GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83019
  • *Latest: Zeg01

  • *Total Posts: 502864
  • *Total Topics: 15031
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 28

Author Topic: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator  (Read 88866 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2014, 11:32:57 PM »
Scorch:

Yes I am in a position to make inferences about the pulse motor because of my education and experience.  Plus in the one of the clips he even states there will be a "stronger" field between the two opposing coils when in actual fact it will be weaker.  And yes indeed you should not put words in my mouth like you did.  The two views are not incompatible they both have their respective contexts which you seemingly want to "pretend" to forget.

Quote
Or a belief that a resonating electric system emitting obvious sound, such as a vibrating coil, transformer, or motor actually producing said sound, is, somehow, separate or completely independent from it's physical-mechanical characteristics required to actually produce a sound including an electro-mechanical resonant sound.

Typically when a transformer hums it represents a tiny tiny loss mechanism compared to the power throughput of the device.  Chances are the hysteresis of the core material will represent a much higher loss proportionally than the hummming.  When the windings of a transformer hum that's just a "motor" siphoning off a very small amount of power.  That's the only linkage between the physical vibrations and the electrical device.  If you don't believe me go ahead and do some very precise measuring and analysis if you want to.

Quote
PS: The term "ignorant" is not derogatory. It simply means "not educated"

Ha ha ha, that's "really slick" buffoonery on your part.  You want a good example of ignorance?  Your three "perpetual motion holder" clips are totally ignorant and counterproductive because they mislead people that might be at the beginning of the learning curve.  This is the second time I am telling you this.  If you don't believe me then go and educate yourself.  You should be embarrassed about those clips after you have educated yourself and you should feel the need to take them down.

Anyway, I can feel the "wall" were you want to stick to all of your "alternative" beliefs, no matter how many times it is apparent to you that you have a lot to learn about the real thing, real electronics, real magnetics, and so on.  It's "easier" for you to stick to the pseudo electronics and watch the numbers on your digital meters and believe that you are confirming things like the "source field."  Just keep in mind your pulse motor doesn't do much more then lose energy.   A pair of wires conducting the voltage and current from point A to point B will outperform your pulse motor all the time.

I am out of here and I am looking forward to seeing what you can produce.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2014, 11:32:57 PM »

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2014, 12:32:47 AM »

This new thread is now dominated by MileHigh just as the previous thread was...  :P

So; is there anybody else here interested in this endeavour?
(Anybody else offering anything else besides an abundance of negative opinions and frivolous claims regarding that which I haven't even built yet.)

If no preponderance of evidence that many others here are actually interested in how this experiment may proceed then; I will simply keep my updates to my own preferred social forum versus this OU forum which, so far, has provided very little interest from anybody else.
Page statistics show well over 2,000 views for this relatively new topic but history also shows well under 5 users actually responding and even less with positive responses and MileHigh dominating this conversation... with... well; what can I say?  Seek and ye shall find....  :D

This is not who I am, not why I came here to share, and I will NOT be participating in such superiority games.  8)

IF there is anybody else here actually interested in seeing this experiment progress and possibly produce something interesting or useful, then please let it be known, here, NOW.  :)

If nobody else here is interested then, by all means, allow your silence to be your silent consent that there is no reason for me to share my stuff here.
If there are any objections to me sharing my stuff somewhere ELSE; then please let it be known.
Otherwise your silent consent is acceptable and I will give my energy to my preferred forum per your silent procedure consent.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

If there is no evidence of an abundance of users actually interested and providing positive support for these types of experiments; then what is the point and why is this forum even here?
Why bother and endure the negativity here when I actually prefer to share my stuff elsewhere?!?

I see no evidence this forum is still for the sharing and support of possible OU discoveries as it once was.
Are there any objections or evidence to the contrary of these findings?

Speak now or, forever, hold your peace.

Makes no difference to me and free will is certainly allowed.   :)

Please respond.

Kindest regards;

}:>

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2014, 01:00:46 AM »
Scorch:

The thread is all yours.  You can consider our discussion a big preamble to the thread.

So you have a pulse motor, perhaps you can post something interesting about it.  If it's partially built and spinning perhaps you could do an experiment and present some data.  That might get people to start posting on your thread.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2014, 01:00:46 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #33 on: October 28, 2014, 04:04:00 PM »
Hey Webby.  :)

Nice to learn there actually is at least one more paying attention who might be interested in this experiment.

Welcome and I will certainly take this into consideration.  8)

Are there any others?

