Author Topic: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated (Read 436605 times)

T-1000 · « **Reply #675 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:21:35 PM »

Quote from: d3x0r on April 27, 2018, 12:39:05 PM

Jeg posted a pic here
is that from the video?

It is. And 4 coils are streching under each pole marker and leaving 1 free coil to each side. You can also trace that back from the first video where he had spinning magnets fixed in the center. It tell a lot about operation with 1-2-1 coil activation sequence.

EDIT: From pieces of Pierre video/explanations I did collect there are X+4 positive and X-7 (mathematically deducted from series of coils backwards) negative current flow. And I am planning to test this arrangement when will have all parts.

gotoluc · « **Reply #676 on:** April 27, 2018, 07:26:20 PM »

Quote from: pmgr on April 27, 2018, 06:32:20 AM

Hi Luc, good to see you are still working on the setup! Been busy but hope to get in touch over the weekend.

While you have the stator out, make sure to measure each winding and check its resistance to make sure the coils are not shorted anywhere.

Also, if you have time, take another measurement of the inductance with the rotor in so we can see if it is different from the old measurement you took.

Lastly, verify that you have the start of the winding and end of the winding labeled as such so you won't make a mistake when you hook them up.

PmgR

Hi PmgR,
I'm away from the lab till Tuesday next week. I'll resume my new stator coil repositioning tests then to see if my output is greater then I previously had. I think it will.
As for coil resistance, it should be identical as it's the same coils, just repositioned with a 5 slot space and as per Pierre's last instructions. I also doubt the inductance would change much but can re-check. However, all the coils are now reconnected and soldered in series, so I don't know how much that will affect a single coil test result?... and yes, I was very careful, each coil wire lead was labeled prior to connecting all the coils in series.
Regards
Luc

d3x0r · « **Reply #677 on:** April 27, 2018, 07:46:35 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on April 27, 2018, 07:26:20 PM

As for coil resistance, it should be identical as it's the same coils,
Regards
Luc

There's no way your coils can be 0.5 Ohms....

gotoluc · « **Reply #678 on:** April 28, 2018, 05:13:49 AM »

Quote from: d3x0r on April 27, 2018, 07:46:35 PM

There's no way your coils can be 0.5 Ohms....

Why not?... each coil is 35 turns using 11 inches of 22AWG wire per turn = 385 inches / 12 = 32 feet of wire per coil
32 feet of 22AWG = 0.516 Ohms according to this wire resistance calculator: https://www.cirris.com/learning-center/calculators/133-wire-resistance-calculator-table

My winding video demo shows a 3.5 inch diameter form I used which = to 11 inches of circumference: https://youtu.be/7vN0wpY2lok

d3x0r · « **Reply #679 on:** April 28, 2018, 05:40:07 AM »

Quote from: gotoluc on April 28, 2018, 05:13:49 AM

Why not?... each coil is 35 turns using 11 inches of 22AWG wire per turn = 385 inches / 12 = 32 feet of wire per coil
32 feet of 22AWG = 0.516 Ohms according to this wire resistance calculator: https://www.cirris.com/learning-center/calculators/133-wire-resistance-calculator-table

My winding video demo shows a 3.5 inch diameter form I used which = to 11 inches of circumference: https://youtu.be/7vN0wpY2lok

Ok thanks

I expected more length requirement...

Jeg · « **Reply #680 on:** April 28, 2018, 06:44:37 AM »

Quote from: T-1000 on April 27, 2018, 12:29:02 PM

.... but it did make sense when he was attempting to explain space between 2 opposite poles.

This implies a separate driving for each coil. As long as the coils are connected in series between each other, then gap can not be created between poles. I assume that Pierre's new stator coils (90T per coil) are for to be driven separately. And that is a good explanation of why he moved from 30T to 90T.

Regards

gotoluc · « **Reply #681 on:** April 28, 2018, 03:48:18 PM »

Quote from: Jeg on April 28, 2018, 06:44:37 AM

This implies a separate driving for each coil. As long as the coils are connected in series between each other, then gap can not be created between poles. I assume that Pierre's new stator coils (90T per coil) are for to be driven separately. And that is a good explanation of why he moved from 30T to 90T.

Regards

About Pierre's second prototype. Yesterday he informed me that it won't do what he had hopped for and decided to abandon that idea.
Hopefully no one started winding. I'm letting you know just in case anyone was considering it.
Regards
Luc

Fr. A propos du deuxième prototype de Pierre. Hier, il m'a informé que sa ne ferait pas ce qu'il avait espéré et a décidé d'abandonner cette idée.
J'espère que personne n'a commencé à enrouler. Je vous préviens juste au cas où quelqu'un le considérerait.
Cordialement
Luc

Jeg · « **Reply #682 on:** April 28, 2018, 07:33:21 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on April 28, 2018, 03:48:18 PM

About Pierre's second prototype. Yesterday he informed me that it won't do what he had hopped for and decided to abandon that idea.
Hopefully no one started winding. I'm letting you know just in case anyone was considering it.
Regards

No worries mate. The purpose is to experiment. I will treat it like a normal torroid transformer. 75T per coil.

