and electronic wise.

I rather experiment with a "electric bell" set up. Hendershot did not have a Piezo actuator in the 1920ies and 1930ies.

But let's do it step by step, first the "synchro coil", then we see more.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro · « **Reply #318 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:03:38 PM »

Quote from: synchro1 on December 18, 2013, 02:56:01 PM

"The 'field' reversal within the armature relates to atomic domain (electron spin axis) alignments within it, and likely starts at some magnet related centre-line field bulge acting upon the armature surface domains and inducing symmetrical but oppositely polarised waves of reversal which avalanche outwards and through the entire armature".

The polarity shift is merely exciting the fields in the diametric magnet stack and generating a current, not triggering a "Field Reversal" of atomic domain like in Gary's soft iron keeper!

I might understand that, but what is the horse shoe magnet of Gary in the "spining magnet and synchro coil"?

What is the Gary's plate (in the neutral zone) in the "spining magnet and synchro coil"?

That is my conceptual problem at the moment. I do not see the equivalents in Gary's idea and synchro's idea? There is nothing "spinning" in Gary's idea?

I like the spinning magnet with the "synchro coil" (simple and clean) but I do not see how it relates to Gary's horse shoe magnet and plate?

Greetings, Conrad

synchro1 · « **Reply #319 on:** December 18, 2013, 03:20:07 PM »

@Conradelektro,

The plate you're referring to is the stack of iron laminations with a coil wrapped around it that vibrates over the horseshoe magnet right? The Bloch wall comes up from the center of the horseshoe magnet and mushrooms out into a shell. The diametric rotor has the same Bloch wall mushroom shell as the horseshoe magnet. There's a good schematic of this on Morpher44's video introductions, I can't find a way to copy it over.

Spinning the horseshoe magnet would not influence the position of the Bloch wall or mushrooming neutral zone. There's no attraction or repulsion inside the neutral zone. Spinning the horseshoe magnet with the iron keeper inside the neutral zone would have no effect on either the magnet or the keeper; However, if it wobbled a little bit, it would have the same effect on the keeper as vibrating the keeper in and out of the zone to reverse the domain polarity while stationary. The saturation effect on the iron eventually kills the reversal effect and makes this model extremely inefficient. Using the advanced neo magnets over the soft iron keeper laminations is thousands of times more powerful. Our test setup is basically identical to Wesley Gary's original patent, except we're wrapping around a stack of magnets and vibrating the field instead of wrapping around a stack of iron laminations and reversing the atomic domain. Every diametric magnet rotor is just eccentric enough to oscillate the zone due to the low tolerance's of the magnet manufacturers.

After you're finished wrapping the magnet coil and confirming the COP>1 OU with your sophisticated scientific measuring instruments, I believe we'll attract other experimenters from the group and together be able move forward and perfect the generator. This work of yours is an extremely important step, because I don't have the laboratory equipment to adequately confirm my claims.

conradelektro · « **Reply #320 on:** December 18, 2013, 04:39:14 PM »

Quote from: synchro1 on December 18, 2013, 03:20:07 PM

@Conradelektro,

The plate you're referring to is the stack of iron laminations with a coil wrapped around it that vibrates over the horseshoe magnet right? The Bloch wall comes up from the center of the horseshoe magnet and mushrooms out into a shell. The diametric rotor has the same Bloch wall mushroom shell as the horseshoe magnet. There's a good schematic of this on Morpher44's video introductions, I can't find a way to copy it over.

Spinning the horseshoe magnet would not influence the position of the Bloch wall or mushrooming neutral zone. There's no attraction or repulsion inside the neutral zone. Spinning the horseshoe magnet with the iron keeper inside the neutral zone would have no effect on either the magnet or the keeper; However, if it wobbled a little bit, it would have the same effect on the keeper as vibrating the keeper in and out of the zone to reverse the domain polarity while stationary. The saturation effect on the iron eventually kills the reversal effect and makes this model extremely inefficient. Using the advanced neo magnets over the soft iron keeper laminations is thousands of times more powerful. Our test setup is basically identical to Wesley Gary's original patent, except we're wrapping around a stack of magnets and vibrating the field instead of wrapping around a stack of iron laminations and reversing the atomic domain. Every diametric magnet rotor is just eccentric enough to oscillate the zone due to the low tolerance's of the magnet manufacturers.

