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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )  (Read 608539 times)

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #630 on: December 28, 2014, 05:27:36 AM »
Luc:
 
Try putting the keepers tight on the core to see if you can keep the entire flux loop in the core and test the load and output.
The output should be near zero since no flux is moving to the C core and the load should drop to about the same no device load of 120W.
 
I noticed in the static hand rotation that the C core does not attract to the gap. The core should attract into the gap with about the same force as when on the separate core ends.
It should increase the output but probably won't make it more efficient.
 
The flux retention in the C core may be the entire load and the coil prevents some flux from entering the core when under load. So in a sense the concept is working.
The Lenz in the coil pushes back on the field loop as it tries to exit the coil and lowers the flux in the C section and with less flux the changing flux is less and the loss is less.
 
So in the end, the best path may be to use the same concept but move less iron and possibly increase the time in the neutral zone between coil cores.
It may require some major changes but wait until your convinced of the issue and solution.
 
 
 

l0stf0x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #631 on: December 28, 2014, 12:30:32 PM »
Hi guys,

My experiments with syairchairun setup showed low output no mater what you do, which is actually right!!. If you do the math or the experiments, you will see that the output will be at 5-15% of what you expecting. And its perfectly logical.

 I think Syairchairun give us wrong diagrams. Well I am 100% sure now..  Because I think I got it  ;)

After days and days of thinking and reading and experimenting, as most of you guys do here, just yesterday night I came up with a new idea..

At my first experiments of this new idea I notice: 1)Great power output!, 2) no braking effect with shorted coil! 3)easy to rotate.

It will be at a new thread. I am building a prototipe... I ll be back

Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #632 on: December 28, 2014, 02:32:47 PM »
Hi guys,

My experiments with syairchairun setup showed low output no mater what you do, which is actually right!!. If you do the math or the experiments, you will see that the output will be at 5-15% of what you expecting. And its perfectly logical.

 I think Syairchairun give us wrong diagrams. Well I am 100% sure now..  Because I think I got it  ;)

After days and days of thinking and reading and experimenting, as most of you guys do here, just yesterday night I came up with a new idea..

At my first experiments of this new idea I notice: 1)Great power output!, 2) no braking effect with shorted coil! 3)easy to rotate.

It will be at a new thread. I am building a prototipe... I ll be back


Looking forward to your update :)

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #633 on: December 28, 2014, 08:32:22 PM »
Quote
120w just turning the C core with I core away
140W with I cores in position and coil not on load
135W with coil on 1 Ohm load and delivering 5W to load.

So there's 10W which is not accounted for and it's hard for me to believe that so much power is being wasted in such small cores as Eddy currents and heat losses.

Did you also factor in the losses in the coil itself when you say 5 watts going to the load?

Can you explain how you get 10 watts not accounted for?

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #634 on: December 29, 2014, 07:20:34 AM »
Luc:
 
Try putting the keepers tight on the core to see if you can keep the entire flux loop in the core and test the load and output.
The output should be near zero since no flux is moving to the C core and the load should drop to about the same no device load of 120W.
 

Yes lumen, when I add the keepers the output is next to nothing. Could this mode be used to calculate core losses?

I noticed in the static hand rotation that the C core does not attract to the gap. The core should attract into the gap with about the same force as when on the separate core ends.

Now that's interesting!... the only way the C core could stick between the magnet gap between the I cores is if the C core was thinner. I asked you that question at the beginning of the build. Anyways, it's not too late I can make it thinner. Now it overlaps a little on each I core and I guess that's why it doesn't lock in between. Let me know if you understand.

The flux retention in the C core may be the entire load and the coil prevents some flux from entering the core when under load. So in a sense the concept is working.

What if the coil was on the C core? what would be the difference?

The Lenz in the coil pushes back on the field loop as it tries to exit the coil and lowers the flux in the C section and with less flux the changing flux is less and the loss is less.

Interesting!

So in the end, the best path may be to use the same concept but move less iron and possibly increase the time in the neutral zone between coil cores.

Maybe it would be better to increase the distance between I cores.?... if I add another magnet it would double the gap. Do you think that would be too much?... see pic of present gap and C core width.

Thanks

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #635 on: December 29, 2014, 07:27:19 AM »
Hi guys,

My experiments with syairchairun setup showed low output no mater what you do, which is actually right!!. If you do the math or the experiments, you will see that the output will be at 5-15% of what you expecting. And its perfectly logical.

 I think Syairchairun give us wrong diagrams. Well I am 100% sure now..  Because I think I got it  ;)

After days and days of thinking and reading and experimenting, as most of you guys do here, just yesterday night I came up with a new idea..

At my first experiments of this new idea I notice: 1)Great power output!, 2) no braking effect with shorted coil! 3)easy to rotate.

It will be at a new thread. I am building a prototipe... I ll be back

Sounds interesting l0stf0x.

