Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
builders board => Captainpecan’s builders board => Topic started by: captainpecan on January 24, 2022, 08:35:06 AM
-
I have been seeing bits and pieces of work done by others that coincides with work I am doing as well. I also realized Floor was working on similar concepts 9 years or more ago. I just wanted a good thread to share info about these ideas and to post my own work as well as I work through some concepts to learn more.
First off, I had always been experimenting with sticking a magnet on the back of my pulse motor coils and seeing how it effects things. But I never got to deep down the whole idea of digging way deeper into what is actually going on there that appears to boost the output with no more energy, or sometimes maybe even less. I will try and reference others works as I find them here. Please feel free to share anything you know of as well. I believe if there isn't any OU available from these various setups, there is at the very least extreme possibilities of increased efficiency.
First off, it was work done by Robert Murray I saw on his youtube channel that inspired my current design I am working on. Here is the video I am referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xZa1JGP2oc&t=1s
I probably am not aware of many others who have worked on projects in this area but I know some was posted in another thread I will reference below.
Some very good info including patent info was posted by gyulasun on jimbo's thread here...
https://overunity.com/19030/new-electromagnet-configuration-4-times-out-verses-in/
Here is a post from gyulasun of much interest...
Hi Jimbo,
The concept of embedding a permanent magnet into a ferromagnetic enclosure and use a coil to control the setup was also proposed by Jack Hildenbrand, see his drawings in his thread here:
https://overunity.com/833/hilden-brand-magnet-motor/msg22925/#msg22925 (https://overunity.com/833/hilden-brand-magnet-motor/msg22925/#msg22925)
He built several motors with his concept, you can see some pictures on motors he uploaded in his thread but later he deleted them all (mainly due to the patenting process) and someone from the members here saved some of them in this site:
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Inventors/Jack-W-Hildenbrand/ (http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Inventors/Jack-W-Hildenbrand/)
In the folder you can see a video on a test demonstrating the Hildenbrand valve principle, done by another kind member here back then.
Jack patented the concept as "System and method for utilizing magnetic energy", US7453341, the pdf file is also included in the folder. He claimed a COP of around 2 (to 2.5) for his motors based on the concept https://overunity.com/833/hilden-brand-magnet-motor/msg23790/#msg23790 (https://overunity.com/833/hilden-brand-magnet-motor/msg23790/#msg23790)
(COP = Coefficient of Performance). Unfortunately Jack deceased in an illness soon after he got the patent and, as I know, no successful replications have been done ever since to get COP > 1 with the concept.
There was another member here, DMMPOWER, who showed a drawing on the concept as a "super" electromagnet, see here:
https://overunity.com/4624/how-to-make-bedini-motor-overunity/msg96814/#msg96814 (https://overunity.com/4624/how-to-make-bedini-motor-overunity/msg96814/#msg96814)
And see Floor's post with a link included in it:
https://overunity.com/13354/perm-magnet-only-core-with-iron-shell-motor-coil/msg563135/#msg563135 (https://overunity.com/13354/perm-magnet-only-core-with-iron-shell-motor-coil/msg563135/#msg563135) and see the start of the thread here:
https://overunity.com/13354/perm-magnet-only-core-with-iron-shell-motor-coil/msg354318/#msg354318 (https://overunity.com/13354/perm-magnet-only-core-with-iron-shell-motor-coil/msg354318/#msg354318)
Please do not misunderstand my mentioning the above examples, your efforts and enthusiasm are appreciated and please continue tinkering with this concept.
Gyula
Please feel free to post any other info anyone may have relating to this concept. I do not wish to take any credit away from anyone and their work. I simply want a thread I and anyone else interested in working with this concept can compare notes and share work.
-
Here is the coil design I am currently working on. A good part of it is very similar to a drawing Floor posted some time ago. I am aware a magnetic field is not a perfect oval as depicted here. It's just what I was able to draw easily to show the concept of how the field will work. It's close enough to get the idea across I believe.
-
How it should interact with the rotor. The first one is with the rotor having soft iron on it that is attracted to the electromagnet while turned on and drifts past it when turned off.
The second one uses a rotor with all apposing magnets. Because the field is mostly enclosed in the core of the coil due to the added iron on top and bottom of permanent magnet, the rotor magnet will now be attracted to core instead of slightly repelled by the opposing magnet in the core. After rotor magnet attracts to the coil, just after center, the coil will be turned on. This will create a much stronger repelling force shoving the magnet away.
-
Here is the coil I have made so far. As done by Robert Murray in a video I posted previously, I have used a stack of washers glued together that my 12mm by 12mm neodymium magnet fits in the center of. I also have some 1/2 inch 1 mm thick metal discs. I glued 2 of them in the center of a washer to create the sealed core on top and bottom of magnet. This allows a permanent magnet to interest woth the the core and be attacked to it even though the 2 magnets oppose each other because the flux is held inside the core.
-
And here I have my first coil made. For this one, I am trying high number of turns with thin wire to see how strong of a magnetic field I can get with smaller current draw.
This is 2200 turns of 30 AWG wire. Coil isn't looking perfect and is a bit ugly with super glue drying funny and other things. But it is a solid coil to use.
-
Hi captainpecan,
Thanks for your kind activity here.
Regarding your 2nd drawing in Reply #2 above (CaptainpecanPMassistedCoilRotorMagnet (2).png) I think you are surely aware of the fact that the rotor magnet will induce voltage in the coil, all the way it moves in front of the coil+core assembly. Lenz law will appear to reduce the repel forces I think when the coil current is switched on (coil will have a closed circuit) to toss the magnet out after the TDC. This is inherent in this assembly but it is surely worth testing whatever the outcome will be. I agree with what you wrote in the 1st post above: "I believe if there isn't any OU available from these various setups, there is at the very least extreme possibilities of increased efficiency."
Hopefully the washers as a ferromagnetic core will not develop too much eddy current loss and neither will the 1 mm thick metal disk covering the center either. Only a rotating setup will answer this by checking core temperatures.
The high number of turns is surely good for obtaining stronger magnetic fields and if the driving current is low enough to get the needed AmperTurns, then the wire resistance loss may remain acceptable. Would you measure the DC resistance of the coil. May I also ask whether you have an oscilloscope.
Gyula
-
Thanks for the response and looking over what I've done so far. I can't seem to edit the post and add the measurements you requested. I'll add it when it let's me.
The coil I made is 2200 turns of 30 AWG wire. I used 119 grams of copper which made a coil of 80.1 ohms. If I figure correctly would be close to 800 ft.
I do have a couple oscilloscopes. Been a long time since I used them. Just may have to thump the dust off of those baby's.
I am aware of the lens law that will induce drag on the permanent magnet on the rotor. It is duely noted. Hopefully it will help drop the current draw a bit while it is adding a little drag so maybe the tradeoff will be worth it. It seems to me that there should be quite a bit more torque for less current draw and less "on" time for good results. But of course, it's all theory at this point. The bench will tell the tale! With my design it is extremely easy for me to swap the rotor for iron instead.
I also am wondering the same thing about residual magnetism. I would feel better about it if I was flipping polarity but as of now, they will be pulsed with 1 polarity. After all, there is permanent magnet giving it a constant flux already. But, I figured it is worth a try to see if it makes enough of a difference to be an issue. Guess I will find out. But the ease of build for anyone with access to a simple hardware store makes it worth a shot.
-
Hi Floor and captainpeacan,
I think there is a 12 hour long Modify time period available for any member to edit the already posted text, counted from the time of posting.
Captainpeacan, thanks for measuring the DC resistance, it is relatively high but surely the AmperTurns can also be considerable, especially if you can increase the supply voltage to have increased coil peak current.
Gyula
-
Copied to here from the "new-electromagnet-configuration-4-times-out-verses-in" topic
There are several methods of approach in regard to electro permanent magnet interactions.
No doubt. In some conditions the combination of an electromagnet and a
permanent magnet will increase the magnetic force from the magnet.
They add up.
No doubt. In some conditions the combination of an electromagnet and a
permanent magnet will decrease the magnetic force from the magnet.
They subtract.
There are other things that one might hope to accomplish.
for example...
The turning on and off of a magnetic current, by a method which might in some
ways be like unto the way a transistor can turn on or off an electric current.
I refer to this as shunting the magnetic current into another path or as
simply shunting.
Some transistors use an extremely low amount of power to do that switching.
If a permanent magnet can be switched in that way, this would be free energy from
that magnet.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Again copied to here from the
"new-electromagnet-configuration-4-times-out-verses-in"
topic
There are numerous related other approaches to the goal of gaining energy as well.
Clarification of intent / approaches / design and some possibilities ?
We have concepts and / or designs, wherein the intent is to
suppress
a permanent magnet by means of the application of an opposing
electromagnet. This is already being used in scrap metal lifting cranes
and so on. No direct net gain here.
... ... ... ... ...
We have concepts and / or designs, wherein the intent is to
shunt
magnetic force in such a manner that the process of the
cyclical, shunting and / or switching of that magnetic current from
shunted to un shunted,
will consume less energy than can be gained from
the energy difference between the application of that force when shunted and un - shunted.
... ... ... ... ...
We have concepts and / or designs, wherein the intent is to
balance forces
such that force vectors and / or other characteristics
may be rearranged without a net opposition by magnetic forces
and in turn
those rearrangements give rise to interactions which are profitable
in terms of an energy gain.
... ... ... ... ...
We have concepts and / or designs, wherein the intent is to
stall or slow down in time / create some form of stasis in an event
during which period we
move a field or exit it,
or
in some other way alter some relationship/s
such that force vectors and / or other characteristics may be rearranged without
or with little
significant opposition and there by profit, in term of an energy gain.
... ... ... ... ...
We have concepts and / or designs, wherein the intent is
multiplications or additions (cascading) of force where in
there exits
no apparent gain,
because increases must be reversed or undone
in order to proceed cyclically.
but
those forces can while in their multiplied state / conditions
give rise to changes
which do not subtract from the energy used to cause reversal / undoing
and instead
only cause a delay in time in the macro world, of that reversal / undoing
(apparently simultaneous to that reversal / undoing)
behavior
(which is in some manner is like unto the behaviors
of those, theorized, particles, which physics
has termed virtual).
... ... ... ... ...
Some combinations of the above.
Some of the above may be statements of
essentially the same things.
Other options.
-
Just jotting down mental notes here for a bit:
I just did some initial tests of the coil before I start assembling. I wanted to understand the power needed and expected results. Well, I got results I was not expecting. I can't say they are entirely good or bad. Just that I expected something else.
First off, the only power supply I have available at the moment is a 12v 1 amp that actually tops out at 13.6v. My setup for this quick bench test was very simple. Hook the coil up to the power supply and increase the voltage very slowly and watch how the coil reacts. I was initially simply wanting know about what minimal voltage I was looking for to use when I assemble to get at the very least a running motor.
I have downloaded 2 apps for my phone. Pole Detector which is simply a N or S reading app to tell you magnet polarity. It also makes it easy just to see how far away from the electromagnet a pole can be detected at all. That other app is called Gauss Meter for which it does actually read the strength of magnetic fields. Both apps actually work very well for this simple test.
I was immediately seeing an increase in magnetic field with .5v and less than 10ma because it didn't even register yet. That is good news and shows that the 2200 turns of 30 awg wire did not make to much resistance and is creating an effective magnetic field as others have said would happen, such as Adams when using high turns of small wire on the Adams Motor. Here is what I expected to see. I expected to see as I slowly increase the voltage, the strength of the magnetic field will grow at an even rate. But I expect a certain time of increasing voltage in which the permanent magnet will be fully projecting forward and there will be a strong increase in field. After which the increase in voltage should make less of a difference in the magnetic field because there would no longer be much advantage to having a permanent magnet embedded. But.... instead, I saw a simple linear increase in field strength all the way to max 13.6 volts the power supply can deliver. The effects were following the exact same results. The distance away from the electromagnet it detects the pole is increasing linearly in the exact same way. Not exactly as I expected, yet completely understandable.
But here is where I got a bit confused. The design I am trying to implement first, is using permanent magnets on the rotor as well and not just iron. The plan is to let the magnet attract to the core of the coil on the way in, and just past TDC, turn on the coil and release the permanent magnet field inside it to appose the rotor magnet and force it away with what I assume would be a nice strong push for a smaller amount of energy input.
But that is also not what I am seeing. The magnet is still attracted to the core when the voltage is maxed out. There seems to be a little repulsion at dead center, but the slightest move to the side, it attracts to the washers of the core.
This tells me that the core is not fully saturated and the actual full strength of the permanent magnet inside the core I do not believe has even been opened up yet.
It appears to me that this is not a good setup for a simple 12v power supply to run. I had hoped it would be enough. It seems like I will need to be pulsing it with up to 30 volts as I have seen others do on other pulse motor designs such as tinmans work in another thread. I will try and come up with a stronger power supply, but until then, I will use some batteries in series and capacitors to try and figure out what voltage releases that force of the permanent magnet from the core.
Not bad results. I guess for some reason I expected to see a lower voltage to have the results I was looking for. But the thin wire is not pushing through high current for low voltage to do as I expected. I will have to use high voltage to get there. Current needed is of course something I will find out.
-
Hi captainpecan,
Jack Hildenbrand wrote about 8 to 10 W input to his electromagnet coils for his valve to operate as he expected if I recall correctly. Your input power is around 2.3 W or so (considering 13.6 V and 80 Ohm coil resistance). Of course the iron sleeve, the magnet size and strength etc he and you used can be different (Jack never wrote about his coils data) but from your test observations I also think the input power is too small to open up the permanent magnet's field locked into the washers. And when you increase the supply voltage beyond 13.6 V which seems to be a must, you will need to reduce the test time to as small as possible to prevent overheating the coil. At say 40 V the 80 Ohm coil may dissipate 20 W, so the intermittent testing is preferred, forcing you towards the pulsed operation (as you mentioned).
Note also that the washers have air gaps between them (however tiny they are) and this may make overall "core" saturation even more input power demanding than in case of a solid sleeve, besides the fact that cores with an open magnetic circuit from the coil's point of view involve a certain input power demand in itself too.
If you have a Variac, I suggest to build a simple variable DC supply using a diode bridge across its output with say at least a 100 VDC rated electrolytic filter cap (47 uF - 100 uF would be enough). I know a Variac autotransformer is galvanically not isolated from the mains but using it with care for such tests it may be okay. If you have a step-down mains transformer say to 15 or 24V, it may be used in reverse, driven from the Variac and rectify its (primary) output, this would already be safe and galvanically isolated from the mains. Unless you find other solutions to increase DC voltage
In case your magnet (enclosed inside the washers) can be removed relatively easily, then a kind of comparison test could be made between the electromagnet alone and the permanent magnet also alone. Check the magnetic field strength of the permanent magnet from a few cm distance. Then do this with the electromagnet (with no magnet inside) for the same distance to have field strength comparable to that of the permanent magnet while varying the input voltage to the coil. Of course you need to act fast to avoid overheating when input voltage is increased to some ten volts and higher. This test is not an accurate comparison of course, perhaps good for a rough estimation on coil input power.
Gyula
-
@gyulasun,
I agree with pretty much everything you said. It's good to hear your thoughts on the process. I think it's also possible to reduce power to get to the release of the internal pm field by decreasing the thickness of the core needed to get saturated. In other words, as nice and easy as using a stack of washers is, using a thinner pipe option may actually be preferred. The washers are pretty thick in width and could be overkill and just require more power to reach the "release" point of the pm. Jimbo had mentioned the pipe idea a bit. I would like to wind a coil using pipe as a test also but as of now I am having a hard time finding a ferrous material pipe that my current magnets fit properly in. I'll keep it in mind amd keep looking for options as I work forward with what I have.
I tried removing the magnet after the coil was completed because doing those type of split tests was already on mind. But now I can't get the magnet out of it. I may need to use much more force to remove it now. Which is frustrating because it slid in and out as easy as possible before. So before I accidentally screw up the coil I have, I'm going to try and get the power needed figured out to use it the way it is. But of course it's all a work in progress and I learn best from stuff that doesn't work as expected. But it really is an intriguing concept and pretty exciting. Hopefully everything keeps looking better and better.
