Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Nali2001 on April 13, 2007, 09:40:34 PM
-
Hi all, I might have some interesting idea:
An (relatively) easy to realize Hildenbrand style permanent magnet assisted magnet motor.
You might know that next to all washing machines have a motor with a core that can be easily adapted for this use. I think the pictures talk for themselves but just in case I will explain it a bit:
The plan is to make a 3 valve motor much like Hildenbrand has done only this time it is on a budget. So We use old washing machine motor cores. So you need 3 the same core. Might sound difficult but it?s not really so, a lot of brands use the same motors. These things can of course be bought new, but a better option is to go to your local recycle center or repair shop or whatever. There you will be able to scrap them out of old dumped washing machines for free (Or cheap at least.)
So now you have 3 cores, you remove the windings. Now on one side of each core you need to take out a part of the core for the magnet. You can use a metal mill, or go see some metal machinist and have them do it for you. (Mind the laminations)
On the other side of the core you need to wind a coil that should at a given input have the same strength as the permanent magnet. And preferably saturate the core section where it is wound around. So that it acts even more as a gate, to not allow the passage of any flux from the permanent magnet.
Next thing to do it construct some kind of precise rotor.
Now we connect all three valves to each other through a shaft. For far better torque results through the whole rotation of the system you want to advance each rotor 120 degrees relative to each other.
Of course you need to make some circuit that will pulse the coils, you could use opto switching, or maybe even a commutator or some other contact point based system. But I leave that up to you. Next to mechanical output you should be able you recover a good part of the back emf from the input coils. This can be done up to saturation.
So that all, I must say that there are far better rotor shapes possible than the one seen in the pictures. But one should look into variable or switched reluctance motors for more understanding of such a rotor arrangement.
Well maybe in inspires some to start a little project.
Thanks
-
On the other side of the core you need to wind a coil that should at a given input have the same strength as the permanent magnet. And preferably saturate the core section where it is wound around.
How do you figure out how much flux is required to saturate the core (and from this, figure out the best size/strength of permanent magnet to use)?
Once you have the right size/strength of permanent magnet, how do you calculate the wire size/number of turns/voltage/amperage so that the resulting electro-magnet will be the same strength as the permanent magnet?
Next thing to do it construct some kind of precise rotor.
Doesn't the rotor require magnets (whether permanent magnet or electromagnet) so that it will react to the flux through it, and rotate?
Of course you need to make some circuit that will pulse the coils, you could use opto switching, or maybe even a commutator or some other contact point based system.
Would what this guy is developing work here?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2071.0.html
-
Hello there FredWalter.
Look mate I don't claim to have all the formula's to super precisely calculate the saturation levels but it can be found by trying the system out, and varying the input to the coil and monitor when it's performance it optimal. But this all is not that much of a problem. And if the coil is completely not able to saturate it at all, just wind another one, costs you a dollars of wire, and 30minutes to do so. Small price to pay, in my opinion. In my experiments with other systems I found that a given cross section of regular silicon laminated steel (from mots or stators) will be saturated, by a n42 magnet of the same cross section.
See the attached movie for an example.
And no you don't need magnets in the rotor. The rotation is coused by the combined flux of the coil and magnet wanting to pull the rotor in better alignment, and so couse rotation. But this principle of rotation is noting new or anything. The variable and switched reluctance motors have worked by the principle for decades. For more info look a google for example.
http://www.srdrives.com/technology.shtml (http://www.srdrives.com/technology.shtml)
http://www.sovereign-publications.com/images/srdrives/picture1.jpg (http://www.sovereign-publications.com/images/srdrives/picture1.jpg)
http://www.simulation-research.com/sr/products/tesla/html/Image144.gif (http://www.simulation-research.com/sr/products/tesla/html/Image144.gif)
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=switched+reluctance&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken&gbv=2 (http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=switched+reluctance&btnG=Afbeeldingen+zoeken&gbv=2)
There would be many ways of powering these coils and should not be too hard to create for someone somewhat skilled in circuits.
-
Hello Nali2001,
Sorry but this design will not work to overunity. I have allready tryed it. To get the four times amplifaction the permanent magnet and the coil need to be on the same side. Also there is not thick steel, you will over saturate the fields. Also in my experiments with the magnet on one side, the rotor did not want to turn loose of the permanent magnet flux lines. They would need to travel across over to the coil side to short out. You can make a motor like this but do not expect it to be very efficient. Don it.
Later,,,,,,,JackH
-
Hi Nail !
good thinking to use existing motors and "repair" them.
but this I think would not work
In this setup:
If Core (rotor) is in 90-270 deg position and coil off there will be magnetic flux going thru Core from magnet (if air gap is small (should be)) - can not work that way.
maybe something else...
wiz
-
btw. Nail !
can You post here ziped fem file so I can make some analysis...
have some ideas ....
thanks
Wiz
-
Hi nail2001 !
this could work (simplified core) coil is between two magnets.
Wiz
-
wiz
-
Magnetic transistor!!!
Wizkycho, Good eye on catching this thread, since I understand your idea I'm starting to understand others as well and they seem to have one thing in common. That is the use of a coil to reroute the magnetic field. This concept is easy and simple I hope it inspires others as well.
Edit: wizkycho, since I always find your sims a bit difficult to look at since they lack any solid colors, here's a contribution so others can instantly get what's what.
-
Hi Folks,
Seems very good! :)
One notice: I think there must a small air gap be left where the middle column touches the horizontal core so that
1) the returning flux could easier go back to the left and right side vertical colums
2) in the coils' off state the diagonal unlike poles could find it hard to see each other through the middle column.
Do you agree?
rgds, Gyula
EDIT: I'm affraid Lenz can still apply (dispite the small airgap), when you load the output coil (not shown) in the middle column >:( ???
-
Hi there Wiz and nice to see some thoughts going on.
However in your simulation I do not see the fields of the coil when it is on. You show only the fields of what the magnets will do. But the field of the coils obviously also want to go somewhere. And I don't know how much tough you put into the overall dimensions of your simulation but in reality that thing will oversaturate if neo magnets are used. I always see it as 'units' the steel when the coil is on must at each side support two units of flux, one from the magnet and one from the coil. A unity in my way of thinking is as big as the cross section of the magnet so of your magnet has a cross section of 20mm you can expect a piece of steel of also 20mm cross section to more of less support the field of the magnet without saturation. In you image the cross section of the steel and magnet is the same. But you must keep in mind that the field of the coil also must be accounted for. So that means steel must have an additional 20mm cross section. So it can accommodate the magnet field and coil field.
But all besides that I have never found this type of device to work as a o.u 'transformer' In all my models it simply does not matter if you add magnets or not. There always seems to be a straight coupling of the input and output coils and largely ignore the magnets. Although it is all fun and games in simulations it is a whole different reality when put in to practice. In motor applications on the other hand it does hold big promise.
-
Nali2001, I don't think wizkycho is showing an idea for a transformer. Just like your concept he's showing how you can turn on or off the strength of two magnets with a little energy input by a coil. This can then be used to cause rotation much like Dr. linderman's attraction motor but in this case you use the dorment power of permanent magnets instead of the coil to make the field that momentarily attracts the rotor.
-
Hi Nali2001 !
Scince You haven't posted ziped,rared fem file I made simplified stator core of your motor, but different
magnet coil arrangment (the way it should work - closer to Hildebrand and mag. trans.) and it has, If nothing, one advantage -
no cutting of stator to insert the magnet.
The metal in Center is simplified rotor spaced 0.25mm, both sides ->0.5 mm.
Satturation of ironsheet is 1.4T and I use 1T worth of flux of magnets so there is 0.3 - 0.4T room for coil flux. Magnet and Core is equaly wide 20mm - so nothing is saturated. simplified rotor is twice that 40mm so it can "conduct" complete flux from both magnet pairs.
So dimmensions are right.
About Coil flux - I haven't drawn any flux on these pics, I gave coils 1.1A -> 0.8W at the end, every flux line is drawn by FEM the program
and It by itself makes an ERROR cause it is programmed by false "conservation of energy" (and flux lines) principle - everything must be nullified in a given area so FEM actually ERASES !?! existing flux lines from coil (... and it shouldn't cause in reality magnetic flux is not behaving this way).
0.8W is energy needed to "overcome" airgaps of rotor, after that coil flux are showned. Just like in common Current tranz 0.7V to start behaving like transistor.
Broli - You drawn the right position of magnets and coils
Gylasun - No coil in center, just rotor (again, I drawn it simplified), no lenz for now - mechanicall output
To Nali2001 -
maybe your setup could work, but I think that flux wan't go all that way arround core if airgap to rotor is small (and should be smaller as it can get). Is there something written on the motor (Current, Voltage, Power) - seems small for washing machine ?
Thanks for the idea Nali cause I'm having undescribeable tourment to find someone willing to make sheets for prototipes.
Everybody acts like everything is invented and mankind allready Knows everything - it is so so far from that point.
Wiz
-
wizkycho, I feel with you. We live in a time where people get laughed at that want to change the world into a better place. Or get ignored if they want help on some research. We should be living in a world were research is promoted, where they throw all the equipment at you just so you can do research so humanity can keep advancing technologically. It's technology that solves problems not a credit system or the lies of a politician. The political monetary system must be destroyed and become a social technological system. No money no politics no poverty no bullshit.
-
broli; They will never do it as long as you have control freaks who want to own everybody, and act like a God.
-
Please excuse my ignorance but I'm still a little stumped why a simple transformer idea wouldn't work? I don't see how Lenz law applies because if a simple DC transformer works at near 99% efficiency then why would a PM-transformer hybrid not work the same? The primary coil doesn't draw but a fraction more energy with the magnets on and the output coil should feel the magnetic fields of both the EM and the PM combined?
Tim
Also, side note without going too much into detail, I have replicated the valve and I do get a large increase in attraction force when both poles are in contact. However, there is relatively no attraction force just a small distance way. Its not until you actually connect the poles of the core does the PM field redirect.
-
Hi there Tim,
How is the project coming along?
Lenz always applies. Think about this: take a huge industrial generator which power a city. Now these things often have electro magnets as rotor 'magnets' (in other words no permanent magnets) Well, although the generator has an output of say 500megawatt, the excitation of the electro magnet which creates the magnetic field only requires maybe 200watt, the other 490megawatt is lenz. Same as a transformer. If you take a big microwave oven transformer and connect it to a variable dc power supply, you will see that at steady state 12v 10watt or so, is enough to totally saturate the core steel. But if 10watt causes a totally saturating field to occur, then why is it that these transformers in normal ac action can handle 1200watt? And also notice once you disconnect the load from the transformer it goes back to a maybe 8watt drawing state, connect the load and it is back up to 1200watt again. The thing is that lenz or Bemf is always there. When you change a magnetic field in an output coil, then that coil is going to put up and equally heavy resistive field. That is mainly what causes the effect of a 'load'. There are only very few devices which are to an extend 'lenz less' and reluctance motor are one of them.
I have yet to see an efficient dc transformer, dc to dc transformation is regarded as difficult and even the low power dc to dc chips are rarely above 85% efficient. And one can't jut pulse a transformer with dc and expect good power dc out, it will saturate in a sec. That is why ac exists the flipping of the fields is what enables good field changes and therefore efficient induction. In a dc transformer it is hard to get good field changes since you pulse it constantly with the same polarity. If the core does not go to a "zero magnetism state" on its own, in between the dc pulses, then there is no real field change and and so also no real power out. It can be done though but there are many things to keep in mind.
Plus things change when things are moving 'fast' in time. You might be able to switch these valves with 0.8 watt in dc at 5v. But doing the same thing now at 50hz you will see that, that same power in is now nothing. You will see that the time window of the 50hz causes the need for a big voltage increase as well as input power.
Keep me updated on your valve!
-
The fact that lenz applies could be common sense. But I don't think it matters much. As long as you can prove you can get more out than in even if it was for a split second you made a huge ass step. What follows is then pure engineering in optimizing and scaling it.
-
Hi all, I might have some interesting idea:
An (relatively) easy to realize Hildenbrand style permanent magnet assisted magnet motor.
You might know that next to all washing machines have a motor with a core that can be easily adapted for this use. I think the pictures talk for themselves but just in case I will explain it a bit:
snip
Congratulations Nali for starting this fantastic group. Already some great people on board!
Beautiful graphic work (as usual) Nali, my hats off...
I am interested in this concept also and would like to share what I have done... I tend to agree with Jack, the washing machine idea is not optimum.
I have taken a more conventional approach with a combination of Jack's work and Genesis...
http://www.genesis-corp.co.jp/e/e401.html
I have a small vid on youtube of an experiment...
