Author Topic: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED) (Read 355927 times)

wattsup · « **Reply #810 on:** March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM »

@gotoluc

I am posting this so this thread does not disappear. I had made a post but again, thinking it may not be what you want to read but will post it anyways.

@gotoluc

Few questions please. Did you pay attention to which wires are going to the 1st layer for each of those 9 motor coils?
Also did you jot down those same orientations when you opened the original model before you modified them so you know how your stock model is wired? Without that, it's hard to follow or compare. I understand the experiments but cannot place them in context without knowing how the coils are precisely connected. Seems to me that is the most important part of these tests is to understand those precise relations.

Maybe look at a few of my Half Coil Syndrome videos since they also apply to motors. Motors suck but you have a good chance to test a theory. Just add a transformer primary in series to your 3 pulsed motor coils (1 phase). In series on the non-pulsed side meaning the side of your motor coils that is opposite the mosfet. Then apply the same juice you applied to test 1 and see the rpm. Just use the primary of a real intact MOT (hahaha). Do your measurements on the motor and on the MOT secondary and seeeeeeeee if there is better overall performance. The MOT secondary could be dumped into a good sized 250v capped diode. Also, see the difference of the flyback level. HCS sucks in all our single pulsed coils but there are ways to beat it like instead of beating it or neutralizing it you let it happen outside of the "working primary" environment, leaving the working primary to react or change polarity throughout its coiling thus imparting more to the core and more to the effect. I call it using a Slave Coil to lessen the primary burden, could be only a coil or another primary, depending on if you need to recoupe some of the input and put it back to work like you are looking to do. The MOT is just a fast idea but you may have better transformer coils laying around so the idea is it's open to a wide ranging effect.

Orrrrrrrrrr. Try using the other 6 motor coils as the slave coil. But you need to answer the first question first since you absolutely need to have full control of how the coils are wired up and 1st layer versus outer layer is important to know at all times. I am sure when they made the stock motor they applied full attention to their winding method. Maybe draw 2 rows of 9 dots makes your 18 conductors and say which is going to 1st and which is going to last of each coil.

Anyone who plays with coils on a core needs to always know which lead is which. If you are not conscious of that point, you will not play those variables and you will not learn their effects.

Always great work man.

wattsup

PS: Mind exercise: With a good sized DC motor and a torque measurement device (pony break or other), you apply DC voltage, positive to the red motor lead and negative to the black motor lead. You measure the torque. You then apply the reverse voltage to the motor, positive to black and negative to red wires of the DC motor. Now the motor turns in reverse. Question: Will the torque be the greater, the same or less then when it is driven the first way. WHY?

?? Can this reasoning be applied to @gotolucs' modified motor? Hmmmmmmmm.

gotoluc · « **Reply #811 on:** March 03, 2016, 04:36:57 AM »

Quote from: wattsup on March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM

Did you pay attention to which wires are going to the 1st layer for each of those 9 motor coils?

Correction, the Stator is 12 coils (4 coils per Phase)

Quote from: wattsup on March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM

Also did you jot down those same orientations when you opened the original model before you modified them so you know how your stock model is wired? Without that, it's hard to follow or compare. I understand the experiments but cannot place them in context without knowing how the coils are precisely connected. Seems to me that is the most important part of these tests is to understand those precise relations.

Yes, for each phase the stock motor has 2 coils connected in series then the two are connected in parallel.

Quote from: wattsup on March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM

Maybe look at a few of my Half Coil Syndrome videos since they also apply to motors. Motors suck but you have a good chance to test a theory. Just add a transformer primary in series to your 3 pulsed motor coils (1 phase). In series on the non-pulsed side meaning the side of your motor coils that is opposite the mosfet. Then apply the same juice you applied to test 1 and see the rpm. Just use the primary of a real intact MOT (hahaha). Do your measurements on the motor and on the MOT secondary and seeeeeeeee if there is better overall performance. The MOT secondary could be dumped into a good sized 250v capped diode. Also, see the difference of the flyback level. HCS sucks in all our single pulsed coils but there are ways to beat it like instead of beating it or neutralizing it you let it happen outside of the "working primary" environment, leaving the working primary to react or change polarity throughout its coiling thus imparting more to the core and more to the effect. I call it using a Slave Coil to lessen the primary burden, could be only a coil or another primary, depending on if you need to recoupe some of the input and put it back to work like you are looking to do. The MOT is just a fast idea but you may have better transformer coils laying around so the idea is it's open to a wide ranging effect.

