Author Topic: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED) (Read 357010 times)

gotoluc · « **Reply #210 on:** November 30, 2015, 04:49:01 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 07:44:09 PM

Gyula,

Okay, I can see your test apparently refutes my claim, which made me realize that I have to further fine tune my statements and description. For starters, the phenomenon that I described is something that I have observed myself several times in the past. It was so long ago and I was just casually playing with magnets that I can't remember any specifics.

The reason I suggested long and thin bar-type magnets was to reduce the gradient in the magnetic field strength at the end of each magnet. That way presumably you have more opportunity for the phenomenon I described to take place.

I believe what I missed in my description is that the magnets can't be such that the ferrite or other material is fully saturated. There has to be some remaining headroom for supporting the flow of increased magnetic flux. Without that property I don't think it will work. So I am going to assume that your "bar" magnets made with the Alnico material are nearly or are fully saturated. So that means from the perspective of the opposing magnet, there is no conduit for magnetic flux, and the relative permeability of the material is close to one.

So, if you can imagine the two approaching bar magnets, north approaching north, each magnet "sees" an approaching opposite pole (repulsion) and it "sees" an approaching conduit for magnetic flux (attraction). When the magnets cross the "zero line" threshold, the stronger magnet nullifies the magnetic field of the weaker magnet, and the remaining net magnetic field and potential for increasing flux will cause attraction between the two magnets. The net magnetic field gradient is working "for attraction" in this case as more net flux continues to flow between the two magnets as they get closer together.

This is all partially shown in Luc's clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYsAN5QPnA

Nothing happens when he energizes the two core assemblies that are facing each other in repulsion mode. If you assume the same modified transformers were used, you have the same number of turns and they are connected in series for the same number of ampere-turns. Both cores are only partially magnetized so they both have extra headroom for magnetic flux to flow through them in the "opposite" direction.

The net result of all of this is near-perfect flux cancellation and essentially no net magnetic field, so the force between the two transformer cores is near zero. There is a gradient, but with no net magnetic field when the two cores are so close together, that you can do nothing with it. If the experiment was done so that you had 10% more current flowing in one of the modified transformers, then the gradient has something to work with, and then the two transformer cores would be attracted to each other, as per my suggested experiment.

Likewise, if in the clip Luc had moved the two transformer cores about one centimeter away from each other, then you would have had less flux flowing into the "opposite" core because of the big air gap. At the same time, the repulsive magnetic field gradient would have taken over and the two transformer cores would have pushed away from each other from the now-manifesting magnetic repulsion.

So, if you agree with this, Luc's clip is a partial demonstration of the phenomenon that I am referring to.

MileHigh

Hi MH,

your test and results can be achieved even with neodymium if you use of piece of steel between them. You must tune to correct thickness and you will get exactly what you described. Did it many times and can works with any magnets.

I do agree it can also be done with a weak ceramic magnets that has space to store flux of the overtaking magnet.

Luc

gyulasun · « **Reply #211 on:** November 30, 2015, 09:58:49 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on November 29, 2015, 01:41:05 PM

....
But I digress,,

Hi webby1,

Yes I understand how the use of a soft steel between the repel magnets changes the situation versus the case when
there is air gap between the two repel magnets. I agree that with a soft iron in-between, several possibilities come
up, depending on the properties of the iron piece (thickness, length, permeability etc) and as you mention, repel or
attract modes can be attained, including a shoot away situation for the soft iron piece.
But my question was not involved with an iron piece placed between two repel poles but was involved with how MileHigh
meant the "cancellation" of magnetic repel fields between two facing electromagnets with the air gap in between.

Thanks
Gyula

gyulasun · « **Reply #212 on:** November 30, 2015, 10:22:17 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2015, 07:44:09 PM

...
I believe what I missed in my description is that the magnets can't be such that the ferrite or other material is fully saturated. There has to be some remaining headroom for supporting the flow of increased magnetic flux. Without that property I don't think it will work. So I am going to assume that your "bar" magnets made with the Alnico material are nearly or are fully saturated. So that means from the perspective of the opposing magnet, there is no conduit for magnetic flux, and the relative permeability of the material is close to one.
...