-
A little bit of research at K&J magnetics, it shows that for my 12mm by 12mm (1/2" basically) magnets, it only takes 2mm and above of plate to saturate one side of the field. That makes me believe if I cut the thickness surrounding the magnet to between 2mm and 4mm, it may greatly decrease the amount of energy needed to release the pm field from the core. It would easily make the core at least 2 or more times thinner. I think I will try wrapping a magnet with some layers of 1mm sheet metal I can easily cut with tin snips. Or maybe i can find a 12mm ID bushing i can work with that is megnetic. May be worth a little try before I go much further.
-
I decided to test my theory a bit and make another coil. I found some spacers that work great for my use and they are 3mm wall thickness. Kind of expensive buying them this way, but I only needed 2 to test my theory. I could not find 1 that was the length I needed or I would have done it all in one piece. I needed it slightly longer than the magnet because i need to put 2 or 3mm of steel on both ends of the magnet, and all need to be enclosed inside the spacer and copper windings.
I also knew I was not going to have enough wire from this spool to get 2200 turns like the other one. But I did want to have some center taps at 500 turns, and 1000 turns so I cam see how the effect of the added turns is. Maybe it no longer helps at a certain point? Just gives me more control to test things.
The coil looks a bit crappy, and 1 of my taps wasn't lined up where I wanted it. But the center is easily removed and I cam replace the permanent magnet with solid core for testing as well. After the coil dries a bit more, I'll hopefully get to test it out tonight.
The spacer I used is less than half the wall thickness. If there is any significant difference, it should show.
-
The coil looks a little crappy. But I made the coil with 2 center taps
500 turns 11.6 ohms
1000 turns 25.5 ohms
The spool was almost empty so I just ran the last of it on the end so it was 600 more turns.
The total of the coil is.
1600 turns 45.4 ohms.
Hopefully I can have some test results soon.
-
I learned a few things about this coil setup tonight. I have some test numbers to show.
These numbers are just comparing the original coil I made with the stack of washers, with the new coil I just made using the metal spacers instead. The spacers are much thinner in size. The original coil has 2200 turns on it and the second only has 1600 turns because I did not have enough wire to complete as many turns. I did make 2 taps so that I may run tests I will share next.
The test setup was simple. I used the cell phone app Gauss Meter to measure the magnetic field from a fixed distance from the coil. The app of course is picking up surrounding magnetic fields from other things inside the house, and was on average about .7 Tesla just sitting all by itself. I positioned the phone at a distance so that the reading was exactly 1 T (about 6 inches in this test). Then when I would turn on power to the coil, I can see the magnetic field reading and everything over 1 T is the change in field strength for that distance from the electromagnet. That is the number entered into the tables. It's not the best way to test I am sure, but it is what I have and I used the same consistency though out.
The data from these charts does appear to show that I may have been correct in my theory so far. My theory was that the stack of washers is overkill for the size of magnets I am using. It takes much more energy to saturate the core before I am able to see the effect the permanent magnet has inside the core. Although I am still not able use a power supply of enough voltage to successfully release the power of the permanent magnet from the core, I am able to see the effects of changing the core material, thickness, and turns of wire. It does appear that it is noticeably more efficient to cut down on the core material more than I had before.
***EDIT: All measurements in the charts are actually in GAUSS and not Tesla as stated.
-
This is comparing the results of repeating the same test 3 times. Each using a different tap of the coil which in turn used more turns and higher resistance. This does show that it is increasingly efficient the more turns you can get onto the coil. I am not seeing a point yet at which more turns do not do any more good for the magnetic field. I will be adding even more turns to this coil when more wire arrives. I plan to use more taps and keep increasing the coil until I see the point that it does no more good.
***EDIT: All measurements in the charts are actually in GAUSS and not Tesla as stated
-
The next test I did showed some very useful information. I am now comparing a hollow core to a permanent magnet core. I simply removed the magnet and all metal end caps to just have the coil with hollow spacers with 3mm thick walls. I then filled the core with metal so it was a solid steel core.
I immediately noticed a significant difference between the coil setups. Without the magnet in the core, the magnetic field was significantly less at the distance I was measuring. I also noticed that filling the core with metal made no noticeable difference. In order to see any real magnetic field from the coil. I had to move to within 1 inch of the coil.
This tells me, that with the permanent magnet inside the core, the core is more fully saturated now with the thinner wall spacers, that the field added by energy to the coil, it projected significantly out away from the core. Where as the core without the permanent magnet embedded, most of the energy goes into saturating the core and does not protrude that far away from the electromagnet.
The tests results shown here are testing both from exactly the same distance of about 6 inches from the core. If you move much closer to the empty core, you do see a much greater increase in magnetic field as the voltage and power increases. But it is significantly less than if the permanent magnet is embedded. I had to test at safe distances though because I did not want to subject my cell phone to any higher magnetic fields than I was sure it could handle. The next test needs to be pull force at 2 mm or so from the electromagnet.
***EDIT: All measurements in the charts are actually in GAUSS and not Tesla as stated
-
Real tests, real data, realy cool.
thanks.
-
Cap,
Your tests are good for comparisons but you might want to check the magnitude of flux you are measuring. Gauss Meter on my phone measures in gauss not in Tesla. One Tesla = 10kG so a 1T measurement 6" away from a PM source is quite high from my experience.
regards,
Pm
-
May be its time to upgrade that app ? :)
-
Thank you. I will have a better power supply hopefully tomorrow, amd can start pushing more into the coils and finally see exactly when that permanent magnets field gets released, and how it acts. I probably won't have any more 30 awg magnet wire for a week or so to increase the number of turns. But I have enough stuff to keep me busy this weekend. Hopefully I'll have more to share soon!
-
Cap,
Your tests are good for comparisons but you might want to check the magnitude of flux you are measuring. Gauss Meter on my phone measures in gauss not in Tesla. One Tesla = 10kG so a 1T measurement 6" away from a PM source is quite high from my experience.
regards,
Pm
Holy crap, lol. You are right. I was using the app on my old cell phone from long ago. I just checked my app on my current phone, and you are correct. Maybe it's labeled wrong on the old app. Now im curious, how I missed it, or if I do need to update an old version error. Thanks for catching that. But luckily, what ever it was I screwed it up equally on all of the tests so it's still a good comparison. Thanks again.
-
:) Considering that many, much like into my self,
(persons reading the MMM builders board)
received the printed materials here via the olfactory senses any way. :)
Don't worry
aBout it.
Enjoy instead
and
keep
remembering
to LOL and :)
-
Captainpecan
I think the wire might be a little thin for this .try a larger winding like 20 awg or 22 .its amps turn and thin might not give you the needed amps . I do like the 2200 turns at 30 awg but I think it might need a higher voltage to reach the needed watts . its like everything in electronics something's work some don't .in the movie he's using the thick old wire off a large transformer .with a lot of raps . not all parts combos work like in Tesla coils if its not right it just sits there a dead door stop .. notice once found everybody is running that path .
-
@jimbo
I typically would agree with your assessment that it needs thicker wire. But in this case, the wire being to thin is actually intentional. I kind of wanted to try it out. I am experimenting with the concept that Robert Adams followed for the Adams motor. He believed it was all in the ampere turns. More turns stronger magnetic field. The added resistance was kind of a bonus and keeps the current down while increasing the turns. He was however leaning towards a combo of high turns and thicker wire. Tinman showed he was seeing similar results but stated that he believed there is a point at which there would no longer be an advantage. I am trying to find that point if it is true. But so far, the more turns of smaller wire, the less I have to pay per gauss. I plan to make one thicker as well to test them both. I just need to know from testing myself.
-
Sorry about my meddling .I've kind of created a path way in my research .its to try to duplicate exactly the success first then modify .I can get way off track sometimes . Paul Babcock showed that a lot more wire can double your flux field for the same energy .and the guys over at ???? Amazing ?? I'm not sure they used triple coated very thin wire and a lot of it with very high pluse voltage to gain power .but now are using 30 Awg .
-
Sorry about my meddling .I've kind of created a path way in my research .its to try to duplicate exactly the success first then modify .I can get way off track sometimes . Paul Babcock showed that a lot more wire can double your flux field for the same energy .and the guys over at ??? ? Amazing ?? I'm not sure they used triple coated very thin wire and a lot of it with very high pluse voltage to gain power .but now are using 30 Awg .
Meddle away! I love the ideas kicking around, suggestions and all. Even those off the wall lame brain ideas we all have sometimes. You never know when one has the tiny key to be the answer to a massive question... I also get way off track sometimes. To the point that I have to reel myself in to complete something. This little hobby gets your mind running and thinking of so many different possibilities that are technically supposed to be impossible anyway. But that's kind of what we are here for anyway!
-
Frustratingly, I am sitting without a new power supply this weekend because USPS has decided to lose the damn thing. I updated my apps and adjusted some settings I hadn't payed close enough attention to. Some of the settings are faster sampling rates so they may have a real impact on my numbers. I've been running the tests again while I wait for the power supply, and I'm seeing some strong differences made from updating things. Ill post as I have something.
-
I retested the 2 coils after app changes. Difference in numbers but shows same results. Very interesting test I added though.
I hooked both in series and tested them each at the same time using 2 phones with the gauss app. Clearly, the further I go, the more voltage needed. But the less current used and the more magnetic field per unit of energy used. Notice the far right column. That's what we get for our money per say. So far, even though the resistance is rising, we are getting more magnetic field total for the energy being used. Efficiency keeps rising. Interesting numbers.
-
Well then captainpecan here's a new idea .I've found that you can neutralize a toroidal core by rapping like 300 turns of magnet wire on it one rap around the second laterally then around on third rap with 26 awg .so what's the big picture ? When a magnet approaches the core it just disappears to the magnet .and if the magnet is big or small it takes the same energy to work .its the attraction that's the power the better the configuration of magnet to core the more power.if you took a iron L beam and made a track out of it using like a plywood runner and a cart with wheels and a big neo magnet .with a ever decreasing gap to the iron the cart would run like a bat out of hell like bullet.to the end then lock up but if the toroidal core is at the end and turned on .the cart would fly like a rocket on all of the accumulated kinetic energy weather six ft long or a mile long .it would use the same energy . this shifts the dynamics .your not tied down to a closed system anymore . its a little tricky to set up but it does work .
-
@Jimbo,
Very interesting indeed. See, now you got me wanting to play with toroids again.. lol. I did a lot of work with joule thieves a while back. Fun stuff. What makes me curious about your concepts you are referring to, is how would that work in series? Or would it choke off and be counter effective? Could they work just like my coil results so far and continue to decrease energy used to make them disappear with each added to a certain point? Nott only that, hook it between 2 battery packs. 1 pack at 36 volts, one pack at 12v. Leaves a 24v difference. You then dump it from 1 bank and charge the other while running your motor in between. That's my plan with all my projects. Find exactly how much energy us needed to run at peak performance. Then duplicate that energy with the difference in battery banks. Then you are never sending energy to ground. You are sending it through your coils and into the other battery bank. Along with any flyback or generation you have set up to use from the torque... So many fun ideas...
Your concept would easily adapt to a rotor design as well. Many are making the magnet rotor with decreasing gaps but can't get past the gate spot. I haven't worked much with the linear, V gate and track magnet designs and stuff. Just never interested me that much. I lean more towards a rotor design with all my thoughts usually. Just the way my mind draws me I guess.
-
@Floor, and whoever has output measure knowledge.
You seem to be a man that has kept track of good resources for measuring stuff properly. I think I will soon have the need to measure output of my motor when I get it dialed in and running. I am thinking of a prony break concept and have been looking at what options I can begin to prepare. But most prony break measurements require you bring a motor to a dead stop for a measurement. Im not sure that is the best way to measure my design of a pulse motor where the power comes from releasing a hidden magnets field. Maybe it would be fine, but im trying to get prepared. Do you have any other good documents rat holed somewhere you wouldn't mind sharing that may help me move in the right direction to proper input vs output of this motor design? There is a lot of random stuff out there, but if someone has exactly what would work well for my setup, I'm all ears! Thanks in advance if someone has something to share.
-
A relatively simple method for measuring the mechanical output is shown in the first 13 minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJF3GlYGVc
Gyula
-
Captain
The toroidal shut off works well enough and on very little power .but the power focus has changed to setting up the best magnets to core placements the better the magnets attract the more power out put .it would work with a vgate.but that's only one dimensional you could come at it from three more places around the core .making a tube like structure . a magnet tunnel .I'd start with just one first . hay here's my desine build idea not a toroidal donut but a pipe segment iron pipe segment its toroidal too .and if I can get that up and running I can use a chain of neos.coming at the core . more power because of a lot more neos..I'll post a video of a four core very low watt fan. I can imagin a 18 inch by 2 inch dam iron pipe and a 2 inch by 18 inch rotor with a lot of strong neos . but I got to do it smaller for now like 1 1/2 pipe by 4 inch .
-
Here's a video look in the extra information text part for the numbers this isn't the vid I was looking for .but it will do .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_EapgzWFAh4
-
General information
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NTMQFvWkS9s
-
Found the video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahL6VWFhtas
-
The thing is that there all using small toroidal cores and it doesn't seem to be recycling the back emf for a 80% energy return there just throwing it away . so I'm going to try the pipe notion for more power .I like the idea of motor being on 1% of the time and creating power 100% of the time .and the input discontent from the out put .
-
A relatively simple method for measuring the mechanical output is shown in the first 13 minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJF3GlYGVc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJF3GlYGVc)
Gyula
Thanks for posting that. I haven't seen that video in many years. I was really hoping to find a copy somewhere that the voice lines up still but I haven't found one. I had forgotten about his explanation in the beginning. That is such a great resource video I had forgotten about. When I saw it long ago, it was the first time I had ever really understood back emf.
-
@jimbo,
Ahhhh... the orbo experiments. I remember now. I was looking into that concept a bit many years ago. I've been away for while. Just getting back after a long break recently. That stuff was very interesting and I watched all the videos but never did a build to play with it. I would be very interested in seeing your work if you do any builds to work with this. I may work a bit on it myself after I have moved forward more with my current project. I'm still waiting on my new power supply. Hopefully it will be here monday. It will let me pulse up to 120v DC and 800 watts if I wanted to. If I can't find a pulse amount that releases the hidden permanent magnet force, then it just isn't going to work as predicted. It should get it done if it will work at all.
-
The "Orbo" is an attraction neutralization motor that positions the toroid coil at the neutral zone between the NS rotor magnets so both poles of the toroid coil power the release.
-
@Jimbo,
You bringing up this orbo concept again into my mind, made me realize I need to completely change my test setup for my current motor I am building. I have been testing the magnetic field coming from the coils in relation to the power supplied. That is handy. But the build will be using magnets on the rotor to propel away when the internal permanent magnet field is released. The orbo work made me realize, the inductance will probably change greatly when the rotor magnets are in line with the coil changing the entire power curve I am measuring. Maybe it will then require less power to release the field from within? Don't know. Time to build, amd do pull tests measuring pull strength as power is supplied to see what happens when I hit the sweet spot voltage. I guess gauss reading only helps in coil design, but still doesn't tell me much about what will happen when magnets are sitting just past TDC. Can't wait for my new power supply. I feel like a child waiting for Santa to bring me my toy!
-
JLN's Lambda of 13.7 expresses the advantage. The magnets generate a charge from the quanta in the nanoperm core as they fail away.
-
Old comment.
-
Buzzard! Toroid core permeability is a critical part of the Orbo coil.
-
Thanks for the heads up Floor.
Buzzard! Toroid core permeability is a critical part of the Orbo coil.
He is just letting me know if the subject strays to far from original thread, how to reign it in. He knows I asked to keep the thread here so it can be moderated. You responded perfectly to the conversation we drifted to... as we drifted off subject, lol... but I don't mind on this one as long as it doesn't go completely orbo, lol. And the change in the toroid when the magnets are one to it does fit with my project as well. I'm learning as I go.
-
The point there is turning off the toroidal core .I don't think it will matter but I'm using a common 1 1/2 iron pipe and going for turn off .its like 4 inch's long .if successful I'll start using it on different iron structures. Once done playing around I'll take it apart to find out the wire length then rewind it to bifiler .if this works ...very long toroidal cores as pipes can be used . I'm doing both but I'm inclined to the toroidal turn off because so little energy is used .that Prof of concept and prof of over unity in the video with the led bank if looped could supply lights for anyone all the time .and charge a supper cap at night for a radio etc. Or a super cap flash light .I'm just trying to make them much bigger.all I see is tinny motors with low power .but over unity. If it works I could put neos on a child's marry go round and run it faster and faster .with out anymore energy than just turning it on and off . I wish he had used super brute LEDs they really light things up.
-
A little bit of an update. I have my new power supply but it is a bit confusing programming. I have pushed more power to the coils to test them, but the amp draw is not linear like it should be as I increase voltage. I've got a setting wrong or something. This power supply has features built in for charging lithium batteries amd stuff and I think I missed something trying to use it as just a simple power supply. For instance, at 18v is pushing 400ma, so is 19v, 20v, them at 21v it jumps to 450ma and 22v 500ma. So I think I've got a setting wrong somewhere. So I'm not ready to post numbers yet because something is wierd and i hasn't figured it out yet.
But... I am seeing something that is different than I expected. I expected for some reason, I would find a voltage that the internal permanent magnet field would all be released at once and there would be a sizable change in gauss for that voltage. But I am still not seeing that. It continues to be a steady increasing field for each voltage increase. I held a like pole magnet in front of the coil as I pulsed it, and I am still seeing a significant push compared to electromagnet alone. It seems to me like the permanent magnet is simply multiplying the field from the electromagnet and not just releasing all at once. Again, not a bad result, just unexpected to me. I'll know more soon.
-
It's not letting me post the link, but here is the power supply I ordered. It is 800w and up to 120v dc. Not bad for $35 on Amazon. Unfortunitely I haven't figured out all the settings yet.
-
There is a short manual here, have you read it? under Product guides and documents https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/B1E36nhld0S.pdf
down towards the bottom of this page https://www.amazon.com/Converter-DROK-12V-120V-Adjustable-Regulator/dp/B098SVD2B8/ref=sr_1_15
-
Yeah, that came with it. I have it all set but it is still a little wierd on the current draw. Its not like it isnt working, just not like a straight power supply would. I missed something in the settings I'm sure. I've been out of town for work since I first tried. I'll look it back over again when I get home.
-
Captain pecan
This might be a little off topic .well I don't know how to help you but I was considering using different size caps to find the right voltage / joule for a clean pulse release .the power source would be secondary just charging the cap and it being ready to fire on command .if you were to set the power source to the needed voltage / amps then run that to a cap of the right size the quirky ness of the power source might be midigated.
-
I really hate to say this but I've found aother path to over unity and has greater potential for energy and less trouble and more immediate power and less time to build and off the self parts .it comes in two sections and both inhance each other . first is a variant on the Flynn motor its a reciprocal motion going to a circular motion a wheel just like the old steam engines 😱. That uses a old large transformer cut down and unwound then rewound .then the side steel lamanets go in and out as the magnets switch so you get power each way .it gives you the 1 to 4 power return as rotation .the the second half is a standard generator wheel with neos like 6 neos or more the difference here is slightly smaller neos on the rim that are in repulsion mode the match the power neos on the wheel .this is called magnet neutralization and it seems neos are good for this as they last a long time under these condition not easy to demagnetized . the numbers are amazing and not small power either. Start with say 100 watts into the Flynn then 400 watts of rotational power out then that going into the modified generator .the generator get a 2/3ds increase in power when running in the video he says it takes 400 watts in to run it and he gets 1,044 out !! So starting with a 100 watts your putting out 1,000 watts !.each has merits but together 1 to 10 ??. And not to hard to make .this could make a huge difference in my life .air-conditioning cooking lighting full batteries with out the sun . and mostly off the shelf .please forgive me I'm weak .😂
-
hi ,do you have a link to the video ?
-
@Jimbo,
About the capacitor idea, yeah it's really not a quirky supply. It pushes solid power. Just steps up the current different than I would like doing voltage step up tests. And I was actually kicking around that idea anyway once I have a running motor.
As for the other. Not exactly sure what device you are referring to right off the bat. But I say make a thread and build it! If it's a scam, you will find out! If it is real, you will find that out as well. There are a lot of claims out there. But I have found if I don't build, I bounce through mental gymnastics of what if scenarios and never get anything accomplished or really learn much. Thump the dust off the power tools and get busy! Would love to follow your work!
-
I'd rather do some bench testing to get my own numbers first this running allover the place isn't getting things done and I'm hampered by the cold and land locked .but I did like that reciprocal Flynn set up seriously simple . .I'll see if I'm in better mood tomorrow.
-
I just like the cap dump its a good way to control and quantify the energy and it pluses push better .
-
I just like the cap dump its a good way to control and quantify the energy and it pluses push better .
Oh I agree. What I have had envisioned to try when I started this project was to do what you are thinking, and dump the back spike from the coils into it as well to immediately run back into the coils woth next pulse.
-
@floor,
I do need to do a bit of house keeping in here. But I guess I'm not sure how to do it. I don't have the permissions to delete anything, so I thought maybe I would just copy into you dust bin but I can't seem to post there. So I guess I really don't know how to do it after all. Can you give some tips please. Thank you.
-
I'm getting a little further. It looks a bit horrible as I am basically using junk reused parts. But you can now get a better idea of my design. Interestingly enough, a spin by hand generates over 7 volts no load. Just seeing what was happening and playing a bit. The magnets are all facing like poles so it is interesting how much voltage is still created from the inductance change of the magnets in front of the core. It will be interesting see the effects on the current draw when I get a circuit hooked up this weekend and get it running. Time to have a little fun and learn some stuff! To my knowledge, nobody has ever tried this design and using both sides of the electropermanent magnet against like pole magnets. Ignore the terrible craftsmanship, lol...
-
@floor,
I do need to do a bit of house keeping in here. But I guess I'm not sure how to do it. I don't have the permissions to delete anything, so I thought maybe I would just copy into you dust bin but I can't seem to post there. So I guess I really don't know how to do it after all. Can you give some tips please. Thank you.
Yes.
While doing some house keeping of my own, I inadvertently locked the dust bin. It's not
supposed to be locked / sorry.
This process is new and not at all well tested.
1. Copy items to dust bin.
Attachments are a pain, they do not copy / must be moved to your own
computer and then reattached to a post in the dust bin.
Good ordering in regard to which is attached to what does not matter there.
The whole affair is a courtesy any way / for the record kind of thing
and its is all your own call.
2. Post in your topic. Floor please delete messages x, y. z...
example this very message is
https://overunity.com/19040/permanent-magnet-assisted-motor-coil-designs/msg564032/#msg564032
and
Floor please delete messaage
https://overunity.com/19040/permanent-magnet-assisted-motor-coil-designs/msg564032/#msg564032
Thanks for your patience.
floor
P.S.
There is another method for you to move attachments. It's simpler
I'm not very practiced at it yet and don't feel confident in explaining it.
1. Go to O.U.. com / login
2. Start a reply in the "Floors dust bin" paste there ...
3. Open a second browser and goto O.U..com (you are already loged in)
4 Navigate to the Jpg. or png. or so on... that you want to copy,
Right click on it and select copy.
5.Switch to the other browser that is looking in the "Floors dust bin"
6. Below attach: click browse
7. Right click then select paste.
8. Change the name of the file you just pasted, else it has only a file type or extension.
Right click on it then select rename.
9. left click on the renamed file to highlight it
10. Left click on "open"
Again, the whole affair of moving a post, is a courtesy any way / for the record
kind of thing and its is all your own call.
-
I'm getting closer to posting the videos not yet but soon .
-
you suppose that shorting the winding around a permanent magnet will break the symmetry of the approach and removal forces of another magnet ? After all, closing the coil leads by contacts does not require any energy consumption. Isn't it ? Perhaps there is something in this. :)
-
I'm getting a little further. It looks a bit horrible as I am basically using junk reused parts. But you can now get a better idea of my design. Interestingly enough, a spin by hand generates over 7 volts no load. Just seeing what was happening and playing a bit. The magnets are all facing like poles so it is interesting how much voltage is still created from the inductance change of the magnets in front of the core. It will be interesting see the effects on the current draw when I get a circuit hooked up this weekend and get it running. Time to have a little fun and learn some stuff! To my knowledge, nobody has ever tried this design and using both sides of the electropermanent magnet against like pole magnets. Ignore the terrible craftsmanship, lol...
Hi captainpecan,
Using junk reused parts is perfect for experimenting and overall cost may remain low. And no problem with your craftmanship at all.
Would like to understand how you meant the process I put in bold above? i.e. if the magnetic poles of the electropermanent magnet (epm) appear at its top and bottom ends when you switch the coil on, say N at the top and S at the bottom, then one rotor magnet would repel one pole of the epm (say the top one) while the other rotor magnet would attract the other (i.e. the bottom) pole of the epm simultaneously. Is this how you meant?
EDIT: Thinking this over again, you mentioned the magnets are all facing like poles that are embedded in the two rotors) and I connected this to the electropermanent magnet which has unlike poles at its ends.
BUT then, to change the attract force to be a repel force, you can flip one of the embedded magnets to have its like pole face the also like pole of the electropermanent magnet, so there will be no problem in this respect.
Is this ok?
Thanks,
Gyula
-
Using junk reused parts is perfect for experimenting and overall cost may remain low. And no problem with your craftmanship at all.
I actively use it. Fortunately, there is a large number of old household appliances remaining from repairs for spare parts.
-
Hello here's a video on the recepicating Flynn motor .I can't understand him but the concept it pretty clear its a scrap project .so low cost .and I think I might leave out the middle bar and put the coils on the top and bottom bars that would give more space for magnets and you could run some bolts top to bottom to hold things together .I like his use of plywood he just lays it out on it and goes like that .and by being able to easily disasimble things you can a just things like more magnets or windings .the generator must be moved by the out put of the flynn so there's a balance going on between the coils power .and I've been told the coils out put needs to mach one of the magnet stacks if I heard that right .so some tunning in going to be done .so easy break down in in order .for more windings or less .this post just covers the Flynn the next the generator with magnecti neutralization .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uGsQMGu4f4
-
Magnetic neutralization
https://youtu.be/MSMA21VfEIk
David bowling ?
-
Another video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xeIk8kuO-qE
-
Another video real good .in here he says he's getting 1,000 out for 400 in .my thinking is the rotory Flynn is to much for me now but if I can retain the 1 to 4 ratio then use that on this magnetic neutralized generator I'm looking at 100 in to 1,000 out at best .but I'll take anything at this point that will charge my batteries while I sleep . both are over unity but together wow !.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lw6WILrFvA
-
There's more if you need it .there's another video on a reciprocating Flynn .that shows the construction layout if you need it .
-
Would like to understand how you meant the process I put in bold above? i.e. if the magnetic poles of the electropermanent magnet (epm) appear at its top and bottom ends when you switch the coil on, say N at the top and S at the bottom, then one rotor magnet would repel one pole of the epm (say the top one) while the other rotor magnet would attract the other (i.e. the bottom) pole of the epm simultaneously. Is this how you meant?
I actually didn't write that very well for understanding. What I meant is that the top of the electropermanent magnet is N, and the top rotor is all N facing down towards the electropermananet magnet. The bottom side is the same just all S poles. I have enclosed the permanent magnet inside the coil with 3 mm of steel so it is just enough to cancel that pole (by giving the flux an easy path to stay inside the core) and allow a like pole magnet in the rotor to attract to the core still. So even though the rotor magnet is a like pole, it is still attracted to the electropermanent magnet core on the way in much like if there were no permanent magnet in it at all. Then when it is pulsed just like a normal electromagnet, it reacts the same except now the field of the hidden permanent magnet is released also as a bonus pushing force. An attempt at much greater force per pulse. And I am using both ends of the electropermanent magnet so the rotors not only get a pull inward from both sides, they get the push of both sides on the way away plus the extra push from the permanent magnet for the same initial energy in one pulse. That's the theory in design anyway. I've been working so much I still haven't finished making it run yet. Hopefully soon and I'll post video.
-
you suppose that shorting the winding around a permanent magnet will break the symmetry of the approach and removal forces of another magnet ? After all, closing the coil leads by contacts does not require any energy consumption. Isn't it ? Perhaps there is something in this. :)
That's what I'm hoping for and it looks to be true so far.
-
I may be wrong on Flynn as a motor .it says it puts out double machnical energy not 4 ,.but it puts out 4 times as much flux .so it might be better use it as a magnet assisted transformer where the Flynn is the primary .we will see .any motor putting out twice mechanical is a really good motor .but 4 utilization is better .
-
@Jimbo,
Yeah, there are some good nuggets of info in those videos. Makes sense. Different than what I'm doing, yet, similar underlying concepts. It's that reverse way of thinking that is so intriguing to me.
-
And here is the motor from the VCR.
I glued the magnets inside the coils.
I will make a short circuit of these coils at the right time.
Will I succeed? :)
-
It does not want to rotate yet. When the coil is closed at a certain frequency using a relay.
Counted on the fact that the frequency of revolutions and the frequency of short circuits will successfully coincide.
And why, in fact, a permanent magnet is needed in the middle of the coil ?
Isn't it just by closing a coil with an iron core or without it at all, we will not break the symmetry of forces? ;)
p.s. And Andrey Slobodyan’s motor,such some argue, is a worker, wasn’t it of this type was?
-
It does not want to rotate yet. When the coil is closed at a certain frequency using a relay.
Counted on the fact that the frequency of revolutions and the frequency of short circuits will successfully coincide.
And why, in fact, a permanent magnet is needed in the middle of the coil ?
Isn't it just by closing a coil with an iron core or without it at all, we will not break the symmetry of forces? ;)
p.s. And Andrey Slobodyan’s motor,such some argue, is a worker, wasn’t it of this type was?
Your technique is different than mine. No clue how yours will work. But that's why we are here. Mine, I am using the core to redirect the flux naturally and release WITH the normal pulse of an electromagnet for boosted force. That's the theory anyway. Not sure if iron is needed, but it is integral to the design I am trying. Using data from K&J I determined 3mm thickness of iron (steel in my case) is needed to effectively contain the flux of my particular 12mm by 12mm magnets. It allows a like pole to be attracted to the core with a like pole magnet hiding in it. It naturally draws the two like poles together. Then with the pulse, the field from inside the core permanent magnet gets projected outside of the core to force the rotor away. Just like a normal electromagnet except there is a strong flux waiting to be released already. Then when the pulse stops, you get an added pulse through the coil when the permanent magnet flux again moves back inside the coil. This should be naturally timed with the collapsing field of the coil. I have not tested those effects yet. That is to come. Interesting to see how your technique will work.
-
(steel in my case) is needed to effectively contain the flux of my particular 12mm by 12mm magnets. It allows a like pole to be attracted to the core with a like pole magnet hiding in it. It naturally draws the two like poles together. Then with the pulse, the field from inside the core permanent magnet gets projected outside of the core to force the rotor away.
I understood. :)
That's what I'm hoping for and it looks to be true so far.
What success have you achieved?
-
It does do as expected. But life has been insane for a bit. I just haven't been able to work on my own stuff much lately. Hopefully I'll get some more results posted soon. I still can't tell how much better it works, but it does seem to be at least an advantage. Can't really say more yet because I just don't have the results yet.
-
Is there a magnetic saturation of the steel shell in your concept ?
-
Yes. I built with it in mind making assumptions. Mostly to test different options to see how it effects it. I entered in the numbers for the magnets I am using at k&j website and it shows that the flux is mostly contained at 2mm thickness. In my mind, it seems that the quicker you cam saturate the metal, the quicker the flux from the permanent magnet releases outward. I made a coil that was thicker at first amd it does appear to take more power to get the same amount of flux projected forward. I have since chosen material 3 mm thick to enclose the magnet. It encloses it well enough to allow a like pole to attract to the core still, while being nearly saturated. Just see like a good figure to continue working with.
-
I have finally gotten the extra magnet wire I ordered. I have been holding up a bit until I could make more coils for the build. Hopefully through this weekend I will have more to show and maybe some numbers.
@any talented circuit builders...
I have other ways to power this motor/generator project of course, but I would like to ultimately use a battery pack circuit. I have been working hard to design some battery switching circuits. I would like to run this motor off of the "split the positive" battery system. It is a set of battery packs I would like to use for all my experiments on other projects as well. Its taking me a whole lot of googling and learning. I have found a way to do it using relays, and maybe it will be perfectly fine for testing and all. But relays being mechanical, just have the part failure issues. I am trying to put together a transistor related circuit that will run a set of 16 or more 18650 batteries. The circuit would constantly switch 8 in series dumping into 8 in parallel through the motor. Assuming an average voltage of 4v on each battery, that would give a voltage difference of 28v to 32v to run devices off of. Is anyone aware of a circuit that has already done this or something similar? Please point me in the direction of another post or something you may have seen I could possibly learn from. I have been kicking around the idea of using a 555 timer to run something, but I am plenty fine using hall switches near my rotor to make the switching. I have come up with my version of a whole bunch of DPDT relay replacements using mosfets. But I'm not really even sure it would work, or if there is simply a better way to do it. I am playing with it a bit anyway. I only put this out there because there are many very talented people in this forum that just may be able to point me in the correct direction.
-
Well, I got it running!!! I wound some new coils, and ran some individual tests on the new coils. I have found that so far, the more turns of the thinner wire continues to increase efficiency. The less amount of energy it takes per gauss of magnetic field gained. The major drawback is that it requires more and more voltage for extra resistance in the coils. The current draw is very low. To be honest, my watt meter takes quite a bit more energy to even work than this motor takes to run.
At this point, I have chosen to start my tests with 4 coils hooked in series... it is a high resistance and requires more voltage to run. But is where I am starting, as I can switch to parallel and record each step.
The coils I am using are 2600 turns of 30 awg. The coils are 80.7, 78.1, 82.4, and 83.6 ohms each totaling 324.8 ohms for all 4 in series.
I have realized a critical error I made in the design. The coils react much better with the magnets when the coils are not installed in the unit. Therefore, I believe I have the magnets to close together on the rotors. I needed to make the rotor with 4 per rotor instead of 8 per rotor. Or even 6, if I choose to run the coils in parallel pairs. I believe the output would be increased. What I think is happening is that the magnet entering the coil is being slowed down because it is to close when the pulse happens that pushes the leading magnet away. Now of course the force is greater on the 1st magnet but it is reduced by the 2nd. I will be making new rotors as soon as my new magnets arrive.
I have not started recovering any of the energy yet, not even the flyback. This is just getting things running. I'll share more as I can. Wires are a mess and I'm still working on everything. This is just an update of a quick first run.
-
Thanks...
-
Captain pecan
Once you've run your tests there's more you can do .if you drill a hole or tube up the middle of the coil cores .a small hole that would fit 1/8 neo stack it becomes a magnet assisted motor .or in other words when the power is off the core shorts out the flux field from the neos and when turned on the flux field has no were to go but out combining with the electromagnetic field of the coil .its a booster .and by just adding one neo at a time you can find the needed amount for max output. Happy trails .
-
Now you are getting the design... the center of the core IS A PERMANENT MAGNET... that was my entire concept. The coils are made so I cam switch out the center. The core is a bushing, with a 1/2" open core. I can still fill it woth steel to test. But I have put a 1/2" magnet inside it and packed 3mm of steel on both sides to enclose the field. The pulse releases the permanent magnet field along with the normal electromagnet. You may have missed the first couple pages of this thread. I tried to detail as much as I could and my theories. Some are proving wrong of course. I have been trying to keep high number turns with thin wire because it is showing the most magnetic field per amount of energy. BUT... it is taking really high voltage for a slow rotation even though it is using next to nothing in current. But, that is still using all coils in series and very high resistance. I am going to make little changes at a time, and then I will be winding some coils with 24 awg wire to test. It may require that extra current to be very useful. But I will find out.
-
I am seeing some interesting things as I do some testing with this design. As was expected, and brought up by someone early in this thread, Lenz Law is an issue because I am using magnets on the rotor. I am seeing quite a bit of drag, even just collecting the back spike. Some is quite possibly that I have magnets to close on the rotor. But there is a possibility that many of the gains in my design could equal even greater losses due to Lenz. As I move forward with this project, I will be changing the rotor and making a set with iron instead of magnets. Turn this into an attraction motor reducing the severe effect of Lenz law. I can see a very good adaptation on my whole concept to include the work from Tinmans torque force motor. I had that in the back of mind as I was trying to build and understand his concept. I have not fully replicated his motor but I did successfully replicate the effect his motor is taking advantage of. These permanent magnet boosted coils could really boost the attraction effect in his motor design. I may be able to use what I learned from all of Tinmans great work, to meld these two together for a VERY efficient motor/generator design. It has been well known by many and repeated by Tinman, that using attraction in a motor seems to just perform better than repulsion even though to me it seems counterintuitive. But, I often have to learn the hard way by building stuff wrong first. But the experience and knowledge is priceless. I'm just getting my thoughts and theories out of my head and down somewhere.
-
Frustration is begining to set in with my current setup. I think it is time to change direction. It runs well. And it runs on very little energy. But when I simply try and recover the flyback, it really bogs down the motor and thats not even trying to pull any other energy out of it. I can get it running at over 500 rpm if I hook all the coils in parallel. But it doesn't take long for that high voltage spike to tank my mosfets. I have to take care of the kickback but when I do, it seriously bogs down the motor and the current cranks up. Almost worse than a traditional motor. With my current design, there is just to many permanent magnets involved and Lenz law is kicking my butt severely. If I try and take any energy out, it throws the breaks on from every damn angle it seems. I have proven the concept of the coils and it works great. But I think I will need to turn this into an attraction motor in order to see any real benefit from these special coils. Big learning experience I am very happy to gain. I can't wait to start converting things around to see what this thing is capable of.
Here is a short clip of it running.
https://youtu.be/Cfn3Zx-JXho
-
Salve ,capitano !
Living with a black cat around ,and more !
Demo arrangement :
Upper wheel and a second,smaller one !
The wheels distance ! More and less distance experiments !?
The upper wheel : rpm rated ? Over/under rated rpm measure values !?
The electricity input variation : DC,AC,pulsed DC,PWM DC included duty cycle lenght experiments !
The nether wheel : ratio diameter upper to diameter nether !
The nether wheel : diameter greater the upper wheel !
Step up or Step down : mechanical transformer !
When not Lenz rules,entering in Fleming rules !?
Enough for a Sunday
wmbr
OCWL
p.s.: Your ' frustration' remembered me SOFT CELL their NON-STOP EROTIC CABARET theme ' Frustration', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EebuXP2YLE8
which I for the first time saw in video-audio formate some hours before !(The audio as cassette since the middle 80' owning)
Youtube delivers also : Bedsitter ( ....Sunday morning ... ::) ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbC4yxjydUc
Mein Jott eeye,die san so watt fon twul eeye,so was can become ' free energy' cold weather chamber heater !?
8) Almond : so ' nen will man nitt bedingungslos im Mondschein begegnen !Naja,Gottes Produktionsphasen sind un-?/ergruendlich : Montag-/Freitag -Prod.-Aussch(l)usz-Ware ! ;)
-
Moving forward towards switching it up. I'm removing the magnet rotors and moving to an attraction design to see how these special coils will work. Got my new rotors done and waiting for epoxy to completely cure. Some of you who have been following the Tinman torque force motor, you will see right where I am going with this next phase.
-
I've got it running in attraction mode now. I no longer have the major issues with Lenz law slowing things down just from collecting the back spike. I have a lot of tuning to do and more coils to add but it's running well so far. The coils poles are opposing each other causing the field to push further out sideways between them to grab the rotor and pull it. The original design for this concept I learned from Tinmans work on his torque force motor. His design required a permanent magnet and a coil with a tiny gap between them. This is clearly not how he says it needs to be done. But he also using a conventional coil that he works hard to increase the inductance of. I however have the permanent magnets embedded in my cores. So totally different, but the attraction concept im shooting for is the same principle. But I want to give credit for my inspiration as I think it is great design for an attraction style motor. I will be trying it out that way as well of course. I have designed my build to give me the ability to try many different configurations. This type of attraction motor, it is critical to reduce the gap to as small as possible for the best output. Here, my gaps are pretty wide. I need to make sure things are sitting properly and not going to all smack together and destroy my coils. So for right now the coil gap is large and it will be decreased. I am getting over 300 rpm at 35 volts and about 30 ma. This efficiency should greatly increase as I add coils, decrease gap, and adjust the timing. I will shoot some video when i get things tuned better. Good stuff, just wanted to document my progress.
-
Here is a little better view of my setup.
-
I will be adding a generator section to this of course. This phase is trying to recapture as much energy as possible while getting the most torque and rpm for the least amount of energy as possible. But, the fact that the gaps are pretty wide, and I've still got it running pretty good, is a good sign.
-
Here is a little more explanation of my design. The coils are the most important part that I am concentrating on. I believe there could be many different applications this can be used for. For now, I am using them to experiment with the torque force motor concept. Those not familiar with it, it uses a small gap between 2 like poles to project the field outward further. The combination of this, and the angle of the torque plate it is pulling inward has been proven to give a greater than double pull force. I have seen an extra 40% pull force more than double myself in my own experiments. This is a great time for me to combine these concepts. So this is what I'm trying.
-
Here is a little test run just to show it working. It needs tuned and is using just under 2 watts in this demo. So I think I can get the power input way down as I tweak it. Not to mention, this is only 2 coils. This did solve my big issue with lenz law kicking my butt. Now when I collect the flyback i get a small increase in rpm instead of it bogging it all down. Much more to come...
https://youtu.be/hPeKd-UupTc (https://youtu.be/hPeKd-UupTc)
-
Thank you captainpecan.
I guess you know, thats what were looking for. Very cool and good luck with
your testing.
floor
-
Thank you captainpecan.
I guess you know, thats what were looking for. Very cool and good luck with
your testing.
floor
@Floor,
Thank you! It's some very interesting stuff for sure.
More mental ramblings...
Just another thing for me to keep in mind. There is magnetic flux being projected outward from the top and bottom run coil that is currently only being used to attract a torque plate. I need to position generator coils on the opposite side of each and collect that energy from the system. Air core would not effect the flux direction but may not capture as much as it could. I would probably need a metallic core in order to collect a high enough voltage to store. Question is how that will direct the flux between the drive coil and generator coil. It should direct much more in a straight path between the two instead of reaching out a bit to grab a torque plate. I may need to move the outside torque plates a little closer to the run coil cores for the run pulse timing in order to continue getting good attraction when generator coils are in place. Just a little rambling while I get some thoughts out of my head and down in writing.
-
Another interesting idea I had I just wanted to get written down. I checked to see the distance that my half inch wide torque plate bars get attracted to the side of my 1/2" magnets. Turns out, at just under 1/2" distance it begins pulling them together. Therefore, if I put both next to each other on a rotor, as long as there is 1/2" gap between them, there will not be any significant change in the magnets field.. this led me to this concept that may work well with my hidden magnet coils. Seems someone would have tried this before but I haven't seen it.
Problem I had using magnets on the rotor was that for my setup, just simply collecting the flyback spike had a strong Lenz drag effect. More than in a usual setup. This led me to an attraction design because I need to collect that flyback to protect my mosfets and of course efficiency. It seems I have an interesting idea to combine the attraction design with the magnets on the rotor at the same time...
Step 1, the rotor has both magnets and iron plates, arranged for best use as shown below.
Step 2, the magnet on the rotor is attracted to the coil core on the way in because the magnet in the coil is effectly off.
Step 3, when the magnet passes the core, the coil will be pulsed projecting an opposing field forcing the rotor forward. The gap between the magnet and coil will direct more flux backwards towards the iron on the rotor. This will pull and attract the rotor forward at the same time. Effectively getting 2 forward forces for 1 pulse.
Step 4, the coil is turned off and the field collapses. Lenz law states that the rotor magnet will be dragged down a bit as this happens. At the same time, the iron will still be attracted forward and it will be closer to the core at that moment. This should hopefully help negate the Lenz drag enough to make a noticeable difference and allow the collection of the flyback without dragging the motor down as much.
This seems to simple. So it's been tried before I am sure, but seems worth a look for my coil design due to the strong Lenz law effect present when permanent magnets are used on the rotor. Hopefully the combination of step 2 above giving 2 forward forces for 1 pulse, and the extra attraction forward in step 4 as Lenz drags the magnet down a bit, will give a net gain overall and get a bit more torque and rpm for the same or less energy input.
-
I won't have time to work on my project for a few days. I am trying to wrap my mind around my idea I just posted about the new rotor. If both the magnet and the iron were on the rotor, would I get both gains from the magnet repulsion and metal attraction? Or would I only get the greater of the two? I'm trying to think the physics through. I'm just not sure of the attraction of the metal is less than the repulsion of the magnet, would it have a positive attraction at all from the metal? I am thinking it still would. Considering that an attraction motor running at 1000 rpm would still have an attraction force even if the rotor was moving really fast. Just thinking about things while I am unable to build and find out by doing.
-
I have been thinking that the severe Lenz drag I got in my other experiment with magnets on the rotor while collecting the flyback, wasn't so much from the flyback. It was from the circuit effectively being a halfwave rectifier with that diode in there. This means it is collecting the energy in generator style as the magnet approaches the coil, then nothing as it passes TDC, gets the pulse, then collects again as the spike occurs of the flyback. This is fine for a device such as the SSG where speed of rotor is not important at all. But I do not want to capture the energy on the incoming movement. I am thinking of using a reed switch to have an open circuit during the approach to stop this drag. It seems to me as long as the reed switch is closed when the high voltage spike occurs, it should not cause any further wear on the switch from the high voltage like if it were to try and jump the gap. How have others done this and have they been doing something completely different? I am not wanting to slow down the motor function other than what is required to recover that flyback. I plan to pull energy from the system with a special designed generator function as the speed is high. Any ideas would be appreciated.
-
More mental thpughts on my project and understanding my short comings. I finally wrapped my mind around why my coils seemed to have a more severe effect of Lenz law than a usual motor when i was using magnets on the rotor. I expected drag when trying to collect energy from it but it really seemed more than usual. Well it now makes perfect sense. I was trying to just collect the flyback with a single diode. This does work, but as I stated earlier, it was also collecting the energy as the magnet approached the coil like a half wave rectifier. I was using opposing magnets which for motor function is great because the magnet in the core is effectively off until pulsed then adds to the push away. But it is horrible for the generator function. Lenz law is of course generating a field opposing the approaching magnet, it just happens to be the correct polarity to also begin releasing the core magnets flux as well that opposes it. So i basically have doubled the amount of drag from lenz law. So these coils really are terrible generator coils. This is not a problem and still can easily take full advantage of the motor function being greatly increased. I just finally understand why it really bogged down the motor when i took energy out. Lesson learned. And now I have a plan to exploit this knowledge and benefit from it.
-
THE QUICK AND EASY WAY TO AVOID ALL THE LENZ NEGATIVE EFFECT.
IS TO MAKE THE STATOR AND THE ROTOR THE SAME. AS THE TWO REACH TOP
DEAD CENTER BOTH ARE TRIGGERED. AND VOILA.
-
Captainpecan, here is the circuit I used to drive my motor and capture the inductive kickback. I never saw any reduction in speed when collecting the kickback with this circuit.
You can drive it with almost any type of trigger circuit. The 555 circuit acts to clean up the input signal.
-
Captainpecan, here is the circuit I used to drive my motor and capture the inductive kickback. I never saw any reduction in speed when collecting the kickback with this circuit.
You can drive it with almost any type of trigger circuit. The 555 circuit acts to clean up the input signal.
Thanks, that's a pretty simple circuit!
-
Yes it is and it seems to work pretty well. It was a collective effort of several of the people that were working on the Tinman motor. I did some testing of the ideas but most of the design came from others.
-
More mind ramblings... but i think i have a valid concept here. Thinking about how my special coils seem great for motor but terrible for generator, I came up with a way to use them on the other side as well. I have been kicking around this idea to help negate Lenz law when trying to use a generator side to pull energy from this system. I think I have another great way to use this special embedded magnet coils I made.
Consider 2 generator coils hooked in series. Coil 1 is an air core coil where permanent magnets will pass on both sides. Without passing any magnets over coil 2, coil 2 will generate a magnetic field equal to the field generated in coil 1. (I think) Because the field is generated from the current being pushed through coil 1 it will be the same current in coil 2. It is well known that if you want to increase the magnetic field of a coil, you can use more current, more turns of wire, and you can use a metallic core. Well, the current is actually going to be very slightly less due to extra resistance of adding a 2nd coil. We could use more turns of course, but that will also add some more resistance. But one change we can easily do is ad an iron core to coil 2. Now we should be able to get a stronger more concentrated field in coil 2 than in coil 1. Now embed the permanent magnet in the core as well. Now line the same rotor or at least another rotor on the same shaft with coil 2 using instead iron to attract to coil 2 on both sides. Now what we get is every pulse created in coil 1 from magnets passing it that puts a little drag on the rotor, also creates a pulse in coil 2, releasing the permanent magnet field from the core along with the slightly stronger magnetic field originally created from the current in the coil and metallic core. This pulse attracts the metallic rotor towards it giving an extra push to the rotor at the exact same time the Lenz law is trying to drag it down at coil 1.
So, instead of getting a little drag with every bit of energy generated, we get both a little drag and a little push helping to negate the whole effect... maybe with some tweaking, Lenz can be redirected into no longer slowing down the rotor, or maybe even helping to speed it up a bit. Just a theory.
Hopefully I got that out of my head and typed out correctly.
-
JUST PASSING BY.
-
JUST PASSING BY.
Nice... You should pass by more often!
-
Just a small update. I am rebuilding this weekend and changes things up a bit. So far, I have been running this coil and motor build in repulsion mode. Pulsing after the rotor passes TDC to repel the rotor. I have seen many many times others saying attraction worked better for them. With these special coils I had to try everything because I am not sure anyone has ever made a motor quite like this. Well, attraction is still way better. It's time to make the change everyone else did. Attraction is in fact stronger with this design as well.
I have made a couple rotors now for the new setup, and cut my wood. I have a couple more special coils to make to go with it as well and hopefully I'll be up and running soon.
-
This time I have chosen to use the same coil design. 2600 turns of 30awg wire. I have found that this gives a good magnetic field flip for low current. I have found that 4 coils in series really keeps the current low, but I have to use a much higher voltage to run. This makes it very efficient, but I'm shooting for a little less voltage, a little more current available, and shorter pulses to make this easier to make the move to all batteries soon. I want to have a pretty good rpm but don't really want to run over 30 volts at least for this build. Efficiency has shown higher voltages have performed more efficient. But I'm shooting for a good mix here.
I have chosen to go with 2, 8 magnet rotors, above and below coils. Top will be all North facing down, and bottom all south facing up. The coil will be aligned opposite. I have measured the force acting upon the rotor in attraction mode for my magnets. I have found that between 11 and 10 degrees before TDC gives the strongest pull to the rotor per pulse. I have chosen to build using 6 coils. The combination of 8 magnets and 6 coils will give me 24 pulses into 2 coils in series, for each single rotation. This should give me 5200 turns of copper for every pulse. I do not forsee it being close enough to self start yet. So I will still need to nudge the rotor to start it. But I believe I can adjust the pulse pretty sharp to cut down on current flow and with 24 pulses per rotation, I should get a higher percent of the initial energy back as flyback. The shorter the pulse, the better here. Having 24 per rotation will hopefully give me good rpm anyway at very low wattage. We shall see. I think my biggest struggle is finding the best way to mount the coils that will allow a small gap but be strong enough to not move. There will be quite a bit of force from the rotor magnets acting on them. Just keeping things updated. I'm moving forward.
-
THE QUICK AND EASY WAY TO AVOID ALL THE LENZ NEGATIVE EFFECT.
IS TO MAKE THE STATOR AND THE ROTOR THE SAME. AS THE TWO REACH TOP
DEAD CENTER BOTH ARE TRIGGERED. AND VOILA.
Can you explain this process more thoroughly for me?
are you saying using all the coils as both generator and drivers. Pulse all the coils with each magnet pass just past dead center. And collect all other times including top dead center?
Is this what you are saying? If not, I would like to hear more about this idea.
thanks
-
.
-
I think what he means is to have coils on the rotor also. Pulsing coils against coils and not having any permanent magnets by themselves. Would be a nice very powerful layout but difficult to do. I think what he means is because the flux hides back inside the core when not pulsed, they pass right by each other with no Lenz drag. Kind of like a normal induction motor that does not use permanent magnets, except this one does use them but only when they do the most good and then they hide again. If I'm reading his stuff correctly. I would actually like to try it but I'm just not sire to do the slip rings and spinning the coils with good connection. It's a very good thought with these coils. And automatically does what I am trying to do by leaving open coil except for the pulse and flyback collection.
-
I think what he means is to have coils on the rotor also. Pulsing coils against coils and not having any permanent magnets by themselves. Would be a nice very powerful layout but difficult to do. I think what he means is because the flux hides back inside the core when not pulsed, they pass right by each other with no Lenz drag. Kind of like a normal induction motor that does not use permanent magnets, except this one does use them but only when they do the most good and then they hide again. If I'm reading his stuff correctly. I would actually like to try it but I'm just not sire to do the slip rings and spinning the coils with good connection. It's a very good thought with these coils. And automatically does what I am trying to do by leaving open coil except for the pulse and flyback collection.
OK, yeah I was thinking that route also when I read it. Thanks for the clarification..
I made slip rings / commutators for 3 of my past motors, and they all worked. some better than others. They aren't too bad to make when all magnets are same polarity. But when your flipping polarity, you need a minimum of 4 contacts. But I ended up using 5 contacts because making the commutator is much easier with that extra contact. If I am ever satisfied with a design, I will definitely outfit it with a commutator for the final product. Can deliver AMPS to the input without the fear of adding another wounded soldier to my chinese quart container of fried H-bridges. Lol..
Anyway- keep building man... I await the knowledge you will share..
-
JUST LOOK AT POST 844. JUST ABOVE. YOU CAN MAKE AS A MOTOR AND OR AS A GENERATOR.
-
JUST LOOK AT POST 844. JUST ABOVE. YOU CAN MAKE AS A MOTOR AND OR AS A GENERATOR.
Good Sunday-MorningSeychelles !
Hope You are fine ,with-/out maid during the night beside ( and/or bottle beer) ! ;)
Not Your personal postes quantity but Your Reply #120 ee should look for,is it not ?
Happy day and following time wishing
OCWL :)
-
GENERATOR. THE TWO FLYWHEELS ARE CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER.
-
THIS IS THE GENERATOR COIL. I JUST WOUNDER IF THE SUDDEN PURSE OF THE TWO PMACOILS
WILL INVOKE THE MAGNETIC FLUX FROM THE DORMANT GENERATOR COIL.
-
THIS IS THE GENERATOR COIL. I JUST WOUNDER IF THE SUDDEN PURSE OF THE TWO PMACOILS
WILL INVOKE THE MAGNETIC FLUX FROM THE DORMANT GENERATOR COIL.
These are some good valid ideas. I'm trying to come up with some simple ways to test. So far, I haven't found a good configuration yet that makes these good for Gen coils. Of course good to excite a normal Gen coil. But so far, every benefit I get pulsing the coil as a motor to unleash the field from inside, just the opposite happens when Lenz pulses it for me in Gen mode. It's like double Lenz in a way. But I'm working on the ideas and trying to wrap my brain around it. But, I'll get the motor side of it running again and I'll get to work on some generator tests with these.
-
AGAIN MY MONKEY BRAIN SAYS THAT THERE DOES NOT NEED ANY MOVING PARTS
AS FAR AS THE GENERATOR IS CONCERNED. THINK ABOUT IT.
-
MONKEY BRAIN
-
SHOULD BE EASILY VERIFIED WITH 2 MOT TRANSFORMERS.
-
AGAIN MY MONKEY BRAIN SAYS THAT THERE DOES NOT NEED ANY MOVING PARTS
AS FAR AS THE GENERATOR IS CONCERNED. THINK ABOUT IT.
That's awesome... I ordered a 4017 chaser circuit board kit about a month ago because I wanted to try out some stuff similar. So when i get in a better build state, I will be trying this concept. I've got the parts. I just have to complete a little more stages of the motor first. I have this uncanny habit of changing my thoughts and running 20 different directions. Then I end up with a whole bunch of half finished concepts and accomplish nothing... lol. So I'm making a list of things to try one after another.
-
CRITICAL TEST IS ONE NEED TO KNOW WHAT PULSING VOLTAGE
TO GET THE MAGNETIC GENIE AWAKEN .
-
CRITICAL TEST IS ONE NEED TO KNOW WHAT PULSING VOLTAGE
TO GET THE MAGNETIC GENIE AWAKEN .
I've got some information on that one already. If you go back to the earlier pages, I was posting charts of voltage tests on my coils to try and understand the effects of number of turns, current, and voltage to unleash the genie per say.... I increased the voltage .5v at a time and recorded how much flux at a certain distance was changing. I was expecting to hit a spot in the voltage where it would all the sudden flip and show a large change in flux. That on the other hand didn't seem to happen at all. What I found was that it was directly proportional to the power added to the coil. For instance, I did tests with no magnet in the core, and the flux was way less as you may have expected. But on the permanent magnet embedded cores, there never was a certain flip voltage. Every bit of added energy seemed to release a little more inner field. It was not as I expected but I have duplicated it over and over. It's kind of a bonus in a way if someone is trying to make a very low powered device like what I am also doing. You can see benefits right off the bat even at 5v instead of waiting for all the benefits to show up after, say 24V to flip it. No clue of course how that would coincide with your transformer concepts, but it is a clue as to what it is doing anyway.
Just for a quick recap of what I found out. The more turns on the coils the stronger the magnetic field of course. The higher resistance of those extra turns did in fact decrease the current draw, but still increased the overall flux. High current always makes a great magnetic field of course. But what I found was the overall efficiency continued to climb the more turns I added. Even adding the coils in series and taking the measurements. Of course, voltage had to continue increasing to get a good field the more turns and resistance that was added, but I also figured the actual ratio of field change per amount of milliwatt used. And I never hit the point where it was counter productive like I expected. Just had to keep using more voltage to get even more milligause per milliwatt. Very interesting. My tests showed that the added resistance was not really hurting me other than I needed more voltage to flow less current.
-
MAYBE USE FERRITE MAGNET BECAUSE THEY WEAKER. THEN THE GENIE WILL
EASILY POP OUT.
-
MAYBE USE FERRITE MAGNET BECAUSE THEY WEAKER. THEN THE GENIE WILL
EASILY POP OUT.
That is actually something I have not tried. I have made my coils so I can still remove the core magnets. I think the local craft store has some 1/2 ferrites for dirt cheap. I think I'll give that a go as well when I can just for the sake of knowing how it will work. Who knows, maybe I'm not even releasing the majority of what lies within yet with my existing testing. Thanks for the thought.
-
JUST ANOTHER CRAZY MONKEY CRAKA.
-
Not much new to share yet. Have 2 coils left to wind and it goes back together. It's getting there slowly.
-
THE STEEL RING IS NOT THICK ENOUGH TO ABSORB THE PM FLUX. THERE SHOULD
BARE MINIMAL ATTRACTION WHEN A PIECE OF IRON IS NEAR THESE COILS. SOOORY
JUST A DISTANCE OBSERVATION. USE 1 MM FLAT STEEL SHEET TO ROLL YOUR MAGNET
IN.
-
THE STEEL RING IS NOT THICK ENOUGH TO ABSORB THE PM FLUX. THERE SHOULD
BARE MINIMAL ATTRACTION WHEN A PIECE OF IRON IS NEAR THESE COILS. SOOORY
JUST A DISTANCE OBSERVATION. USE 1 MM FLAT STEEL SHEET TO ROLL YOUR MAGNET
IN.
I would normally agree with that assessment 100%. However, I tried that first. I tested a few sizes. And I found it to be a bit different. I posted all the numbers and stuff earlier in the thread, but I feel I need to repeat my findings again now that I have more of a build and it's not just theory anymore. I'll dig up my stuff and show you why I chose what I did.
-
THE STEEL RING IS NOT THICK ENOUGH TO ABSORB THE PM FLUX. THERE SHOULD
BARE MINIMAL ATTRACTION WHEN A PIECE OF IRON IS NEAR THESE COILS. SOOORY
JUST A DISTANCE OBSERVATION. USE 1 MM FLAT STEEL SHEET TO ROLL YOUR MAGNET
IN.
Okay, here is a little quick recap of how I chose the core. I am by far not saying you are wrong, I am just showing my thought process to move forward with the ones I have chosen. I started with a thicker core and changed with what I was seeing. There is a tiny bit of flux leaking out as you stated, but even at the top where the field is the strongest, it is small enough that metal moving by it at over 1mm distance is not effected by it at all. I made an attraction only version with no PM on the rotors for testing, just steel, non powered up, the rotor would spin for a very long time and would not stop aligned with the core any greater than random. So I think it is hiding the field enough to be able to see the results I am looking for through further testing. Or at least show the benefits this design can give, or take away. At least it is good enough results to warrant further testing. It seemed to me that the core needed to be closer to saturation or beyond in order to begin releasing the inner flux as early as possible. That's the theory anyway.
-
And here are all 6. Ready to finish mounting them and put things back together. Everything is still being built with the assumption that I will still be tearing it down and reusing parts for another build if I evolve more on this one. If I get a design I'm happy with, I will resin the coils. But still need them removable for now. Hopefully next couple days I can thump the dust off the old scope and start seeing what this wave form looks like!
-
THANKS FOR YOUR MASSIVE EFFORT AND AWESOME DATA. YOU WILL SUCCEED AT THIS VENTURE.
KEEP KEEPING ON.
-
I MEANT THIS BELOW.
-
PLUS COIL WINDING MONKEY CRAZY IDEA. COIL WITHIN COIL.
-
I MEANT THIS BELOW.
Yeah, I was considering wrapping the magnet with 1mm sheet when I was looking for the right size bushings. I found these to try, and have just not tried the other yet. About the way you suggest winding it. I have been kicking around some ideas to try in the future. Some ideas have been flowing between floodrod and I on his post as well. Haven't tried these yet. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the best ones to test because each is a special wind. I may consider the 1mm wrap with ferrite magnets like your earlier suggestion to be able to use way less wire to test each coil and maybe easier see changes. I do have a scope to see minute changes although I need more experience with it. Keep thinking through what tests you would be interested in seeing. I will try and work on some soon to learn more about this.
Quick question though. So I understand the thinking behind the winding you suggest here. It looks like a simple bifilar wind. Same direction. Both wires perfectly in parallel. What are you looking to test here? Interaction of the flux of the two wires, or simply same amount of turns but less resistance to allow more current to flow? If that's what you are suggesting, its a great idea because I can easily flip the windings to series to draw less current and add resistance for simple testing of the circuit. Am I on the right track with the thinking?
-
FLUX LINE COMPRESSION. STRONGER ELECTROMAGNETISM. MONKEY
REASONING.
-
TESTING THE ELECTROMAGNET YOU DO NOT NEED AN
OSCILLOSCOPE. BUT A CHEAP ELECTRONIC SCALE.
PLUS THE STUFF THAT MONKEYS DO NOT HAVE IMAGINATION.
-
TESTING THE ELECTROMAGNET YOU DO NOT NEED AN
OSCILLOSCOPE. BUT A CHEAP ELECTRONIC SCALE.
PLUS THE STUFF THAT MONKEYS DO NOT HAVE IMAGINATION.
Yup, I've got a couple different scales. That's how I figured that for my setup 11 degrees before TDC is the distance for the most strongest pull on the rotor in attraction mode. I've been doing all kind of pull tests as I go.
-
Does anyone have any tips on making these rotors more true? What I mean, is that every rotor I seem to make, no matter how careful I am, there is always a certain degree of wobble. I have my bearings as perfect as possible, and my flywheel is turning true, but my 2 new rotors I cut have a wobble? Its close enough to be just fine for what I am testing, but without having a machine shop, what are you guys doing? I have made a jig saw jig to cut circles out of wood. Worked well, but had a bit of wobble. I used a hole saw for the next set with wood again. Still have a slight wobble. Using a drill press did not make a difference. This time I ordered pvc board and cut my rotors out using a hole saw. They have a little wobble. When I glued stuff to a grinding disc, it ran perfectly true. But a little pressure and that stuff rips off easily because the grinding disc just sort of separates. I will be fine with this build, and I will probably just order some rotors machined if I plan on a final design next so I can get the magnet gaps minimal. But it's just frustrating with normal tools, I just cant seem to get it right. I see many out there made using lexan or whatever clear material so you can see through it all, but that is a pretty expensive material to work with just to get done and still end up with rotors that are not true again. I am about to try and modify a circular saw blade. Having the metal backing is not bad for this particular motor design, but I wanted the ability to switch thing up more as well as sandwiching another layer of coils so I can use both sides of the center rotor magnets. Any tips?
-
WHICH ONE CARRIES THE MOST ENERGY?
-
CAPTAIN GET OUT OF THIS MOVING MAGNET WAY OF THINKING THINK OF NO MOVING PARTS
TECHNOLOGIES. THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCIES THE MOST ENERGY. REM KILOWATT HOURS.
THINK MICROWAVE AND HIGHER ENERGY GENERATOR.
-
WHICH ONE CARRIES THE MOST ENERGY?
At a glance without seeing them closely on the grid. I would say they are all the same? Just different settings views on the scope?
-
CAPTAIN THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY THE HIGHER THE ENERGY .
-
E= MC SQUARE. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/682
-
CAPTAIN GET OUT OF THIS MOVING MAGNET WAY OF THINKING THINK OF NO MOVING PARTS
TECHNOLOGIES. THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCIES THE MOST ENERGY. REM KILOWATT HOURS.
THINK MICROWAVE AND HIGHER ENERGY GENERATOR.
I see what you are getting at, and I am very much interested in that as well. That's just not where my mind keeps taking me. I feel so many have dug into that side of FE that know WAY MORE than I do, and I still haven't seen anything come through that has been groundbreaking. I spent almost a year trying so many different versions of a TPU and trying everything I could think of. I always ended up with a crappy version of a transformer that didn't even work as well as the off the shelf transformer I can buy for a few bucks. Not that I don't believe in it, just that if I drift down the avenue looking for FE in a way that is not of interest to me, the constant failures that we all get over and over again just wouldn't be fun for me anymore. I took about 9 years away from the search after a lot of burn out and trolls hitting me every times I shared and idea. But deep inside, I still hard that part of me that just wanted to hit the bench and do try something new and see what happens. I love working on solid state ideas and many others, and learning from them. But this magnet in the core concept has been bugging me and I simply need to learn more about it. The solid core version of the same idea goes along with the Flynn Motor concepts and many others that use similar ideas in a solid state version. To my knowledge none have really shown FE yet. This is a twist of all that I can learn from their work, and take it down a slightly different path that I don't think anyone has tried yet. After all, nearly all devices on all of these forums do not produce more out than is put in. Mine is probably just 1 more. But when I'm done with it, I will personally know WHY it doesn't work, and I won't be plagued with those WHAT IF scenarios I never tried. After all, I have replicated quite a few different devices from others work. I finally found one that I have never seen before that follows a concept that is very simple, yet nobody has every laid it out in this manor and tried it. Probably just another way to fail, but then I will know, and the knowledge of knowing exactly why it's not going to work makes it a success to me. I am one of those guys that have been intrigued by magnets since I was a child. I still can sit and play with magnets for hours on end. The invisible force intrigues me. I have a burning will to understand why it works and what is really happening. If I never find free energy, doing these kind of projects, makes me feel like that little kid playing with his magnets and toys again. Sometimes with all the things in life tearing us down, we it's nice to take your mind away for a bit, and play with your toys per say... lol.
-
CAPTAIN THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY THE HIGHER THE ENERGY .
That makes sense actually. I will be following everything people post that helps me understand these things better. I have a nice oscilloscope that didn't get nearly enough use. It's time it stops collecting dust. I will have some extra wire and magnets and stuff and plan to wind a few special coils to try some of your solid state thoughts you've brought up that kind of encompass this whole concept. I will have a few questions I'm sure before I wind some of it. But it will be just a bit before I get there. For sure I will wind up a bifilar coil and try the parallel turns as you suggested and see if I get some boosted flux.
-
IT IS NOT A BIFILAR. BUT TWO INDUCTORS OF THE THE SAME VALUE ONE WITHIN THE OTHER.
I HAVE NEVER TRIED IT BUT IMAGINING THAT IT WILL ENHANCE THE OUTCOME. DUE TO LINE OF
FORCE COMPRESSION. JUST MONKEY THOUGHT. IT HAS TO BE PROVEN. EASILY TESTED . TWO ELECTROMAGNET
ONE WITH THE SAME LENGTH OF WOUNDED WIRE AS PER THE MONKEY DOUBLE COILS AND CHECK THE MAGNETIC PULL USING
A SCALE. SAME CURRENT SAME VOLTAGE.
-
CAPTAIN THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY THE HIGHER THE ENERGY .
The higher the frequency the higher the energy... per unit of time (power)... true that.
But...
1. once you begin to approach radio frequencies many complications will arise
2. physical objects cannot react / respond (due to inertia / other things) to very high
frequencies (even at a molecular range of size / scales)
3. resonances and harmonics (always at lower frequencies than the causal frequencies)
may be slow enough / give the .... appearance / as if ... higher frequencies are being
.... directly .... responded to, even when they are not. etcetera etcetera etcetera
I recommend that for the sake of clarity / understanding of what is going on
and ease of observation / simplicity, keep things slowed way down.
Increases in power (frequency of repetition of cycles per unit of time) should perhaps be
approached in later stages of development as a means of increasing power.
Just my opinion though...
-
The higher the frequency the higher the energy... per unit of time (power)... true that.
But...
1. once you begin to approach radio frequencies many complications will arise
2. physical objects cannot react / respond (due to inertia / other things) to very high
frequencies (even at a molecular range of size / scales)
3. resonances and harmonics (always at lower frequencies than the causal frequencies)
may be slow enough / give the .... appearance / as if ... higher frequencies are being
.... directly .... responded to, even when they are not. etcetera etcetera etcetera
I recommend that for the sake of clarity / understanding of what is going on
and ease of observation / simplicity, keep things slowed way down.
Increases in power (frequency of repetition of cycles per unit of time) should perhaps be
approached in later stages of development as a means of increasing power.
Just my opinion though...
I tend to agree. Maybe something I can move towards. But yeah, I'm not there yet.
-
and..
thanks for all the nice work / detail / communications...
best wishes
-
Just a little update. Had a few things being a pain, but it's back together. Sort of. I still need to make my terminal block, get my pulse circuit done, set the switching up, and I'll be ready to start testing and fire it up. I am keeping the gap huge for now. Starting at about 3/8" gap right now. The magnets are so strong, while I was tightening things it all slammed together and took me a while to get things apart without breaking stuff. So I'm moving forward slowly and decrease the gap after I know it doesn't grenade on me and throw magnets through my walls when I try and run it. At least if it explodes, I want it recorded!!.. lol. More to come soon.
-
Quick question. I have a bunch of these hall sensor boards I ordered for the wrong purpose a while back. Pretty sure they are for arduino's. I don't have one. But I'm trying to use it anyway. I am simply just wanting to trigger an n channel mosfet with it. The pins are switched but it has built in LED and stuff is kinda of a nice bundle for tuning a pulse motor. But for some reason no matter how I hook these up, i can't get it to work. When I hook it up as shown assuming it is just the sensor itself, all I get is solid led lit. Any suggestions? I can just use a normal hall sensor, but I want to use these if I can. I am hooking it up assuming pin 1 is -, 2 is +, and 3 is signal. I want to power it from the same circuit, but I've even tried powering with separate power source. I immediately get the led to blink in a field like it's supposed to, but the signal still doesn't trip the mosfet??? I'm sure I'm doing something stupid. Any suggestions?
-
Quick question. I have a bunch of these hall sensor boards I ordered for the wrong purpose a while back. Pretty sure they are for arduino's. I don't have one. But I'm trying to use it anyway. I am simply just wanting to trigger an n channel mosfet with it. The pins are switched but it has built in LED and stuff is kinda of a nice bundle for tuning a pulse motor. But for some reason no matter how I hook these up, i can't get it to work. When I hook it up as shown assuming it is just the sensor itself, all I get is solid led lit. Any suggestions? I can just use a normal hall sensor, but I want to use these if I can. I am hooking it up assuming pin 1 is -, 2 is +, and 3 is signal. I want to power it from the same circuit, but I've even tried powering with separate power source. I immediately get the led to blink in a field like it's supposed to, but the signal still doesn't trip the mosfet??? I'm sure I'm doing something stupid. Any suggestions?
I use those exact ones all the time. There is already a resistor on the board.
left pin goes to ground. center goes to 5V. Right pin will turn High and Low when magnet is in range.
Not sure about running 15V through it.. Might try hooking right pin labeled (S) to the gate. Feeding 5V from usb plug into middle pin and ground to left.
The 15V would feed from a different supply. And using your resistor on the mosfet only.
Edit- Here is a pic
-
@floodrod
Thanks for the help. Still having an issue though. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad batch. I can easily run the mosfet wit a reed, no problem. It's not like there are that many wires here. My biggest issue is that I got bad batch of reeds that are not working consistently at all. I got 1 good reed switch from before that works fine so I have it running on one set of coils only. For some reason I am not finding my other halls sensors to try... I'm about to clip one off the board and try it without the circuitry. Wondering if there is a cold solder problem or something.
Edit:.. yup. Bad parts. I got one working. How frustrating, I used most of my time messing with bad parts... oh well.
-
YOU FIND THE ANSWER.
-
Yeah, thanks. I was doing it correct. I got some bad parts. I resoldered every joint on one and it works fine now. Just have to see if I can fix the others so I can move forward until I get new stuff in.
-
Wow, what a pain. I got some of those little hall sensor boards working by reflowing the solder. But they still seemed to be kind of constipated per say. The coils were pulsing but barely. Led was lighting bright. After many times of screwing with these things, I finally started digging in all my junk to find something else i can use. I finally found some simple 3144 hall sensors. I wired one up, hooked it up, and the coil pulses exactly as it should. But it still performs slightly better with the 1 reed switch i have that seems to work correctly. I guess i really did end up with all bad parts afterall. Finally moving forward. I wasted a lot of my free time playing with garbage. Fingers crossed there will be no more surprises this weekend.
-
Just a quick update. I still need to tune it. I just lined up the switches real quick and test out my connections. Runs good. Pretty efficient. I was just playing around and turning down the voltage until it stalls just to see. And I'm actually very surprised with the amount of magnets, and steel in this thing, as well as a flywheel that has to be more than 6 lbs. It spins at 3.6v and only 2ma... now, of course this is barely spinning at all, but I did not expect this with so much high resistance wire. There are 6 coils, but each pulse uses 2 in series which equal 5200 turns of 30 awg wire at between 160 and 170 ohms. At higher speeds I'm working out some balance issues and stuff. I have not let it go over 300 rpm yet until I tune it better and make sure it won't self destruct when I start feeding it power to see what it can do. I will hopefully start posting some video soon as I get it tuned. This coil method seems to continue to be worth exploring!
-
Here is a little test run video. This is about as fast as I wanted to push it tonight. I don't have a recovery circuit on it yet so I'm kind of pounding the mosfets with flyback at the moment. But I wanted to open it up a little and test things. It has a little torque. Hard to tell by hand, but it feels like useful torque for the speed and better than normal pulse motors for sure. I will find out when I start loading it down a bit.. Kind of a floppy looking build, but hey, it's running! And something I was not expecting... it self starts nicely!!! The timing pulses are stagged just right so that no matter where it rests, it's triggering a pulse. I was aiming for that, but I didn't really expect it yet.
P.S. Not that you guys care, but my better half has informed me I am to tell everyone to ignore the ugly wood floors. Tore up nasty carpet and it's a work in progress.
Here's a test run of it. Pretty efficient so far.
https://youtube.com/shorts/j1MUhXhwRNE?feature=share (https://youtube.com/shorts/j1MUhXhwRNE?feature=share)
-
Hi Captainpecan,
Nice setup (do not bother about the wood floor beneath it) :) and it runs smoothly. Hopefully you can recover a good part of the input power (which now is around 15.4V x 25mA = 0.385W).
This will presumably increase when the rotor is loaded by the generator coils if you plan to use them. But the flyback recovery will help on this.
Thanks for showing the tests.
Gyula
-
IT IS NOT A BIFILAR. BUT TWO INDUCTORS OF THE THE SAME VALUE ONE WITHIN THE OTHER.
I HAVE NEVER TRIED IT BUT IMAGINING THAT IT WILL ENHANCE THE OUTCOME. DUE TO LINE OF
FORCE COMPRESSION. JUST MONKEY THOUGHT. IT HAS TO BE PROVEN. EASILY TESTED . TWO ELECTROMAGNET
ONE WITH THE SAME LENGTH OF WOUNDED WIRE AS PER THE MONKEY DOUBLE COILS AND CHECK THE MAGNETIC PULL USING
A SCALE. SAME CURRENT SAME VOLTAGE.
@ Seychelles
This is a coaxial transformer I put together a few years back. Since I tested with 60 hertz I was only able to apply around 3 vac before core started to saturate. I used 1/8” tubing with 23 gauge center conductor. Don’t remember much results other than coupling between primary and secondary unloaded was near perfect.
Edit: A simple experiment would be wrap some TV coax cable on a core which is what I did at first.
-
Here are a few scope shots. Ignore time and date, I need to set it again. This thing was in my basement for 10 yrs probably. Just thumped the dust off. I am not real good at using one of these, so any suggestions are appreciated. I hooked it across 1 pair of coils to see what's going on. As expected there is a pretty strong spike when it switches off. I had to use 1x probe because i just could not get 10x probe to fit on screen. Those are scope1 and scope2 below. I am a little confused with scope1off below. I took a shot of what is happening after I turn off the power supply and the rotor is still spinning. I wanted to see the difference. But what interests me is that I am still seeing that spike with no pulses? What is going on here? Is that the internal magnetic field from the permanent magnet insidenthe core flipping on its own reacting to the approaching and leaving rotor magnets? It looks like I am getting that flyback spike, without a pulse? Am I reading this wrong? I was visualizing being able to catch the spike as the internal magnet flips back inward, but wasn't really sure if i could actually do it. This looks like I am seeing it here. Thoughts?
-
Is there a puffer capacitor right across the supply rail of the coils + the MOSFET switch, which may be able to maintain the supply voltage for a few moments the rotor spins down? Maybe the internal puffer cap of the power supply? (unless you unplug one of its DC output connections) EDIT check with a separate DC voltmeter across the DC rails of the circuit whether there is some supply voltage remaining after the switch off.
IF there is no such cap, then something may trigger on the MOSFET switch? (the spikes occur at the falling side of the induced voltage just like in the powered case)
To check this, after you switch off the power supply, get ready with a piece of wire to short circuit the gate and source pins of the MOSFET, to prevent any unwanted drive for the MOSFET.
-
Is there a puffer capacitor right across the supply rail of the coils + the MOSFET switch, which may be able to maintain the supply voltage for a few moments the rotor spins down? Maybe the internal puffer cap of the power supply? (unless you unplug one of its DC output connections) EDIT check with a separate DC voltmeter across the DC rails of the circuit whether there is some supply voltage remaining after the switch off.
IF there is no such cap, then something may trigger on the MOSFET switch? (the spikes occur at the falling side of the induced voltage just like in the powered case)
To check this, after you switch off the power supply, get ready with a piece of wire to short circuit the gate and source pins of the MOSFET, to prevent any unwanted drive for the MOSFET.