Are there any other objections to me sharing this experiment somewhere else?

If yes; then let your objection be known.
If no; then Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur.

Kindest regards;

}:>

I am interested in what you are playing with, I have made a few setups that use some of the parts that you have,, that kind of made me hope to get another step by step of the interactions and stuff.

Now that MH has decided to stop maybe you can keep it simple for starters,, explaining the thought behind things,, and as the build progresses maybe all of us can "be on the same page" if you will,,

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2014, 05:34:29 PM »



   Scorch,
            you're obviously a very genuine person. I think it would be great if
 you document progress and give results.
     The piece of equipment you're testing looks very well engineered and
 no doubt will provide reliable results.
   Thank you
               John.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2014, 05:34:29 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2014, 05:17:02 PM »
11/9/14

Hello everybody.  :)

Just a quick update:
I've been very busy this last two weeks with many other priorities and projects that I have been completing (before winter sets in) and I simply haven't completed any additional assembly of this hobby-experiment.
Including but not limited to- Cutting down and processing large, dead, elm trees on the property, tearing out a wall and replacing an 80 year old tub faucet, building a "lean-to" shed next to garage complete with frame, roof, panels and finish, attending three different furry parties at three different locations, replaced transmission in step van #2, assemble a nixie tube clock kit, winterize some doors and windows and etcetera... All while, also, performing on various private contract obligations.... So, yes, the last two weeks have been pretty busy around here.... :P

I do intend to complete more soon and, of course, if anybody else is working on this experiment; they are certainly welcome to share here.
When it comes to peer review of a specific experiment; the more the better.  :)

Kindest regards.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 10:19:15 PM by Scorch »

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2014, 02:43:12 AM »
11/13/14

Hello all.  :)

I finally got around to completing some more assembly of the G1 today.
This is the three phase alternator stator.

No challenges building this sub-assembly and very straightforward.

Although I suggest that, as an educational-experimental device, the manufacturer should consider actually providing red and blue coils to go with the red, blue, and green coils of the drawings representing all three phases.
The separate colors would look cool in the acrylic frame and make it easier to keep track of the phases and wiring.

I did stray away from the original specifications, just a little, and placed the jumper on the other side of the switches instead of having the wires reach around to the other side of the switches per the drawing.
The circuit is still the same and the switches will merely operate in the opposite direction to do the same things.

The switches provide for the capabilities of reconfiguring the three phase alternator, on the fly, so that a simple flip of the switch changes from "Delta" to "Star" configuration or any combination between.

That is all for now.

Hope to complete more soon.

Kindest regards.

}:>

PS: Just finished watching the new video about John Bedini's stuff and found that to be very interesting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI
It appears that JB was right all along and he did show us way back then.
Apparently I, and others, merely fail to get it until it's spelled out . . . one baby step at a time...
And most are not taking advantage of the mechanical output such as simply installing a high efficiency, three phase, alternator with phase modification switches. . .

JB's stuff does appear to work but there is a lot of 'fine tuning' here and there to obtain highest efficiencies and I am inclined to go back to some of those old experiments for further review.


These images were originally 4608 X 3440 pixels and have been significantly reduced to fit this web site.
Please forgive any failure of this web site to handle large, or even medium, sized images and text wrap in a logical, common sense, manner like it used to do.
(Such as thumbnail preview to save bandwidth, link to image in new window, and/or ensuring that page and forum text not effected by images.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2014, 02:43:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2014, 04:48:03 PM »
Scorch:

Quote
PS: Just finished watching the new video about John Bedini's stuff and found that to be very interesting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI
It appears that JB was right all along and he did show us way back then.
Apparently I, and others, merely fail to get it until it's spelled out . . . one baby step at a time...
And most are not taking advantage of the mechanical output such as simply installing a high efficiency, three phase, alternator with phase modification switches. . .

JB's stuff does appear to work but there is a lot of 'fine tuning' here and there to obtain highest efficiencies and I am inclined to go back to some of those old experiments for further review.

There is nothing in that clip.  It's just an attempt to sell more books.

Between Aaron and Peter, they have 45 years worth of experience with Bedini motors.  They make a claim about how to get over unity from a Bedini motor, they have a running setup in the clip, and yet they make no attempt to make any output measurements.

Aaron acknowledged that a Bedini motor loses 70% of the source battery power, and only transfers 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  Then he makes a big lie by stating that even though the charging battery is only getting 30% of the source battery energy, it will be recharged up to 90%.   So Aaron is claiming that some "magic" happens.