Hi MileHigh,

Yes, permanent magnets are fully or almost fully saturated materials. It is a fact that any permanent magnet (which is not abused and indeed a magnet) has got a relative permeability of very near to 1. We already agreed on this here:
http://overunity.com/13993/the-magneformer-lenzless-transformer/msg377008/#msg377008
and here is data on relative permeability of Neodymium and Samarium-Cobalt magnets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Physical_and_mechanical_properties

You also wrote:

Quote

So, if you can imagine the two approaching bar magnets, north approaching north, each magnet "sees" an approaching opposite pole (repulsion) and it "sees" an approaching conduit for magnetic flux (attraction). When the magnets cross the "zero line" threshold, the stronger magnet nullifies the magnetic field of the weaker magnet, and the remaining net magnetic field and potential for increasing flux will cause attraction between the two magnets. The net magnetic field gradient is working "for attraction" in this case as more net flux continues to flow between the two magnets as they get closer together.

If you accept that permanent magnets have a magnetic permeability very close to one, then why would any of the magnets see an approaching conduit for flux in the other approaching magnet?

For, if you accept that magnetic lines of flux coming from two like poles would always repel each other, then this would mean that no or very little part of the flux lines from one magnet could reach the body of the other magnet so any attraction force would be amply defeated by the ruling repel forces.

If you accept these, then the question is why would the magnetic lines of flux (that repel each other) cancel each other?
My answer is they cannot cancel each other in repel but they both get diverted (sideways) and compressed (I refer to your two bar magnets in repel example). If your answer is the fields get cancelled, that is fine with me but at least I tried and I see it differently.

Regarding the measurements on individual and combined magnet fields I uploaded as the FluxStrengthOfMagPoles.jpg file from an old yahoo group, the flux numbers clearly show what happens to combined fields of magnets when they are in repel or in attract mode.
Sorry but I disagree with the conclusions you wrote here (for reasons I wrote above) :
http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg466910/#msg466910

Regarding Luc's video clip on the two E cored coils in attract and repel modes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYsAN5QPnA I will return to it later tomorrow or a day after.

Gyula

MileHigh · « **Reply #213 on:** December 01, 2015, 01:09:59 AM »

Quote from: gyulasun on November 30, 2015, 10:22:17 PM

If you accept that permanent magnets have a magnetic permeability very close to one, then why would any of the magnets see an approaching conduit for flux in the other approaching magnet?

For, if you accept that magnetic lines of flux coming from two like poles would always repel each other, then this would mean that no or very little part of the flux lines from one magnet could reach the body of the other magnet so any attraction force would be amply defeated by the ruling repel forces.

If you accept these, then the question is why would the magnetic lines of flux (that repel each other) cancel each other?
My answer is they cannot cancel each other in repel but they both get diverted (sideways) and compressed (I refer to your two bar magnets in repel example). If your answer is the fields get cancelled, that is fine with me but at least I tried and I see it differently.

I am making the assumption that some permanent magnets are manufactured so as to not be too strong. So in these magnets not all of the magnetic domains are strongly aligned and there is indeed available headroom for more magnetic flux to flow. I am not an expert but I think the phenomenon of a stronger magnet overcoming the repelling force of a weaker magnet is something that many people have observed. Think about inducing magnetism into the tip of a screwdriver. Then of course the magnetic material itself is something that can come in many different formulations.

I don't accept you notion of compression and diversion. I will just repeat that the magnetic fields from the two north poles of the two magnets just pass right through each other. The net magnetic field, the vector addition of these two separate field sources only appears to show "compression." It's simply an illusion. "Areas of high compression" are often areas where the magnetic field is actually quite weak, simply because the vector addition of the two fields because of the direction component is actually a subtraction. If you sketched out two north fields facing each other as if the opposing field did not exist, and then you sketched out the net field from the vector addition, you would clearly see that it looks exactly what the "compression field" looks like. So indeed, the magnetic north field from one magnet can pass directly into the north end of a facing magnet. If the facing magnet has some permeability headroom to offer to the other field then there will be more flux flow from the facing magnet.