The power supply I am using does use those huge caps. So what I did this time was run it up. And then completely disconnect it from the circuit. And I got the same results. Here is a quick jot down of the circuit. I will make one showing the mosfet connections instead of just a switch. But basically, I am triggering the gate using a reed switch for each one. There are no other power sources or capacitors in the circuit yet. I haven't added the recovery circuit yet either. I have the coils on the source side of the n channel mosfets instead of on the drain side? Something is causing that spike with only spinning magnets in the circuit? You think the mosfet gate could be triggering? And if so, what would cause the spike? There should be no way for a short coil situation I don't think? After looking at the mosfets, I cam probably get by with just 1 resistor, but shouldn't matter I don't think here.
-
I am trying to understand this. Again, this is after power is off to circuit and rotor is still spinning. It looks to me like because the magnets are opposite they are attracting on the way in so the wave looks normal. Maybe it is even pulling the magnetic field from the inner PM outside of the core. But just after the peak it begins to decline. This decline seems to cause that internal magnetic field to flutter and something happens. Maybe this is where it flips it back inside the core causing a negative spike? But it's technically an open coil situation? Thoughts?
-
This is wierd, so I dicided to spin it up. The probes are across the coils still. But this time I have BOTH the positive and negative disconnected so there is no way a gate should trigger on a mosfet. It's still happening. I went ahead checked with a test signal to make sure something isn't just interfering with stuff randomly I can't think of. And the square wave is perfect with no spike. Very interesting.
I went ahead and shot a quick video to show what's happening.
https://youtu.be/tCHc9wYdwsE
-
Thanks for the circuit drawings. Considering 2 coils in series with the source of the MOSFET and the 10 k resistor towards the gate of the MOSFET, the induced voltage appears across the gate-source I suppose. And the reed switches still operate from the small control magnets and they short the drain of the MOSFET to the gate, right? And there is the body diode between the drain and the source, which may start rectifying the induced coil voltage and the horizontal line you indicate with a questionmark in the scopeshot above may be the indication of a DC component, what may be the supply voltage for a moment? maybe this is what is happening.
You could use one scope probe across the gate-source when the other scope probe would remain across the same two coils and see the waveforms. (Both scope channel ground clips should be on the common negative of the circuit.)
Temporarily you could remove the wire coming from the reed switch to the gate the moment you switch off the supply voltage and the rotor starts decelerating from the earlier full speed, to see if the spike disappears. I am watching the video now.
Edit: for the time being, no more comment, try to check the above things.
-
Thanks for the circuit drawings. Considering 2 coils in series with the source of the MOSFET and the 10 k resistor towards the gate of the MOSFET, the induced voltage appears across the gate-source I suppose. And the reed switches still operate from the small control magnets and they short the drain of the MOSFET to the gate, right? And there is the body diode between the drain and the source, which may start rectifying the induced coil voltage and the horizontal line you indicate with a questionmark in the scopeshot above may be the indication of a DC component, what may be the supply voltage for a moment? maybe this is what is happening.
You could use one scope probe across the gate-source when the other scope probe would remain across the same two coils and see the waveforms. (Both scope channel ground clips should be on the common negative of the circuit.)
Temporarily you could remove the wire coming from the reed switch to the gate the moment you switch off the supply voltage and the rotor starts decelerating from the earlier full speed, to see if the spike disappears. I am watching the video now.
Edit: for the time being, no more comment, try to check the above things.
Thanks for all yout help so far. Okay, I still haven't wrapped my mind around it completely, but you are correct. I was doing some different things to try your suggestions, I noticed it disasappears when I disconnect all other coils from the ground except for the one I have probed. So it is an induced current from one of the other coils gating that transistor. I placed an extra wire to allow me to disconnect the probed coil from the transistors completely and go coil only as soon as power supply is switched off. I get a normal sign wave as it slows down then. Now that I know for sure how to replicate it as well as make it go away, maybe I can fully understand it. Thank you.
EDIT:.. Now, since I have 2 channels on this scope, I think I will figure out which is tripping the gate of this pair of coils and see if I can see it happen and understand why.
-
I am now working on the best way to recover the fly back ONLY. The way these coils work with an embedded magnet, helps boost during a drive pulse, but the opposite side is they are terrible for generator coils. So much Lenz drag with that inner genie field popping out. Just using the normal recovery circuits are usually really a half wave rectifier of sorts grabbing the whole negative half wave. I just want the extra spike so it won't drag down the rotor. I plan on generating from this on a different side of it and let these coils only drive.
I found something that seems to work, and does not slow the rotor at all. I dont know if this is the most effective or efficient way, but it's working. I simply hooked a capacitor in parallel with the charge battery, an 18650 at the moment with a resistance between them. The recovery circuit is dumping into the Capacitor which in turn dumps to the battery. I adjusted resistance between the cap and battery to find a balance where the cap stays at about the same voltage of the waveform, but still dumping any extra to the battery. This appears to be very effective. This is kind of like a smoothing capacitor I guess. It seems to do the trick and help me snip that extra out without using the drive coils as generator coils for a half wave, and doesn't change rotor speed at all. I'm trying to learn more as I go. Here is the difference in the circuit as I connect it.
-
Just for clarity: the coils you use now and recover their flyback energy have no embedded magnets? or they do?
Whether the method your using a resistor between the puffer cap and the battery is efficient (or not) can be estimated by hooking up a scope probe across this resistor and read the Mean voltage value of the waveform (it will be kinda saw tooth like). And knowing the resistor value and the Mean voltage across it the dissipated power comes out. And you would learn about the mean amplitude of charge current the charge battery receives.
In this test you mention did you use the power supply or a 'run' battery to feed the setup?
Avoid ground issues if there would be any when estimating the voltage drop across the resistor.
-
Thank you for the response. Yes, they do have the embedded magnet. And I am posting a quick view of the circuit. The switches are n channel mosfets but you get the basic idea of the circuit here. I will do what you suggested when I get home tonight. I think I understand it. I am thinking to help with the collapsing field, maybe i should use 3 more diodes and pull it down from each coil instead of a coil pair? Also, when using a puffer coil like this, doesn't the energy higher than the caps voltage just flow right over it per say? So it's not actually even touching the cap is it, just the loss through the resistor? Or am I thinking of this wrong, or is it actually charging and discharging that extra voltage over the top?
I really appreciate the suggestions everyone makes. I'm trying to follow them and learn from you guys as best I can. Thanks again.
-
Well, you can attempt using 3 more diodes as you describe I never tested whether there is a small or significant difference between letting the flyback pulses add up on 2 or more series coils or collecting them individually.
In theory, the two flyback spikes of the two series coils should add up as if you connect two batteries in series but this could be checked with scope probes, checking individually the amplitudes of spikes across each coil, one at a time while the setup is running. (care for any scope ground issue)
IT is worth considering that in the present circuit drawing each flyback current of a coil (out of the two in series) goes through the other coil's copper resistance. With the extra 3 diodes this would not happen. Which causes higher loss: the 3 extra diodes or the copper losses? checking can tell this.
You showed around 80 v peak for the unloaded flyback pulses across two series coils and if the flyback pulses indeed had around 40 V peaks from each coil, this still sounds a little low amplitude.
This may be due to a slower switch-off speed of the MOSFET concerned or maybe due to some asymmetry between the coils (I suspect the first, not the latter.)
The slower switch-off speed can come from your using 10 kOhm gate-source resistors for the MOSFETs, replace them with say 2.2 k resistors (or less) to discharge the gate-source capacitance more rapidly, the reed switches should work well with the 7 mA current instead of the previous 1.4 mA or so. But then you would have about an extra 20 mA draw from the input (for the 3 reeds)
If you use MOSFET driver circuits, the switching speeds will increase significantly versus the reed switches + the gate-source discharge resistor, though these circuits also need some (small) input power to function.
I assume you do not wish to connect the 2 coils in parallel that are in series now, to avoid the higher input current draw involved with this.
Please clarify what you mean on "using a puffer coil like this" ? you wrote it in your last but one sentence.
If you meant puffer capacitor, then the answer is no, all the energy coming from the flyback pulse goes into the capacitor as long as the cap voltage is lower than the spike's peak amplitude. Of course, some part of the flyback pulse will go towards the resistor + the charge battery and how much part is involved depends on the series impedance of the resistor+battery and how this is related to the (normally lower) capacitor impedance.
-
Very good response, thank you. A lot of info in there. I will read it over a few times when I get done working for the day and get home.
I have no idea why I said puffer coil, I just mistyped. I meant puffer capacitor. What I was asking is how it worked for sure. Let's say the peak voltage of the wave without the spike is 12v, once the cap fills to 12v, and I have adjusted the resistance for the cap to hold at that voltage, then wouldn't that 40v spike roll right past the Capacitor to the resistor or does it just seem that way? I just want to understand the physics behind it.
As for the other questions, it's entirely possible I have some setting wrong on the scope as well. But I have been leaning on the auto functions before the minor adjustments I do. As far as the gate resistance, that is a very good idea and easy for me to test.
As far as a mosfet driver, are you referring to a simple motor driver circuit instead of just a reed switch on the gate? I was thinking this would use the least amount of energy but of course maybe I'm off base there. I tried hall sensors but I simply have bad parts so until I get more I can't really even do that.
If I missed anything, I'll catch it later when I get time to read more closely and follow point by point. Thank you.
One more thing, is there a better way to get only that spoke collected than what I'm doing? I just found something that seemed to work, I'm open to more options for sure. Thank you so much.
Edit... also, I wired each coil separately in a terminal block so I can test parallel as well. Tests so far have shown series being more efficient, but the trade off is higher voltage of course. But i will test everything!
-
Let's say the peak voltage of the wave without the spike is 12v, once the cap fills to 12v, and I have adjusted the resistance for the cap to hold at that voltage, then wouldn't that 40v spike roll right past the Capacitor to the resistor or does it just seem that way? I just want to understand the physics behind it.
As I mentioned, it is a question of the (frequency dependent) impedances of the puffer cap and that of the series resistor + charge battery, these are connected in parallel so the 40V spike appears across both. Suppose the frequency of the spikes is 40Hz and the puffer cap is say a 100 uF electrolytic, so it has roughly 40 Ohm capacitive impedance. Suppose you find the best resistor value to charge the battery is higher than 40 Ohm, then the 40V spike will cause higher current towards the cap and less current towards the resistor+battery. Of course the charge current in the cap will be exponentially decreasing as the voltage increases across the cap, so the battery charge current will be increased accordingly by the current the remaining spike amplitude is able to provide via the series resistor which limits it too of course. This is the dynamics of the process.
IF the cap is say 470 uF, its reactance would be around 8.5 Ohm at 40 Hz, hence more energy will be captured by the cap if the series resistor value is likely way higher than this (the charge battery has very low internal resistance of course).
Yes the reed switch with the 10 kOhm gate-source resistor uses the least amount of energy for the operation. A 1 kOhm would use 10 times as much and a dedicated gate driver IC would use roughly in-between. A motor driver circuit sounds good if its output has max a few Ohm resistance (say < 2 - 3 Ohm). The input of this driver circuit could still receive the reed switch because the switching speed is always governed by the output speed of the driver circuit. (rise and fall time of the driver)
The way you collect the flyback spikes is basically good I think.
Regarding the parallel or series connection of the coils: the series connection reduces input power by the higher series coils impedance but as you find you have to increase supply voltage which works against input reduction. However the still lower currents involved versus the parallel connections give less overall losses, this explains the higher efficiency you find.
-
Very good clear response. That makes perfect sense. Thank you! I'll go over everything you said carefully and try some things.
-
@ Seychelles
This is a coaxial transformer I put together a few years back. Since I tested with 60 hertz I was only able to apply around 3 vac before core started to saturate. I used 1/8” tubing with 23 gauge center conductor. Don’t remember much results other than coupling between primary and secondary unloaded was near perfect.
Edit: A simple experiment would be wrap some TV coax cable on a core which is what I did at first.
Interesting! I have access to truckloads of free coaxial daily. Literally..
-
Well, I made a change to the motor that did not go well at all. I had a huge gap between the rotors and coils because the rotors were not as straight as needed. I decided to back them with steel and straighten them up so I can decrease the gap. Big mistake. It barely runs at all now. Guess I will be changing back. I expected an increase in rpms and power. But clearly it changed the magnetic fields so much, nothing works right anymore. Really wierd. Maybe its because they are all like poles? Ill keep playing with it a bit to make sure I didnt just do something stupid i havent caught yet before i switch back. Lesson learned I guess.
-
Okay, I reversed the changes I made, and did some more tweaking of things. Interesting enough, it actually performs better with a little wider gap between stator and rotors. I ran some tests and kept making small changes until I got the best result. I guess having all like poles on the rotor needs a bit more gap to get clearly defined separate poles for best performance. At least that appears to be the case.
Now, I am noticing if I completely disconnect 2 of the 3 coil pairs, I get better performance from an individual coil pair. I also get much cleaner scope readings and way stronger fly back spike. As was suggested helping me understand weird readings on the scope, I am getting some feedback from the other coils effecting each other. This is really hurting the performance. I need a better motor driver circuit or a better way to isolate each mosfet. I am thinking of ordering the parts to build a motor driver circuit that was posted earlier in this thread. Does anyone have any good ideas of a simple way I can stop some kind of random feedback I am getting with my circuit? I have it posted above. The problem occurs when more than one reed switch is closed at the same time. Something is looping back and I can't seem to easily nip it in the butt. Any suggestions appreciated.
-
On your post #179: Can it be that the steel material you added to reduce the gap introduced unexpected eddy current loss?
Now that you reversed the changes as you wrote in reply #180 and have some better results you noticed that a single coil pair gives better operation than 3 pairs together, this is the next step to find out why.
Try to reduce the supply voltage to say 3-5 volts only for ALL the 3 MOSFETs and see whether the problem occurs at such low levels. If the problem is not present, then try increasing the supply voltage gradually.
If the problem is present at the 3-5 volt supply, then run one switch only for one coil pair from say 12V supply and if this operation is acceptable, then use a 2nd MOSFET switch from 3-5 V supply only if you can and see whether the problem comes up already.
You did not mention whether you changed for instance the 10 k gate-source resistors to say 1 kOhm?
I do not say this is the problem, perhaps just an additive to it. Remotely is hard to comment.
-
I will be working on it some more tonight, so I'll try and narrow things down like you mentioned. I did forget to mention that i did change resistors to the gates. I was a little surprised no change at all. Not even current draw. But that was before I noticed there is interferance between coils anyway. As soon as I only connect 1 coil pair, the flyback over doubles and looks more normal. So until i fix that interferance, I'm not even sure the changes would have shown anything to me anyway. I would like to build a circuit citfa shared with me here but I'm short a few components. I think I will take inspiration from it and try putting each coil pair between 2 mosfets. Maybe it will better isolate each set of coils.
-
Well, I got a little further. I was only able to find 1 P channel mosfet to use so I could only try on 1 coil until I cam find more or figure the proper way to use 2 N chanel instead. But I simply put my coil between a P chanel and an N chanel. Each with a resistor pulling them up or down. I put a reed between the gates. It works very well and a nicer sharp pulse with a solid strong fly back. I now am able to see a current increase and decrease as I adjust resistance on the gates as suggested earlier. I think I may have the solution that will work for me and I am still able to use bare minimum current. Hopefully. Fingers crossed. Now to get my hands on some P chanel mosfets or find the best way to use all N chanel so I can see if all 3 pairs work in unisom without interferance.
-
Well, I got a little further. I was only able to find 1 P channel mosfet to use so I could only try on 1 coil until I cam find more or figure the proper way to use 2 N chanel instead. But I simply put my coil between a P chanel and an N chanel. Each with a resistor pulling them up or down. I put a reed between the gates. It works very well and a nicer sharp pulse with a solid strong fly back. I now am able to see a current increase and decrease as I adjust resistance on the gates as suggested earlier. I think I may have the solution that will work for me and I am still able to use bare minimum current. Hopefully. Fingers crossed. Now to get my hands on some P chanel mosfets or find the best way to use all N chanel so I can see if all 3 pairs work in unisom without interferance.
Hi captainpecan,
Now you are talking about something similar to what I have been experimenting with all winter. Charging a coil between 2 mosfets, disconnecting the coil and at the same instant reconnecting it to a separate circuit before the field can collapse in order to collect the inductive discharge as a separate entity. I think this method has a lot of potential.