I'll let you know if I find anything interesting.

Quote from: wattsup on March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM

Orrrrrrrrrr. Try using the other 6 motor coils as the slave coil. But you need to answer the first question first since you absolutely need to have full control of how the coils are wired up and 1st layer versus outer layer is important to know at all times. I am sure when they made the stock motor they applied full attention to their winding method. Maybe draw 2 rows of 9 dots makes your 18 conductors and say which is going to 1st and which is going to last of each coil.

Anyone who plays with coils on a core needs to always know which lead is which. If you are not conscious of that point, you will not play those variables and you will not learn their effects.

Every single wire is labeled with a number 1 to 12 corresponding to the numbers I physically labeled the stator with. You should be able to see the labels and numbers in my demo videos.

Quote from: wattsup on March 02, 2016, 04:16:00 PM

PS: Mind exercise: With a good sized DC motor and a torque measurement device (pony break or other), you apply DC voltage, positive to the red motor lead and negative to the black motor lead. You measure the torque. You then apply the reverse voltage to the motor, positive to black and negative to red wires of the DC motor. Now the motor turns in reverse. Question: Will the torque be the greater, the same or less then when it is driven the first way. WHY??? Can this reasoning be applied to @gotolucs' modified motor? Hmmmmmmmm.

No, you cannot reverse the direction of my motor by swapping the leads.

Regards

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #812 on:** March 03, 2016, 08:46:25 PM »

Hi everyone,

a small update on the testing.

For those who have been following the topic you would know I've recently modified the 8 segment rotor to a 4 segment.
After many days of testing each rotor version under load, I can now confirm the 8 segment is 10 to 20% more efficient.

It was important to confirm this before moving on to the flyback assist motor.
Hopefully next week I should have the assist motor attached for its first tests.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #813 on:** March 04, 2016, 12:53:33 AM »

Here are the revised test data.
First are original tests then the revised (8 segment rotor) test results.

Original Test results

Stock Motor

no load the motor consumes 21.85 Watts at 730 rpm
with load the motor consumes 29.29 Watts at 725 rpm
the difference between 29.29W (on load) - 21.85W (off load) = 7.44W used to deliver the 3W load (1.75 Volts on 1 Ohm = 3 Watts)

Mod Motor

no load the motor consumes 6 Watts at 730 rpm
and 1.66 Watts is recovered from Flyback
so 6W - 1.66W = 4 .34 Watts used to turn the motor with no load at 730 rpm

with load the motor consumes 16.64 Watts at 725 rpm
and 4.49 Watts is recovered from Flyback
so 16.64W - 4.49W = 12.15 Watts used from input
the difference of 12.15W (on load)- 4.34W (off load) = 7.81W used to deliver the 3W load (1.75 Volts on 1 Ohm = 3 Watts)

New Mod Motor test results with 8 segment rotor

Mod Motor

no load the motor consumes 6 Watts at 730 rpm
and 2 Watts is recovered from Flyback
so 6W - 2W = 4 Watts used to turn the motor with no load at 730 rpm

with load the motor consumes 15 Watts at 725 rpm
and 5 Watts is recovered from Flyback
so 15W - 5W = 10 Watts used from input
the difference of 10W (on load)- 4W (off load) = 6W used to deliver the 3W load (1.75 Volts on 1 Ohm = 3 Watts)

These revised results beat the stock motor by 1.44 Watts
Now we can attache the assist motor which will use the 5 Watts flyback recovery. So with the combined motors we need to achieve 10 Watts (or less) in consumption while delivering the 3 Watts to the load to prove if this concept is worthy.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #814 on:** March 09, 2016, 02:11:21 AM »

Here are the final and best results I was able to obtain.

What I decided to do is recirculate the 5 watts of flyback back in the same motor by using one of the two extra phases. So one phase is the input and its 5 watts flyback is collected and re-switched back in the second phase which also has a flyback collected and loaded across a 100 Ohm resistor to calculate the final output power.

So with the second phase assisting the input the first phase dropped from our previous best score of 15 Watts down to 10.69 Watts and we also collect the flyback from the second phase which is 13 volts DC across a 100 Ohm load resistor = 1.69 Watts.
So the Mod Motors with flyback assist is down to 9 Watts while under the same load of turning the alternator which delivers 3 watts across a load resistor.
This represents a additional 10% efficiency improvement over the previous mod motor test of just collecting flyback.

