Author Topic: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated (Read 433496 times)

konehead · « **Reply #1065 on:** June 10, 2018, 07:19:38 PM »

Hi Luc
Just to enter my two cents, here is how I think wiring should be for the rotating field in the stator if 6 pole NSNSNS:
I don't think I need drawing it is pretty simple to describe....

Wind BIFILAR wires throughout the pole slots.
One of the two bifilar wires will be power-wind, the other induced "returned-power" wind...
One of the two wires in the bifilar sends in power one way, the other sends in power the opposite direction to switch polarity of the poles very simple.

Wind this bifilar wire around for example pole #1 then stretch it over to pole #5 (in your case with 30 poles) leave those poles (2 3 4) in between the two energized ones (1 an 5) blank for now - later they will be filled up...
Wind both pf these two poles same direction....now you have established a N or a S pole stretching 5 poles long of length, and its all depending on N or S in which way you send in power to the respective bifilar wind. I think so far easy to understand eh?

So now do same thing at 120 degrees so you establish 3 poles....I would think best to connect all three pole sections in series too

Do all this it again but opposite winding direction, for the remaining 3 poles of the eventual NSNSNS 6 pole rotating field.
Connect ALL the poles for example between 1 and 5 poles to ALL the other N un-wound poles....
Do same thing on all the S poles - that is to connect all those un-wound poles together (I would think in series)
So now you have some very powerful "pickup" winds within each pole whenever energized...

For example on that 1 to 5 pole "structure" of winds, you would have two (1 and 5) being energized, and the un-energized bifilar half becomes an induced pickup wind plus you will have all the power created between those two poles 1 and 5 (2 3 4) becoming also induced pickup winds....so tie the poles together like this, now you have lots of power created to fill the caps whenever you energize the poles.

Also stretch a long length of bifilar for all three N poles, and long length for all three S poles so not so many switches needed to send in power, and to switch polarities....so for three N poles at 120 degrees, you would wind a total of six coils,, and a total of 9 pickup coils (plus the induced half of the bifilar)
For the rotating "crawling motion" of the field, you would have to envision the three poles like this: one on, then two on, then one on (like Pierre describes) except now it is not one pole "segment" at a time miving in rotation, (30 times) but the 6 poles being rotated per total rotation....so now faster rotation needing not such fast switching....I would think having the three N poles not pulsed at same time as the S poles would give better power with less cancelling...

konehead · « **Reply #1066 on:** June 10, 2018, 07:53:21 PM »

in attachment a drawing I did awhile back.
This has H switch to switch polarities of poles, instead think of bifilars winds and sending power in one direction of one half of bifilar, and the other half the other direction to switch polarity.
Also this is to energize all 6 poles at once, but maybe better to do only 3 N and then 3 S....
For "induced pickup winds" you would connect: 2, 12, 22 and 3, 13, 23 and 4, 14, 24 for red N poles
then of course 7, 17, 27 and 8, 18, 28 and 9, 19 and 29 for blue
S poles...

pmgr · « **Reply #1067 on:** June 10, 2018, 08:40:53 PM »

Quote from: konehead on June 10, 2018, 06:35:23 PM

Hi everyone
Is that a mistake on the drawing Pierre just put up message 1050?

There are two red arrows circled in yellow, and also to the right of that on bottom of circle he has the small black current flow arrows clashing too.
Seems like one of those red arrows should be blue, pointing in other direction, and the current flow small black arrows corrected.....

I think the "parallel" question is that yes he shows 6 coils in series per pole position, but those six coils will be connected in parallel to the other poles of either N or S poles. (the red arrows indicate current input and direction it comes from and these arrows are not showing the NSNSNS poles to be in series)

It is open question (to me at least) if he connects ALL coils at once, or only energizes the N poles, then the S poles independent..... I would think much better to only energize only the S blue or only the N red poles otherwise you will lose a lot right where the poles meet through canceling.

But I don't know whats going on, since I thought this drawing was for an untested idea he had for a new version...