In another bizarre twist, Aaron is incapable of making the distinction between mechanical output and waste heat.  Aaron believes the bearing friction and the air friction of the spinning rotor is "unaccounted for mechanical output" when in fact it's useless waste heat output that forms part of the 70% of useless waste heat output of the motor.

It's very similar to the fact that Aaron does not understand the physics and energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is COP >1 which is ridiculous.

So there is nothing new in that latest video from Aaron and Peter.  The only thing they did was add a pick-up coil and FWBR to drive a bank of LEDs.  Big deal, experimenters have been doing that for years.

MileHigh

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2014, 05:08:59 PM »
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Sorry to learn none these systems ever work in your reality.

In my reality, I do believe Dr. Peter Lindemann is honest and after a preliminary review of the Bedini trilogy and included HD video, I have already gained new knowledge after just a few minutes of quick review, I'm now ready to try some new experiments (such as operating in attraction mode for better efficiency and higher RPM), and I do believe my money was well spent.  ;D

And, BTW, it appears the potentiometer on the G1 will allow me to produce relatively the same effect as Bedini's "Trigger Shift Switch" and "Common Ground Mode" where the current will rise and slowly fall back with increased rpm and, of course, combined pulse motor & 3-phase rectified output.

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

There is nothing in that clip.  It's just an attempt to sell more books.

Between Aaron and Peter, they have 45 years worth of experience with Bedini motors.  They make a claim about how to get over unity from a Bedini motor, they have a running setup in the clip, and yet they make no attempt to make any output measurements.

Aaron acknowledged that a Bedini motor loses 70% or the source battery power, and only transfers 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  Then he makes a big lie by stating that even though the charging battery is only getting 30% of the source batery energy, it will be recharged up to 90%.   So Aaron is claiming that some "magic" happens.

In another bizarre twist, Aaron is incapable of making the distinction between mechanical output and waste heat.  Aaron believes the bearing friction and the air friction of the spinning rotor is "unaccounted for mechanical output" when in fact it's useless waste heat output that forms part of the 70% of useless waste heat output of the motor.

It's very similar to the fact that Aaron does not understand the physics and energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is COP >1 which is ridiculous.

So there is nothing new in that latest video from Aaron and Peter.  The only thing they did was add a pick-up coil and FWBR to drive a bank of LEDs.  Big deal, experimenters have been doing that for years.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2014, 05:08:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2014, 05:39:38 PM »
Scorch:

Unfortunately you have to take nearly every statement from Aaron and Peter with a grain of salt.  They are just two ordinary guys with a very limited understanding of electronics that have been winging it this whole time.  Neither of them has any educational training in electronics and with one scratch, it shows.

I remember seeing debates in Bedini forums over things like, "Are all North facing magnets better than all South facing?"  For the massive "Windmill motor" (What did it actually do?) Bedini himself made statements that it had to be oriented differently depending on whether you were in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere.  Both of these things are nonsense.  I believe the giant Windmill motor was sold for scrap.

So as far as operating in attraction mode goes, getting better efficiency and a higher RPM is highly suspect.  There is no real difference between attraction mode and repulsion mode when it comes to driving the rotor.  If you do a quick test and do observe differences, then you have to investigate more.  You have to do a precise timing analysis of what is happening in the attraction and repulsion modes.  You have to track the voltages, currents, and the electrical power flow and the mechanical power flow into the spinning rotor.  It's not necessarily easy to make these kinds of precise measurements, but with some determination it can be done.  The conclusion will be that there is no real difference between operating the motor in attraction mode vs. repulsion mode.  Likewise, among some Bedini enthusiasts, there is a belief that "North is better than South" when there is no difference between the two.

They make a clip promoting a Bedini motor as a potential over unity device when you factor in everything properly.  Forgetting the flaws in their logic about the mechanical output power, look at that clip again.  They measured the input power with two multimeters.  They made no attempt whatsoever to measure the output power in the charging battery, and they made no attempt whatsoever to measure the output power into the bank of LEDs - and yet that is the thrust of their whole presentation.  The mind boggles sometimes.