MichelM · « **Reply #683 on:** April 29, 2018, 10:50:01 AM »

Quote from: Jeg on April 28, 2018, 07:33:21 PM

No worries mate. The purpose is to experiment. I will treat it like a normal torroid transformer. 75T per coil.

Hello Jeg,
I know, it's off topic for this thread, but it's related to your winding.
I think you can experiment with what is explained in this video, applying it to your project:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-TTC4Ft1Y&feature=youtu.be
If you do, connect one out of two for the first group, and also one out of two for the second group.
The power supply is AC. Bear in mind that the coils must be in opposition.
Curious to know the result.

Cordially
Michel

FR
Bonjour Jeg,
je sais, c'est hors sujet pour ce fil, mais c'est en rapport avec votre bobinage.
Je pense que vous pouvez expériementer ce qui est expliqué dans cette vidéo, en l'appliquant à votre projet :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-TTC4Ft1Y&feature=youtu.be
Si vous le faites, connectez une dobine sur deux pour le premier groupe, et également une sur deux pour le deuxième groupe.
L'alimentation se fait en courant alternatif. Tenir compte que les bobines doivent être en opposition.
Curieux de connaître le résultat.

Cordialement
Michel

Jeg · « **Reply #684 on:** April 29, 2018, 12:24:14 PM »

Hi MichelM
Thanks for showing this video. It is just that it is something completely different from what we are trying to achieve right now, and everything needs time for consideration. So i prefer to stick with what we started here instead of wasting time to something doubtful.

Regards

d3x0r · « **Reply #685 on:** April 29, 2018, 12:32:12 PM »

Quote from: MichelM on April 29, 2018, 10:50:01 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-TTC4Ft1Y&feature=youtu.be

Cordialement
Michel

Not to drag on the off-topic. But if his circuit is really as the schematic indicates, the 'high current meter' isn't across the load, but rather is just a very low voltage load across the secondary coil itself; and the current through that meter doesn't exist except the meter and the coil, and is not representive of the current through the bulb; which is fine to have amps different in seperate parts... and the meter itself is certainly neglegable power drop. If you disagree, start a new thread, and pm me a link.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

T-1000 · « **Reply #686 on:** April 29, 2018, 01:33:07 PM »

Quote from: Jeg on April 28, 2018, 06:44:37 AM

This implies a separate driving for each coil. As long as the coils are connected in series between each other, then gap can not be created between poles. I assume that Pierre's new stator coils (90T per coil) are for to be driven separately. And that is a good explanation of why he moved from 30T to 90T.

Regards

Pierre did not show his circuit and how he connects positive and negative switching so I created my version of module - https://i.imgur.com/muSF3CN.png
This module allow full control with MOSFETs of positive and negative switching for 4 coils in series. And for Pierre's case it would require 9 of these modules in series with control circuit. Which would allow powering 4 coils in series for single polarity.
In addition it have logic protection against short circuit between HIGH and LOW state on same position.
Hopefully this circuit will be useful for experiments.

Cheers!

Jeg · « **Reply #687 on:** April 29, 2018, 01:45:05 PM »

Hi T1000
I was thinking the same. I mean the usage of a full bridge per coil but separately driving with no connection between the coils. What is the type of the driver in your schematic?

Regards

T-1000 · « **Reply #688 on:** April 29, 2018, 02:16:14 PM »

Quote from: Jeg on April 29, 2018, 01:45:05 PM

Hi T1000
I was thinking the same. I mean the usage of a full bridge per coil but separately driving with no connection between the coils. What is the type of the driver in your schematic?

Regards

The driver is L298N - https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/Robotics/L298_H_Bridge.pdf
It alows separate control of 4 H-Bridges.
When powering coils with more than 12V the 12V voltage stabilizer will be required for the VS pin.
Initially I wanted to drive with H-Bridge drivers but quickly realized it is painful and costly way when we need separate control of HIGH and LOW state on each coil pin.

P.S> In the circuit I shared the R sense pins 1&15 are connected to negative when no feedback is required. I left it open originally.

Jeg · « **Reply #689 on:** April 29, 2018, 02:30:34 PM »

Thank you Arunas

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated (Read 436605 times)

T-1000

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

gotoluc

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

d3x0r

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

gotoluc

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

d3x0r

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

Jeg

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

gotoluc

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

Jeg

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

MichelM

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

Jeg

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

d3x0r

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

T-1000

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

Jeg

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

T-1000

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

Jeg

Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated