Edited post... I found some math errors. I took down my efficiency test results until I get it figured out better.


I think I went from a possible 128% efficiency to 31% efficiency because i figured wrong.. that's pretty bad... lol. I think I will work a bit more on making sure my efficiency tests are as accurate as possible and start making some huge adjustments to design. The whole concept may end up very inefficient afterall. Hopefully I'm figuring something wrong. Time will tell.

Ok, I think I have nailed down all my issues trying to figure out efficiency of this motor. It's simple really, the performance just kind of blows as a motor after all. I have now done many tests, and all have came out to between 35% efficient to 38% efficient. I switched my coils to parallel and push more current. It seemed a little less efficient but not much change in percentage. I determined my pulley was way to small and could be making the calculations all messed up converting things. I made one myself that is larger out of an empty wire spool. It still fell within that range. I will post my math just in case someone can see an error I made, but I think I have it correct.
Here is one of my test results with my own diy pulley.
Pulley circumference - 8.625 inches or .71875 feet
Voltage - 16.2v
Amperage - .16 amp
RPM - 562
Work done - 50 grams


Following the dynomometer test I learned from Peter Lindemann in his motor secrets video, here is what I came up with...
16.2v * .16 amp = 2.579 watts
1 HP = 746 watts
2.579 / 746 =
0.003457 Input HP


562 RPM / 60 = 9.36 rev/sec
9.36rps * .71875 (pulley circumference feet)
=6.73 ft/sec
50 grams / 456 (grams per pound) = .1101 lbs
 6.73 ft/sec * .1101 lbs = 0.7414 ft-lbs/sec
(1 HP = 550 ft-lbs/sec)
.7414 / 550 =
0.001348 HP Output


Efficiency = Output / Input
0.001348 / .003457 = .389 × 100
38.9% efficiency


If anyone can see an error in how I performed this test, please let me know.

Another thought. Pulse motors are really never made for torque. I am having a really hard time finding anything anywhere of others doing these actual tests with pulse motors? If anyone knows of a resource I can make comparisons with, please post it. It may be that these results are good for a pulse motor, it's just that I'm expecting more than one can deliver at this low of power usage.


I think i will start tuning it to have the sharpest, shortest pulse possible, and start studying the flyback more. It seems to me that there is extra energy to be had out of these PM embedded coils. I need to change directions I was heading in trying to use it. May be on my way to trying them out in solid state oscillations as well. So much to learn and so many things to try.

Yeah, and that's kind of what I did with this one in a way. It's got 6 coils, fired in pairs. 8 magnets on the rotor. So it fires 24 times per rotation. It self starts fairly fast as well.
Maybe I was just expecting to much to soon. Maybe getting 39% out of a pulse motor is better than usual when measuring torque. I know a bedini school girl which I see as a huge success, has way less torque than this one. Maybe I found a design that pushed a little further could rival regular motors and still be a pulse motor. I wonder if efficiency would jump up quite a bit adding another layer of coils fired between the others.

Hi Captainpecan, 

You surely have heard or know about the Muller motor.  An efficiency report by a serious replication attempt is shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg   and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY  He has several other videos on his Muller motor activities and here is his forum http://www.alt-nrg.org/Muller.html   

In floodrod's earlier thread I included two links on measured efficiency on a replicated zero force motor, see the details there: https://overunity.com/19091/quad-reciprocator-motor-idea/msg565965/#msg565965 

IMHO, to receive much better efficiency i.e. to increase output torque for pulse motors, the number of input coils would need to be increased so that the distance a rotor magnet should travel between two coils would be a few cm only. So the number of coil and magnet interactions (either attract or repel force) is added together AND this addition is repeated say 15 or 20 times within a full 360° turn of the rotor, then you can expect higher torque.  Whether this would eventually bring a COP > 1 performance I am not sure:  supposing such pulse motor would reach say 80% efficiency without capturing the flyback pulse energy, then dioing so there might be some success towards the goal.   

Gyula
 

@gyulasun
Thanks for the info. I will check it all out this evening when I get back to better internet. Out in the country all day working.

Edited post... I found some math errors. I took down my efficiency test results until I get it figured out better.


