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: Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)  (Read 350084 times)

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
I looked at your clip and it does appear that the inductance is increasing with the addition of the magnet.  However, it's highly unlikely that what you did in that test is directly comparable to the JLN test.  I don't get a sense that there is any motoring action in your clip, but it is a possibility.

So, motoring action will slow down the increasing current in a coil, which on the surface appears to look like increasing electrical inductance, but it's not really.  If anything, you can say that through the motoring action you have coupled to a mechanical inductor (the mass of the magnet) to the electrical inductor.  A mass in motion has the exact properties of inductance.

You apparently demonstrated increasing inductance wile adding a cylindrical magnet directly to the center axis of the toroid.  This is not directly comparable to the JLN clip.  The lesson is that you can't do one experiment and then apply the results of that experiment with a wide brush to all other situations.

In your clip, you need a schematic to allow people to make sense of what your scope display is showing.  I even made that comment on your clip in 2011.  What you are calling the back spike looks more like a damped LC resonance.  When you add the magnet, the frequency of the LC resonance decreases, which also supports the increasing inductance claim.  I hope that you learned from Verpies that going forward you need a schematic 100% of the time, no matter how simple the circuit is.

MileHigh

Quite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.

His large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.
So all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that ::)

You were wrong about a magnet not being able to increase a cored coils inductance and your wrong about these tests not being the same.
What are the chances, since I got the exact core that were recommended for the Orbo build and don't you think JLN did the same?

Here you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance:
For some strange reason JLN states, "When the lag of the current is max, here is the angle where the coil must be energized by the controller."    So he seems to be off in the clouds, something that has happened before with him.

He is simply not realizing that the current is rising more slowly because of the motoring effect where the magnet is seriously vibrating due to the pulsing coil.  It takes power to make the magnet vibrate, and we can hear it in the clip.  That power is coming from the coil itself.

and you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.
The one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.

What are you doing here???
    are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?

May this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.

So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?

Luc
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 05:53:49 AM by gotoluc »

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365



Quote
For a fellow that supposedly has an open mind to possibilities, you appear to be having problems thinking outside the box.

Really :o
It looks to me that you are the one that insist on sticking to the !!known!! laws--not me.
In stead of trying to think outside the box,just remove the box altogether.

Quote
Has it occurred to you that the rotor and coil are exchanging energy at the same time? Apparently not.

So we have 1 guy putting two cup's of water into a bucket at the same time another guy is taking one cup of water  out. So we would be loosing water from the supply to the bucket. But in this case we seem to be taking 2 cups of water out of the bucket,and only putting in 1 cup-but the bucket remains full-the rotor continues to spin,and the P/in go's down.

So once again--how is it that we can transfer energy from the coil to the rotor,and at the same time have the rotor return energy back into the coil,and have the P/in go down,while the P/out remains the same or greater?.

We now have Luc just show us that the inductance increases in his toroid core when an external magnetic field is induced into the core. We also had JLN show the very same thing,and i am also saying that this is the reason for the reduced current flow into the coil--the inductance of the coil rises during the on time,as there is a magnetic field of the opposite polarity approaching the core of the coil. The closer the rotor magnet gets to the core of the coil,the higher the inductance will rise within that coil,as the field/flux induced by the current flowing through the coil is being reduced/neutralized by the approaching magnet of opposite polarity. Of course MH is trying to find ways or reasons ,so as the books remain correct,and dismiss the test results shown by others as some sort of motoring action.


Quote
Wish there was, but I see no reason to continue my discussion here.

Well i was hoping that you would be able to recreate the effect with your sim setup,but as you wish.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Quite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.

His large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.
So all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that ::)

You were wrong about a magnet not being able to increase a cored coils inductance and your wrong about these tests not being the same.
What are the chances, since I got the exact core that were recommended for the Orbo build and don't you think JLN did the same?

Here you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance:
and you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.
The one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.

What are you doing here???    are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?

May this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.

So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?

Luc

So very correct Luc.
Once again we see that MH (and others) insist that power is required to cause the vibrations(MH's motoring) in JLN's demo,but once again,we see a reduction of P/in by way of the reduced current.
Some how the EE guys here are trying to tell us that the PMs receive energy from the coil,and then that energy is returned back to the system. If we take into account losses involved in this back and forth energy swapping,we should see an increase in P/in. But no-every time we see a decrease in P/in,while the P/out either remains the same or is greater. How can you put energy into a rotor,and have that rotor return that energy--all while there is a reduction in P/in?

JLN shows the reason--,you have shown very clearly the reason,and i have stated that the reason is because of an increase in inductance of the core when the PM is approaching the core. All this we have seen and shown right in front of us,and yet we have the EE guys trying to tell us the opposite is true--even though they have provided no evidence to back up there claim.