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=kYcskBvSg6Q
I will post the explanation in a separate post, OK?
Ron
-
snip
I will post the explanation in a separate post, OK?
Ron
Hildenbrand/Genesis Test # 3
I did the original test using cast iron as the core material.
I tried a test using laminations. This was not a conclusive test. I used a heavier gauge of wire and while it worked, the results were strange, in that while the magnet stack would lift 20 pounds the coil would lift upwards of 40 pounds. In lowering the voltage to 2.6 volts the coil would lift 20 pounds yet it was not switching the magnet when the two were combined with the result that the lift was minimal.
I therefore built a second cast iron model of slightly different construction. To establish a base line the magnet stack was tested without the coil…
(http://)magnet pic
The magnet stack consists of 6, 1/8th by 1 inch neo’s.
The shim is about .016 thou aluminum.
***********
Next the coil is tested without the magnet stack…
This is the original coil from test number one. .028 wire and 5.5 ohms resistance.
Shown lifting 20 pounds.
(http://) coil pic
Lastly the coil/magnet is shown lifting 75 pounds…. 80 pounds in the video…
(http://)coil plus magnet pic
Thus the two lift double their separate strengths.
The combined strength is thus four times that of a single coil.
RHP, 10/08
-
Wow now that's a very good experimentation! Very nice studio like video and photos! Thanks for sharing.
-
I tried a test using laminations. This was not a conclusive test. I used a heavier gauge of wire and while it worked, the results were strange, in that while the magnet stack would lift 20 pounds the coil would lift upwards of 40 pounds. In lowering the voltage to 2.6 volts the coil would lift 20 pounds yet it was not switching the magnet when the two were combined with the result that the lift was minimal.
Hi Ron,
Very good!
One question. Have you tried in the lamination core case to provide an air gap of certain size between the Neo stack and the side of the laminations? This way you could 'fine-tune' the strength of the Neo to find the best flux strength for the core.
Your laminations maybe was near to saturation I guess, this could explain the nonconclusive result?
thanks, Gyula
-
The fact that lenz applies could be common sense. But I don't think it matters much. As long as you can prove you can get more out than in even if it was for a split second you made a huge ass step. What follows is then pure engineering in optimizing and scaling it.
This is all I want to "see" for myself is what would happen under a one pulse condition.
Nali2001,
I was hoping to have a better presentation of information and results but I'll give you a quick update on my status.
I have made the valve and have achieved the large increase in attraction force with relatively little additional draw of power. I just ordered a variable power supply (0-30v,0-5a) because I'm currently using batteries and the test results vary too much to get solid reading.
Basically I made a transformer out of the idea as shown below. This picture doesn't have the magnets on it but you can see that they would attach to the top of the right core segment. Without magnets it seems to be roughly 75% efficient. With the magnets it increases the efficiency to near 100%. However I only have 1 Multimeter so I cant take readings on both sides at once yet. However it is undeniable that there is a dramatic increase in efficiency with the magnets on. [By the way each side has 400 turns of wire]. There is an increase but no overall gain at the small voltages/amps I was using. [AA and 9v batteries]. I hope that I can find the right V/Amp for the coil and core to break that 100% line.
Any way, I have been slammed at work and haven't had much time to organize my findings.
Tim
-
Hi Ron,
Very good!
One question. Have you tried in the lamination core case to provide an air gap of certain size between the Neo stack and the side of the laminations? This way you could 'fine-tune' the strength of the Neo to find the best flux strength for the core.
Your laminations maybe was near to saturation I guess, this could explain the nonconclusive result?
thanks, Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
No, I didn't try different gap distances with the laminations as the Genesis patent calls for "pure iron"
and cast iron was working well for me so have not explored that option, besides I have run out of
suitable sized laminations, so didn't want to be too successful in that direction, lol
Ron
-
Wow now that's a very good experimentation! Very nice studio like video and photos! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you!
I posted this just recently on another group (Tesla and Beyond) and got not one nibble....
so it's nice to be 'on the right group'
Ron
-
Hi Nali2001 !
Is there something written on the motor (Current, Voltage, Power) - seems small for washing machine ?
wiz
-
Hi Wiz,
Well I do not have these cores handy right now but these are typical washing machine motor cores rated around 300 watt at 15k rpm.
I did in the mean time found out that these cores are not all that suited since the hole for the rotor is not really truly round, but rather elliptical.
That means that the air gaps is not the same all the way, but gets gradually bigger.
-
i_ron, I was thinking today. What if you reversed the polarity on the coil in the last experiment. What I predict is that you can barely hold anything. But it could not work due your setup.
A better setup would be using half of what wizkycho proposed namely what you can see in the image below. I and I bet others would really appreciate this experiment!
-
i_ron, I was thinking today. What if you reversed the polarity on the coil in the last experiment. What I predict is that you can barely hold anything. But it could not work due your setup.
A better setup would be using half of what wizkycho proposed namely what you can see in the image below. I and I bet others would really appreciate this experiment!
Hi, your picture file is zero byte?
-
i_ron, I was thinking today. What if you reversed the polarity on the coil in the last experiment. What I predict is that you can barely hold anything. But it could not work due your setup.
A better setup would be using half of what wizkycho proposed namely what you can see in the image below. I and I bet others would really appreciate this experiment!
It shows as "o Kb" and downloads the same... so please repost and I will comment
Ron
-
Yeah sorry for that. This actually happened two times not the same scenario. First the 0 byte, then after I finished making an even nicer drawing it crashed without saving anything ;D. So I got frustrated and left it. But I'll make a new drawing now.
Edit: Oke done and attached to this post.
-
i_ron, I was thinking today. What if you reversed the polarity on the coil in the last experiment. What I predict is that you can barely hold anything. But it could not work due your setup.
A better setup would be using half of what wizkycho proposed namely what you can see in the image below. I and I bet others would really appreciate this experiment!
broli,
K, thanks, but I am not really following you. I think your sketch would work, but I don't see any advantage? And yes if I reverse the polarity there is no effect.
Here is a chart to better illustrate the advantage of the power gain in this setup.
There are three patents (and/or pending) on this, Jack's, Genesis, and Flynn. This is better than
the parallel path model in that what I found is it didn't want to switch if a bar was not present. This
copy of Jack's and Genesis is a strong switcher and reaches out for the bar a considerable distance.
Pardon me if I work in imperial for some of the measurements. To explain the setup... I have used
a long arm because the core and bar are not radius ed. The Matzuo digital scale measures up to
50 pounds so is not as precise as one might wish at this level. to help out I have used a 2:1 ratio
on the arm and dived the result by two. The Matzuo is of a strain gauge construction and thus the
chain does not extend or contract but maintains a relatively constant dimension. So I was able to
use the 10 thread per inch slide directly as one turn per division, hence the .1 inch scale on the chart.
With a 1 inch square bar and 1 inch core thichness, I have started the test at .3 inch (8mm) ahead
of first alignment. That means the number four on the chart is with the core and bar edge to edge.
The test finishes with the core fully covered by the bar at number 14. The picture shows the start of the test with the bar .3 inches below the core.
Now one thing that should be clear from this dynamic test is not only is the combined force stronger but is of a longer duration.
Incidentally, the test picture is without the magnet stack...
Ron
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
snip
Now one thing that should be clear from this dynamic test is not only is the combined force stronger but is of a longer duration.
Ron
Hey I didn't mean to kill the new list with one post!!!
Comments, laughter, ridicule are all better than silence...
What do you think? Jack?, Nali? all?
Ron
-
You murderer...
-
You murderer...
LOL, It just came to me that everyone is so taken with my skill and wonderful manner that they
have all quit this list and are just waiting for me to open a real list....
Hehehe, don't be alarmed by this banter folks, Nali and I very good friends from away back. He was the one that encouraged and explained Jack's valve to me. I am a retired machinist but Steven's designing and machining skills leave me in awe. His animation work has this "out of this world" touch as you may have seen. Whereas I take a more redneck approach and like to illustrate concepts with a bit of wood and some C clamps. To show the "folk" that you don't need a million dollar lab to get your feet wet.
OK, that was one reply...next....
Regards,
Ron
-
Indeed Ron here is the man and he has been in this field long before me and has a long list of quality replications. The test he he has done on this valve clearly show the gain one gets with these systems. The beauty of these systems is the simplicity and ease of understanding. Lots of different variations are possible. So I guess the next step for all is to piece together some motor or solid state device where the magnet adds a gain.
Regards,
Steven
-
@All,
Another simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor is by using a Shaded Pole Ac motor. It has the magnets before the rotor and can be connected into a multi valve unit. Downside, it is hard to find a large motor to use Jack size OU magnets.
The thin top piece of the motor is cut. The rotor is cut to a shorter arc instead of a circle. Magnets are placed on each side of the stator, a bar is added around to complete the outside flux path of the magnets. The inside flux path is thru the center of the electromagnet.
When the motor has the magnets it picks up the weight attached by a string to the side of the fan. When the motor doesn't have the magnets it cannot pick up the weight.
Regards, Larry
-
@All,
Another simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor is by using a Shaded Pole Ac motor.
snip
When the motor has the magnets it picks up the weight attached by a string to the side of the fan. When the motor doesn't have the magnets it cannot pick up the weight.
Regards, Larry
Oh oh, thane's two bad boys on the new list, lol
Good to see you Larry, nice motor!, very well done, look forward to more...
Ron
-
Hey larry can you please make a paint drawing of your setup, it's a bit hard to understand from the pictures.
-
Hey larry can you please make a paint drawing of your setup, it's a bit hard to understand from the pictures.
Thanks for asking. I had made those pictures a while back and forgot to specify another cut on the stator.
The new pics should make it clearer.
Shaded pole motor before is from wiki.
Shaded pole motor cuts shows the cuts made to the stator and rotor.
Shaded pole motor with magnets shows magnets added to each side (opposite poles) with a metal spacer. The metal spacer reduces the flux strength to where it does not pull the rotor when no power is supplied.
Shaded pole motor with keeper shows metal bars have been attached to the back side of the magnets to form a flux path and stop the back side of the magnet flux from wraping into the stator.
Regards Larry
-
Thanks for asking. I had made those pictures a while back and forgot to specify another cut on the stator.
snip
Regards Larry
Excellent photography Larry, also. I see that they have been viewed 50 times so that must mean we
some interested people on the list.
It was the Genesis patent that really opened my eyes. Jack has this very basic shop (joke) and builds
these incredible motors, yet much is hidden and not explained too well. The Genesis patent supplies
a lot of the answers. So I have based my model more on the genesis and have found that the shorter
the flux path the better.
I had missed the fact that the list had been started a year and a half ago! So I do hope that this
revival will grow and that we continue to see Gyula, Tim and Wiz offering their expertize.
I did have great hopes for the solid state version. This was my first experiment with the lamination core... but sad to say it just showed only transformer action and the voltage was the same with
the magnets in or out of the circuit. But I did inadvertently make a Leedskalnin place holder!
Some of you have seen this but for the others....
Ron
(http://)
-
Hey I didn't mean to kill the new list with one post!!!
Comments, laughter, ridicule are all better than silence...
What do you think? Jack?, Nali? all?
Ron
Who da top killer now, I_Ron!
@All,
Ron has done a great job of generating information from his Franken lab and appreciate his efforts.
Anybody wanting more detail data, probably cost millions, can be found in another hybrid magnet motor patent.
Figure 26 is an excellent graph comparing magnet force generated for magnet size and current levels. The chart is explained in the patent. It will answer a lot of questions for any builders.
The graph from patent 6,369,479 is attached below.
Regards, Larry
Lol, Ron. I just noticed we crossed post and both talking about the same motor.
-
snip
I did have great hopes for the solid state version. This was my first experiment with the lamination core... but sad to say it just showed only transformer action and the voltage was the same with
the magnets in or out of the circuit. snip
Ron
K, here is a picture to go with the above statement...
I made it a bit smaller to fit the page better too...
What kind of luck did you guys have? any results yet? what did I miss doing on mine?
Ron
Yes Larry, stop that... we don't want any cross posts on here, lol
(http://)
-
i_ron,
Just for clarification, which is the primary and which is the secondary?
Tim
-
i_ron,
Just for clarification, which is the primary and which is the secondary?
Tim
The secondary is the coil on the top (C core) The top is a c core instead of a bar, the dimensions are
not a good fit but I thought it would be "close enough" as a mule. I was pulsing about at about 25 to
80? hertz 50% duty cycle and only at 12 volts. I have built megs and the bulgarian meg but always
there seems to be part of the equation missing....so open to suggestion...
Ron
-
Regarding the solid state setup there are in my view a few things that need to be looked at.