Yes, that's a mistake. Just follow the arrows and Pierre drew some in the wrong direction.

Anyway, I agree with you that Pierre has six coils in series per pole and then six poles in parallel. If you check his first video and his fifth video, this is also what you will find. In these videos, none of his coils are isolated.

I note that this kind of configuration, although the current direction for all of the 6 poles is correct, this is indeed no good for driving the coils. Simulations show this as well. So it is a big mystery how he got a system like that looped...

PmgR

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1068 on:** June 10, 2018, 08:55:01 PM »

Quote from: pmgr on June 10, 2018, 08:40:53 PM

Yes, that's a mistake. Just follow the arrows and Pierre drew some in the wrong direction.

Anyway, I agree with you that Pierre has six coils in series per pole and then six poles in parallel. If you check his first video and his fifth video, this is also what you will find. In these videos, none of his coils are isolated.

I note that this kind of configuration, although the current direction for all of the 6 poles is correct, this is indeed no good for driving the coils. Simulations show this as well. So it is a big mystery how he got a system like that looped...

PmgR

Not to me. And I suspect... not to you, really, either.

r2fpl · « **Reply #1069 on:** June 10, 2018, 09:28:53 PM »

If someone is missing pins, propose to use MCP23017
It is controlled by i2C. Everyone has 16 output.

There is a library for this so the service is easy.

mcp1.digitalWrite (0 ... 16, HIGH);

mcp1..8 * 16 = max 128 output

gotoluc · « **Reply #1070 on:** June 10, 2018, 09:49:56 PM »

Quote from: pmgr on June 10, 2018, 08:40:53 PM

In these videos, none of his coils are isolated.

PmgR

Question, if you opened (switched) one location around the 36 or 30 series coils would that give a result of coil Isolation?

See bottom switch in my drawing.

Regards
Luc

konehead · « **Reply #1071 on:** June 10, 2018, 10:00:29 PM »

hi everyone
this is drawing just did showing my bifilar idea how to pulse the stator winds...
I did not do the windings between the energized winds shown but you get the idea how those will all hook up with reds to reds and blues to blues..... however it will be is how they will hook for best "mdoced pickup" output maybe combo of series and parallel

pmgr · « **Reply #1072 on:** June 10, 2018, 11:10:19 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on June 10, 2018, 09:49:56 PM

Question, if you opened (switched) one location around the 36 or 30 series coils would that give a result of coil Isolation?

See bottom switch in my drawing.

Regards
Luc

No, that doesn't work as you need to rotate the field, so the switch needs to rotate/move as well every time you rotate/move a coil. So it would require a switch like that for every single coil.
PmgR

jerdee · « **Reply #1073 on:** June 11, 2018, 12:20:08 AM »

En:
Pierre,

Do we need to think of the three Norths and three Souths as ONLY 3X the FIELD STRENGTH?

I've been thinking about how to create TWO POLE system with rotation of thee times the FIELD STRENGTH. I’m beginning to understand the importance of creating variation and intensity of the rotational field with extra wires on the stator. 36 to 12 wide for you, while 30 to 10 wide for us. Did you solve by creating a TWO pole system with 3 times the field strength?

Very thankful for your help.
Jerdee

Fr. Pierre,

Avons-nous besoin de penser aux trois Nord et aux trois Sud comme SEULEMENT 3X LA FORCE DU CHAMP?

J'ai réfléchi à la façon de créer un système à DEUX PÔLES avec la rotation de thee fois le FIELD STRENGTH. Je commence à comprendre l'importance de créer la variation et l'intensité du champ de rotation avec des fils supplémentaires sur le stator. 36 à 12 de large pour vous, alors que 30 à 10 de large pour nous. Avez-vous résolu en créant un système à deux pôles à partir de 3 fois l'intensité du champ?