MileHigh

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13820
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2014, 07:02:57 PM »
@MH, some things for you (and others) to consider:

1. As you may recall the MHOP has, by virtue of the Secret of DPDT, the ability to run in either attractive or repulsive mode by simply flicking a switch, then easily adjusting timing and dwell for optimum performance in either mode. In either mode, though, as with most Pulse Motors, half the coil and magnet fields are still "wasted", not doing much if anything to help drive the rotor. Only "repultraction" PMs, using both ends of the rotor magnet and both ends of the coil's field, are making efficient use of the fields; they can be nearly twice as efficient electrically than single-polarity motors but are much harder to make from a mechanical viewpoint. My Marinov Slab is one such  "repultraction" motor and is very efficient in that regard. In my own experience with single-polarity motors I find that repulsive-mode operation gives easier self-starting (slightly) and so I generally prefer that mode. The PerPenduPetulum, operating on room light hitting a solar cell, is one such self-starting repulsive pulse motor that also works well in attractive mode but doesn't self-start as easily in that mode. With cored coils, it should be obvious that an attractive mode motor will just sit there at the "cogging point" when a pulse is applied to the coil and will need an external spin to get started, whereas a repulsive mode motor will be pushed away from the potential well formed by the core-magnet attraction, and may selfstart. (coil-rotor numbers that are relatively prime may self-start in either polarity (example 5 and 6 or 3 and 4)  but most Pulse Motors have equal or non-relatively-prime numbers of coils and magnets (example 2 and 4 or 4 and 4.)

2. There is a difference between behaviours of magnetic systems that are dominated by North Poles, and those dominated by South Poles. It takes sensitive testing to reveal this difference, and such testing (in an apparatus using Helmholz coils to null the Earth's field) has revealed to my satisfaction that it is NOT something inherent in the magnets... but rather it is an effect of the Earth's magnetic field in the locality where the testing is conducted. This effect is most easily demonstrated in one's own laboratory by the "sliding magnet" phenomenon: When a flat NdBFe magnet is allowed to slide down a slope or ramp made of a conductive, nonmagnetic material like thick aluminum or copper or brass, the magnet will slide stably with one pole facing the ramp metal, but will "jump off" or levitate if the other pole is facing the ramp. This effect has been demonstrated several times, is easy to repeat... and depends on your orientation wrt the Earth's field.  For a given magnetic latitude the "lifting pole" is opposite, in the opposite hemisphere. And in locations where the "dip angle" of the Earth's field is large, the effect is correspondingly great, so it seems to work better at high latitudes.

3. The effect noted above is small and will not be noticed in most builds of magnet motors. I seriously doubt if Bedini's large motors would show it... but it may be possible that the big "windmill" motor was so very _inefficient_ that changes in orientation wrt the Earth's field would have made a perceptible difference. This of course is an empirical question that could (relatively easily) be answered by some _real scientist_ who could make some _true experiments_ with the system. However, the very idea of the True Experiment seems to be completely lost on the pretend-scientists Murakami, Lindemann, Bedini, and the rest of that ilk.


Just what is a True Experiment, one may well ask? Just put the term into a Google search window and read the links that come up. I am not making this stuff up.
The basic idea (leaving out random assortment, blinding, null hypothesis testing, etc.) is that an Independent Variable (IV) is controlled and varied in a rational way by the experimenter, and one or more Dependent Variables (DVs) are monitored for changes that _truly depend_ on the variations of the IV. All other experimental variables or conditions are either held strictly constant, or are varied in such a random fashion (Latin Squares design, etc) that their effects can be expected to cancel out and not affect the overall statistically analyzed results. In the case of the sliding magnet down a ramp, for example, the experimenter might vary the azimuthal angle of the apparatus (the IV) and monitor the behaviour of the sliding magnet as it slides down the ramp with either polarity facing the ramp (the DVs). Plotting results like this, one very quickly finds a strong azimuthal dependence on the behaviour. This fact then suggests explanations... testable explanations.... as to the relationship between the azimuthal angle and the behaviour of the magnet, the most reasonable and easily testable one being the effect of the environment. Some possibilities include lumps of stuff in the laboratory, drafts from the air conditioner/heater ducts... and the Earth's field. Further True Experiments can then be designed in an effort to _rule out_ these possibilities one by one, such as testing in a different location, testing within an open Helmholz Coil mag compass calibration fixture, getting on an airplane and flying to the other hemisphere, etc etc. Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2014, 07:02:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5033
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2014, 02:25:58 AM »
Scorch:





Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

Note the coils are fairly wide and narrow, and note that the coils are in fairly close proximity to each other since the rotor disk is relatively thin.  When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

So here is what you get for each coil:  100 units of torque energy minus 70 units of torque energy due to magnetic field self-cancellation for a net 30 units of torque energy.