So far, due to my non-existant electronics skills, I’ve fried a ton of both P&N mosfets so, please, if you would share any circuits for this I sure would appreciate it.
Regards
edit: I mean any circuits you use with your experiments on this thread..
-
Hi captainpecan,
Now you are talking about something similar to what I have been experimenting with all winter. Charging a coil between 2 mosfets, disconnecting the coil and at the same instant reconnecting it to a separate circuit before the field can collapse in order to collect the inductive discharge as a separate entity. I think this method has a lot of potential.
So far, due to my non-existant electronics skills, I’ve fried a ton of both P&N mosfets so, please, if you would share any circuits for this I sure would appreciate it.
Regards
edit: I mean any circuits you use with your experiments on this thread..
Hi Cadman,
I put in bold your sentence above I want to ask on: have you attempted to connect a full wave diode bridge permanently across the coil the 2 MOSFETs were switching and direct the flyback spikes into either a capacitor or to your other circuit to utilize it? I mean that in many cases no need for switching the flyback spikes by a dedicated switch which would need to be switched on at the moment the two MOSFETs are just switched off if you meant that?
See the attached drawing member citfta uploaded here https://overunity.com/19040/permanent-magnet-assisted-motor-coil-designs/msg564982/#msg564982 (https://overunity.com/19040/permanent-magnet-assisted-motor-coil-designs/msg564982/#msg564982) what I modified by adding a full wave bridge + a puffer capacitor. The DC output is quasi fully isolated from the full switching circuit, the "quasi" means the body diodes of the p and n channel MOSFETs which are in reverse direction between the input supply voltage and the input of the diode bridge so the load at the output of the diode bridge normally cannot interfere with the supply voltage.
An important note would be that in case there is a light load (i.e. a high impedance) across the DC output of the diode bridge then the flyback pulse amplitude may go high and may approach the breakdown voltages of the p and n channel MOSFETs, and can destroy them. So you should apply a relatively "heavy" load which is able to keep the flyback peak amplitude at a voltage level safe for the breakdown voltage ratings.
The puffer cap need to have at least 200 V DC rating or higher and uF value may range from say 47 uF to 470 uF or higher.
Note that this solution involves rectifying any induced voltage the coil may get in a particular motor setup whenever the 2 MOSFETs are switched off and those induced voltages are also collected in the puffer capacitor (this may involve a Lenz drag!). When this is unwanted, then indeed a separate switch is needed and controlled in the needed manner if possible at all.
Note also that the MOSFET types in the schematic have only 100 V drain-source breakdown ratings so it would be advisable to use at least 400- 500 V rated types or even higher, depending on the Vcc supply voltage too.
-
Yup, that's the circuit I used for inspiration to do what I am doing now. I only had 1 P channel mosfet until more come in so I could only use it for 1 coil pair. I'm missing parts to complete it for now, but using a reed works great so far. I have also adapted it to use both N channel of which I have 100's of literally. I'm playing with it, but using 2 N channel so far gives me less performance and less fly back. But if I can't get it figured out, I'll have more P channels on monday.
-
Thanks gyulasun and captainpecan.
The circuit I used is almost the same, except I used separate transistors to trigger the mosfets at the coil instead of a single trans, and a optocoupler for the signal. P-mos on the high side and N-mos on the low side of the coil. I've used a bridge on the flyback side and also tried individual diodes at the coil ends. So far having separate triggering transistors and resistors hasn't accomplished anything note-worthy.
All the mosfets and diodes are 600V 6A or better and diodes are UF type. 5V control for the transistors and 15-18V for the mosfets. The highest spike is right at 179V. Oh, and the cap collecting the discharge is a 400V 3000uF cap scavenged from a VFD.
I guess what this means is the problem is somewhere else in my circuit. Good to know.
If it ever amounts to anything I'll open a thread for it.
Thanks again guys
Cadman
-
Still waiting on some more P channel mosfets, so kind of slowed down my build a bit. But decided to work on a generator side of things while I wait. I wanted to choose a design I can easily couple to my motor, and be able to use it on a small wind turbine to play with if I want to. I have many odd ball ideas I want to try that this design is a good starter for. Since I have some nice strong neo magnets 60mm by 10mm bars, I chose a dual axial flux design again. Just basically like many wind turbine home builds. Seems to be a good fit for this project.There will be 2 rotors with 12 magnets on each, and a 9 coil stator sandwiched between them. I can make it relatively thin, and useful. I am bringing all coil leads out so that I can wire it in any way I wish to test things out. Here's how far I got today.
-
While I am waiting on parts, I was playing with the gate resistance and watching rpm and current draw changes. While playing with the pulse alignment and stuff I started noticing something interesting.
For this set up, I am just using 1 coil pair, triggered between a P and N mosfet. I posted the circuit above that I drew. Very simple. But when I move things around a little, and when i send the pulse, I start getting a large flyback spike BEFORE the pulse. I mean, at the exact moment the pulse BEGINS I am getting a spike at times. Doesn't seem to be every single pulse, or my scope just isn't catching it. Possibly there is more interferance as I was seeing earlier and got help debunking it. But the way these coils are made with an internal permanent magnet, it does flip the field outward at the beginning of the pulse, and inward at the end. I have been hoping I can somehow see that flip on the scope. Is that possibly what I am seeing here? It is showing up more, the lower the resistance I put on the gates of the mosfets. That means a little more current, more rpm, but a faster switch on time I believe that could explain catching this spike. Does anyone have any other thoughts on this leading spike I am getting at times?
-
Here are two scope shots. The only change was 1 shot is using a 10k resistor on the mosfet gates, and the other uses a 1k resistor. Could this be showing up due to the spec difference between the P and the N mosfet?
-
Your CH1 is set to 2 V/DIV it seems and your scope probe is across the two series coils, right?
Would like to ask what was your supply voltage feeding the setup when you took the scope shots?
Please also tell whether you have any load for the captured flyback?
For the p and n channel MOSFET switch to work properly in this simple circuit, the supply voltage for their gate circuit should be way higher than the sum of their individual gate-source threshold voltages to be able to switch both on correctly. Threshold voltage is around 4.5 Volt fet type dependent so at least a minimum of 10 Volt supply voltage should be fed across the two resistors the reed switch activates.
The erratic switching at the "wrong place" may indeed come from the threshold voltage differences, how this is connected with the lower value gate-source resistances is not clear yet, (resistor tolerances and voltage division) if the supply voltage is too low, they cannot switch properly due to the poor DC bias, this may be one reason.
You can always separate the drain voltage supply to the MOSFETs from the resistors supply so that the latter would get say at least 10-11 volts while the MOSFETS with the coils could get a lower voltage supply if you wish to avoid higher spikes developing now.
EDIT It is possible the scope settings did not consider the 10x probe and 20 V/DIV is involved? So you have about 12 V supply voltage...
-
It's all done from the power supply set at 16v. I have been having issues getting the scope set correctly. It seems the autoset feature keeps showing wrong for the v. I have something set wrong. But the wave is correct. I needed to unplug the scope and let it set again. But it is 16v supply. I'm still learning the scope settings.
-
I think you would need to choose manually in the Menu of CH1 the x1 or x10 etc multipliers when your probe is set to x10 and not 1:1. The correct amplitude settings can be checked by measuring the square wave test amplitude with the probe and see the displayed amplitude and compare it to the one written under the test pin output on the front of the scope. (maybe it is 5Vpp)
When you have the 1 kOhm resistors in the circuit, hook up one probe GND clip to supply negative and the probe tip to the gate pin of the p channel MOSFET. And hook up the other probe tip to the gate of the n channel MOSFET to see the switching waveforms. The 16V should fall to around 8V on the gate of the p channel at the switch on moment of the reed and the zero voltage on the gate of the n channel MOSFETR should jump up to around the same 8V level when the reed is on.
Is it possible the reed switch is abused from earlier setups? If so the 8 mA current (16V / 2 kOhm) may make the internal contacts uncertain versus the 0.8 mA current (16V / 20 kOhm). _This may not be a case but if you can replace this reed by another one, you will see.
-
Thanks again for all the help from you guys as I learn moving forward!
Oh, there is no doubt in my mind the reed switches have been abused. I'm waiting on some more. I have had to thump them a few times already after realizing my circuits weren't working right. They are working properly in general enough to run with them since im out of replacements and my other glass ones were junk from the factory. But at a micro level such as that, I need to replace them all. I've kicked their butts accidentally during my learning curve. I will revisit this subject after I get more and swap them out. I did get my P channel mosfets and my spring scales. After a quick throw together, I got all 3 coil pairs firing as they should. There is a nasty rats nest of wires so I will hopefully solder up my driver circuit tonight and start preparing for an efficiency test after a little more tweaking. I would like to know if I am actually seeing some benefits from these coils or if i need to make some design changes again. Maybe I'll at least know if it is moving in the right direction. I would like to know if I've built a 25% efficient motor or if it's actually showing promise.
I need to shoot a quick video of some findings I had testing out my recovery circuit while I waited on parts. But I've got to clean up the rats nest of wires I have everywhere first so you can at least tell what is being filmed. I've got a few ideas for helping with Lenz on the generator side I can't wait to test. But 1 step at a time picking apart each phase so I can learn as much as possible!
-
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.
-
Bad numbers happens some times, for sure, no big deal. That's the way it some
times goes when presenting on the fly. When you find that it's the case, just don't
let it bog you down.
-
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.
-
Bad numbers happens some times, for sure, no big deal. That's the way it some
times goes when presenting on the fly. When you find that it's the case, just don't
let it bog you down.
I agree. Thanks for the response. There is a lot to learn from what I've done here though. I think there is something to this coil design but the numbers show different so far. I have some more work to do learning more about it. It does run really nice amd at very little wattage. It just doesn't put out the kind of torque I was hoping for to go with it. Not giving up on it for sure. I just may need to adjust my perspective and change what I'm doing with it.
-
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.
-
I can only think of one way that a pulse motor could have a fair amount of torque would be to stagger the coils behind each other a couple of degrees so as to apply the repulse before the preceding coil had a chance to finish. Say maybe three sets around the rotor, but that could lead to a fair sized machine too. More power draw as they would be firing more often.
Oh well, just musing a bit.
thay
-
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.
-
Captainpecan,
I found a relatively easy way to compare efficiency of different tests. This will not give you a true efficiency reading but will give you a quick and easy way to compare one setup with another. You need to replace your pulley with a fan blade so as to give a load on your motor. I think you have posted earlier that you had a tach. I might be wrong on that. But you need a tach. I use one of the cheap laser tachs from China with a small piece of reflective tape on my rotor.
You measure the RPM of the rotor and then calculate the wattage used to get that speed. Then divide the RPM by the wattage to get the RPM per watt. As I wrote, you won't get an actual efficiency but as you change things you can easily see if your rpm went up or down per watt of input power. Depending on the design of the fan blade the load may not be totally linear as the speed increases but that shouldn't really matter as we just want to compare RPM to wattage.
As a side note. I did not want to input any negative ideas into your thread as I was hoping your results would be better than mine. But I tried substituting a coil with some magnets inside it for my original coils on my pulse motor and the efficiency went down by quite a bit. You have a great build there so you might want to try it with regular coils with cores and see what you get. I used pieces of electric fence wire for my cores and also solid bolts and other things but the electric fence wire always gave me my best results.
I will continue to follow your's and Floodrod's threads as you are both doing some great research.
Take care,
Carroll
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg) and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY (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 (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 (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 all the suggestions and info. I will try adding a a solid core in the middle of my coils and give that a shot as well to see the difference. I did those tests in the beginning before the build and the magnet in the core was way better performance. But now I'm starting to wonder what I may have missed. The concept of the inner magnet seems in my mind to be something to add to the performance. At the very least, I should get a bit of a generative spike as the field goes back inside the coil and cuts the turns of the wire as it collapses. But, reality and mental visualization doesn't always coincide. That's why we do this stuff. I've got tons more ideas I need to test. What I am really most interested is some ideas I have for the generator side of things and ways I may be able to work around lenz law a little for better generation. But I drifted down this path first, and probably many others before I ever get to the original idea I had. The fun never ends.
-
@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.
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg) and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY (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 (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 (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
Also, increase in the radius of a rotor will increases torque ( greater leverage).
-
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?
-
Also, increase in the radius of a rotor will increases torque ( greater leverage).
Good point. But am I thinking backwards? On the same size rotor, if I moved the magnet in toward the shaft wouldn't it give more torque, and out towards the edge more speed? I am going to make some adjustments and actually since I have gone so far with it, I'm at a spot that I can maybe answer a few questions I don't want to bug me later. Like, what if I just added one more layer of coils that are fired offset from the first layer along with a 3rd rotor. Would the efficiency be about the same or would it jump up quite a bit? Now where it is at, more pulses into more coils will be even shorter pulses due to rotor speed making all the pulses a little more efficient. Not only that more magnetic field attraction for the entire rotation adding to the torque. And, I can do a ton of tests woth these coils in other applications anyway if this whole thing ends up being a massive turd... lol. Like switching these into a solid state configuration to try and pull some extra energy from that inner magnet flipping. Or, taking out the magnet and winding a very small coil of high guage wire I can slide inside the hollow core. Would there be Lenz drag from that tiny center coil since it will be surrounded by the metal bushing I have in it that should contain it??? There are a million ideas I have, and I see this seemingly small disappointing results as me being in a position to test more things that I have never seen anyone do before. I would like to know more about the problems @citfa had when he was working on something similar. He'll, I've even been kicking around the idea of using a joule thief concept to massively pulse and capture the flyback, but do it when the rotor magnets are in place to see if I still get a small degree of rotation as a bonus to use instead of it being what I'm looking for as the output.
I will be out of town for a few days this weekend so I won't have much to share. But I am keeping notes of things to try with these special coils. If any of you come up with some odd ball thing for me to try with them just to learn from it, let me know. I cannot seem to prove it, but I really feel there is SOMETHING to this concept. I just haven't figured it out yet. Maybe I'm wrong, but I will have to run out of things to try to admit it!!!
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg) and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY (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 (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 (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.
-
Just peaking at this thread for the first time.
I've good luck with these designs and getting them very close to 100% efficiency in measuring power in to coils and power out via flyback. I'm using analog current meters and simple DC battery voltage measurement, so can't say the measurements are superb but it's around 90% recovery if the two battery banks are in parallel and not series like Bedini.
Couple things I've found:
1) High speed is better (+10,000 cycles per min)
2) MOSFET's are more efficient than Transistors (IRF840 or IRF460)
3) Higher Voltage is more efficient than 12V (I've tried 24, 36, 48 volt)
4) Air Core Coils so no iron drag on rotor
5) Bigger Wire Diameter (AWG 20 or less)
6) Swap the batteries every few minutes so their respective voltages stay similar
7) Make sure the magnetic field of magnet extends to the end of coil. That should help you determine how deep your coil is.
Just sharing some things I found to help..
-
I decided to make a simple dual axial flux generator to add to my motor designs. I was aiming for something compact and easy i can just add to whatever and pull energy from projects I'm working on in the future. Including a little wind turbine if I choose. I attempted to seal a bearing and then resin around it, but it failed and I got resin inside the bearing. So I removed it and now I will just add the bearing now that the resin is set. Just more fun playing with my toys and sharing!!! This should generate pretty high volts at low rpm, but I am keeping the wires out separate so I can wire it more in parallel and boost the current if I choose. It's meant to just give me a nice easy way to begin pulling from motors and seeing what I can get, as well as being able to test some ideas on the generation side of things!
-
I have so many changes to this design planned. New shaft size and an overall better build. But I do think this embedded magnet coil concept may have some merit for some kind of use, but I believe I will shelf this project for a bit and return after I have done another design. I do not have a good motor design to compare the performance to. After working on my simple axial flux generator to attach to my projects, I decided what I have wanted to make for a long time is an air core 3 phase dual axial flux motor design. I am certain I can make a nice compact design that will give good speed as well as good torque. I think it will be a good learning experience and great comparison to do efficiency tests against to help me determine if i want to keep going down this road or not. As of now, I have gotten to 39% efficiency with my current design. Before I move forward, I just want to see how good or bad that actually is compared to others. I will revisit this design soon after I have some numbers from another project.