After you're finished wrapping the magnet coil and confirming the OU>1 COP with your sophisticated scientific measuring instruments, I believe we'll attract other experimenters from the group and together be able move forward and perfect the generator. This work of yours is an extremely important step, because I don't have the laboratory equipment to adequately confirm my claims.

Yes, but why did you have the idea of spinning a magnet and putting a stack of magnets (inside a coil) near the spinnig magnet? Why is that similar to Gary's idea?

1) On the one hand we have Gary: horse shoe magnet and the stack of iron laminations with a coil wrapped around it that vibrates over the horseshoe magnet.

2) On the other hand we have synchro1: a spinning magnet and a tube magnet (inside a coil) near the spinning magnet.

Why is 1) similar to 2)? I do not understand how one comes from 1) to 2)? What are your arguments for that? What is the common principle in 1) and 2) according to your opinion?

2) (synchro1's idea) is much easier to build than 1) (Gary's idea), but why can 1) be replaced by 2) without loosing the underlying principle?

The most significant difference I see is that Gary uses just one stationary magnet (a horse shoe magnet) and synchro1 uses at least two magnets (a spinning magnet and a tube magnet inside the generator coil)? There is nothing spinning in the Gary setup (only the plate vibrates), but there is something spinning in the synchro1 setup (the spinning magnet) and the second magnet (plus coil) should vibrate?

I am not criticising, just trying to understand the technical arguments leading from Gary to synchro1? May be I am too much thinking about theory? Let's say Gary's setup realy works. Why should synchro1's setup work, it is different? One can of course turn the reasoning around, why should Gary's set up work, if synchro1's setup is good? For me the two ideas are mutually exclusive?

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: I see, the middle paragraph in your previsous answer seems to answer my silly questions.

synchro1 · « **Reply #321 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:16:51 PM »

I got the results first by accident as I explained when my Cook battery fell into my diametric bearingless spinner. I extrapolated the theory afterwards to help explain the non-understood experimental effects. All that matters is that it works; And if it works, don't fix it!

The diametric rotor has a neutral zone between the poles, just like a horseshoe magnet. Only a dipole magnet can produce a neutral zone, either diametric tube, cylinder, axial disk, bar or horseshoe. This is known as the "Bloch Wall". There's a spatial area where there's no attraction either way. It doesn't matter if it's spinning or standing still, the zone of no force is still in the same relative position. It balloons out, and instead of in adjacency, it turns into a shell, with one pole to the outside of the other, instead of side by side.

Here's a good video demonstrating the magnetic lines of force with a horseshoe and axial magnet. Take a good look at the compass directions from the horseshoe field on the outside. Freeze the video at 0:32 and look at the orientation of the compass needle on the extreme left side. It's horizontal! Think about that. One side of the needle is south polarity and the other north. Completely opposite fields one OUTSIDE the other, but just by a very small area of calibration! This is exactly where we want to position the end of the magnet core. Imagine that area spinning around. The overall net effect on the spinning rotor factors out to zero in this flutter zone, because it's on average either having no effect, perfectly balanced in the neutral zone, or half the time on one side and half the time on the other. Meanwhile abundant power's generated in the magnet core coil wraps from the fluctuating field with no Lenz drag whatsoever on the prime mover! Conradelektro has demonstrated that it's really not that difficult to locate the zone. It's all gravy from that point on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdomJQvxPZE

conradelektro · « **Reply #322 on:** December 18, 2013, 09:04:56 PM »

@synchro1: thank you for taking the time to explain your theory, I am catching on.

I also appreciate that you write freely about your theory. Lesser minds would make a big secret out of it (patent, I have OU, you know what we see in this forum all the time).

It is worth wile to give it a try, your arguments are well put. One never knows what comes out of a theory, but why not strain ones mind.

I can report a little progress, see the attached photo. May be tomorrow the first "synchro coil" is ready for winding. Writing in a forum is easy, building something takes hours and hours.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro · « **Reply #323 on:** December 18, 2013, 09:29:46 PM »

Attached please see the circuit for the first measurements I intend to do with the synchro coil near my vertical magnet spinner. It will be held by hand (resting on the base plate of the spinner).

The intention is to get a first indication of its output power.

Is the 10µF capacitor too high if one expects a few mA?