The valve setup uses as we know a input coil to more or less 'steer' the field from the magnet. But there are two kinds of 'steering' or switching.
One involves just a little power to the coil to set up a field that 'steers' the magnet field away. While the other method is the 'power way', in this method the input coil (almost) saturates the coil core section and so make it a truly non passable core section (barrier) for the field of the magnet. This method will switch the magnet full power but will require the most input, but will result in 'true switching'. And in my opinion this method is needed for the solid state setup. Now there are a few problems with this. And one of the main problems is that you very often need a lot of voltage in order to drive a core in saturation in a dynamic, say 50hz state. Just try it with a transformer. Just connect it unloaded to a variac and pump up the voltage. Think about a mot core and the thick wire primary which is on there. Well you can connect it to the 230v mains, which tells you that the core even with the thick windings will not even approach saturation at 230v input. You will know that saturation kicks in when the amps suddenly jump up, until that point comes the thing draws almost nothing. If you take a mot core and wrap the main leg with 50 wraps of 2mm wire then you probably still need at least 60v to get it to nearly saturate. So now back to the Valve we are discussing. In order for it to be a hard and true switch we want it to get near saturation so the magnet has no other option then to switch. But you need voltage in order to get there. Don't think that 24v will do much unless you use 10wraps of 3mm wire. This is something I will be testing soon. Since it was a problem for me to get into the 250v dc pulsing range. So in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why solid state valve/transformers fail to see any gain from the magnets. And keep in mind that switching the valve does not cost much only when the magnets has another easy to obtain path of least resistance. In a motor for example when there is a big airgap or the rotor and stator are not yet good aligned, or when you have lenz working against you, you will have to pump in more amps to get the valve to switch.
Then there is this other problem and that is, getting a good dc transformer. Like I said before you can not just pulse a transformer core all the time with the same polarity dc pulses and expect it to give you nice efficient transformer action like you would have if it were ac. The advantage of ac is that the polarity of the core is flipped around 50times per second. That obviously makes for good transformer action since there is a real magnetic polarity change / flip. Now dc is a whole other beast. You give it a dc pulse and then what? Another pulse of the same polarity... Which means that if the core on its own did not 'reset' its magnetic polarity to zero in between the pulses you have no, or very little field change, and without a real field change you have no induction and no output. You are just pumping in amps. This dc transformer issue is a problem on its own which needs to be dealt with if one wants to get a working solid state device. Or you get some core material which can by itself reset its magnetic orientation in between the dc pulses, or you devise means to do it yourself like with a very tiny 'reset pulse' of opposite polarity, to at least try to bring the core magnetic orientation back to zero, in between the pulses.
So you ask why not use ac instead of dc then? Well here is problem number 3 and that is that these valves are always dc setups. You can not really use ac since only one of the polarity of ac is beneficial to the valve switching. The other will just clamp up with the magnet and be useless. If one can come up with such a solid state setup which can switch the magnet with ac let me know. Oh wait there is such a setup:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.0)
These were the main points in my view.
Regards,
Steven
-
The secondary is the coil on the top (C core) The top is a c core instead of a bar, the dimensions are
not a good fit but I thought it would be "close enough" as a mule. I was pulsing about at about 25 to
80? hertz 50% duty cycle and only at 12 volts. I have built megs and the bulgarian meg but always
there seems to be part of the equation missing....so open to suggestion...
Ron
Now that is excellent photography. Good thing you cleaned under your fingernails in the previous shot.
Just wondering if you have tuned your magnet lamination combo. For instance in Fig 26. the best bang for the buck came with 10 mm magnets at .6 amps. It clearer in Table 32 of the patent.
Have you used the same pulsed square wave on a regular transformer? If so, what kind of results?
Regards, Larry
-
Steven.
Thank you so much for your input of knowledge. After playing around with the DC supply and my transformer I'm realizing even more how little I really do know. I'm not sure if I have the time and money to "play around" with trying to learn by trial and error. So simply put. If you are willing, what would be the specifications of a transformer that would have the best chance of working? Size of core, wire, turns, voltage, amperage, magnets, DC,modified AC or something like the belgians'..... I just figure that your best guess is my best guess.
Tim
-
snip
Just wondering if you have tuned your magnet lamination combo. For instance in Fig 26. the best bang for the buck came with 10 mm magnets at .6 amps. It clearer in Table 32 of the patent.
Have you used the same pulsed square wave on a regular transformer? If so, what kind of results?
Regards, Larry
Larry,
Good point... ok I didn't do any of that so will study that a little closer, thanks for the tip
Ron
-
Regarding the solid state setup there are in my view a few things that need to be looked at.
snip
These were the main points in my view.
Regards,
Steven
Very well thought out and expressed. And very true, as far as my knowledge has progressed to date.
It might be that the motor is the "only" way to extract the power, as double coils in the same
flux loop seem to have their problems...
Ron
-
Please let me know if I should be talking about this in another topic than this but I had a late night thought. If the Flynn motor idea actually works [?] then why couldn't you just take out the rotor and substitute in a solid core / collection coil? If I am correct I thought the Flynn motor claims to run off AC? Its just a brain fart but I thought I would throw it out there.
Tim
-
It might be that the motor is the "only" way to extract the power, as double coils in the same
flux loop seem to have their problems...
I know you guys don't want to hear this (the truth is painful) but a magnet boosted transformer can never work any good.
It will have even worse efficiency than any regular transformer.
Why is this so.
Well, it's simply that any magnet inserted into a transformer circuit will shift the B/H working curve of the ferromagnetic material.
It might seem like you get four times the output from the device in static mode but you actually only get the same out as if you had
used twice the core area for the coil and scrapped the magnet.
In dynamic mode you repeatedly have to force the shifted B/H curve back past zero all the way to the other end. This takes just as much
power as you gained by inserting the magnet... But wait....it gets even worse. When you insert a powerful neodymium into the transformer
you actually force the material close to saturation when switching it on/off and this causes a lot of material loss on every pulse repetition.
The losses is a lot higher than a regular transformer that is working safe away from being saturated.
There you have it. A magnet boosted transformer will always perform lesser than a regular transformer. No BS.
Regarding the Hilden-Brand motor there is still no reports other than his own words on overunity. And these reports changes from day to day.
A while ago he told everybody that it took 1x1" magnet to reach overunity. Now he's telling us it takes 2x2" magnets.
Far back in the past it just took small 0.5" magnets to reach overunity in his early machines. http://keelynet.com/energy/hildenbrand.htm
Because of these irregularities in his reports I strongly believe he is not telling ut the whole truth or perhaps he's just a case of self-deception.
A while ago a gent here built a small Hilden-Brand motor and posted several very good videos on his tests.
He could not see any overunity going on. He tried both small and larger magnets at various speeds and loads at no success.
I believe this is telling us the truth about Hilden-Brands motors.
But I do encourage you to build a fine motor to really see if there is any overunity to collect, because we will never see a report from Hilden-Brand.
-
Hi all,
I want to ask something important: What is results from these experiments, I mean COP.
Input electrical power vs output mechanical power?
Can this motor drive a generator, who feeding same motor?
-
What is results from these experiments, I mean COP.
Zero COP = No Overunity.
-
"same flux loop" is the key point here in my opinion.
Very well thought out and expressed. And very true, as far as my knowledge has progressed to date.
It might be that the motor is the "only" way to extract the power, as double coils in the same
flux loop seem to have their problems...
Ron
-
Hi there Ergo.
Yes a magnet on a normal transformer will indeed shift the working curve. And cause less possible field fluctuation due to the always present field of the magnet. But that would only be negative if the field of the magnet is always-there on the output core side. In the case of this valve thing, the field of the magnet is not present in the output core section when input is off. Only when the coil is on, is the field of the magnet directed to the output core side to acts as a 'free' field 'source' alongside the field from the input coil. I am with you that once in a dynamic mode you start moving the field of the magnet that you very likely will be paying for it, since it is a 'push pull resistance' for the normal working of the coil. The question is will the pay be less then the gain? I can not give an answer to that since in a dynamic mode I find it hard to see a change when the magnets are added.
The gent who build the small Hildenbrand replication would be me.
And indeed I did not really see a gain in rpm or a real drop in input with the 'right sized' magnets. Although I must say that there was this test where I added magnets which were too big but I used them anyway, and once added I did notice a rpm gain, which makes me believe that at that point the magnets were indeed being switched and caused an rpm increase, only thing was that the input also went up... So it is still all somewhat unclear. But I need to redo some test on that one because I soon will have somewhat better circuitry and hv dc power supplies.
So we'll see what happens.
I know you guys don't want to hear this (the truth is painful) but a magnet boosted transformer can never work any good.
It will have even worse efficiency than any regular transformer.
Why is this so.
Well, it's simply that any magnet inserted into a transformer circuit will shift the B/H working curve of the ferromagnetic material.
It might seem like you get four times the output from the device in static mode but you actually only get the same out as if you had
used twice the core area for the coil and scrapped the magnet.
In dynamic mode you repeatedly have to force the shifted B/H curve back past zero all the way to the other end. This takes just as much
power as you gained by inserting the magnet... But wait....it gets even worse. When you insert a powerful neodymium into the transformer
you actually force the material close to saturation when switching it on/off and this causes a lot of material loss on every pulse repetition.
The losses is a lot higher than a regular transformer that is working safe away from being saturated.
There you have it. A magnet boosted transformer will always perform lesser than a regular transformer. No BS.
Regarding the Hilden-Brand motor there is still no reports other than his own words on overunity. And these reports changes from day to day.
A while ago he told everybody that it took 1x1" magnet to reach overunity. Now he's telling us it takes 2x2" magnets.
Far back in the past it just took small 0.5" magnets to reach overunity in his early machines. http://keelynet.com/energy/hildenbrand.htm
Because of these irregularities in his reports I strongly believe he is not telling ut the whole truth or perhaps he's just a case of self-deception.
A while ago a gent here built a small Hilden-Brand motor and posted several very good videos on his tests.
He could not see any overunity going on. He tried both small and larger magnets at various speeds and loads at no success.
I believe this is telling us the truth about Hilden-Brands motors.
But I do encourage you to build a fine motor to really see if there is any overunity to collect, because we will never see a report from Hilden-Brand.
-
It nice of you to spend some time and actually build the Hilden-Brand motors. We are all interested in the outcome in some real world testing.
If you build another Hilden motor you should focus on a three valve type using a long array of magnets that make room for a long and deeply wound coil.
This is how Jack build his motor. But I don't know how important it is to follow this guideline. I'm happy as long as you make these fine tests.
I know how the flux interacts in a Hilden transformer. But it doesn't matter that the permanent field isn't present in the output coil when it's turned off.
One still have to pay equal amount of input power when redirecting the field through the output coil. It's all about the B/H working point and there is no work around.
Hi there Ergo.
Yes a magnet on a normal transformer will indeed shift the working curve. And cause less possible field fluctuation due to the always present field of the magnet. But that would only be negative if the field of the magnet is always-there on the output core side. In the case of this valve thing, the field of the magnet is not present in the output core section when input is off. Only when the coil is on, is the field of the magnet directed to the output core side to acts as a 'free' field 'source' alongside the field from the input coil. I am with you that once in a dynamic mode you start moving the field of the magnet that you very likely will be paying for it, since it is a 'push pull resistance' for the normal working of the coil. The question is will the pay be less then the gain? I can not give an answer to that since in a dynamic mode I find it hard to see a change when the magnets are added.
The gent who build the small Hildenbrand replication would be me.
And indeed I did not really see a gain in rpm or a real drop in input with the 'right sized' magnets. Although I must say that there was this test where I added magnets which were too big but I used them anyway, and once added I did notice a rpm gain, which makes me believe that at that point the magnets were indeed being switched and caused an rpm increase, only thing was that the input also went up... So it is still all somewhat unclear. But I need to redo some test on that one because I soon will have somewhat better circuitry and hv dc power supplies.
So we'll see what happens.
-
It nice of you to spend some time and actually build the Hilden-Brand motors. We are all interested in the outcome in some real world testing.
snip
Ergo,
I shared your concern with the motor/transformer but to my mind the motor works.
The material that I have shared to date has all been static tests... what of a dynamic test?
Here is a short video of a dynamic test which I had been reluctant to post as it is a bit amateurish...
Never the less it answered my questions... is the valve actually switching? is the flux once switched
holding back the rotation? how does the power of the coil as versus the coil magnet combination
compare?
So this is a old rotor that I had constructed some time ago pressed into service with the first cast
iron valve. It didn't have much speed or power which prompted the above questions. I reworked the little motor with an arm and a spring on the end. This provides a load that the forces must overcome
and a visual indication to show if the bar becomes demagnetized enough to return to the rest position.