Très reconnaissant pour votre aide.
Jerdee

pedro1 · « **Reply #1074 on:** June 11, 2018, 02:06:36 AM »

Vous pouvez faire seulement un nord et un sud a 10 de large votre champ seras augmenter et oui la variation du champ a une importance

En. You can have only one north and one south of 10 wide, your field will increase and yes the variation of the field is of importance

T-1000 · « **Reply #1075 on:** June 11, 2018, 03:38:34 AM »

Quote from: pedro1 on June 11, 2018, 02:06:36 AM

Vous pouvez faire seulement un nord et un sud a 10 de large votre champ seras augmenter et oui la variation du champ a une importance

Hi Pierre,
Do you have any scope screnshot saved from the output coil which you could share with us? Would be interesting to see how the output waves look like.

Thanks!

jerdee · « **Reply #1076 on:** June 11, 2018, 03:47:38 AM »

Pierre,

Merci. J'apprends toujours, mais je pense que je commence à comprendre l'importance de l'isolement tout en gardant toutes les bobines en série. Je visualise deux pôles plus grands générés après l'isolement des forces de champ 3X en rotation. C'est votre variation et votre intensité. C'est une embalance brillante et un jeu de chiffres. Je ne vois pas le besoin de plus de Mosfets maintenant, au moins à ce stade. Tout est dans le câblage. Encore à apprendre.

Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse rapide.

Jerdee

En

Pierre,

Thanks. Still learning but think I'm beginning to understand the importance of isolation while keeping all coils in series. I'm visualizing two larger poles generated after isolation of 3X field strengths in rotation. This is your variation and intensity. It's a brilliant embalance and a numbers game . I don't see a need for more Mosfets now, at least at this point. It's all in the wiring. Still learning.

Thank you very much for your quick response.

Jerdee

gotoluc · « **Reply #1077 on:** June 11, 2018, 04:25:57 AM »

Quote from: T-1000 on June 11, 2018, 03:38:34 AM

Hi Pierre,
Do you have any scope screnshot saved from the output coil which you could share with us? Would be interesting to see how the output waves look like.

Thanks!

That was shared at the beginning of the topic but here it is again.
There is nothing else available.

Regards

Luc

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1078 on:** June 11, 2018, 05:30:34 AM »

In Reply # 52 of this thread, Luc gives the ORIGINAL code sketch that Pierre said he used in the original apparatus. Here it is again, just as presented in that post, without any alterations:

Quote

/*
Blink This example code is in the public domain.

modified 8 May 2014
by Scott Fitzgerald
*/

// the setup function runs once when you press reset or power the board
void setup() {
// initialize digital pin 13 as an output.

pinMode(1, OUTPUT);
pinMode(2, OUTPUT);
pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
pinMode(4, OUTPUT);
pinMode(5, OUTPUT);
pinMode(6, OUTPUT);
pinMode(7,OUTPUT);
pinMode(8, OUTPUT);
pinMode(9, OUTPUT);
pinMode(10, OUTPUT);
pinMode(11, OUTPUT);
pinMode(12, OUTPUT);
pinMode(13, OUTPUT);
pinMode(14,OUTPUT);
pinMode(15, OUTPUT);
pinMode(16, OUTPUT);
pinMode(17, OUTPUT);
pinMode(18, OUTPUT);
pinMode(19, OUTPUT);
pinMode(20, OUTPUT);
pinMode(21, OUTPUT);
pinMode(22, OUTPUT);
pinMode(23,OUTPUT);
pinMode(24, OUTPUT);
pinMode(25, OUTPUT);
pinMode(26, OUTPUT);
pinMode(27, OUTPUT);
pinMode(28, OUTPUT);
pinMode(29, OUTPUT);
pinMode(30,OUTPUT);
pinMode(31, OUTPUT);
pinMode(32, OUTPUT);
pinMode(33, OUTPUT);
pinMode(34, OUTPUT);
pinMode(35,OUTPUT);
pinMode(36, OUTPUT);
pinMode(37, OUTPUT);
}

int x = 0;