Yes, I agree that in most cases when you push two magnet north faces together you feel repulsion. However, you know that magnetic material that has a soft plastic feel to it? I am not talking about kitchen cabinet magnets, which I believe are ceramic. The material I am talking about is related to those rubbery and pliable magnetic materials that might be used say for a magnetic clasp to say to keep a woman's purse closed or to keep an iPad case closed. They are some kind of a rubber/magnetic composite material. When you take that type of magnetic material, say in the shape of two rectangular blocks, and you bring opposite poles together, you feel a dramatic decrease in the repulsive force when the opposite pole faces are brought together. Some food for thought.

MileHigh

Over Goat · « **Reply #214 on:** December 01, 2015, 01:38:02 AM »

would anyone here be willing to post a summary , even two sentences, on what is going on with this bucking motor? For newbies who don't understand this clearly (like me) Please forgive my ignorance , seriously, I dont' want to take away anything from what you have all worked so hard to learn and achieve, by my coming here and not understanding this.
I have read through the thread and tried to take as much in as I can understand with my limited (0) knowledge of electricity and electronics. I gather that these microwave transformers are somehow capturing and storing previously wasted power in an innovative new way, and the task at hand is now to find ways to use it to propel the rotor in an innovative new way.

If so it is a promising new development, hoping to understand a bit more via plain English
about what is going on, and the potential applications for this, potential ways to achieve this, etc.

gotoluc · « **Reply #215 on:** December 01, 2015, 03:06:24 AM »

Quote from: Over Goat on December 01, 2015, 01:38:02 AM

would anyone here be willing to post a summary , even two sentences, on what is going on with this bucking motor? For newbies who don't understand this clearly (like me) Please forgive my ignorance , seriously, I dont' want to take away anything from what you have all worked so hard to learn and achieve, by my coming here and not understanding this.
I have read through the thread and tried to take as much in as I can understand with my limited (0) knowledge of electricity and electronics. I gather that these microwave transformers are somehow capturing and storing previously wasted power in an innovative new way, and the task at hand is now to find ways to use it to propel the rotor in an innovative new way.

If so it is a promising new development, hoping to understand a bit more via plain English
about what is going on, and the potential applications for this, potential ways to achieve this, etc.

The best Electric motor can be up to 95% efficient. The established Science says it can never be 100% efficient since a motor, transformer or other electromagnetic device have a counter reactive force which build up (Lenz law) that opposes the initial action (input power). Call it action - reaction if you wish.

A very small number of us here at this forum do actual experiments to see if we can find a combination that may negate this counter opposing force.
It is well known in Science that when two poles (N_N or S-S) of the same polarity (aka bucking magnetic field) come together this counter opposing force is not present. However, in this situation the established Science says no useful work can be achieved from such an arrangement.

My motor design is an attempt to see if this is correct or not.
The use of microwave oven transformer (MOT) is not because they are special in any way. They are used for convenience as they are easy to open and offer you the two extremes in coils. One of heavy wire which can take current and one with fine wire which can make a strong magnetic field with high voltage. Each have their own use.

There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike.
So coils are interesting creatures, they have the ability to transform high current to high voltage. It is this fast high voltage I'm also trying to use to assist the motor.
Here is how... DC motors are switched on and off and have been designed to cancel this flyback spike from the motor coils since it causes many issues, mainly arcing of the switch contacts. So motor designers have been taught to just short out this flyback spike and problem solved.
I'm proposing to use this flyback and send it to a coil which would be more suited to use this high voltage, hence the fine wire high voltage coil.
By placing this flyback coil at the appropriate position (timing) in the motor I believe it could further assist the motor at no cost to the input. So if a motor can be made to be up to 95% efficient without using flyback, we only need it to make up for a 5% additional assistance and now we have cacaos in the established Science

Keep in mind I'm not just looking to use flyback to assist a motor but to also use bucking fields. So my motor design would be considered quite controversial to Science as I'm proposing to use two things they say cannot do work.

Hope this helps explain it in a simple way?

Luc

verpies · « **Reply #216 on:** December 01, 2015, 08:34:52 AM »

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:06:24 AM

DC motors are switched on and off and have been designed to cancel this flyback spike from the motor coils since it causes many issues, mainly arcing of the switch contacts. So motor designers have been taught to just short out this flyback spike and problem solved.

I'm proposing to use this flyback and send it to a coil which would be more suited to use this high voltage, hence the fine wire high voltage coil.

This "spike" represents the remaining energy, which is still stored in the motor winding. Wasting it, indeed is a waste.
Why not send this energy into a capacitor ?

Capacitors can hold this recovered energy efficiently and almost indefinitely, unlike most inductors, which continually suffer I²R losses.

More here

shylo · « **Reply #217 on:** December 01, 2015, 10:34:26 AM »

Hi Luc, You said;

"There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike"

I have seen the spike also by shorting the coil ends together but when being used as a generating coil.
Have you seen this or am I off track?
If you use blocking diodes at the coil leads with capacitors you automatically catch the spike and it is now stored power you can use.
artv

Jimboot · « **Reply #218 on:** December 01, 2015, 11:08:40 AM »

Quote from: shylo on December 01, 2015, 10:34:26 AM

Hi Luc, You said;

"There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike"

I have seen the spike also by shorting the coil ends together but when being used as a generating coil.
Have you seen this or am I off track?
If you use blocking diodes at the coil leads with capacitors you automatically catch the spike and it is now stored power you can use.
artv

I actually used that config and added a load via an inaccurate sparkgap and saw some very interesting things. Still utilising the flyback in a more direct way though. Probably wont be able to film until Thursdy

gotoluc · « **Reply #219 on:** December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM »

Quote from: verpies on December 01, 2015, 08:34:52 AM

This "spike" represents the remaining energy, which is still stored in the motor winding. Wasting it, indeed is a waste.
Why not send this energy into a capacitor ?

Capacitors can hold this recovered energy efficiently and almost indefinitely, unlike most inductors, which continually suffer I²R losses.

More here

Hi verpies,

thanks for your post and suggestion. I am trying to avoid storing in capacitors as from what I understand this would represent a conversion loss. Let me explain.

Please correct me if I am wrong but the way I see and understand it is, a coil (inductor) is truly a voltage device but current is needed to create a magnetic field. Capacitors are the opposite, they are current devices and are not known to create a magnetic field.
So if you want to make a motor you first have to start supplying current in your coil to build a strong magnetic field for the motor to do work. Then once the current is switched off the coil does something rather interesting as we all have observed, it naturally converted the current to a very fast and high voltage spike. That to me is telling us something.
Now if you try to capture that fast high voltage spike in a capacitor, will there not be a fight (delay) = heat losses? as capacitors don't accept fast high voltage spikes, so why try to do this, is it not a waste? why not send it to another coil which would perfectly accept this high voltage spike without any fight (losses) other then the coils wire resistance. The idea here is, the flyback is only a portion of the power we first imputed to the coil. Let's say we can get 50% of the power back from the flyback and we chose to send it to another coil which has double the inductance of the the first coil and this coil is strategically placed in the motor to further assist the rotor. Do you not think this would be a more efficient way to use flyback then to try to store it in a capacitor or a battery?

If you disagree please post your argument (in plain English) as to why you believe it not to be so.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #220 on:** December 01, 2015, 03:23:32 PM »

Quote from: shylo on December 01, 2015, 10:34:26 AM

Hi Luc, You said;

"There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike"

I have seen the spike also by shorting the coil ends together but when being used as a generating coil.
Have you seen this or am I off track?
If you use blocking diodes at the coil leads with capacitors you automatically catch the spike and it is now stored power you can use.
artv

Yes Shylo, I have experimented with coil shorting. The results are interesting and when you think of it mimics the similar effect of when a coil is powered and switched off, no?

Thanks

Luc

Over Goat · « **Reply #221 on:** December 01, 2015, 04:48:28 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:06:24 AM

The best Electric motor can be up to 95% efficient. The established Science says it can never be 100% efficient since a motor, transformer or other electromagnetic device have a counter reactive force which build up (Lenz law) that opposes the initial action (input power). Call it action - reaction if you wish.