Here is dramatic proof of the valve in operation. Without the magnets, the 'coil only', has not enough
strength to move even the slightest... even a finger under the arm and a slight lift to alignment causes
NO lift at all.
Yet what a difference with the magnets installed! It snaps in directly (and at full alignment opens
another switch to open the circuit) and on power off, immediately returning to the rest position.
This behavior is directly in keeping with published graphs.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc
Ron
-
snip
This behavior is directly in keeping with published graphs.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc
Ron
K, left out a key piece of info... this is at 12 volts (DC)
R
-
i_ron,
What was the mesurments of the power input between the two tests?
Tim
-
i_ron,
What was the mesurments of the power input between the two tests?
Tim
Never taken!
But here is the pulse length... this was done some time ago so going on memory, a bit risky...
But for an input approximation it would be 12 volts at 5.4 ohms and 140 ms
No measurement for the first test of course as it never tripped the switches.
Ron
I have the DSO-101 <http://www.syscompdesign.com/index.html>
(http://)
-
Please let me know if I should be talking about this in another topic than this but I had a late night thought. If the Flynn motor idea actually works [?] then why couldn't you just take out the rotor and substitute in a solid core / collection coil? If I am correct I thought the Flynn motor claims to run off AC? Its just a brain fart but I thought I would throw it out there.
Tim
No problem as I see it... flux switchers are fair game.
Now the Flynn motor works, and works well. There is no mention of over unity as we are not
allowed to have OU, simple as that. Then to, it is out of his hands with new owners now,
sorry I have misplaced the link... but Boeing has an interest...
"PPMT is the biggest leap in motor and generator design logic in more than a hundred years."
Boeing Phantom Works
The problem with the Flynn motor/generator for us is the very tricky nature of the shapes
for the laminations... almost an impossibility to duplicate at home and if you take the rotor
out then a solid core would not work, as it is part of the switching design.
My take, anyway...
Ron
"QM Power offers a variety of standard and custom PPMT products to meet your industrial, aerospace, automotive, marine, and energy production needs. ..."
-
i_ron,
The quote "PPMT is the biggest leap in motor and generator design logic in more than a hundred years." only come from the Flynn website from what I have seen. I have googled flynn up one side and down another but have only found comments like these on their site or other sites quoting their site. If I see something on Boeing's site or a third party source then I might believe.
I haven't been able to wrap my head around how the flux lines would flow but this is what I was thinking about with a solid state flynn configuration.
-
i_ron,
The quote "PPMT is the biggest leap in motor and generator design logic in more than a hundred years." only come from the Flynn website from what I have seen. I have googled flynn up one side and down another but have only found comments like these on their site or other sites quoting their site. If I see something on Boeing's site or a third party source then I might believe.
snip
“QM Power is working with the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, NASA, Boeing and other military contractors to achieve a new level of high performance electric motors, generators and actuators.
PPMT can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions: Electricity Generation – Less Coal, Greater Efficiency Transportation – Minimize or Eliminate Fossil Fuelsâ€
Read between the lines… PPMT has fallen into the black hole of DARPA…
you will not find anything of substance on the web anymore!...and the only motor/generator
you will buy at the hardware store will be under unity...R
“QM Power, Inc. (“Quantum Magnetic Powerâ€) was founded in November of 2006 to capitalize on proprietary and patented advances in a low cost, high performance electric motor, generator and actuator technology called Parallel Path Magnetic Technology (PPMTâ„¢). PPMT is a breakthrough technology that uses permanent magnets in a novel yet simple and efficient magnetic circuit design that can substantially reduce cost and improve performance for almost any electro-mechanical application. PPMT products operate far more efficiently over a wider power range than conventional/existing AC or DC electric motors, generators and actuators. They have higher power density and reliability, run cooler and are much lighter, smaller and lower cost. QM Power has developed over 50 prototypes and is beginning to approach strategic industry leaders to demonstrate the improved efficiency and performance for power tools, electric or hybrid electric vehicles, power generation, linear actuators/pumps/clamps, industrial motors, military applications and a variety of other stand-alone applicationsâ€.
http://nrc.org/Nanotech2008/showabstract.html?absno=22061
wind power…
- QM Power Inc. is altering the electromagnetic elements of the motors and generators inside the turbines to reduce sizes and maximize efficiencies.
- It claims to have tripled output.
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2007/11/bold-new-wind-ideas.html
-
If you would like we can continue this debate via PM. However it seems those quotes are baseless. They are written by people that claim to work for the company [QM, Flynn]. If the tech' is so hush hush then why is flynn's site still up and running? Why are they even commenting on it at a trade show!? That would be one of the first to come down. There are companies that have billions of dollars that if this tech' has some remote possibility of working then they could probably revers engineer the tech' and make there own to capitalize off of. Even with patents they could get around it. It would be worth trillions.
Tim
-
Haha, zero COP...
In this experiments, COP is not zero, COP is between 0 and 1.
So, how is REALLY COP in THIS experiments?
-
If you would like we can continue this debate via PM. However it seems those quotes are baseless. They are written by people that claim to work for the company [QM, Flynn]. If the tech' is so hush hush then why is flynn's site still up and running? Why are they even commenting on it at a trade show!? That would be one of the first to come down. There are companies that have billions of dollars that if this tech' has some remote possibility of working then they could probably revers engineer the tech' and make there own to capitalize off of. Even with patents they could get around it. It would be worth trillions.
Tim
Tim,
I have said all I want to at this time. I feel that you have not factored in the 'controlling elite'
A further confirmation of what I say can be found here:
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/parallelpath/>
There is no information coming out of Flynn. Over a year, or maybe two, ago I wrote to the Flynn motor sales link for information on purchase of the generator... silence... try it yourself....
Incidentally your solid state proposal looks good... but keep in mind Flynn's patent predates
Bearden's.... and no action was taken by Flynn. Would it be possible that they knew, at that time,
that the solid state device would not work? There has never been the slightest indication that this
would work. All the research has been motor/generator focused. Look at the "white paper"
Ron
-
Just a quick question: Where can I get the little frames that you can wrap a coil around?
Tim
-
One simple question, gentlemans:
Do you achieve bigger mechanical output than electrical power input?????
-
Just a quick question: Where can I get the little frames that you can wrap a coil around?
Tim
I make them up from 1/16th sheet PVC.
I cut a wood mandrel just a few thou bigger than the core, if it is a rectangular core, then the strips
to fit and use plumbers PVC cement to glue the four pieces together. The ends are cut to the size
and I score them both sides with the exactro knife then pop the center of them out in the vise, file the hole to fit the core and cement them on... aren't you glad you asked? lol
The ones for a round core are easier to do... I bore out a piece of PVC pipe on the lathe and fly cut
the ends in the drill press...Oh, on the rectangular ones I cut off a piece of wood as long as the former to slip the thing over for winding.
Ron
(http://)
-
One simple question, gentlemans:
Do you achieve bigger mechanical output than electrical power input?????
Altium,
Just speaking for my experiments... I have not reached the stage of a properly working machine...
so no in/out power measurements have been taken.
Ron
-
I did actually get a return out of Flynn Tech about the small motor. I wanted to see about
using it on a bycycle due to size and low power consumption. Well, $2,000 was what I was
quoted! :o :o :o
For a 3" motor? Guess that spelled go away and dont bother me boy. Then you need a
micro controller to get the max function out of it. So I paid $90 for a Bison Worm Gear Motor
and should be just fine. Biggest problem is it likes 5 amps.
thaelin
Tim,
I have said all I want to at this time. I feel that you have not factored in the 'controlling elite'
A further confirmation of what I say can be found here:
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/parallelpath/>
There is no information coming out of Flynn. Over a year, or maybe two, ago I wrote to the Flynn motor sales link for information on purchase of the generator... silence... try it yourself....
Incidentally your solid state proposal looks good... but keep in mind Flynn's patent predates
Bearden's.... and no action was taken by Flynn. Would it be possible that they knew, at that time,
that the solid state device would not work? There has never been the slightest indication that this
would work. All the research has been motor/generator focused. Look at the "white paper"
Ron
-
hi all !
@ larryC - I think you should move magnets more closer to the coil, not in middle between coil and rotor. (for hidenpole motor)
@ i-ron
both wonderfull experiments that more and more prove that magnetic transistor (amplification of flux at output) is real thing.
hopefully Main Stream "science" will be wise enough and recognize this breakthrough. with some Nobel prizes to experimenters here.
I mean it - seriously. after that it can be called science again.
@ergo - please show us some negative experiment since you say it can not be done. although You See effect is real - every experiment
shows positive results.
I have ordered nonoriented E cores. I gave up custom shaped cause i saw this can be done with commonly E cores without compromising
quality of flux path.
maybe this small COP 3 - 4 is to low for someone but it can (r)evolutionize every aspect of our todays pretty scarry selfheadhurting way of life.
Here, even 2 is much much more ... oh so much more.
many many thanks
Wiz
More experimenters join us
To Infinity - - - and then another mile !
-
classic windings and classic trafo layout wan't work cause of Mr. Lenz wan't allow it.
But maybe narrow pulsed bucking coils and collecting BEMF at input and output at the same time
Anyway it is proven experimetaly BEMF with magnets included is much more powerfull. there might be something.
Wiz
-
One simple question, gentlemans:
Do you achieve bigger mechanical output than electrical power input?????
Yes Torque -> Force -> Energy OUT increasses. Some videos are more than obvious.
Wiz
-
One simple question, gentlemans:
Do you achieve bigger mechanical output than electrical power input?????
Yes Torque -> Force -> Energy OUT increasses. Some videos are more than obvious.
Wiz
-
Three units series - like Trio Motor, but you have no magnetic rotor. Its like Switched Reluctance Motor (Trio version ;-)
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_13/4.html
It does not matter you inverted stators or rotors 120 degrees (per phase) - in reality you have 6 tooth / 2 pole cheme when speaking about 3 phase motor.
When added permanent magnets to stator core then you cot like Parallel Path Motor (again Trio version ;-)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joseph_Flynn's_Parallel_Path_technology,
Im not sure about advantages of this design.
TrueTrio Motor has PM rotor - is BLDC motor, to drive it with brushless controller windings need to be connected AbCaBc................
It does not matter how many tooth stator used - number of tooths always egual to number of rotor poles.
It does not matter - inner-runner or outer-runner ...
Always inverted 120 degrees per phase. When multipole motor then this angle between tooths, not full ring ;-)
Cheers,
khabe
-
@ergo - please show us some negative experiment since you say it can not be done. although You See effect is real - every experiment
shows positive results.
You are so wrong wizkycho. You just state out of the blue that every experiment shows positive results.
But it doesn't really show anything because they never compared the forced to a setup using the same
number of turns on twice the coil area. When doing this you will notice that you get the same force from
this as compared to using a permanent magnet and half the coil size.
I have performed so many test on the Hilden-Brand valve myself and it seems like there is an amplification
of force on initial tests but then you discover that you were wrong. Once you try the same size valve using twice
the coil core area and no permanent magnet you'll discover that it provides the same force at the same input.
Myself I know for 100% certainty that the magnet just replaces flux that could have been created by the coil.
Not a single test have shown otherwise.
-
Myself I know for 100% certainty that the magnet just replaces flux that could have been created by the coil.
Not a single test have shown otherwise.
The experiment Ergo , the Experiment, Your Negative Experiment is needed - Not Your certainty or mine or anyones.
Noguhty Noughty Ergo - You really don't understand Words, thats your problem.
Go talk to Koen1 and make some other plans how to disscredit free energy idea.
Does Your Goverment Pays You to be so ignorant, how much, what are the benefits, may I join ?
Wiz
-
ergo !
Besides You said it's not working too many times ? Is there any reson You are still on this topic.
Have any proposals what might work ?
Cause I have reason to post to this topic, You do not anymore.
What are You still doing here ?
Wiz
-
Reading Your mail again
Coil rises resistance - to make flux --> more energy needed.
Permanent magnet flux is free
don't mix coil(not free flux) and permanent magnet (free flux - no money currency involved)
is this the point in error ?
Wiz
-
Wow easy there Wiz, no need to go against one other here.
I must say that I am interested in:
"But it doesn't really show anything because they never compared the forced to a setup using the same
number of turns on twice the coil area. When doing this you will notice that you get the same force from
this as compared to using a permanent magnet and half the coil size."
I must say that in all my tests I was blind for this simple test. But there might be something to it.
One must ask himself does it really take more power to keep 0.5 kg of steel magnetized versus 2kg of steel. With the same power input and field strength... It might be so that in practice it does not matter how much steel is inside the coil it will not cost more to keep more steel saturated/magnetized. On thing though, I do think that the initial magnetizing pulse, or in other words the process of 'aligning the domains' costs less if less steel in the coil. But once aligned I doubt that more steel cause an amp draw increase.