I must admit I thought a 30% improvement would be possible but still 10% is probably better then some may of thought possible.

For those who do not quite understand the results, here's the bottom line.
The stock motor uses 2.44 Watts more to do the same work (turn alternator with 3 watts load) as the final modified motor.
This makes the mod motor 21% more efficient then the stock motor.
The 10% saving I mentioned above is only the second stage modification in efficiency boost.

Hope the results are clear and understandable

It's been an educational experience and hope it's been the same for others who have been following the topic.

Regards

Luc

gyulasun · « **Reply #815 on:** March 09, 2016, 03:04:10 PM »

Hi Luc,

I think it is okay you did not choose to use an assist motor but use another stator coil on the same stator to further drive the rotor by the collapsed energy of the first stator coil (if this is correct).

Even if you expected a bit higher improvement I think the 10% efficiency increase is still nice in your present series of tests and this could surely be improved by running the setup at a higher RPM (the lower than 1000 RPM was a compromise due to the comparison possibility to the unmodified motor which lacks its RPM control circuit).

So if one of the goals was to prove whether the collapsed energy of a switched stator coil when collected could aid the overall performance of this motor, then you proved it surely could, right?

Thanks for showing these experiments.

Gyula

gotoluc · « **Reply #816 on:** March 09, 2016, 04:20:46 PM »

Quote from: gyulasun on March 09, 2016, 03:04:10 PM

I think it is okay you did not choose to use an assist motor but use another stator coil on the same stator to further drive the rotor by the collapsed energy of the first stator coil (if this is correct).

Yes, you have it correct.
The reason for deciding to simply use another phase for the flyback was I had 2 phases available and the other main reason is, if I attached a separate motor to assist, we are only dealing with 5 watts of flyback power, so I'm quite sure the 5 watts would of been consumed by the motors baseline losses and in the end not demonstrate any advantage.
One way or the other if I was to design a motor using this concept, I think it would be more efficient to have the assist coils within the same motor.
So what mostly needs to be done is design a stable switching circuit to accomplish this.
I think it's doable with all the component improvements we have had these recent years.

Quote from: gyulasun on March 09, 2016, 03:04:10 PM

Even if you expected a bit higher improvement I think the 10% efficiency increase is still nice in your present series of tests and this could surely be improved by running the setup at a higher RPM (the lower than 1000 RPM was a compromise due to the comparison possibility to the unmodified motor which lacks its RPM control circuit).

Yes, I agree! it's unfortunate I don't have the communication protocol to increase to rpm of the stock motor. The results could be better at higher rpm and under much larger loads?

Quote from: gyulasun on March 09, 2016, 03:04:10 PM

So if one of the goals was to prove whether the collapsed energy of a switched stator coil when collected could aid the overall performance of this motor, then you proved it surely could, right?

Yes, I am definitely convinced that a switched coil motor performance can be improved by at least 10% (or more) by collecting and re-using its flyback to assist.
If anyone is ready to assist with a $200. donation, I could buy a used Maytag Neptune front loader washing machine which is what these motor are from. This would give me all the circuits to operate the motor at higher rpm which would produce much more test data then what I presently have.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #817 on:** March 25, 2016, 04:20:30 AM »

Hi everyone,

I'm building a larger version of one of the concepts I demonstrated in late January. Link to the January video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxSccG5DNFM
But it takes time to get parts when you're on a small budget and need to order from China but I may have an update in a week or so.
However, today I received some other parts to test a concept that Robert Murray Smith shared in early February. His video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4YD8Nvyfa4

Here is my version of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VlhMI5tv5Y

Luc

shylo · « **Reply #818 on:** March 25, 2016, 10:27:52 AM »

Hi Luc, That is very interesting , Tesla showed something similar, I'll have to go back and look for it.
I'm curious as to what pole gets projected out the ends of the I's without putting the keeper on top?
Also instead of draining that cap through the resistor use it to fire your coil and by doing so collect the flyback again and keep using it , it will diminish over time but thats when you hit it with a battery pulse to bring it back to the start.
Can just regular ceramic magnets be used ,I don't have any others except one big neo ring magnet?
Thanks for sharing.
artv

MagnaProp · « **Reply #819 on:** March 25, 2016, 11:14:50 AM »

Nice work once again gotoluc!