A very small number of us here at this forum do actual experiments to see if we can find a combination that may negate this counter opposing force.
It is well known in Science that when two poles (N_N or S-S) of the same polarity (aka bucking magnetic field) come together this counter opposing force is not present. However, in this situation the established Science says no useful work can be achieved from such an arrangement.

My motor design is an attempt to see if this is correct or not.
The use of microwave oven transformer (MOT) is not because they are special in any way. They are used for convenience as they are easy to open and offer you the two extremes in coils. One of heavy wire which can take current and one with fine wire which can make a strong magnetic field with high voltage. Each have their own use.

There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike.
So coils are interesting creatures, they have the ability to transform high current to high voltage. It is this fast high voltage I'm also trying to use to assist the motor.
Here is how... DC motors are switched on and off and have been designed to cancel this flyback spike from the motor coils since it causes many issues, mainly arcing of the switch contacts. So motor designers have been taught to just short out this flyback spike and problem solved.
I'm proposing to use this flyback and send it to a coil which would be more suited to use this high voltage, hence the fine wire high voltage coil.
By placing this flyback coil at the appropriate position (timing) in the motor I believe it could further assist the motor at no cost to the input. So if a motor can be made to be up to 95% efficient without using flyback, we only need it to make up for a 5% additional assistance and now we have cacaos in the established Science
Keep in mind I'm not just looking to use flyback to assist a motor but to also use bucking fields. So my motor design would be considered quite controversial to Science as I'm proposing to use two things they say cannot do work.

Hope this helps explain it in a simple way?

Luc

yes, thanks, I know it must be frustrating to have to simplify it such, as 'lost in translation' is probably significant information, thank you for your willingness to do this.
This motor will re-use previously wasted energy, and also use the stored energy of magnets to push/pull or impel/propel itself and consume almost no more energy than that which was used to set in motion to begin with.

I am very new to this, this is my true curiosity, I am not trying to restate this or put words into anyone's mouth, it is my interpretation of what is being done here and trying not to waste anyone's time

the combination of the two is the key to this, because Luc has finally found a way to have the extra energy needed to access the stored energy of the magnets for mechanical work.

now the task at hand is to find the best magnets and the best coils or capacitors or any other way to capture, store and recycle the energy.

so do we google all the latest capacitor or transformer research and latest magnet research to try to find if someone already made new things which could be applicable, and try to get these things involved? I found new Cerium magnets which might be available relatively soon (they are light and cheap replacements of neodymium)

I hope this helps, the more people searching out what's already been recently done might help. Not to distract from Luc's concerted effort of course. thanks again for the reply, Luc

verpies · « **Reply #222 on:** December 01, 2015, 05:22:51 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on December 01, 2015, 04:56:24 PM

Would the second coil then not impede the current flow from the first

Yes, the connection of an empty second coil in series with the first, charged coil, would represent a huge current discontinuity, that that charged coil would not tolerate.
The EM pulse during the switch-over would radiate a lot of energy away and with practical components the resulting arcs would dissipate most of the energy stored in the first coil. The stress on the switch would be extreme, leading to its breakdown

verpies · « **Reply #223 on:** December 01, 2015, 05:59:37 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

I am trying to avoid storing in capacitors as from what I understand this would represent a conversion loss.

I thought that you chose an Inductor --> Inductor energy transfer for other reasons than efficiency, because such transfer is less energy efficient than Inductor --> Capacitor.

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

Let me explain. Please correct me if I am wrong but the way I see and understand it is, a coil (inductor) is truly a voltage device but current is needed to create a magnetic field. Capacitors are the opposite, they are current devices and are not known to create a magnetic field.

I can't agree with that.
Capacitors store energy as electric field, which is proportional to the voltage across them.
Inductors store energy as magnetic field, which is proportional to the electric current flowing through them.

This is not to be confused with what happens when their energy levels are changed:

- An electric current must flow through a capacitor when it is charged (or discharged).
- A voltage must appear across an inductor when it is charged (or discharged).

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

So if you want to make a motor you first have to start supplying current in your coil to build a strong magnetic field for the motor to do work.

Yes

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

Then once the current is switched off the coil does something rather interesting as we all have observed, it naturally converted the current to a very fast and high voltage spike.