The increase in inductance you showed with your toroid is far to great to be a mistake Luc-->great job indeed.


Brad

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
The increase in inductance you showed with your toroid is far to great to be a mistake Luc-->great job indeed.

Brad

Just keep in mind that I have only observed an increase in Inductance by magnet to core with Finmet toroids.
To date, no other core material I have tested with magnet has shown an increase.
Ferrite is the worst, it drops Inductance like a bad leak at the presence of any magnet.

Luc

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Just keep in mind that I have only observed an increase in Inductance by magnet to core with Finmet toroids.
To date, no other core material I have tested with magnet has shown an increase.
Ferrite is the worst, it drops Inductance like a bad leak at the presence of any magnet.

Luc

Yes,i just found that out with my ferrite toroid. How ever,i also tried a metglass tape wound toroid core from an old toroid transformer,and it showed an increase in inductance when a magnet was bought close to it.

Seems ferrite is not all it's cracked up to be in this situation.

Brad

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
From what I have just 'reread' in the book "Regulated Power Supplies" 4th edition  Irving M Gottlieb in the chapter  Devices and Components,  the magnetically biased inductor is meant for dc pulsing operations. So say we have a rod core with a coil and we apply an ac current to it we should be able to measure the cores magnetization curve from one magnetic polarity to the other, NS to SN etc.
So when we pulse a coil on the rod core with dc, we are only able to use half of the magnetization curve of the core. But when we bias the core with a magnet, with biasing in the opposite polarity of what the coil produces when pulsed, we now have access to the full magnetization curve of the core. By doing so we get almost twice as much ampere turns capability from the same coil/core with magnet bias vs without the magnet.

And it also increases inductance..  Its in the book. ;) ;D

Mags

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Also, there is nothing said about core material affecting the outcome of core biasing. Most power supplies use ferrite cores, and that is what the book is all about.

Mags

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Yes,i just found that out with my ferrite toroid. How ever,i also tried a metglass tape wound toroid core from an old toroid transformer,and it showed an increase in inductance when a magnet was bought close to it.

Seems ferrite is not all it's cracked up to be in this situation.

Brad

Are you sure on the metglas? because where I am at this time they have large metglas cores and I tested them with a magnet before posting.
The inductance goes up when approaching the magnet but once the magnet comes to rest the inductance goes back down. So to me that's not the same and more of an effect of induction taking place and affecting the Inductance meter rather then a permanent boost of inductance.
With the Finemet the boost in inductance did not come down once the magnet stopped moving or came to rest.

If you don't mind rechecking this it could be helpful as I'm hoping verpies can find a use for this effect.

Thanks mate

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
From what I have just 'reread' in the book "Regulated Power Supplies" 4th edition  Irving M Gottlieb in the chapter  Devices and Components,  the magnetically biased inductor is meant for dc pulsing operations. So say we have a rod core with a coil and we apply an ac current to it we should be able to measure the cores magnetization curve from one magnetic polarity to the other, NS to SN etc.
So when we pulse a coil on the rod core with dc, we are only able to use half of the magnetization curve of the core. But when we bias the core with a magnet, with biasing in the opposite polarity of what the coil produces when pulsed, we now have access to the full magnetization curve of the core. By doing so we get almost twice as much ampere turns capability from the same coil/core with magnet bias vs without the magnet.

And it also increases inductance..  Its in the book. ;) ;D

Mags

This is good information Mags!

If I remember correctly a few years back MH was going on and on about how magnets have zero effect or practical use on cored coils.

Thanks for sharing and get your gears in motion on how we can use this effect to our advantage.

Luc

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
This is still a similar pattern.   Take the example of screw threads.  When you turn a screw or bolt clockwise it tightens.  But you can shout, "On my bicycle there is one screw thread that tightens when you turn it counter-clockwise so what you are saying is not true!  Screw threads turn counter-clockwise to tighten!"  It's not a valid argument.

Yes, Magluvin has a book on designing power supplies and what he quoted from the book is 100% true.  Is anybody around here designing regulated switching power supplies?  Finemet is used for common mode chokes for EMI filters, beads, high-frequency power transformers, pulsed power cores, and presumably many other applications in magnetics.  Is anybody around here designing high-frequency power transformers?  Do I hear the sound of one hand clapping?

I thought that we were trying to understand the energy dynamics of pulsing a coil to do some work like driving a pulse motor.  I think several people have made some good comments about that issue but I am not sure the message is getting through.  Or should we talk about the counter-clockwise screw thread industry instead?

