Author Topic: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong. (Read 7479 times)

tinman · « **Reply #45 on:** September 02, 2023, 02:25:03 AM »

Just so as every one knows, below is a pic of what we will be referring to as the gate.
If you remove one of the PMs, and replace it with a coil, this is what we will have.
The torque plates will be passing through this gate.

You will need to put aside the normal understanding of how things should be set up for this build.
One would think that the gate should be made from having a south field on one side, and a north field on the other, in order to obtain maximum pull force. But this simply is not true. When using two like poles facing each other, the field produced will not be the sum of the two fields, but in excess of 3 times the field strength.

I will have a video up before the days end, showing the test process.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #46 on:** September 02, 2023, 06:48:41 AM »

Here is a video to show you how to match your coil to your permanent magnet, and set up your test bed.
Also shows the difference between a standard pulse motors torque, to that of the torque force motor.

Next video will show you the torque curve difference between a standard pulse motor, and the torque force motor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3UZ-BZoq-A

tinman · « **Reply #47 on:** September 02, 2023, 08:46:45 AM »

Here is a jpeg of the graph you can print out in relation to the next series of tests you will need to carry out, in relation to the next video.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #48 on:** September 02, 2023, 12:13:55 PM »

At this point, i would like to say-make sure you watch all video's in order, and carry out the needed tests.

This test is a must, as it will give you a base line.
From this base line, you can make small changes, and compare those changes to your base line.
This way, you will know if you are going in the right direction, or the wrong direction.
This will also show you that this unconventional motor design, far exceeds that of the normal designed motor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbP4b4tlFU

Brad

Nali2001 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 02, 2023, 11:44:51 PM »

Hi Brad, seen the videos. Very clear and informative.
Now at this point I have the following question since you obviousness have gone much further then this over the years.

The baseline in the videos is a static 2 amp as a case example. But is the voltage required to reach this 2 amps in a 'dynamic situation' (aka a running motor) the same when your pulse motor version is compared versus a convectional pulse motor. When the motor is running the magnet will induce a voltage in the coil (back emf) which will counter the voltage you put in. So was this ever compared versus the 'conventional' pulse motor design? I am not saying it is like this, but it could be that your system needs 25v input to reach 2amps while the conventional design needs 15v to reach 2amps (in a running motor that is), or maybe even the other way around. Is this known?

Will start the making of the rotor soon.

Kind regards,
Steven

bistander · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2023, 03:15:56 AM »

Today's post, https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg581931/#msg581931, reply #3079, second link, included the graphics attached. Similar to what tinman is developing. Just found it interesting, perhaps useful for some.

Also, when the torque is from a PM and an electromagnet at a constant excitation, result can be considered cogging. Note graphs and discussion on pages 3&4 in attached PDF.
bi

tinman · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2023, 04:36:17 AM »

Quote from: Nali2001 on September 02, 2023, 11:44:51 PM

Hi Brad, seen the videos. Very clear and informative.
Now at this point I have the following question since you obviousness have gone much further then this over the years.

The baseline in the videos is a static 2 amp as a case example. But is the voltage required to reach this 2 amps in a 'dynamic situation' (aka a running motor) the same when your pulse motor version is compared versus a convectional pulse motor. So was this ever compared versus the 'conventional' pulse motor design? I am not saying it is like this, but it could be that your system needs 25v input to reach 2amps while the conventional design needs 15v to reach 2amps (in a running motor that is), or maybe even the other way around. Is this known?

Will start the making of the rotor soon.

Kind regards,
Steven

Quote

When the motor is running the magnet will induce a voltage in the coil (back emf) which will counter the voltage you put in.

Ah, but this is unlike any conventional motor, as the magnet does not move, and does not induce any back EMF in the coil.
The coil is already induced with the static magnetic field of the PM, and when the coil is switched on, it is producing the very same field that is already induced within it from the PM, not the opposite field like in the pulse motor example.

I will be doing a video on this soon.

Brad

Thaelin · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2023, 06:19:55 AM »

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this setup will make the rotor piece exit the mag field. I can see how it will be drawn into the field, but then I see it cogging. Obviously I am all wet and its not a jab but I'll just have to make the thing and see it.
thay

tinman · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2023, 07:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Thaelin on September 03, 2023, 06:19:55 AM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this setup will make the rotor piece exit the mag field. I can see how it will be drawn into the field, but then I see it cogging. Obviously I am all wet and its not a jab but I'll just have to make the thing and see it.
thay

There is an exit force required, which is why that same force was subtracted from the input force.
So that has been accounted for.