That voltage spike represents a rapid discharge of energy that was stored in the coil in the form of magnetic field.
That discharge does not have to be quick, but it can be when a high resistance, e.g. 100MΩ, is switched in series with the coil. With lower resistance the discharge will be slower and voltage will be lower, too.
While the coil is discharging, it acts as a current source.

Conversely, if a low resistance, e.g. 0.01Ω, is switched in parallel with a charged capacitor, then an analogous effect happens - the energy is quickly discharged as a high current spike.
While the capacitor is discharging, it acts as a voltage source.
If I were you, in case of the discharging capacitor, I would have written: "it naturally converted the voltage to a very fast and high current spike"

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

Now if you try to capture that fast high voltage spike in a capacitor, will there not be a fight (delay) = heat losses?

There will be a delay proportional to the capacitance, but this delay will be negligible for small capacitances.

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

...as capacitors don't accept fast high voltage spikes, so why try to do this, is it not a waste?

Yes, capacitors don't tolerate voltage discontinuities across them, but that is not applicable in this situation.
You seem to be assuming that an empty capacitor will experience a high voltage spike from a charged inductor, while the opposite is true, since the initial impedance of an empty capacitor presented to an inductor is 0Ω (short circuit) and that means that at the moment the cap is connected, the current flowing through it will be at maximum and the voltage across it will be at the minimum (zero).

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

why not send it to another coil which would perfectly accept this high voltage spike without any fight (losses) .

Because switching an empty inductor, in series with a charged inductor represents a huge current discontinuity, which inductors don't tolerate...just like capacitors don't tolerate voltage discontinuities.
The resulting EM radiation would prevent a 100% efficient energy transfer even in theory with ideal components, while a 100% energy transfer is possible with an ideal coil and capacitor.
Also, the current in high inductance coil (many turns) changes much slower than current in low-inductance coil when all other conditions are being equal.

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

...other then the coils wire resistance

Resistive losses exist in both the Inductor --> Inductor energy transfer and Inductor --> Capacitor energy transfer. Actually, the former has higher resistive losses when non-ideal contemporary components are considered.

Quote from: gotoluc on December 01, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

The idea here is, the flyback is only a portion of the power we first imputed to the coil. Let's say we can get 50% of the power back from the flyback and we chose to send it to another coil which has double the inductance of the the first coil and this coil is strategically placed in the motor to further assist the rotor. Do you not think this would be a more efficient way to use flyback then to try to store it in a capacitor or a battery?

No.
You seem to be under the impression that an inductor is better suited to receive energy from another inductor, compared to a capacitor, while the opposite is true. In fact Inductor --> Inductor, as well as, Capacitor --> Capacitor are the worst combinations for efficient energy transfers.
The mechanical analogy would be two coaxial flywheels (one spinning and the other stationary) suddenly slammed together ...such as in "dumping the clutch".

The best efficiencies are achieved by conjugate components, such as Inductor --> Capacitor, as well as, Capacitor --> Inductor.
The mechanical analogy would be a spinning flywheel being stopped by a suddenly connected (but relaxed) spiral torsion spring.

This preference for conjugacy manifests itself in the common life, too, ...such as: male & female pipe fittings

gotoluc · « **Reply #224 on:** December 01, 2015, 06:45:08 PM »

Quote from: verpies on December 01, 2015, 05:22:51 PM

Yes, the connection of an empty second coil in series with the first, charged coil, would represent a huge current discontinuity, that that charged coil would not tolerate.
The EM pulse during the switch-over would radiate a lot of energy away and with practical components the resulting arcs would dissipate most of the energy stored in the first coil. The stress on the switch would be extreme, leading to its breakdown

Do you think this would happen with a diode is between the two coils so only the flyback (collapsing field) can go through?

Luc

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED) (Read 357010 times)

gotoluc

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gyulasun

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gyulasun

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

MileHigh

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

Over Goat

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gotoluc

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

verpies

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

shylo

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

Jimboot

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gotoluc

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gotoluc

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

Over Goat

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

verpies

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

verpies

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

gotoluc

Re: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)