Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.  (Read 19323 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2022, 09:57:00 AM »
Hi guys.

Sorry, but running behind time again--the joys of owning a business.
Also been doing some video's on this covid shit show over here.
Our premier went from ok to an absolute ass, and now has decided to discriminate against those that refuse the clot shot.
So i have been giving him shit as well.

Anyway, here is the first video on measuring an applied torque over distance, where we use a standard attraction type pulse motor as an example.

I would strongly advise those that are going to build this motor, to set up a good test bed, so as you can get everything spot on.
This will help greatly with matching all your components, so as you have the best chance at success, as there is many variables that must be matched to the equipment you are going to use for your build.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQfMEJT7G1g


Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2022, 01:08:04 PM »
Ok, so here is the same test, but with the TP motor-or Torque Force motor design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KIub44uIs


Brad

Offline seychelles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2022, 05:08:15 PM »
GREAT WORK TINMAN. PERSEVERANCE WILL SURELY DESTROY ALL RESISTANCE.
CLOT SHOT. NEVER HEARD AS SUCH, BUT WILL KEEP IT IN MY CLOUD FOR FUTURE
USE. I HAVE BEEN STUCK HERE IN SEYCHELLES FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND I CAN
NOT COME TO VISIT MY SON IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA DUE TO A DOUBLE MANDATE.
ONE FROM MY DARLING WIFE, NOT AND THE OTHER FROM THIS TYRANT DICTATOR
WA MINISTER.  THE REASON IS I AM AN ANTI-CLOT SHOT. GOD BLESS KEEP UP THIS
GREAT WORK.

Offline captainpecan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2022, 07:07:39 PM »
@Tinman,


Great stuff, love to see the extra time to explain a bit more deeply in these videos what you are looking for and how to achieve it. I would like just a little more clarity on one thing if you will. The difference in the test between the two experiments. You mention grabbing the wrong torque plate when you did the test at your shop and that the one at your home performed better. I believe you stated it was 5 mm wider plate that you had best results with? To clarify, the test that you graphed the best results was in fact done with the "worst performing" of the two torque plates? Meaning that if you had been able to test with the material you wanted, it would have been even better difference between the two tests. Just making sure I understood you correctly.
So, if one was to perform your test exactly, would it be a torque plate 30 mm wide, and how thick? I have seen others mention getting best results with 1/8" thick. Do you concur? Your's LOOKS thinner, maybe 2mm thick? Or did you prefer thicker? Also, since I think you said the wider plate worked better, did you notice a width that seemed to no longer work any better? Was it the 30 mm plate?


Last thing I was wanting to clarify. It appears that the 1st video simply has the difference of raising the electromagnet up and out of directly in front of permanent magnet behind the plate. Am I correct in understanding that with that test, the permanent magnet is still 1 mm gap from the torque plate and still pulling the plate into the gap in both experiments, and that the ONLY difference in the test (except for grabbing different size plate) is the electromagnet is simply raised a bit higher and out of direct center alignment with the permanent magnet?


Thank you for your videos and clarification so far. I hope my questions are not annoying, as I have been working on the bench myself to fully understand what you are presenting to everyone. It's great work and I have learned so much already. Thanks again.

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2022, 07:39:18 PM »
Ok, so here is the same test, but with the TP motor-or Torque Force motor design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KIub44uIs
Your force gage is not always tangential to the flywheel. Therefore your torque measurements are subject to the cosine error.
To fix this, pull on your force gage with a strong thread (blue) attached to the flywheel's perimeter further away (brown fastener), so the line that passes through the center of the flywheel (green) and through the point where the thread stops touching the flywheel (red), always forms a right angle with the straight thread.  That red point, the force gage and its anchor point should always be colinear.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #110 on: February 03, 2022, 12:43:32 AM »
Your force gage is not always tangential to the flywheel. Therefore your torque measurements are subject to the cosine error.
To fix this, pull on your force gage with a strong thread (blue) attached to the flywheel's perimeter further away (brown fastener), so the line that passes through the center of the flywheel (green) and through the point where the thread stops touching the flywheel (red), always forms a right angle with the straight thread.  That red point, the force gage and its anchor point should always be colinear.

While i agree with what you say, the point of the experiment was to show the difference between the two in way of a %.
As we carried out both tests in identical ways, then we can safely assume that the results show an accurate difference between the two in way of a %.

If we were after an accurate torque graph, then the way you show to carry out that test would be the way to do it.

Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2022, 01:02:09 AM »
@Tinman,


Great stuff, love to see the extra time to explain a bit more deeply in these videos what you are looking for and how to achieve it. I would like just a little more clarity on one thing if you will. The difference in the test between the two experiments. You mention grabbing the wrong torque plate when you did the test at your shop and that the one at your home performed better. I believe you stated it was 5 mm wider plate that you had best results with? To clarify, the test that you graphed the best results was in fact done with the "worst performing" of the two torque plates? Meaning that if you had been able to test with the material you wanted, it would have been even better difference between the two tests. Just making sure I understood you correctly.
So, if one was to perform your test exactly, would it be a torque plate 30 mm wide, and how thick? I have seen others mention getting best results with 1/8" thick. Do you concur? Your's LOOKS thinner, maybe 2mm thick? Or did you prefer thicker? Also, since I think you said the wider plate worked better, did you notice a width that seemed to no longer work any better? Was it the 30 mm plate?


Last thing I was wanting to clarify. It appears that the 1st video simply has the difference of raising the electromagnet up and out of directly in front of permanent magnet behind the plate. Am I correct in understanding that with that test, the permanent magnet is still 1 mm gap from the torque plate and still pulling the plate into the gap in both experiments, and that the ONLY difference in the test (except for grabbing different size plate) is the electromagnet is simply raised a bit higher and out of direct center alignment with the permanent magnet?