Greetings, Conrad

synchro1 · « **Reply #324 on:** December 18, 2013, 09:56:00 PM »

@Conradelektro,

Too big a coil face will create Lenz drag. You won't want too many wraps thick. Keep in mind where the power's coming from. Skycollection uses those big pancakes with the ferrite electromagnetic toroid cores. He only partially minimizes his Lenz drag as a consequence. I wouldn't raise the face more the 1/2", which would make 1" total for drag face. 1/4" might even be better. Thin wire will yield lots of turns due to the length of the coil, so thickness is less of a priority. A 3/8" thick radius would probably be plenty depending on wire gauge. Plenty of turns due to coil length and wire thinness is going to raise the output voltage pretty high, so I wouldn't recommend over winding. The form looks perfect. Very nice work.

Milehigh had allot to say to me about the non-difference between a single wire wrap coil and the Tesla series wrap bifilar. The Tesla series wrap bifilar offers "zero resistance to changes in current direction", unlike the single wire wrap coil, makeing it superior as an A.C. output coil. A monopole rotor would not make a difference, but due to the oscillatory nature of the dipole, the Tesla bifilar is a far superior choice.

conradelektro · « **Reply #325 on:** December 18, 2013, 10:16:43 PM »

Quote from: synchro1 on December 18, 2013, 09:56:00 PM

@Conradelektro,

Too big a coil face will create Lenz drag. You won't want too many wraps thick. Keep in mind where the power's coming from. Skycollection uses those big pancakes with the ferrite electromagnetic toroid cores. He only partially minimizes his Lenz drag as a consequence. I wouldn't raise the face more the 1/2", which would make 1" total for drag face. 1/4" might even be better. Thin wire will yield lots of turns due to the length of the coil, so thickness is less of a priority. A 3/8" thick radius would probably be plenty depending on wire gauge. Plenty of turns due to coil length and wire thinness is going to raise the output voltage pretty high, so I wouldn't recommend over winding. The form looks perfect. Very nice work.

@synchro1: thank you for the coil face hint, will try to follow up.

Attached please find an updated drive circuit which switches just perfectly (see the scop shots, probe 1 and probe 2), 9 V, 1.1 mA , ~ 10 mW, ~1200 rpm.

Without the 100pF cap (base to GND) there was a little oscillation when switching off, which is now gone (the 22K are also better than the 100K from base to GND).

Let's see what we can generate with the synchro-coil, I am looking forward to the first tests. Unfortunately it is not the best time of the year to go into this. So, be patient. At the beginning of the new year I will be able to concentrate better.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro · « **Reply #326 on:** December 18, 2013, 10:34:50 PM »

@synchro1:

Does the attached drawing show a "Tesla bifilar" coil winding according to your specification? Just to make sure that I get it right?

Greetings, Conrad

synchro1 · « **Reply #327 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:00:10 PM »

@Conradelektro,

That's the correct connection. "Zero reluctance to change in current direction". A single wrap would generate waste heat from the oscillatory excitation.

synchro1 · « **Reply #328 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:02:57 PM »

Quote from: conradelektro on December 18, 2013, 09:29:46 PM

Attached please see the circuit for the first measurements I intend to do with the synchro coil near my vertical magnet spinner. It will be held by hand (resting on the base plate of the spinner).

The intention is to get a first indication of its output power.

Is the 10µF capacitor too high if one expects a few mA?

Greetings, Conrad

I think you're ten times too low on your output estimate. I predict you'll generate micro amps, and I would step your capacitance up to 50v 100uF if possible. The amount of output power is going to shock you. Be prepared for a surprise. It should only take a few minutes to top the capacitor off in that elevated range. I'm not fooling around. Brace yourself to soar way overunity when you start to feel that shudder in the magnet core!

Imagine how many times the magnet core field shifts per rotor revolution from the saw tooth pattern of the zone polarity change, compared to the speed it would take to do it from the rotor? The rotor speed might have to be 15,000 r.p.m. to do what 1,500 rpm would do with ten zone shifts per turn.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #329 on:** December 19, 2013, 08:31:59 AM »

Quote from: synchro1 on December 18, 2013, 11:00:10 PM

@Conradelektro,

That's the correct connection. "Zero reluctance to change in current direction". A single wrap would generate waste heat from the oscillatory excitation.

I think we've been here before. Would you please explain just what the highlighted phrase means, in commonly understood electrical engineering terms?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner. (Read 291738 times)

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

conradelektro

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

synchro1

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

TinselKoala

Re: Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.