-
@wizkycho
I getting tired of you bad behavior, wizkycho.
Why do you get mad when your told that something already have been tested and found not working?
Can't you take a lesson in physics or do you have to be both blind and stupid to hang around here?
I'm neither blind, stupid or uneducated but I still hope there will be free energy invented soon.
I just told you about some true facts but then you won't accept it and start yelling.
Why don't you build two valves just like I described and see the outcome for yourself.
-
@wizkycho
I getting tired of you bad behavior, wizkycho.
Why do you get mad when your told that something already have been tested and found not working?
Can't you take a lesson in physics or do you have to be both blind and stupid to hang around here?
I'm neither blind, stupid or uneducated but I still hope there will be free energy invented soon.
I just told you about some true facts but then you won't accept it and start yelling.
Why don't you build two valves just like I described and see the outcome for yourself.
Show us your pictures and post your results... then I'll believe you
Field strength is equal to number of turns, permittivity of the core and current.
If you double the core size you have doubled the coil size. For the same number of turns the resistance is doubled, to flow the same number of amps you must double the voltage. If you
double the voltage you have doubled the input. Doubling the core size will reduce the permittivity
but will maybe only double the field strength for double the input... sorry, your argument does not
make any sense.
I am with wizkycho.
Ron
-
hi all !
snip
@ i-ron
both wonderfull experiments that more and more prove that magnetic transistor (amplification of flux at output) is real thing.
hopefully Main Stream "science" will be wise enough and recognize this breakthrough. with some Nobel prizes to experimenters here.
I mean it - seriously. after that it can be called science again.
snip
many many thanks
Wiz
More experimenters join us
To Infinity - - - and then another mile !
Whiz,
Thank you for you vote of confidence!
I guess we had better not tell QM Power and Genesis that their motors don't work!
Poor ergo, what an unproductive life.... you made the right call there.
Kind regards,
Ron
-
@wizkycho
I getting tired of you bad behavior, wizkycho.
Why do you get mad when your told that something already have been tested and found not working?
Can't you take a lesson in physics or do you have to be both blind and stupid to hang around here?
I'm neither blind, stupid or uneducated but I still hope there will be free energy invented soon.
I just told you about some true facts but then you won't accept it and start yelling.
Why don't you build two valves just like I described and see the outcome for yourself.
You again Ergo haven't made Your Homework - You haven't tested anything - What ? I should Just believe You cause Your magesty says so. You are just wasting hard drive space, time and that is probably what are You paid for. You don't even bother to read replays correctly because this is not why You are here for. You are here to make a mess. Make an experiment and prove Yourself worthy of sending replays here. You can't Your boss who pays your devolish destructive ways will not allow you.
Simple very well done and repeated experiments prove You are wrong. You didn't make any. Most of all why I madly call Flames from Hell upon man like Yourself, You are destructive for no reason - You are out of control and out of your mind. Mad from vanity to be right. You act like mad godlike creature who doesn't has to do any experiment cause You allready know the outcome for everything.
You put so much effort in negating truth - and not givig any clues how did you get so damn smart and we all are so stupid.
You are making proof of Einsteins concept that Human stupidity is infinite - but so is flux from permanent magnet.
And gess what ? Common permanent magnet made mashed potatoes of your "godlike" destructively stupid confused brain.
Talking about Happy End !!!!!
Sorry Magnetic Transistor has been invented and is everywhere around You and You can't do squat 'bout it - and You are not the one who invented it buhuhuhuuuuu.
How do You like it now ?
Wiz
-
Wow easy there Wiz, no need to go against one other here.
snip
Steven,
I notice a very striking similarity between ergo's negative style of writing and that of polar breeze
on Thanes list...
Wiz, on the other hand, is a dedicated researcher and experiment, knowledgeable and willing to share, the kind a careful moderator should protect and encourage....
Ron
-
@ i_ron and wizkycho.
I guess we had better not tell QM Power and Genesis that their motors don't work!
You get me wrong. Their motors seem to work fine, according to published infomation.
There's probably som other advantages we don't know of yet, but it's not overunity.
Think of it this way.
Yes, the coil is larger, the resistance is higher but it's not completely doubled, but this is of no interest in the valve.
It is all about creating 1.5 tesla of flux at the least amount of electrical input.
Inserting a magnet will provide for one stream of 1.5T and the coil the other stream of 1.5T.
It takes approx 8W (static mode) to redirect the flux passing through coil core and force both parallel streams of flux through the "rotor".
The two streams of flux will act just as one big stream of 1.5T flux on twice the area translated into quadrupled force.
But if you hade used a twice the coil core area you wouldn't have to spend energy on reversing the B/H curve.
Then you will get the same 1.5T flux levels at the same 8W input even though the coil resistance is higher.
If you don't understand this you should really take lesson in basic softmagnetic physics.
In dynamic pulsed mode the resistance is completely negligible. In this case it's only the inductance that count's.
Winding the coil at to many turns will increase the inductance to much and prevent fast response times.
To fight the inductance one must raise the voltage a lot. A static valve at 12V will need approx 100-200V at several hundreds Hz.
But you still have to reach the same current level as the static valve. The 8W static input willl turn into hundreds of watt in dynamic mode.
This is why Jack Hilden-Brand can't run his motors on the same wattage as in static mode.
Last but not least.
Ordinary non-oriented silicon steel take about 4-8W to reach 1.5T depending on geometrical design and winding technique.
This material have a permeability of approx 800-1600 and it show how easily the stuff is magnetized by the applied magnetizing force.
If you instead had used a high quality core from Metglas Magnetic Alloy 2605SA1 you could slash input power by at least 300 times or more.
http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_2_4.htm.
As you can see this material have 600000 in permeability when using the Longitudinal Field Anneal option.
In order to reach 1.5T in a closed loop (small airgaps) you just need 20-30mW instead of the 8W used in the steel valve.
Now you tell me how the use of the 8W valve will translate into overunity in a motor when you can just use Alloy 2605SA1 and no magnet
to reach the same force of 1.5 teslas at 30mW input?
This time I don't want to hear about your own techno invented bullshit. Speak to me as a calm professional using the proper technical terms.
-
@ i_ron and wizkycho.
snip
To fight the inductance one must raise the voltage a lot. A static valve at 12V will need approx 100-200V at several hundreds Hz.
But you still have to reach the same current level as the static valve. The 8W static input willl turn into hundreds of watt in dynamic mode.
snip
If you instead had used a high quality core from Metglas Magnetic Alloy 2605SA1 you could slash input power by at least 300 times or more.
http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_2_4.htm.
It is all by the book, isn't it?
You have not show your experiments nor provided any numbers.
Metglas is not available to us... why bring it up? If metglas is so great why is not every motor and transformer using it?
Look again at my video of the dynamic test... it puts the lie to your above, 100's of watts statement.
I show a dynamic test, under load, of the valve operating briskly, under the same 12 volt input as in
the the static test.
What you are overlooking also is that the primary coil can be a generating coil... as Flynn says,
fully 25% of the switching input can be recovered. As Jack says... it is a generator.
Ron
-
Look again at my video of the dynamic test... it puts the lie to your above, 100's of watts statement.
I show a dynamic test, under load, of the valve operating briskly, under the same 12 volt input as in
the the static test.
If you refer to the video http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc then this is not a dynamic test.
It's just a static test with magnets added. The flux have all the time it needs to build up when you press the button.
By dynamic I mean a motor at full speed (lot's of RPM) or a transformer setup at more than 25Hz.
I hold on to my claim that a core area of twice the size will do the same jobb as the magnet valve.
Just try it and see for your self. It should not be such a big deal for you and your mechanical skills.
If you don't try it you will never find out whether I'm right or wrong in this matter. The true scientist
always see things through to find the truth behind his discoveries.
I'm not here to stop you from inventing or finding OU. I want OU just as much as the rest of you guys here.
It's just that I can't be quiet when I see you going into a dead end. Don't take it wrong. I really want you
to build the double core sized valve and test it. It would be of great interest for the other readers as well.
Maybe you build the valve differently or make some changes and find OU. Then you have my deepest appologies
and also my congratulations on a great discovery. But until you have tested my claim you don't know you self whether
the valve is producing any overunity. If it was truly overunity then it would also work in transformer mode.
But I encourage you to build the valve using a single coil with dual core area. It will tell the truth and the truth is good.
Metglas is not available to us... why bring it up? If metglas is so great why is not every motor and transformer using it?
Simply because not all devices need the highest performing material available at very high pricing.
The average standard equipment is doing just fine with the regular stuff.
-
If you refer to the video http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc then this is not a dynamic test.
It's just a static test with magnets added. The flux have all the time it needs to build up when you press the button.
By dynamic I mean a motor at full speed (lot's of RPM)
I hold on to my claim that a core area of twice the size will do the same jobb as the magnet valve.
Just try it and see for your self. It should not be such a big deal for you with your mechancal skills.
snip
I have performed so many test on the Hilden-Brand valve myself ....
Wrong... it is a dynamic test. It is just one frame Also I gave the time as 140 ms. It should be apparent that there is no lag. You can see from the return speed that there is fairly strong spring.
What would be helpful is, if you could look up your notes from your tests and give me the small core
size, the number of turns, the wire size and the voltage and current it used...
Then the large core size, the number of turns, the wire size, and the voltage and current used.
Then the approximate lifting test of the two. As it is, I am uncertain when going to the larger core
if the wire size should be increased to make up for the longer wire length? Knowing what core
material and wire gauges you used would ensure a more successful duplication. One or two
pictures to indicate your setup and instruments used for measurement would be welcome.
Ron
"I have performed so many test on the Hilden-Brand valve myself ", ergo post #77
-
Wrong... it is a dynamic test. It is just one frame Also I gave the time as 140 ms. It should be apparent that there is no lag.
You can see from the return speed that there is fairly strong spring.
140ms is a very long time. It's just as long as it will take the valve to fully settle on 12V.
But you don't have access to 140ms when your motor is spinning.
In this case you will be facing ON times of a few milliseconds.
Now, just to make the valve reach the necessary current level at approx 2-3ms, you need plenty of voltage.
This is not doable at 12V as used in static mode.
Sorry, but I don't have any pictures on my valve setup but I still have my findings at work.
I'll post my data on monday.
Meanwhile, please build and test the valve with twice the core area and no magnets.
Otherwise you will never know what you are dealing with.
-
@ I_ron,
Apparently you have attracted a Distraction Parasite!
Of course, you know your two main options:
A. Allow the parasite to continue to distract and thereby increase the number of post. Of course, the downside is having to respond to it's continuous inane request.
B. Disinfection. If you wish to do this, I would recommend options 1, 5, or 7 from the T Parasite Disinfection guidebook.
Up to you. Please let me know if I can assist.
Regards, Larry
-
@ I_ron,
Apparently you have attracted a Distraction Parasite!
Of course, you know your two main options:
A. Allow the parasite to continue to distract and thereby increase the number of post. Of course, the downside is having to respond to it's continuous inane request.
B. Disinfection. If you wish to do this, I would recommend options 1, 5, or 7 from the T Parasite Disinfection guidebook.
Up to you. Please let me know if I can assist.
Regards, Larry
Thanks for your concern Larry! I know the rules actually,
RULE ONE, never argue with an idiot, you only end up looking bad.
SECOND RULE ONE, don't respond to an agenda worker, the best response is no response.
So sorry, to play his game here....but, a certain amount of criticism is healthy, in that it makes one
rethink ones position and confirm one has not just been chasing rainbows but has made the correct
observations.
Notice when Thane was under attack he got quite emotional, Igor has, in my mind, made the same
mistake. This is the working part of their agenda... to emotionally upset the list and the listee's
so that they will either quite the list or the project. I was letting this play out as education for the
list and the moderator, and to act as a sort of lightening rod to buffer Igor.
So I am pleased that you see this as something that might be a problem for me and appreciate
your offer of assistance, thanks. My hope was that everybody could see what was going on... but
I think that is just wishful thinking on my part.
Made a modicum of advancement to day, I was not happy with my previous setup to graph the
pull in... so redid it with a compound on both the horizontal and the vertical axis. More better!
Starting to get some repeatability. One thing I had noticed before was the drop in pull in when the
coil gets hot (warm) so was putting the coil outside to cool between tests. (possible when you live
up north, lol)
The tests were designed to see if there was a "best shape" and "best material". So have satisfied
myself that a rectangular cast iron bar is a good choice, coming out slightly ahead of SAE 1020
in 1 x 1 and 1.25 x 1.25 sizes and forth, a bar made with laminations.