Nali2001 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 03, 2023, 11:54:08 AM »

Quote from: bistander on September 03, 2023, 03:15:56 AM

Today's post, https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg581931/#msg581931, reply #3079, second link, included the graphics attached. Similar to what tinman is developing. Just found it interesting, perhaps useful for some.

Also, when the torque is from a PM and an electromagnet at a constant excitation, result can be considered cogging. Note graphs and discussion on pages 3&4 in attached PDF.
bi

Hmm yeah dunno. This has been tried many times including by me. In static cases yes it does increase the holding torque by 3.5 times which is easy to test and is real. But try using that in a rotating reluctance type motor and you will find that adding the magnets does nothing. I made models where you can run the motor without magnets and later drop them in while running it and is does nothing. This is because in such a reluctance motor the gap between stater and rotor finger is just too large and too much of a resistance for the magnets to want to 'switch' out of their close looped core structure, over to the airgapped rotor piece. The gap is of course getting less and less when the alignment increases but by the time the gaps are so close that the magnet will switch over, the forces have become tangential and add nothing to the rotation.

Nali2001 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 03, 2023, 12:09:36 PM »

Quote from: tinman on September 03, 2023, 04:36:17 AM

Ah, but this is unlike any conventional motor, as the magnet does not move, and does not induce any back EMF in the coil.
The coil is already induced with the static magnetic field of the PM, and when the coil is switched on, it is producing the very same field that is already induced within it from the PM, not the opposite field like in the pulse motor example.

I will be doing a video on this soon.
Brad

Hi Brad, fair enough but I would like to add that anything that can dynamically change the inductance of a coil in any way will cause a loading effect. That is also the reason why reluctance motors still have loading effects despite 'no magnet' is influencing the coil, since the making and the braking of the core structure heavily influences the inductance the coil. If you put an inductance meter on the coil and you rotate the wheel and the inductance changed then a loading effect will manifest.

Also to me when you fire your coil it needs to repel the field from the magnet right? If so that means it needs to completely reverse the field that is statically put in there by the stationary magnet if not then it would be attracting it. But since you repel it, it is the opposite polarity and this reversion of field will also cost you since in order for the repelling field you want to manifest you first have the invest the energy to 'drive the field of the magnet out' and flip the polarity so that they repel.

All in all I have seen too many threads go under by people criticizing things, I do not want that to happen so I will build it as instructed!

tinman · « **Reply #56 on:** September 03, 2023, 01:25:32 PM »

Quote from: Nali2001 on September 03, 2023, 12:09:36 PM

Hi Brad, fair enough but I would like to add that anything that can dynamically change the inductance of a coil in any way will cause a loading effect. That is also the reason why reluctance motors still have loading effects despite 'no magnet' is influencing the coil, since the making and the braking of the core structure heavily influences the inductance the coil. If you put an inductance meter on the coil and you rotate the wheel and the inductance changed then a loading effect will manifest.

Also to me when you fire your coil it needs to repel the field from the magnet right? If so that means it needs to completely reverse the field that is statically put in there by the stationary magnet if not then it would be attracting it. But since you repel it, it is the opposite polarity and this reversion of field will also cost you since in order for the repelling field you want to manifest you first have the invest the energy to 'drive the field of the magnet out' and flip the polarity so that they repel.

All in all I have seen too many threads go under by people criticizing things, I do not want that to happen so I will build it as instructed!

I welcome any input, and when it comes to this motor, and i understand that most will be thinking in conventional terms.

I will try to explain as best i can what happens in this situation.
I took the time to run my test motor with and with out the PM-nothing else was changed, and took scope shots to show the change.

!please note that this is a different coil i am trying out, to that of the one i used in the static test. Larger wire with less turns-to get the voltage down.!

The first thing you will see, is how quickly the coil reaches it's peak current of 2 amps with the magnet in place. (the CVR is 1 ohm)
When the coil is switched on, an apposing field starts to build in the coil. This causes a rapid exponential magnetic field expansion through the windings of the coil, which in turn, causes a rapid flow of current through the coil. This is why the coil can reach it's peak current of 2 amps faster than would be normal. You do not see this in the scope shot of the motor running without the magnet.

The next thing you see, is a rapid drop in voltage across the coil, right as the current hits its peak.
This is the point where the combined magnetic fields in the core, see a rapid decrease as the fields flip from the coil core, and latch onto the torque plate.
At the same time, the coils inductance is increasing, which is why the current flatlines at 2 amps, and the voltage remains low.
As you can see, the voltage drops from 6v slowly for 2ms, and drops rapidly to below 4v for the duration of max current flow.
You will also see this does not happen when the motor is run without the PM, and the current rise time is much greater.