I think I went from a possible 128% efficiency to 31% efficiency because i figured wrong.. that's pretty bad... lol. I think I will work a bit more on making sure my efficiency tests are as accurate as possible and start making some huge adjustments to design. The whole concept may end up very inefficient afterall. Hopefully I'm figuring something wrong. Time will tell.

  For something basic that might work, have 2 magnets attracted to each other on a wheel. I know, how simple. Then next you'll
have one magnet flip reversing its field. Then you have repulsion.
 The question is, does increasing amperage or volts allow for overunity? Basically will stepping up the voltage of a coil allow such
a device to rotate more quickly generating more current? Basically instead of a flow of energy in the field of a coil, what if it was a
burst of energy instead?
 Then since the rotating armature moving past the field coils at a higher rpm, will their be a net gain? The armature in a way is a
flywheel that will keep rotating with no magnetic field causing it to rotate. Simply put, if it rotates on its own momentum until exciter
coils cause it to rotate, how much will it slow?
 And this also means that the coils powering it can not be the same one's that are generating electricity. And now you'll understand
why I stick to Bessler's Wheel. I can understand one side is heavier than the other but am confused on why a constant field is needed
when a rotating mass like Bessler's wheel has conserved energy.
 Still, I find your thread interesting and it is thought provoking.

just an FYI, Chevrolet on its Corvette had a gas hungry engine. And then they realized that on the freeway, it maintained velocity at a
more efficient rate by running on 6 cylinders instead of 8. It dummied 2 cylinders. Turning off the power supply to a magnetic field
powering an electric motor to generate electricity might follow the same mechanical principals.
 Basically when an armature is between coils, it's probably wasting energy. And yet if a coil can be timed to reverse polarity then a burst
of energy might be more efficient than a continuous power supply. The same would apply when fields are attracted to each other. As in
math, the inverse is always true. And yep, I like Bessler because gravity has no energy.

p.s.s., just to make sure if you consider this, don't make the rookie mistake of thinking an A.C. motor is an A.C. generator. Everyone knows
an A.C. generator has switching fields so the coils reverse polarity. With what I suggested you consider, the coils would reverse polarity when the
armature is moving past a coil, ie. motor. Pull/push.
 Then the energy not used between coils would be the net gain for the generator which the motor powers.That would be D.C. and would need a
rectifier to feed the motor. And then you'll need to consider the drag creating electricity causes in a generator. A.C. is way more efficient than D.C.,
probably why a rectifier for the generator would help. D.C. can lose too much energy to the point what you're trying couldn't work. They seem to
miss this on hydrogen powered cars. They say about 20% of the energy is lost from the electricity generating membrane to the motor. A.C. current
doesn't have such losses. Why they use it to transmit energy thousands of miles. Okay, maybe only several hundred miles but you get the idea,
right?

Hi Captainpecan, 

You surely have heard or know about the Muller motor.  An efficiency report by a serious replication attempt is shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg   and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY  He has several other videos on his Muller motor activities and here is his forum http://www.alt-nrg.org/Muller.html   

In floodrod's earlier thread I included two links on measured efficiency on a replicated zero force motor, see the details there: https://overunity.com/19091/quad-reciprocator-motor-idea/msg565965/#msg565965 

IMHO, to receive much better efficiency i.e. to increase output torque for pulse motors, the number of input coils would need to be increased so that the distance a rotor magnet should travel between two coils would be a few cm only. So the number of coil and magnet interactions (either attract or repel force) is added together AND this addition is repeated say 15 or 20 times within a full 360° turn of the rotor, then you can expect higher torque.  Whether this would eventually bring a COP > 1 performance I am not sure:  supposing such pulse motor would reach say 80% efficiency without capturing the flyback pulse energy, then dioing so there might be some success towards the goal.   

Gyula

Thanks for sharing this. It does make me look at my 39% as not to bad after all. I do think before I step away from this design entirely, I will be adding another layer of coils and a 3rd rotor. I just have to know what effect it will have. I could be at a place in efficiency that may really increase it with a little more work. May as well find out! Also, I noticed his huge performance difference with his gap being to small. I found that myself and it surprised me as well. I thought my gap was huge until I made it even worse and got better performance. Fun stuff! I'll keep plugging away. Thanks for all the little nuggets of info you drop, I appreciate different views and to learn from others successes and failures.