It is ironical that we can't use the STRONG force in this... by that I mean if you take a decent sized
neo and stick it on a plastic covered lump of iron... you can't pull it off. That is the strong force. But
you can remove the neo by sliding it over to the edge and off, ...the WEAK force. So we are stuck with using the weak force in our attempted motor. It's not fair!
Kind regards
Ron
-
My last post in this matter.
I never meant to distract you from doing work.
What you are doing is fine but I find it strange if your not curious to know whether you have found overunity or not.
Many times people tend to fool themselves because they never bothered finding the right answer. It's just so painful.
Everything I told you is the pure truth. If you decide not to believe me then your mind is clouded and you will utterly fail.
You sound very unwilling to face reality by performing a simple test. But this could shatter your own imaginary perception.
My Claims.
1) When running your motor you'll notice that your dealing with milliseconds and this takes lot more power than static mode.
2) The available flux is not strengthen by the added magnet versus the power needed to run the valve.
3) The claims above and the fact that you still have to face the Lentz law when trying a self-runner will finally enlighten you.
-
My last post in this matter.
I never meant to distract you from doing work.
What you are doing is fine but I find it strange if your not curious to know whether you have found overunity or not.
Many times people tend to fool themselves because they never bothered finding the right answer. It's just so painful.
Everything I told you is the pure truth. If you decide not to believe me then your mind is clouded and you will utterly fail.
You sound very unwilling to face reality by performing a simple test. But this could shatter your own imaginary perception.
My Claims.
1) When running your motor you'll notice that your dealing with milliseconds and this takes lot more power than static mode.
2) The available flux is not strengthen by the added magnet versus the power needed to run the valve.
3) The claims above and the fact that you still have to face the Lentz law when trying a self-runner will finally enlighten you.
Lentz will slow down the rotation but, you see, then the Torque (FORCE) becomes Stronger and acts Longer ( :o yes !!!) (of course with magnets ;D) - its exactly what we need - Stronger and Longer acting Forces when under Load,
I'm in process of building 4 cores rotor so 50(Hz)/4 times = 12.5 RPS(econd) or 750 RPM (cool - like an older powerfull diesel engine) is a optimal rotational speed for my motor so I do not have to use exotical hard to get materials for high exotic freqs - and I'm not in RPM's (for now) I'm in Torque - Force - Energy extraction. If RPMs are wanted , just put mech gearbox, and still losses in input cores stays the same - very very low, just like in common trafo that uses that freq.
I allso have a very good idea based on extraction of BEMF. The thing is when BEMF spike is shorted (used-accumulated and not just wasted) it actually acts on mag-trans in a same way original pulse does. means reroutes field back to rotor again. This way Input is cut to half (picture) and scince BEMF is restored that would bring input to 25% of what this used to need. On the other hand Output since using
Magnetic field Transistor drivers is 3-4 times Stronger. That makes this motor COP 9 -12. ;D
If resonance is implemented afterwards COP rises 50 - 100 :o :o :o
FM type pulsing is not tested here and actall mod. frequency is dependant on coil inductivity and properties of core. electronics to do that
is simply acomplished and not making additional losses cause mod freq is still low freq. around 250Hz to 10kHz worth to try.
So let's spin it up
Wiz
-
snip
I'm in process of building 4 cores rotor so 50(Hz)/4 times = 12.5 RPS(econd) or 750 RPM (cool - like an older powerfull diesel engine) is a optimal rotational speed for my motor so I do not have to use exotical hard to get materials for high exotic freqs - and I'm not in RPM's (for now) I'm in Torque - Force - Energy extraction. If RPMs are wanted , just put mech gearbox, and still losses in input cores stays the same - very very low, just like in common trafo that uses that freq.
snip
So let's spin it up
Wiz
Sounds good! Yes the vid is good proof that there is something there. You can get an idea of the strength of the spring by how quickly the rotor is returned to its rest position. The rotor is no light
weight... it weighs 4.4 Kg. With no magnets it has barely enough strength to hold its self in, yet
with the magnet stack installed it accelerates the 4.4 Kg rotor upwards, against the spring, to trip
a daggy slide switch and strike the stop with a fair whack... I like it.
I like your low speed choice too. My words exactly. I think everyone can see my design philosophy
here? The coil should about match the strength of the magnets... the flux path needs to be kept
short, the speed needs to be low. Geometry and proportion are the critical factors.
Good luck with yours!
Ron
-
Wow, some impressive work going on here. Keep up the good spirits.
I have read about your plans on how to run the motor. I used to help Hilden-Brand in the past and I have learned that the coils is of high inductance and it could affect how to run the motor at it's best.
I have used this page successfully myself in my present FBDISSM design. It tells you the charge time at a certain voltage.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html#c2
All you have to do is measure the resistance and inductance of your assembled motor.
Here a list of simple but good LCR meters. I bought mine a year ago and have never been regretful. I use it in daily basis.
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38.l1313&_nkw=inductance+meter&_sacat=See-All-Categories
Please enjoy the attached example. I just entered some Hilden numbers to get a useful calculation.
A Hilden-brand valve usually need 2 amps to fully redirect the neodymium power if properly built.
If your coil is being 250mH and 2.5ohms it will take you 10ms to reach 2 amps at 53V.
Im facing the same thing in my FBDISSM.
-
Hi there Wiz,
Well I can only applaud anyone actually building this stuff. So keep us updated!
About your "bemf" capture thing. Keep in mind that if you chop up the single square wave in multiple small parts you are in a sense raising the frequency multiple times. Which means you needs lots more volts to actually get the same switching going on. I recommend you use very low impedance coils. And one thing I also found that capturing the 'Bemf' (inductive collapse /fly back really) in these valves does not go without punishment (especially a solid state/non motor valve ). The capture process actually makes the valves so that thy trend to resist a flux drop in between the pulses. Which means their field does not go 'off' all that good. And in my case it lowered the rpm and upped the amps draw. Although I might add that dumping that inductive collapse into a cap instead of straight to a load does make the capture much more viable.
And how do you intend to use resonance in these motors? The are not ac systems.
I found these things to be tricky to get right, I only went to 36v in. Pulse initiated by the opto and afterwards controlled by the pwm but I had to advance the timing almost a whole stator pole width to reach good speeds. So indeed keep the rpm low. The rise time is in my opinion one of the major speed controlling factors. One other advice I can give is use variable input power since thing thing at 36v will blast so many amps at start that it immediately kills a irfp250 fet. So start it at 12v or so and when it spins you can up the volts in.
Regards,
Steven.
-
Wow, some impressive work going on here. Keep up the good spirits.
I have read about your plans on how to run the motor. I used to help Hilden-Brand
snip
Im facing the same thing in my FBDISSM.
Good to see you on the list Honk! I think most of us are readers of "the other" list and have seen
how badly treated you were. None of that here as you can see...LOL
Good links! the hyper physics link in particular, that will be very useful. Well the price is reasonable
on the meters... and as my DMM has lost its resistance accuracy (abuse) ... time for an LCR, thanks alot...I guess you can hear how I said that? lol
What is your FBDISSM? you got my curiosity going....
Ron
-
This is my F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3456.0
It's a very big ongoing project that take most of my spare time.
I'm scarce with updates since a while back. But I will post a full update when I'm ready to tell how it has developed.
-
This is my F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3456.0
It's a very big ongoing project that take most of my spare time.
I'm scarce with updates since a while back. But I will post a full update when I'm ready to tell how it has developed.
Fascinating.... got some reading to do...
Ron
-
It is ironical that we can't use the STRONG force in this... by that I mean if you take a decent sized
neo and stick it on a plastic covered lump of iron... you can't pull it off. That is the strong force. But
you can remove the neo by sliding it over to the edge and off, ...the WEAK force. So we are stuck with using the weak force in our attempted motor. It's not fair!
Hi Ron,
Yes, that is very apparent in the patent when you look at the 'Maximum value of attractive force during sliding with varying side gaps (starts at table 28)' tables as compared to the 'Attractive force under varying current with varying face to face gap (starts at table 12)' tables.
But, I've wondered about a setup where you have a series of square 1mm thick lamination plates that are connected by cords on the edges so that each plate is separated by a 1mm gap when stretched out. When you turn on the hybrid magnet at 1mm distance away the nearest plate would experience a 32 Kg pull using 2.0 amps at .883 volts according to table 13. Then after the first plate clamps to the hybrid magnet the next plate would be attracted, but with slightly less force, until all plates are pulled together. Turn off the hybrid magnet and restretch.
This setup seems like it would maximize the much stronger force (face to face) .
Regards, Larry
-
Hi Ron,
snip
This setup seems like it would maximize the much stronger force (face to face) .
Regards, Larry
LOL. thats where you have me beat Larry, I can only suffer through a document like that for about three
minutes before my attention span is used up... no, I hadn't read (or understood that part) THANKS!
It might be a bit noisy?
I babble fished some of the german patent and does it ever sound good. You and Steven have seen it on thanes group, but I think it should be posted here too...'cause my understanding is it is not just
for AC... but would work in a pulsed coil...(from Gustav22 on thanes list)
Hi all,
in this forum's German language section user lancaIV posted, that an inventor just a short while ago filed a utility patent for specially wound coils.
The patent's title is:
"Kapazitive Wicklung für Elektromotoren, Transformatoren und Elektromagneten"
which would be:
"Capacitive windings for electric motors, transformers and electromagnets"
The patent claims that these coils have no inductance and neither inductive resistance or in other words they only have capacitance and behave just like capacitors.
The patent describes, that this winding style can easily replace the normal windings of electrical motors, with no need to change the mechanical setup.
I just wanted to pass on this info.
I don't really understand electrical motors but I gather, that if the described windings are put in place, a motor would run on AC frequency and voltage only, with almost no need for current.
Maybe the kind of coils/windings described in the patent can help to further enhance Thane's setup (when used in the prime mover !? and/or to replace the permanent magnets !?)
You can find and download the patent here (unfortunately only in German language):
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE202008009291U&F=0&QPN=DE202008009291U
-------------------------------------------------------
Ron
-
I babble fished some of the german patent and does it ever sound good.
http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE202008009291U&F=0&QPN=DE202008009291U
-------------------------------------------------------
Ron
Babel fish...
(57) Principal claim: Capacitive windings for electric motors, transformers and electromagnets, those on the construction of the same as volume condenser wound it is characterized, by the fact that the capacitive coil at least of two parallel arranged, electrically isolated leaders (1, 2) in a coil are wound and at the beginning of the coil the two leaders (1, 2) by an electrical condenser (3) are connected and to End of the coil the two leaders (1,2) likewise with the second electrical condenser (4) connected it is and that a leader (1) at the beginning of the coil with a pole of a reciprocating current generator (5) and the second leader (2) at the end of the coil with the second pole of the reciprocating current generator (5) is connected
Capacitive windings for electromagnets [0024] In accordance with the invention the windings are not none induction reel and dehalb induce the magnetic change of river an against-arranged tension, are called the coils have no inductance. This physical novelty has an enormous technical-economical advantage in entire electro-technology. Snaps and impulse-like reacting electromagnets have not only in the modern technology, but also in the research special applications. Attempts were accomplished again and again also the goal of producing enormously strong magnetic fields between 100 and 300 Tesla.
[0025] In accordance with the conditions of the technology it is not possible to produce a so strong magnetic field. The well-known coils produce magnetic field impulses, whose duration lies between 50 and 100 ms. The maximum field strength lies between 80 and 100 Tesla. The well-known coils are operated with 20 kA to 27 kA and that with million ampere-turns. If one for such a test capacitive in accordance with windings the Erfin dung begins, then only 3 kA with 3.000 turns are needed, in order to produce for the 100 Tesla lmpuls. With windings in accordance with the invention one produces impulses to 300 Tesla with a pulse time under 50 ms. [0026] Generally said, windings have an enormously large economic value in accordance with the invention and is applicable in all areas of the new technology, where Drahtwicklungen are used. With it is not possible for the old technology in accordance with the state of the art to improve the efficiency of electromagnetic Energiewandlern further. The invention described here offers to the world economy new capacitive windings on, which are used everywhere in electromagnetic Energiewandlem can and with enormous economic advantages.
-
LOL. thats where you have me beat Larry, I can only suffer through a document like that for about three
minutes before my attention span is used up... no, I hadn't read (or understood that part) THANKS!
Not really Ron,
This was one of the few patents (6,369,479) that I have ever printed out so I could sit down and compare side by side the table data to the graphs. It is a wealth of information about hybrid magnet characteristics and I highly recommend to anyone who wishes to understand the advantages and characteristics. It also clearly compares the EM only force to the EM plus magnet force at various current levels. Like I mentioned before, they must have spent hundreds of thousands on this research.