In the past year on this forum I have seen perhaps 20 magnetic circuits in diagrams that include odd arrangements with biasing magnets in various places.  My gut feel is telling me that none of them used biasing magnets with a definite useful purpose like Magluvin quoted from his power supply design book.  They were mostly put in the circuits out of blind belief and if you asked the people to explain why they added the biasing magnets you would most likely get a useless answer that doesn't make sense and can't be justified.  That's the state of the art.  So yes, in general, using "biasing magnets" in AC or pulse magnetic circuits will have no affect because magnets produce a DC bias and magnetic circuits are AC-based.  All of you should reject electronics quackery if it is introduced into something you are following.

Getting back to the dynamics of a pulsing coil - the power consumption will go down and the current will rise more slowly when it pushes on a rotor or exports power to the outside world.  This is something that pulse motor designers need to understand and appreciate.

MileHigh

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Is F*D "force x distance?"  I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying there.

I am talking about what is typically observed in a pulse motor type of situation.

For how it's happening, a simple test that anybody can do:

Suppose you pulse a fixed coil and it produces a north field that is facing the north end of a movable magnet:   

[S-coil-N]   [N-magnet-S]

So naturally the magnet will get pushed away when you pulse the coil.

Now, what happens if you have the coil open circuited and on your scope, and you pull the magnet away?

My expectation is that you will see an EMF generated by the coil that is opposite the applied voltage of the battery that you used in the first part of the test.

The conclusion:  When the battery pulses the coil, and the magnet gets pushed away, then the moving magnet will induce EMF in the coil that effectively reduces the voltage applied across the coil.  Even though you can't see it on your scope, it's still happening "inside" the coil.  That internal EMF opposing the battery voltage will reduce the rate of current rise when you energize the coil.  WOW - two things are happening simultaneously inside the coil.

All of this should be in accord with Lenz's Law.

MileHigh

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
I am back,

As promised here is the schematic for Itsu utilizing four 4047 CMOS chips as a pulse sequencer.
The major changes are the values of ZD1 and ZD2.

The rotor shaft sensor signal can be anything in the CMOS input range: an Optoreflector, a digital Hall sensor, 555 Timer, 4047 Astable or even your Function Generator isolated by an Optocoupler.


P.S.
If L2 or R3 overheats due to high duty cycle of the "Discharge C2" signal, then this can be solved with two additional 4017 chips but I did not draw it now, since I do not know if it will be a real problem.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 12:11:46 AM by verpies »

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
I am back,

As promised here is the schematic for Itsu utilizing four 4047 CMOS chips as a pulse sequencer.
The major changes are the values of ZD1 and ZD2.

The rotor shaft sensor signal can be anything in the CMOS input range: an Optoreflector, a digital Hall sensor, 555 Timer, 4047 Astable or even your Function Generator isolated by an Optocoupler.


P.S.
If L2 or R3 overheats due to high duty cycle of the "Discharge C2" signal, then this can be solved with two additional 4017 chips but I did not draw it now, since I do not know if will be a real problem.

Welcome back verpies

Thanks for the new circuit.

Luc

itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845

Yes, thanks verpies,

i will use one of the 555 timers which are already on board to drive the 4047's.
For C2 i will use a 10uF/400V cap, R2 will be back to 10 Ohm (now 3.3 Ohm).

Itsu

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Is F*D "force x distance?"  I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying there.

I am talking about what is typically observed in a pulse motor type of situation.

For how it's happening, a simple test that anybody can do:

Suppose you pulse a fixed coil and it produces a north field that is facing the north end of a movable magnet:   

[S-coil-N]   [N-magnet-S]

So naturally the magnet will get pushed away when you pulse the coil.

Now, what happens if you have the coil open circuited and on your scope, and you pull the magnet away?

My expectation is that you will see an EMF generated by the coil that is opposite the applied voltage of the battery that you used in the first part of the test.



All of this should be in accord with Lenz's Law.

MileHigh

Quote
The conclusion:  When the battery pulses the coil, and the magnet gets pushed away, then the moving magnet will induce EMF in the coil that effectively reduces the voltage applied across the coil.  Even though you can't see it on your scope, it's still happening "inside" the coil.  That internal EMF opposing the battery voltage will reduce the rate of current rise when you energize the coil.  WOW - two things are happening simultaneously inside the coil.

What is WOW is how you guys leave things out to suit your needs.
As you and Poynt have clearly stated,when an external magnetic field is induced into the inductors core,the inductance value will go down,and that will result in a current rise each pulse-easily tested and seen. But i see you left that part out in your above quote--how convenient  ::) So any kind of small gain that might be had by the magnet moving away(using your example) would be more than offset by the fact that the core !at the same time! now has that PM's field induced into it,which will result in a higher current draw.

So your own laws MH are arguing against your reasoning.


Brad