Looking forward to seeing your idea

Thanks for sharing

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #636 on: December 29, 2014, 07:29:20 AM »
Did you also factor in the losses in the coil itself when you say 5 watts going to the load?

No I did not

Can you explain how you get 10 watts not accounted for?

Prime mover starts at 120W just spinning the C core with no I cores in site.
We add the I cores with open coil, prime mover now uses 140W
So 20W is used to circulate Flux in the cores.  We now load the coil and prime mover drops by 5W and load on coil delivers 5W (2.25vrms on 1 Ohm load), so we deduct this from our 20W and we are left with 10W. True we have about 4 watts of losses in the 1.3 Ohm DC Resistance of the coil so we have about 6W which could be core Eddies and heat losses?

I had not added those losses. Do you think this looks realistic?

Luc

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #637 on: December 29, 2014, 08:20:12 AM »
Luc:

I must have posted about five times over the past 10 days that you have to measure the resistive losses in the coil itself if you want to do a serious power analysis.  That especially applies for a low value of load resistor.

Your logic for your power analysis makes no sense to me.  Also, why didn't you share that when you first posted?  You can't possibly take it for granted that people would know what you were thinking.  If you are going to do some kind of analysis you have to explain to your audience your reasoning and what you are doing.

So why don't you take another crack at it?  From what I understand your setup is in line with the original clip that started this thread.  So perhaps your peers like T-1000 and others that are following this thread can help you out.

MileHigh

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #638 on: December 29, 2014, 10:46:13 AM »

Prime mover starts at 120W just spinning the C core with no I cores in site.
We add the I cores with open coil, prime mover now uses 140W
So 20W is used to circulate Flux in the cores.  We now load the coil and prime mover drops by 5W and load on coil delivers 5W (2.25vrms on 1 Ohm load), so we deduct this from our 20W and we are left with 10W. True we have about 4 watts of losses in the 1.3 Ohm DC Resistance of the coil so we have about 6W which could be core Eddies and heat losses?

I had not added those losses. Do you think this looks realistic?

Luc
Luc-please watch this test. You need ferrite core's,as steel laminated core's are shocking,even at low rpm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg

Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #639 on: December 29, 2014, 11:38:16 AM »
Luc-please watch this test. You need ferrite core's,as steel laminated core's are shocking,even at low rpm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg
Hey brad in my experiments the ferrite did not work nearly as well as steel laminates. It was explained by arenas and Matt that it's because the poles can't as flip as fast. I'm trying to work out where to get soft iron like syair used. Paul Babcock swears by steel shot but its a bit hard to get in melbourne.

l0stf0x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #640 on: December 29, 2014, 12:36:56 PM »
I have dificulty with construction with laminations, so this is going to take time, or I could use ferrite cores (small version) but this also will take time..

and because I don't want you to wait for me, but rather everyone build his own one..  so I decide to make some drawings and explanations so everybody will understand the idea.

I am drawing them now..



Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #641 on: December 29, 2014, 01:13:49 PM »
I have dificulty with construction with laminations, so this is going to take time, or I could use ferrite cores (small version) but this also will take time..

and because I don't want you to wait for me, but rather everyone build his own one..  so I decide to make some drawings and explanations so everybody will understand the idea.

I am drawing them now..


Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing them

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #642 on: December 29, 2014, 01:19:52 PM »
Hey brad in my experiments the ferrite did not work nearly as well as steel laminates. It was explained by arenas and Matt that it's because the poles can't as flip as fast. I'm trying to work out where to get soft iron like syair used. Paul Babcock swears by steel shot but its a bit hard to get in melbourne.
Ferrite will transition much faster that iron or steel,this is why they use ferrite in high frequency transformers or inductors. Steel and iron hold residual magnetism quite well-im guessing you have a few magnetised screwdrivers lying around?. See how much magnetised ferrite you have that wasnt a magnet to start with-my guess is none.

Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #643 on: December 29, 2014, 01:44:17 PM »
Ferrite will transition much faster that iron or steel,this is why they use ferrite in high frequency transformers or inductors. Steel and iron hold residual magnetism quite well-im guessing you have a few magnetised screwdrivers lying around?. See how much magnetised ferrite you have that wasnt a magnet to start with-my guess is none.
Mmm interesting. I tried ferrites and mumetal. ( left over from Orbos) laminate steel worked best for output. As shown in your vid they certainly had more drag. I don't pretend to understand why, I just follow the data :)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #644 on: December 29, 2014, 01:50:33 PM »
Ferrite will transition much faster that iron or steel,this is why they use ferrite in high frequency transformers or inductors. Steel and iron hold residual magnetism quite well-im guessing you have a few magnetised screwdrivers lying around?. See how much magnetised ferrite you have that wasnt a magnet to start with-my guess is none.
A couple of properties that make soft ferrites desirable compared to iron or steel:  Much higher resistivity.  Eddy currents are much lower.  Low remanent flux.  Low hysteresis.  The much higher resistivity more than anything else makes them more suitable for higher frequency operation than iron or steel.