Now, can you help me? I did try to get the German patent info into translators, by doing a copy and paste. But from the pdf I was getting a "copy image" and then I couldn't paste into the translators.
Please let me know how to get it done.
Thanks, Larry
-
Hi there Wiz,
Well I can only applaud anyone actually building this stuff. So keep us updated!
About your "bemf" capture thing. Keep in mind that if you chop up the single square wave in multiple small parts you are in a sense raising the frequency multiple times. Which means you needs lots more volts to actually get the same switching going on. I recommend you use very low impedance coils. And one thing I also found that capturing the 'Bemf' (inductive collapse /fly back really) in these valves does not go without punishment (especially a solid state/non motor valve ). The capture process actually makes the valves so that thy trend to resist a flux drop in between the pulses. Which means their field does not go 'off' all that good. And in my case it lowered the rpm and upped the amps draw. Although I might add that dumping that inductive collapse into a cap instead of straight to a load does make the capture much more viable.
And how do you intend to use resonance in these motors? The are not ac systems.
I found these things to be tricky to get right, I only went to 36v in. Pulse initiated by the opto and afterwards controlled by the pwm but I had to advance the timing almost a whole stator pole width to reach good speeds. So indeed keep the rpm low. The rise time is in my opinion one of the major speed controlling factors. One other advice I can give is use variable input power since thing thing at 36v will blast so many amps at start that it immediately kills a irfp250 fet. So start it at 12v or so and when it spins you can up the volts in.
Regards,
Steven.
1. If using say 5kHz it is still very low freq for FETs that in creation of this freq wan't cost any more power.(just creation here)
2. this driving freq. doesn't travel to output at all core-coil is to "slow" for that. so when switched off and fast again on (in this, small-width-off-state" out mag field can not drop back (again slow core coil). And another on state keeps output magnet field on.
Therefore magnetic field output will look like it was driven with normal pulse although I will use 50% less energy DTC 50%. that drop emidiately can be meassured at input.
This two points above is idealised components theory. In practice energy savings will be 25% with this DTC of High freq at 50%.
for 25% savings is worth to try. and not yet taking into account bemf gains.
Nali2001
The capture process actually makes the valves so that thy trend to resist a flux drop in between the pulses -
this is exactly what i intend to use, flux shouldn't (when high freq on) drop cause of capture process and slowness of coil-core (that allready established ON state so oposing that change).
please do read more carefully. You first write I'm wrong and then make same statement. !?! what's up ?
@i_ron
Thanks for the experiments but what really convinced me that there is at least "something" is this (static)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNZSu31ZZo. waht is not on video is I tried to lift a steel ball and it is impossible without magnets... ;D
Congrats on being second after Hilden-Brand. BTW Hilden-brand proposed and made setup where magnet-valve(magnet-transistor) is in paralel with
rotors core.
every another success exp is lifting us higher
if missed this is what i'm finally building
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1319.msg132627#msg132627 (that topic is much older than this one - read it)
the principle of work is given long before hilden-brand or flyn by JLN in Magnetic Energy Pump experiment and made it Opensource. unfortunately for him Hilden-brand can legally protect only putting magnet in a core - and that is not a must to make workable device.
So anyway we are free to make these OU motors. ;D
Wiz
-
snip
Now, can you help me? I did try to get the German patent info into translators, by doing a copy and paste. But from the pdf I was getting a "copy image" and then I couldn't paste into the translators.
Please let me know how to get it done.
Thanks, Larry
You asked!!! lol
Its that bl**dy PDF format that is hang up. But as you have found out, if you go up to the top there is a selection tool, then the selected block can be recognized in word (not note pad) but it is still in a format that you can only print.... so I did. Then scanned it and ocr'ed it then it is recognized in note pad. Copy and paste from NP into Babel fish.... after removing the hyphenation...My Epson twain
will (can be set to) recognize German, which helps. I know just enough Deutsch to know where the
beginning and end of words are...hehehe
Some words babel doesn't get but it is not hard to follow the difference in construction between
english and german and fill in mentally what is being said.
Ron
Oh, one other thing... babel only does 150 words so break up your note pad text into smaller blocks.
-
Not really Ron,
This was one of the few patents (6,369,479) that I have ever printed out so I could sit down and compare side by side the table data to the graphs. It is a wealth of information about hybrid magnet characteristics and I highly recommend to anyone who wishes to understand the advantages and characteristics. It also clearly compares the EM only force to the EM plus magnet force at various current levels. Like I mentioned before, they must have spent hundreds of thousands on this research.
snip
Thanks, Larry
Good advise Larry... I will have to do that.There is so much info in the patent, it is like a snow storm
when you try and do it on screen....one suffers from snow blindness.
On the translation.... the tables and charts I can understand right from the document...
the occasional word or two that needs translated is best done in...
http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/
Ron
-
You should try http://translate.google.com it tends to give more grammatical intelligent than bablefish. For some reason for me all the pdf files on that patent website only display the first page.
-
snip
@i_ron
Thanks for the experiments but what really convinced me that there is at least "something" is this (static)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNZSu31ZZo. waht is not on video is I tried to lift a steel ball and it is impossible without magnets... ;D
Congrats on being second after Hilden-Brand. BTW Hilden-brand proposed and made setup where magnet-valve(magnet-transistor) is in paralel with
rotors core.
every another success exp is lifting us higher
if missed this is what i'm finally building
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1319.msg132627#msg132627 (that topic is much older than this one - read it)
the principle of work is given long before hilden-brand or flyn by JLN in Magnetic Energy Pump experiment and made it Opensource. unfortunately for him Hilden-brand can legally protect only putting magnet in a core - and that is not a must to make workable device.
So anyway we are free to make these OU motors. ;D
Wiz
Thanks Wiz for the clarification, I had wondered why your models were so different to Jack's/Genesis,
now I can see where you are coming from. I didn't realize that JLN predated so much of this.
Of course I am still of the opinion that the Jack/Genesis layout is the "preferred" embodiment, lol
Ron
PS: Damn fine list Steven, it is great to see so many good people in one place...
...building and sharing information.
-
You should try http://translate.google.com it tends to give more grammatical intelligent than bablefish. For some reason for me all the pdf files on that patent website only display the first page.
broli,
Thanks, I had never tried google T before.... I just tried one and it does make a different translation,
maybe a bit better? But between the two, more understanding comes through.
Do you get the side bar? can you toggle the "abstract" etc? 'mosaics' just puts up one page... are you on "original document? I vaguely remember downloading an "add on" one time, but can't remember if it was for this site? anybody else have a problem?
Ron
-
Hello All,
I suspect that this motor will put out 2 - 3 HP on 200 Watt. Now that just a pretty educated guess. Got to wind all six coils on this thing, that may tak me about three days
-
I just had a thought back when I was first learning about this valve idea. So I thought I would throw it out there for others to ponder. The basic idea is that one might be able to to arrange a cascading effect with the valves. I think the simple picture explains it enough.
-
Hello All,
I suspect that this motor will put out 2 - 3 HP on 200 Watt. Now that just a pretty educated guess. Got to wind all six coils on this thing, that may tak me about three days
Absolutely beautiful Jack! a work of art.
Ron
-
Hi again,
I hate to post this simple question on this thread but if someone could PM me the reason why the simple MEG idea doesn't work? I plan to build it to test myself in the future but I wont have time for a while and I figures someone probably already has figured out why it doesn't work. It seems to confront all the topics of difficulties the valve has.
-It uses AC so there is no polatiry saturation.
-The core is the same thickness all the way around in all the coils.
-The fields from the Primary coil [A] and the PM are altering in and out of the coils.
-It "should" use less power to move the fields.
-Some of the power used to move the fields can be recaptured in the secondary coils .
Tim
-
Hello nwman,
That just might work, It is a genius idea that you com up with.
Hello i_ron,
That has already been tested, it has put out about 40% more power out than input.. My main eutectic it to put a motor together that put out Mir power than input. Right now I in a put out or get out.
Later,,,,,JackH
-
@JackH
Now tahts a workmanship - we are all Your followers - You completely proved it can be done.
@newman
I allso tought of darlington Magnetic field Transistor - this is one of possibilities. and it --- Works ;D
This type trafo wan't work if normally switched and extracted cause Mr. Lenz will came up (if current used from B) and with induced counterfield from B coil will stop the cause of high B field and that is field from A coil.
only if A switched veryfast us (mikroseconds) or even ns (nano) and extracting only BEMF from A i B at a same time. for that you need
metglass or any fast_enough core. that is way we shall use mechanicall OUTPUT. no Lenz here, only on generator part but then Lenz can not influence the field from source coil.
these knoweonw ever tried (picture) - if you are eager you could be first - motionless device is holly grail of OU-FE.
keep us informed. these have some logic in avoiding-negating "fooling" lenz
in pic 2 I think toroids must be placed one on another.
Wiz
-
I allso tought of darlington Magnetic field Transistor - this is one of possibilities. and it --- Works ;D
You thought of it but haven't built it yet.......and it works! But is it OU?
You never ceases to amaze me.....in the not so positive way. >:(
How does it feel to be more intelligent than all the scientists on earth. ::) ::) ::)
Just to bad you can't explain anything you are doing except claming astonishing results.
-
You thought of it but haven't built it yet.......and it works! But is it OU?
You never ceases to amaze me.....in the not so positive way. >:(
How does it feel to be more intelligent than all the scientists on earth. ::) ::) ::)
Just to bad you can't explain anything you are doing except claming astonishing results.
Nature and Space is the Lord - scientists, me and you can only follow It's rules. scientists ,civilization and humans are stuck in not so beautifull position right now (exp. - one bigger meteor hits Earth and there is nothing left - indeed small but sufficient chance), scientists however are not doing anything to unstuck this, someone else should be invited - You and Me.
No matter how pathetic moves we do, they are allways less pathetic than staying in place waiting for too long for scinetists to help.
(darlington magnetic field transistor.)
If one domino falls and kicks other and makes other fall - it is logicall that fall of the first will eventually result in fall of fifth or fifth thosend
if rules used are same. that is why it works.
It is not hard to be smarter and more intelligent and more civilized human than main stream scientist cause they are swimming in money, and money, most of anything else, makes man and/or scientist stupid. Are you one of those main stream scientists ?
Thank you for your comments. That way you bring this topic with working_OU_motor to top although it is not your attention to do so - you want to see this idea(or any that has chance of working) of amplifing mag. field wanished, right ?
Wiz
-
Hey Jack:
I just had a flash of that motor sitting in the frame of a HarleyD. Now tell me you wouldn't get
some heads turned with that! :o
Smokem'
thaelin
Hello All,
I suspect that this motor will put out 2 - 3 HP on 200 Watt. Now that just a pretty educated guess. Got to wind all six coils on this thing, that may tak me about three days
-
Hello Thaelin,
It shoud be a very high torque motor. That should be a very interesting project.
Later,,,,,JackH
-
Hello All,
I suspect that this motor will put out 2 - 3 HP on 200 Watt. Now that just a pretty educated guess. Got to wind all six coils on this thing, that may tak me about three days
Jack, can you tell me how many lobes on the rotor?
I guess six and you are firing the coils ... all at once... six times per revolution? close?
Ron
-
I'm almost certain he fires two coils at the same time opposite placed from each other.
This makes the motor a Dual Action Valve - Three Phase Motor, that is using his good and proven control sequence.
1) Fire the coils when a section of the rotor area has entered half of the valve area.
2) Shut down the coils once the section is fully aligned in the valve area.
3) Use no BEMF capture as this creates backpull on the rotor, dampen BEMF arcing with a RC net.
4) Once the first section is aligned and coils shut down, the next section of the rotor has entered a two new valves by 50%.
5) Fire the coils in the new rotor-valve position.
6) Shut down the coils once the rotor is fully aligned....and so on in all three phases.
His motors look so extremely cool. 8) Especially this last one.
I just wish I was living nearby in the states so I could go visit him. ;D
-
I'm almost certain he fires two coils at the same time opposite placed from each other.
This makes the motor a Dual Action Valve - Three Phase Motor, that is using his good and proven control sequence.
1) Fire the coils when a section of the rotor area has entered half of the valve area.
2) Shut down the coils once the section is fully aligned in the valve area.
3) Use no BEMF capture as this creates backpull on the rotor, dampen BEMF arcing with a RC net.
4) Once the first section is aligned and coils shut down, the next section of the rotor has entered a two new valves by 50%.
5) Fire the coils in the new rotor-valve position.
6) Shut down the coils once the rotor is fully aligned....and so on in all three phases.
His motors look so extremely cool. 8) Especially this last one.
