Hi Luc,

Have been thinking on the induced waveforms you have shown. I assume you tried to apply the same speed for all the 3 cores by your hand, right?

Thank you Gyula for taking the time to write your thoughts and comments.

Yes, I did my best to keep the movement at the same speed for each test.

When I first saw your scope shots, I recalled Naudin's test with two orientations for a coil, where he moved a magnet in front of the coil, then tangentially to the coil, see here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/magconfig.gif  from his site The Mini-Romag explanation ?
I think the right hand side setup shown in the picture gives a similarly shaped induced voltage you received, even though there are certain differences, I think the tendency is similar.
What I mean on similarity is that all 3 induced voltage waves of yours start with a small (negative) peak which suddenly goes up and peaks in one or two (positive) peaks, then suddenly goes down and change sign again and ends in a small (negative) peak. The order of the peaks (negative) and (positive) could be upside down, depending on the NS or SN placement for you parallel magnets, just like in case of Naudin if he had used a South pole up instead of the North up, his waveform would have started with a small positive polarity first as the S pole moved from left to right.

Yes I agree, it is similar waveform to JLN test but a much quicker change in my test setup as you have noticed.
The waveform reverses by moving the core in the other direction.

For your U core and the wide core the 'split into two peaks' of the single positive peaks comes about, I think, because these two cores are able to bridge directly the two magnets with overlaps and the flux of the perm magnets (mainly in the top part) would prefer closing via the appearing U or wide cores when they are just above the magnets symmetrically and most flux on top is "sucked" away from the coil core and goes through the moving cores. This is not so for the moving thin core that cannot form a shunting bridge for the facing magnets.

Yes, I would agree with your observations on why the difference of waveform when using the thin core which cannot bridge the gap between magnets.

Which waveform would make a difference in a generator, you ask. I would prefer the U shaped core but with its thickness matching the length of your magnets (now the U core thickness is less than the magnet length if I see it correctly). The U shape gives the biggest flux change out of the three I think and perhaps you wish to consider moving an U core under your magnet-coil setup too, now you show the U core moves only above the setup of course. This way the flux change could be even higher in the coil core. I mean two U cores moving alltogether as a rotor, sandwiching the stator magnets + the coil whenever they pass but then the total setup would become 'clumsy'...   Cheesy  surely a mechanically better setup could be devised.

Gyula

Actually, what I was trying to ask is, do you think any of these waveform would make a difference if this was a generator output and if so,  why?

The magnets distance is exactly the U core distance (center to center) The width of the magnets happen to also be the width of each core leg.

I agree, if we had U cores on each sides it should double or more the output.

Luc

It's the Batman Waveform!

Someone want to tell me why TK & Batman are never seen in the same room at the same time? Yeah thought so

I've been working on this project for the last few days and wanted to share my progress.  My build is based on UFO politics cad drawing.
Please note that some of my design choices were based on surplus and scrap items in my shop and not necessarily the best engineering design.
My iron is not laminated but the cast steel should still give some results in testing.

For those of you who are in the energetic forum I tried to post it there but my account as VTOL is not activated yet.


http://youtu.be/R1UnjWA2eyE

Vince

Wow nice setup Vince

Thanks all

No results yet. It runs smooth but I have to make some generating coils. The few turns I tried on the output are making only a few volts.
I would like some input though.
My field coils have 500 turns each.
What number of turns and gauge of wire would you use on output coils?

Thanks all

No results yet. It runs smooth but I have to make some generating coils. The few turns I tried on the output are making only a few volts.
I would like some input though.
My field coils have 500 turns each.
What number of turns and gauge of wire would you use on output coils?

I would say not to worry too much about voltage as current is what causes the most Lenz drag and this is what we all want to know if this design can help alleviate.
If for now you can only get one volt across a 1 Ohm resistor you have 1 watt, if you can get 2 volt you have 4 watts. And if you can connect and disconnect your load resistor with no change to RPM and your input motor has no change in current, then you have a winner.

If you still want to make coils, I would say use 16 AWG to 14 AWG and make as many turns as you can fit on your core.

All the best in your tests and thanks for sharing

Luc

Have a read:

http://noticiasseleccionvaldeandemagico.blogspot.com/2014/07/leedskalnin-iron-man.html


Maybe rewind an off-the-shelf generator with insulated steel wire and have a go...?

Wouldn't recommend shorting the output though.

E. Leedskalnin had solution in 1930s but obviously the crucial information on redirecting Lenz force for our use was lost there..

When you make alternating magnet from moving iron core between N and S magnets on stator the Lenz force becomes same deflection for approaching and leaving iron core on coil. That is fundamental and is easily controllable by current draw on both cycles in coil. When making real school level model from the my pendulum picture it can show that.

The Eddy currents is what you have to avoid (the basic Faraday's induction law - the current is on 90 degrees to the movement) and the short circuits inside of core are making losses and heat.
The drag issue is easy to solve in that arrangement by geometry solution...

Cheers!