Well,must have been the day to put down our beloved pet's,as we had to put one of our dogs down today--such is life

But i must say,i am confused about the rest of your post,as this was your idea of a friendly little comp.
To quote post 264
I would be interested in showing you ladies how it's done in a friendly competition however I have a different set of rules.
1) The motor/generator can have any configuration you want however to keep it simple the device should be no larger than let's say 20 lb.
2)The entire device as well as all associated circuitry must be clearly visible.
3)My favorite... No power supplies of any kind are allowed and the device must be electrically dead in every sense of the word at the start. However we are allowed to spin up the device by hand at the start to any RPM we can muster.
4)A storage capacitor of a value to be determined is allowed to store the output from the device which will also be the only electrical input allowed to the device. The capacitor will be at zero voltage at the start of the test.
5)A DMM or preferably an oscilloscope will show the voltage on the capacitor during the entire duration of the test.
You see this is where all the BS stops and either the capacitor voltage rises or it falls. The rate at which the capacitor voltage rises or falls determines the total efficiency. If the initial spin up at the start cannot generate enough power to charge the capacitor to operate the device and maintain it then your hooped.

And post 493
All in all I like your video even if I'm going to kick your ass but that does not mean we cannot be friends. Competition is good so long as we are moving in the right direction and this direction benefits others.

One minute you are going to show us how it's all done,and the next,your not interested in the very competition you set the rules for--you no longer wish to show us how it's done

Oh well-what ever.


Brad

Brad, sorry to hear about your Dog. Its sad when your loved ones pass.

On another note, I am up for a Motor Build off, you start the Thread with rules... Or if you like I can throw up a dedicated site with access for all keen?

My motor skills are very poor! I will not win!!! But its still going to be fun

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

I have put a basic site up if anyone is keen to enter? Register if you want to Enter!!!

URL: http://buildoff.hyiq.org/

Its only new, DNS may be propagating still, so some may not be able to visit just yet, keep trying, it will work as soon as DNS is done.

Please let me know and we can add/remove information as needed.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

He guys. An off topic question

Im discussing the cap to cap deal with a youtuber. 

Now in previous discussions on this, if I remember correctly, when we do the identical cap to cap deal, we lose 50% of the total energy. Correct?

Well back then I believe that when we change the values of the caps, one larger and one smaller, or even the other way around, that the total energy outcome becomes less than the 50% loss. Correct?   

Now this guy brought up something that was even stranger to me.

He said he did the experiment using a 350F cap at 12v, and did the cap to cap with an 82uf cap and ended up with 11.9v in each. Here is the strange part for me...

I did the calculations. As I can see it, we did lose less than 50% as shown below. He claims we still lost 50% total, but he is wrong there, but.....

350f  12v  25200J

350F  11.9v  24781J    and the 82uf cap at 11.9v was .0058J

So we didnt lose 50% in total, but it seems we lost a tremendous amount in the transfer.

In the 350F cap we lost 419J and only ended up with 5.8mJ or .0058J     What the heck?

We lost a lot in that transfer, did we not?? Im not talking about total losses as in we lost half of the 25200J, but the loss in the transfer and what we ended up with in the 82uf cap seems like a very huge cost to charge that little cap.  Am I doing something wrong here?? I used 2 different online calculators and the same results.

So now Im not concerned with the 50% loss any longer with identical caps.

We were arguing about the 50%, and I described the same example using 1 large cap and on small cap. Yes, we did not lose 50% in total. But this what Im saying above seems a bit more shocking considering.   The efficiency of what we used from the larger cap compared to what we ended up with in the smaller cap dwarfs the idea of the original 50% loss subject. To me anyway, so far.

Has anyone dealt with this situation before? Or am I just freaking out over nothing??

Mags

Thank you for your interest and the links. Very interesting. Kind of takes this to a new level. It reminds me of another magnet assisted by an electromagnet motor ... I can't remember the name?


Ron

Was that the one called-gap power?--or something like that.


Brad

Flynn brothers developments (un-)publicated ,known and publicated from their "Magnetic Revolution" time :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=5710493A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19980120&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP


sortiment:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=magnetic&IN=charles+flynn&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search

Hello i_ron,
how much flexibility are you giving to this machine ?
The rotor cw rotating ? ccw rotating ? cw or ccw rotating ? data results ?
better/same/worser ?
The coils: up-down input,down-up input ? data results ? better/same/worser ?
The rotor vertical,horizontal ?


Sincerely
              OCWL

Hi Ron - Thanks for sharing your results. Again your build is excellent!

Do you know if your Cores are saturating at any point?

As you say, your Input is: 134.75_Total

However the Shaft Torque Efficency is very much different under different load conditions:

   2243 RPM: 9_Watts / 9.8_Watts = 0.918_Times
   3143 RPM: 14.28_Watts / 8.6_Watts = 1.660_Times
   4837 RPM: 25.7_Watts / 23.3_Watts = 1.103_Times

So, we see that the Time Rate of Change does matter, but we see that there is an optimium freguency or operation: n = f (2 / p) 60

where

n = shaft rotation speed (rev/min, rpm)
f = frequency (Hz, cycles/sec, 1/s)
p = number of poles

Rearranging, we get: f =  n / (2 / p) / 60 = Optimium Frequency of operation = 52.3833333333333 Hertz

Which is interesting! Maybe beyond this point the Core is being saturated? Or is getting close?
   
Ron, your work is excellent!!! Thanks!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Hi Ron - Thanks for sharing your results. Again your build is excellent!

Do you know if your Cores are saturating at any point?

As you say, your Input is: 134.75_Total

However the Shaft Torque Efficency is very much different under different load conditions:

   2243 RPM: 9_Watts / 9.8_Watts = 0.918_Times
   3143 RPM: 14.28_Watts / 8.6_Watts = 1.660_Times
   4837 RPM: 25.7_Watts / 23.3_Watts = 1.103_Times

So, we see that the Time Rate of Change does matter, but we see that there is an optimium freguency or operation: n = f (2 / p) 60

where

n = shaft rotation speed (rev/min, rpm)
f = frequency (Hz, cycles/sec, 1/s)
p = number of poles

Rearranging, we get: f =  n / (2 / p) / 60 = Optimium Frequency of operation = 52.3833333333333 Hertz

Which is interesting! Maybe beyond this point the Core is being saturated? Or is getting close?
   
Ron, your work is excellent!!! Thanks!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Thanks Chris!  interesting numbers for sure. Math is not one of my strong points so I am amazed at how you do this!!


Now to post mortem this, I was wondering if the flux path length through the laminates was the critical factor? Is this the reason Watson used such long cores in that famous machine???

Anyway, searching for what we learned here and you seem to be able to present this in a very understandable manner... so over to you.

Ron


Edit: saturation is another topic I am not too sure on. With one core locked on with the rotor vertical is a real tug 'o war to get it off, with two cores in place I can just twist one off so easily.... the area is 3/4 X 1 inch so fairly reasonable, that and it shows a square wave at all these RPM's so nothing untoward seems to be taking place?