Thank you for your videos and clarification so far. I hope my questions are not annoying, as I have been working on the bench myself to fully understand what you are presenting to everyone. It's great work and I have learned so much already. Thanks again.

Hi captainpecan

The electromagnet was set in each test so as the core of the electromagnet was centered with the PM.
The extra width of the TP from 25mm to 30mm makes a big difference-about 30%. But this also depends on other factors as well, which is why it is important to make a good test rig, so as you can try different width and thickness TPs, and see which one gives you the best results.
The thinner TPs shown in the video are on the verge of magnetic saturation, which reduces the pull force. If you are too small with your TPs, it can actually have the opposite effect, and push the TPs away from the field gate. The 5mm wider ones offer that slight increase in mass, and decrease magnetic saturation of the TPs. The saturation point will also depend on thickness of your TPs, and the distance of free TP to the flywheel mass. You must use a steel or iron flywheel (a magnetic flywheel) for best results, as the flywheel will also carry the magnetic field, and reduce TP magnetic saturation.

The TPs i used for that particular motor are made from 2 inch exhaust tube, at 2mm thick.




Brad

Offline wopwops

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #112 on: February 04, 2022, 03:40:56 AM »
Stephan, will you please make Tinman the admin on this thread before it goes the way it always goes... Hopefully, he just posts everything ASAP.

Floor

  • Guest
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #113 on: February 04, 2022, 04:28:26 AM »
While i agree with what you say, the point of the experiment was to show the difference between the two in way of a %.
As we carried out both tests in identical ways, then we can safely assume that the results show an accurate difference between the two in way of a %.

If we were after an accurate torque graph, then the way you show to carry out that test would be the way to do it.

Brad

Good point verpies.
       but
I think that Tinman's point is valid here.  The conditions being the same in the two sets
or even very nearly so, should result in a very good approximatioin of the ratios and
that is what he is looking to demonstrate in this case.

Offline captainpecan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #114 on: February 04, 2022, 07:28:38 PM »

I edited this post. Answered my own question.

Thanks again, great work!
« Last Edit: February 05, 2022, 04:36:08 AM by captainpecan »

Floor

  • Guest
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #115 on: February 04, 2022, 09:19:15 PM »
@ the general readership

Let me point out from experience. Conducting this kind of experimentation while nearly
simultaneously responding, to queries, alternative ideas and even non critical observations
is an order of magnitude more difficult than is quiet experimentation on ones own.  It is
common occurrence that an over crowding of the experimenters personal space and
an over taxing of their mental focus occurs.  As I said, I know what this is like from personal
experience. It takes time       from        the experimenter to absorb, reflect, and respond.
It can be quite over whelming at times.

The best tack for we on the side is / are,

1. get every thing done and out of the way right at the very start.
2. request all details and information immediately
3. answer all of one's own questions. This is, believe it or not,
possible     most     of the time.
4. do one's own tests.
5. don't rush the experimenter.
6. inquire only after exhausting all other options.
7. be    very clear   in stating any question. Often this in itself reveals the answer.
It is quite common that questions are so poorly composed, that it takes two or three
times, back and forth just to clarify what is being asked.  Bummer !
8. re read the topic for anything one may have missed.
9. request of other users other than the builder to give information.
This can back fire !
10. don't give information on behalf of the experimenter that you do not for a certainty
 know came from the inventors own mouth. Do only quotes ?
11. Realize the experimenter does not have all the answers,
is working in / upon assumptions(is experimenting).
needs to be able to adjust his assumptions on the fly,
needs to be able to adjust his variables on the fly,
may rapidly proceed through any number of his own assumptions
may rapidly proceed through any number of  variables
may already be testing at several points ahead in the experimentation than any
follower is aware of and so on.
12. will probably report / update, do Q and A.
13. If you get inspired, have brilliant flashes and so on, write them down.
Brain storming while good, does not mean ideas should be presented
during the course of an experiment.  But may be some times/ briefly.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #116 on: February 14, 2022, 01:14:32 PM »
Hey guys.

Be back with you all as soon as possible.
We have a covid shit show going on over here ATM, and i can't even get to my workshop.
Seems that half our cities businesses have been shut down due to a !so called! outbreak.
Over here, an outbreak is 32 cases it seems.  ::)

Had to do a RAT test, and they recon it came back positive, which is bullshit, as i have 0 symptoms.
I did another one 2 days later, and it came back negative--what a joke this shit is.

Not a happy camper ATM.

Will get back into it as soon as i can actually get to my workshop.

Brad

Offline Paul-R

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #117 on: February 14, 2022, 01:29:22 PM »

Had to do a RAT test, and they recon it came back positive, which is bullshit, as i have 0 symptoms.

One reason why you antivaxxers have so signally failed is that you do not have the professionalism to learn the basic fundamentals.
It is well known that people can be covid positive with no symptoms. It is one of the great problems. But then you will call this "Fake News" along with, if I recall correctly from your posts at another place, the idea that the damge done on 9/11 was done by aircraft.

Offline Thaelin

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1066
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #118 on: February 14, 2022, 03:04:20 PM »
   It is also well known that most of the tests are made in china and are known for false positives. Moderna CEO just dumped 400mil in Mrna stock. J&J just suspended making the shots anymore. Most of the sick are in the vaxxed lot.
   Oh, well, What ever.

Offline Paul-R

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: RESSURECTED TINMAN NEW INVENTION.
« Reply #119 on: February 14, 2022, 03:59:07 PM »

 ... and are known for false positives....
Yes, it's a problem along with some false negatives.