// the loop function runs over and over again forever
void loop(){
int y= analogRead(0); // transforme x en une valeur de 0 à 20 (millisecondes)
x= map(y,0,1000 ,1,100);

digitalWrite(1,HIGH), digitalWrite(13,HIGH), digitalWrite(25,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(2,HIGH), digitalWrite(14,HIGH), digitalWrite(26,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(1,LOW), digitalWrite(13,LOW), digitalWrite(25,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(3,HIGH), digitalWrite(15,HIGH), digitalWrite(27,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(2,LOW), digitalWrite(14,LOW), digitalWrite(26,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(4,HIGH), digitalWrite(16,HIGH), digitalWrite(28,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(3,LOW), digitalWrite(15,LOW), digitalWrite(27,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(5,HIGH), digitalWrite(17,HIGH), digitalWrite(29,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(4,LOW), digitalWrite(16,LOW), digitalWrite(28,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(6,HIGH), digitalWrite(18,HIGH), digitalWrite(30,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(5,LOW), digitalWrite(17,LOW), digitalWrite(29,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(7,HIGH), digitalWrite(19,HIGH), digitalWrite(31,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(6,LOW), digitalWrite(18,LOW), digitalWrite(30,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(8,HIGH), digitalWrite(20,HIGH), digitalWrite(32,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(7,LOW), digitalWrite(19,LOW), digitalWrite(31,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(9,HIGH), digitalWrite(21,HIGH), digitalWrite(33,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(8,LOW), digitalWrite(20,LOW), digitalWrite(32,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(10,HIGH), digitalWrite(22,HIGH), digitalWrite(34,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(9,LOW), digitalWrite(21,LOW), digitalWrite(33,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(11,HIGH), digitalWrite(23,HIGH), digitalWrite(35,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(10,LOW), digitalWrite(22,LOW), digitalWrite(34,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(12,HIGH), digitalWrite(24,HIGH), digitalWrite(36,HIGH); // turn the LED on (HIGH is the voltage level)
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(11,LOW), digitalWrite(23,LOW), digitalWrite(35,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second
digitalWrite(12,LOW), digitalWrite(24,LOW), digitalWrite(36,LOW); // turn the LED off by making the voltage LOW
delay(x); // wait for a second

}

Now... count the number of delay(x) statements between turning ON a coil and turning that same coil OFF. You will note an irregularity or "Bug" that causes a difference in timing for some groups of coils. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
For example, pins 11, 23 and 35 are turned on, then THREE delay periods go by before these coils are turned off again. But pins 12, 24 and 36 are turned on, then only TWO delay periods go by before these coils are turned off again.

This "glitch" also occurs with the group 1,13,25 which also only gets TWO delay periods of on-time.

Is it deliberate, something Pierre used on purpose? If so, are the current "replicators" also putting in this timing "glitch" in their versions of the programming?
Is it a "bug", a mistake, something Pierre didn't intend? If so... doesn't this glitch screw up the smooth and even transitions that make the "rotary" magnetic field?

I have asked this quite significant question several times and I don't think it has ever been answered. Others, notably pmgr, have also picked up on this timing anomaly. Some of us have written sketches, or modified this sketch, to eliminate the "bug" or "feature" if that's what it is.

By the way, that "scope" shot above is from what I consider to be a toy, a thing with such low bandwidth and with such a low resolution screen that it is truly a pity that it is the only thing Pierre has to work with. A real oscilloscope, even a cheap Hantek USB scope, would be much better.

r2fpl · « **Reply #1079 on:** June 11, 2018, 07:55:08 AM »

From my experience, the relays hang up and there is a high probability that it was the same with Pierre.
When all work, it is rather certain that one did not work or a few.
The difference in the Arduino code may result from the lack of correct placement last
command line. You can not see it at once.

worked on new relays? I doubt
uses low currents so that the relays do not block? no
problem in the code? does not matter

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated (Read 433496 times)

konehead

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

konehead

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

pmgr

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

TinselKoala

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

r2fpl

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

konehead

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

pmgr

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

jerdee

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

pedro1

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

jerdee

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

TinselKoala

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

r2fpl

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