On the Robert Murray device, I wonder how much shorter you can cut the Alnico magnet? I wonder if soft iron spacers will let you get away with a shorter Alnico and smaller coil so you can use less power to switch it?

gotoluc · « **Reply #820 on:** March 25, 2016, 02:47:44 PM »

Quote from: shylo on March 25, 2016, 10:27:52 AM

I'm curious as to what pole gets projected out the ends of the I's without putting the keeper on top?

When the flux projects out it's the North and South of the Neo that goes through the I's. At this point the Alnico is in opposite poles and why the Neo's flux is projected out.

Quote from: shylo on March 25, 2016, 10:27:52 AM

Also instead of draining that cap through the resistor use it to fire your coil and by doing so collect the flyback again and keep using it , it will diminish over time but thats when you hit it with a battery pulse to bring it back to the start.

Yes, flyback could be used to assist but it needs about 2.3 Joules of energy to magnetize the Alnico and each flyback recoveries are only about 0.1 Joule.

Quote from: shylo on March 25, 2016, 10:27:52 AM

Can just regular ceramic magnets be used ,I don't have any others except one big neo ring magnet?

I don't know and haven't tried it with ceramic magnets. Give it a try and see.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #821 on:** March 25, 2016, 02:56:54 PM »

Quote from: MagnaProp on March 25, 2016, 11:14:50 AM

Nice work once again gotoluc!

On the Robert Murray device, I wonder how much shorter you can cut the Alnico magnet? I wonder if soft iron spacers will let you get away with a shorter Alnico and smaller coil so you can use less power to switch it?

I think it's all relative, less magnet mass = less flux strength. As it is, if I shorten the pulse to the Alnico I get less magnetization force since some of the Neo's flux conducts through the Alnico if it's less magnetized. A longer pulse creates the opposite but obviously to a certain point, as once you reach the Alnico's maximum magnetization any more input is a waste of power.

Luc

MagnaProp · « **Reply #822 on:** March 25, 2016, 11:56:09 PM »

Does it take more energy to reverse the Alnico when the neo is uses as apposed to using no neo? I'm assuming it does.

Quote from: gotoluc on March 25, 2016, 02:56:54 PM

I think it's all relative, less magnet mass = less flux strength...

Good point. If we cut the Alnico to short then it won't be strong enough to stop the neo magnetic flow. Hmmm

shylo · « **Reply #823 on:** March 26, 2016, 12:24:26 AM »

When the flux projects out it's the North and South of the Neo that goes through the I's. At this point the Alnico is in opposite poles and why the Neo's flux is projected out.
So on 1 side of the coil 1 I is n , and the other I is s?
It projects one pole on one , and the opposite pole on the other?
I'm using stored flyback to fire my coils to cause rotation, this might give better acceleration.
But like you say the amount of stored flyback is small ,compared to what you need to input for drive.
Every added coil produces alot more flyback, it's a doubling effect.
Looking forward to your further test's.
Thanks your a great contributor.
artv

Khwartz · « **Reply #824 on:** March 26, 2016, 11:08:47 PM »

Hello Luc, thanks for your experiment sharing

Don't we have to know the mass of the magnetic shunt and check at which height the U shape will lift it completely?

Let's say the barre is 100 g and you lift it up to stick it to the U shape, right when you approches it at 1 cm from the top while place on the table:

Weight Potential Energy in Joules =

{Mass in Kg} * {Gravity in m.s^-2} * {Distance, or Length, in meters}

= M [kg] * g [m.s^-2] * L [m] = W [J]

Let's say:

M = 200 g = 0.2 kg

g = 10 m.s^-2 (we only seek about orders of magnitude, so don't care for the "cents" )

L = 1 cm = 0.01 m

W [J] = 0.2 kg * 10 m.s^-2 * 0.01 m = 0.02 [J]

2 [J] of consumption of an impulse minus the flyback recovery (0.1 J), divided by 0.02 [J] of lifting energy = 100.

Thus the efficiency would be the inverted ratio: 1/100 = 1 %.

Thus the limit distance for over unity efficiency would be around, for 200 g of magnetic shunt:

L [m] = W [J] / (M [kg] * g [m.s^-2])

= 2 [J] / (0.2 [kg] * 10 [m.s^-2])

= 1 [m]

Am I missing something? Am I wrong your your numbers or my calculations?

Regards,
Didier

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED) (Read 355927 times)

wattsup

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)

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)

gyulasun

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)

shylo

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

MagnaProp

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)

MagnaProp

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)

Khwartz

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