You will also see that when the PM is removed, the motor consumes more power, the current rises slower and higher, and even after 5 minutes running, could not reach as high rpm, as can be seen by the time constant on the scope shots

The inductive kickback energy is greater for the motor running without the magnet, and that is because both the current through the coil, and the voltage across the coil was higher, and so the coil had more stored energy to release.

It is interesting that most say PM's cant do useful work, as the only thing we did, was remove the PM, and lost a lot of efficiency in the motor.

So all in all, the motor without the PM consumes more power for less rpm and torque.
Seems like the PM is doing useful work to me, as that is the only thing we changed between the two runs.

Brad

Nali2001 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 03, 2023, 09:42:14 PM »

Quote from: tinman on September 03, 2023, 01:25:32 PM

I welcome any input, and when it comes to this motor, and i understand that most will be thinking in conventional terms.

I will try to explain as best i can what happens in this situation.
I took the time to run my test motor with and with out the PM-nothing else was changed, and took scope shots to show the change.

!please note that this is a different coil i am trying out, to that of the one i used in the static test. Larger wire with less turns-to get the voltage down.!

The first thing you will see, is how quickly the coil reaches it's peak current of 2 amps with the magnet in place. (the CVR is 1 ohm)
When the coil is switched on, an apposing field starts to build in the coil. This causes a rapid exponential magnetic field expansion through the windings of the coil, which in turn, causes a rapid flow of current through the coil. This is why the coil can reach it's peak current of 2 amps faster than would be normal. You do not see this in the scope shot of the motor running without the magnet.

The next thing you see, is a rapid drop in voltage across the coil, right as the current hits its peak.
This is the point where the combined magnetic fields in the core, see a rapid decrease as the fields flip from the coil core, and latch onto the torque plate.
At the same time, the coils inductance is increasing, which is why the current flatlines at 2 amps, and the voltage remains low.
As you can see, the voltage drops from 6v slowly for 2ms, and drops rapidly to below 4v for the duration of max current flow.
You will also see this does not happen when the motor is run without the PM, and the current rise time is much greater.

You will also see that when the PM is removed, the motor consumes more power, the current rises slower and higher, and even after 5 minutes running, could not reach as high rpm, as can be seen by the time constant on the scope shots

The inductive kickback energy is greater for the motor running without the magnet, and that is because both the current through the coil, and the voltage across the coil was higher, and so the coil had more stored energy to release.

It is interesting that most say PM's cant do useful work, as the only thing we did, was remove the PM, and lost a lot of efficiency in the motor.

So all in all, the motor without the PM consumes more power for less rpm and torque.
Seems like the PM is doing useful work to me, as that is the only thing we changed between the two runs.

Brad

Hi Brad, from what I see, I agree that running it your way indeed is more efficient than the conventional way.
You sure that the voltage drop at 2amp is not caused by the 2 amp max control on your power supply? And that you did not had the 2amp max set on the 'without magnet' run? Just wondering.
Do you have a cap on the flyback capture circuit? What is clamping its voltage?
Kind regards,
Steven

tinman · « **Reply #58 on:** September 04, 2023, 01:22:38 AM »

Quote from: Nali2001 on September 03, 2023, 09:42:14 PM

Hi Brad, from what I see, I agree that running it your way indeed is more efficient than the conventional way.
You sure that the voltage drop at 2amp is not caused by the 2 amp max control on your power supply? And that you did not had the 2amp max set on the 'without magnet' run? Just wondering.
Do you have a cap on the flyback capture circuit? What is clamping its voltage?
Kind regards,
Steven

Power supply was wound up to 5amps.
I also have a high current 63v 10,000uF cap on the input side of the motor, before the cvr.
The flyback is being sent to a rather flat 18650 cell.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #59 on:** September 04, 2023, 01:31:45 AM »

Quote from: Kapalek on September 04, 2023, 12:20:04 AM

Hi,
I am not sure what is the radius of this rotor but if you could check the NewtonOmeter (grams of pull x radius) value and then estimate at what rotational speed this pulse still has its kick power (about 10Hz maybe?).
So power should be (rotational speed) x (grams pull x radius) = (mech power)
(400 rpm) x (300g x 5cm) = mech power rotor. (Just an example of calculation idea)
Question is what would be pulse duration of 2A@10V ?

Not sure how you could achieve this with a pulse motor, as the grams of pull force is not a constant.
The pull force would have to be averaged over the degrees of measurements taken, then in my case times 4, as i have 4 torque plates.
The running pull force would be less than the static tests carried out.

Brad

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong. (Read 7479 times)

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

Nali2001

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

bistander

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

Thaelin

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

Nali2001

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

Nali2001

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

Nali2001

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.

tinman

Re: Pulse Motors- Your building them wrong.