Single coil pulsing:  100 units of torque energy
Both coils pulsing:  60 units of torque energy.

Mike Kantz probably thought that he would be getting about 200 units of torque energy per pulse, but in fact he is only getting about 60 units of torque energy per pulse.  Therefore, it's highly likely that the pulse motor will perform better if you only pulse with one set of coils and not both sets.  You pay a price for all of that magnetic field self-cancellation also.  You have battery energy expended that goes "nowhere" due to the self-cancellation of the magnetic field.  It just becomes waste heat resistive losses in the coils, i.e.; battery energy poured down the drain.

Please see the attached graphic.  The orange area represents where there will be lots of self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

MileHigh
MileHigh ???

This is totally incorrect.
By useing a coil on either side of the magnet as you depicted,you can almost halve the P/in for the same amount of pull force on the magnet-rotor torque remains the same for half the P/in.The apposing coils do NOT cancel out any magnetic field,in fact,the opposite is true.The field between the two coils is very concentrated,and thus the strongest part of the field.

I am supprised that you made such an incorrect statement :o

EDIT-In fact i believe that useing a coil either side of a magnet should increase torque,while reducing the P/in by half.The reason is because insted of only having two magnetic fields acting apon one another,we would have four magnetic fields acting apon one another-while creating a concentrated field between the two coils.This concentration of the magnetic field should also add to the pull force(torque)on top of the four interacting magnetic fields.

Quote TK: Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.

@MH
Have you actually tried said experiment regarding your statement
Quote: When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

NO NO NO
If we are to teach or help those in need MH,we must make sure we are correct with the information given to those that ask for it. ;)

Having a coil either side of a magnet(in this case ,a rotor magnet)is by far more efficient per watts of P/in than a single coil on one side of the rotor magnet. There is no cancelation of magnetic fields between two coils in this situation,but an increase in magnetic field strength.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 04:39:50 AM by tinman »

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2014, 03:47:53 PM »
TK:

Interesting discussion.  I was thinking along purer lines.  Something like a spinning rotor and a single drive coil, no external magnetic field.  When you flip the polarity of the energizing of the coil, will the ability to impart energy on the rotor be different?  For either polarity it's an integral of a force vs. angle curve and there is no reason to believe that they will be different because the system has symmetry whether you are pulling or pushing.

Ha ha I just had a great idea.  This idea is fair game for anybody in the pulse motor build-off.  Coils are always energized with DC, typically from a 12-volt battery.  With a microcontroller you could drive the coil with a custom waveform.  Perhaps driving the coil with an initial  voltage over-shoot spike will give you faster repulsion force in place to meet the spinning rotor magnet.  The voltage spike gets the current flowing in the coil more quickly.  You can imagine a simple program where the microcontroler is triggered and then it just reads out a look-up table in memory to playback the waveform on an analog output pin.  Then you connect that to a beefy voltage servo-amplifier to drive the coil.  You could do one from scratch using an op-amp connected to a big pair of transistors.  The app note for that is floating around.  Or perhaps you could cheat and use a car audio amplifier.

So instead of powering the coil from a straight 12-volt battery, you are powering it from a high-current voltage servo-amplifier connected to a +/-36 volt power supply (as an example).  You can jolt the coil with a custom waveform and see how high you can push the RPM while monitoring the power consumption.  You could literally start to cook your coil if you were not careful.

You have the microcontroller reading ticks from the rotor so that the software could measure the rotor frequency.  It could then multiply the rotor frequency by 'x' to generate the clock for the outputting of the waveform.  That way the length of the customizable pulse would track the rotor RPM.

So there you have it:  A background interrupt-driven programmable timer function that outputs the waveform in memory (triggered by a pick-up coil on the motor) and in the foreground code you measure the rotor frequency and then multiply it by a variable 'x' to generate the output waveform clock.  If your Arduino board has an LCD display you could display the RPM also.

MileHigh

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5033
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2014, 03:57:24 PM »
P.S

My last post is for attraction and repulsion modes,as i only wrote repulsion mode in there-and cant seem to edit post now?.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2014, 04:05:11 PM »
Tinman:

This effect is dependent on geometry.  The more the coils resemble thin disks, and if the rotor magnet is also a thin disk, then the effect will be more pronounced.

You may have tried taking two equal bar magnets and pushing opposite poles together.  Have you every noticed that the repulsion force sometimes disappears when you push them all the way together?

Please look carefully at the attached diagram.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/

MileHigh

 

OneLink