I just wish I was living nearby in the states so I could go visit him. ;D
Thanks Honk, so what you are suggesting there is a four lobe rotor?
The motors are exceptionally beautiful, the old "form follows function" school of design. Being a
retired machinist gives me an edge in appreciating the craftsmanship that goes into his motors.
Ron
-
Thanks Honk, so what you are suggesting there is a four lobe rotor?
I'm not sure of the rotor, but that is easy to figure out if you draw the basic design in autocad and fiddle around.
-
I'm not sure of the rotor, but that is easy to figure out if you draw the basic design in autocad and fiddle around.
Autocad? I haven't even figured out how to use paint yet, lol
No, sort of a defacto standard is the 6/4 in reluctance motors, as it gives the least torque ripple.
Either four lobes and six coils or four coils and six lobes.... (and generally is a self starter)
(which you already know but some others might not...)
Ron
-
JackH, I_Ron and others that started to experiment !!!
how did you actually make rotor ?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc ? rotor on this movie - is it from laminates
I'm thinking that laminates are not must (just yet) if whole rotor is of el. conductive material (Al) with (permeability 1) with attractive sections
from allso el. conductive material but much higher permeabiliti and low remanence ferro-nickel-cobalt (perm 4000-5000). that way eddy currents will develop but in a very big volume of conductive material so rotor wan't heat up and eddy current will "disperse" in material and wan't cause dragback.
are my toughts on this non acting eddy currents worth a dime here ? (ergo or koen1 don't respond on this, I alredy know what you think as if you wrote it alredy)
Many Thanks and good experimenting
Wiz
-
Hi there Wiz,
I'll give ya my opinion.
Some time ago I build an variable reluctance motor or 'attraction motor' Which works essentially like the motor discussed here. Only it does not have/use magnets.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Motor03.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Motor03.jpg)
The stator was from a normal induction motor. But rewound for 2 phase dc pulse based power.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Stator.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Stator.jpg)
The rotor because it is hard to build was made from solid steel.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Rotor01.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Rotor01.jpg)
Now the problem is with solid steel is not only the eddy currents (which are massive I might add)
But the main issue the solid steel has is that it is 'slow' You see, in an ideal case you want the fingers of the rotor to drop their magnetism before aligning to the next stator section. If it does not, then you in essence have a magnet approaching a stator and there will be an Bemf induced/lenz And this will work against your switching input need and system rpm. You can also see it like this, if the rotor remains to have some level of magnetism all the time then it is working as a generator while you are motoring. In an ideal world you want to attract the rotor finger in and then release it. And once releases it has to drop it's fields before the next alignment occurs. And lamination are much faster in this. But these laminated rotors are hard to make without plenty of sheet laminations to work with. Also if your rotor maintains a too large amount to residual magnetism after the 'stator alignment attraction phase' is over you will end up with the situation that the rotor resists to some extend to leave the stator alignment and will cause a drag and rpm loss. Fast material is a must, that is why flynn's better motors use metglas cores. Which can blast into the khz easily.
Maybe my rotor build method will help you:
My version of Jacks motor is totally made from commercially available C cores. Which are grain aligned thin ribbon wound laminations.
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Hilden001.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Hilden001.jpg)
So the rotor is like this:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Rotor.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Rotor.jpg)
For a motor like so:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Motor.jpg (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Forum/Motor.jpg)
Machining the rotor like that also gives you a perfect round rotor in relation to the axle, which means it is perfect balanced. Ready for paper sheet tight air gaps.
Due to the grain alignment these cores are very responsive to magnetic fields and don't keep 'any' residual magnetism after a input pulse. The cores are fast...
This video shows some core differences:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/CoreTests.wmv (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/CoreTests.wmv)
(Don't mind the text in he vid since back then it was for something else)
-
Hello Nali2001,
I couldn't even understand Wate you said. You talk to sintific stuff.
Hello wizkycho,
The motor is a two rotor motor, that govt it time to relaxe the first coil and resin the sencon col. The rotor is just as wide as two of the field windings, Thai what what it need to relaxe the first coll and reattain the second.
Jack
-
Hi!
@nali2001
For the first time I understood perfectly the core and coil relation and the need to choose the right core.
Thanks!
Jesus
-
JackH, I_Ron and others that started to experiment !!!
how did you actually make rotor ?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5prfWVc--dc ? rotor on this movie - is it from laminates
I'm thinking that laminates are not must (just yet) if whole rotor is of el. conductive material (Al) with (permeability 1) with attractive sections
from allso el. conductive material but much higher permeabiliti and low remanence ferro-nickel-cobalt (perm 4000-5000). that way eddy currents will develop but in a very big volume of conductive material so rotor wan't heat up and eddy current will "disperse" in material and wan't cause dragback.
are my toughts on this non acting eddy currents worth a dime here ? (ergo or koen1 don't respond on this, I alredy know what you think as if you wrote it alredy)
Many Thanks and good experimenting
Wiz
Hi Wiz,
Yes, that rotor is a steel tube (pipe) with bars made of laminations.
They are welded at each end to the tube. As I may have mentioned this rotor was made for a
different project and was not intended for a "Jack Valve"
You are correct... this is the wrong place for laminations. The resultant flux flow is lengthwise when
engaged ... but... on approach the flux has to jump from plate to plate perpendicular to the flow.
This I proved to my self in a test between two bars, one of cast iron and one of laminations. The cast
iron had a greater pull in strength.
Cast iron is what they use in junk yard electromagnets. It is the only material available to me that
I could use. Any powder metal, zen dust, Somaloy, etc would be better but costs too much.
Steel, as you know, is what they can use to make magnets, it is a high carbon steel that made the
horse shoe magnets in a model T ford. You can still buy chrome steel magnets
http://www.indigo.com/magnets/gphmgnts/chrome-steel-horseshoe-magnets.html
So only in its most pure form can you use steel... such as SAE 1010, some times SAE 1020
Easy enough to test, hold a magnet on the end off your piece of steel and lift some pins... remove
the magnet and the pins should fall off instantly.... any lingering means bad steel for this purpose.
Try this test with a piece of cast iron and you will find that cast iron makes a poor permanent magnet!
It would seem from Jack's remark that he is using a rotor with two bars on it. My new rotor will
have six bars, the bars being bolted to the tube from the inside. Then I will use four coils giving
a two phase motor in operation.
Not carved in stone... whatever works for you.
Ron
PS: the rule of thumb for the spacing should be "the space between bars can be two times the
width of the bar" That is, the coil/core when energized will reach out 8 to 12 mm, if the bar is say
25 mm wide, then the total field width can be 45mm, or more, wide. If you energize the coil/core
at midpoint it will be attracted to the approaching bar AND the trailing bar equally, a no no. The
coil/core should "see" only the approaching bar when fired.
-
Hello i_ron,
Just make sure that the rotor is at least as twice as the field coils, or the Timmie will be off. the coil haft to turn of and the next coil needs to turn on, that the timing you need. The magnetic switch is slow, in other word the time it take to turn one coil of and turn the other coil on it quite slow.
Also the silicon steel has to be running the same way the valve is.
The rotor is in my Creation, all I haft to do is wind the coils.
Latter,,,,,,,,JackH
-
Hello i_ron,
Just make sure that the rotor is at least as twice as the field coils, or the Timmie will be off.
snip
Latter,,,,,,,,JackH
Thanks for that Jack
Ron
-
thanks for so many advices !
@Nali You are really far ahead with these HQ precision supersmall gap motors - any results so far ?
since I can not afford laminates yet I'll go with SS430 Cr Fe. It is interesting I can not find table or chart with magnetic properties,
type and chemicall composition for stainless steels.(just few types per article)
@All
Now there is thing, at first I'm thinking using everyday underunity el. generator, but allso thinking ahead constructing FE generator to fit on
a shaft of this motor.
any recommendations - there are many methods, I allso have some idea about it, but like to hear what method would You choose.
and of course what type of underunity el. gen to use ?
Thanks
Wiz
-
Hi Wiz,
Well about the motor, I had back then a bit of trouble getting much benefit from the addition of magnets. Only very slight, and the magnets also caused an amp increase... But I intend to do some flow up research into this thing.
About the ss430, I have this Bh curve if it is of any use:
Regards,
Steven
-
Hi there Steven.
You seem like a very decent and logical guy.
Have you given my B/H curve explanation on the Hilden-Brand valve any more thoughts? Maybe going to build a test stand?
I'm refering to the case of twice the coil area giving the same magnetism as using half the coil and a neo magnet.
As you must have noticed by yourself when looking at the chart, the B/H curve stretches in both directions across zero.
Using a single large coil you just need to go from zero point to approx +1.5T to take advantage of the material properties.
But when a magnet is inserted the flux is flowing backwards through the coil and forcing the working point down to -1.5T.
Then you need to force it back past the zero point up to +1.5T to fully redirect the permanent flux. This takes twice the
as much energy as using just a single coil with twice the area.
Even thou the larger coil have higher resistance you don't need to apply twice the power because working point starts at
zero and not far down below at -1.5T as when using a magnet valve.
You can see it like this as well.
Hilden-Brand claims to get many times overunity from his magnet valve motors. Like 90W input and 1500W output.
He says that his valves have two streams of flux lines. One stream coming from the neo and the other one from the coil.
This is right, dual flux lines gives four times the force if the proper section area is used to prevent saturation.
But here comes the tricky part. He says himself having dual flux lines from a coil and a neo. Both having the same 1.5T
level of flux to form the quadrupled force. But what if he replaced the neo with a another coil. This would give him the same
dual flux lines that forms the quadrupled force. In the worst case scenario he would need 90+90W to run the motor.
And how can 180W input become 1500W overunity output if the neo is missing !!!!. I'm completly sure his valve is not OU.
Btw, he wouldn't need 180W in a dual coil motor because of the shifted B/H curve working point. The regular 90W would do fine.
And why have he never been able to run his motors at the same 8W as used in static mode. That is because of the coil inductance.
It will force him to increase he voltage just to reach the necessary 2 amps within a short timeframe. We are talking milliseconds.
And 2 amps x high voltage is a lot more than the static 8 watts.
-
Hi All !
just some toughts:
flux in a Coil doesn't need to create 1.5T to reroute 1.5T from permanent magnet. Coil has
to develop 1/4th - 1/5th or even less if alternative flux path is available. that 1/4 or 1/5th from coil
will allso travel with magnets field cause counter fields can not dimminish themselves. fields can only change vector. Proton and electron can dimminish their electrostatic fields if combined.
No need to go "high" with frequency, Infact in range 5Hz - 10Hz could suffice for proof of overunity.
that way wanted forces will act longer, making it easier to check for FE efects.
Coercivity of rotor allso could come up as small problem or even contribute to lowering down input.
If magnets on one stator-driver are counterpolarized from magnets on other stator-driver, coercive
force will help in oppening-rerouting (on "approaching to") stator-driver PM flux lowering input needs. although coercivity will make drag back when leaving stator-driver.
If two adjanced stator-drivers are close enough coercive dragback will be nullified or even add to rotation cause of approching to pull-atrract action of counterpolarized PM on another stator-driver.
OU is not guranteed anywhere but then again nor is underunity. What is guaranteed is -273 C of Space. We must do better !!!
Here experiments are those that tells us that there might be some excess energy to collect.
Wiz
-
Hello Ergo,
Well at the moment I have no plans for adapting the motor to magnet-less cores, since I have no cores that size left. Plus they are pretty difficult to 'round out' for the rotor. But maybe someday.
I think you put Jacks results in a bit of bad picture, Since his output was i think lower than 2hp (or +- 1500watt)
It was 90watt in, against 0.5hp(+- 370watt) out. So it is not all that extreme at 1500watt out. But I could be wrong also.
I respect Jacks work and dedication so I will let him if needed correct you on that. If he feels like doing so.
The Bh curve 'shifting' is indeed correct. The magnet will in between pulses flip back into the valve and if it does so then it will set up a field of -1.5T(or any value/polarity) negative instead of the cores natural zero field state. So indeed the coil when fired up must first pull the core from -1.5T to 0T up to 1.5T.(or whatever values) But... and here is the thing about that. That does not necessary have to be a drawback in these dc pulsed systems. Like I have said many times before, the big problem of these dc pulsed systems is that the core field in between the pulses has the tendency to retain a certain level of magnetism and does not 'reset' itself to a 'zero' magnetism state, which causes bad performance due to the lack of real field change. Now here with the magnet we have a situation when the magnets, when the coil is off, actually draws the core field back into a posit polarity. So that when the next dc pulse comes there is a real field change happing. Now I do agree with you that the magnet 'shifts' the curve, but on the other hand it does enhance the otherwise bad performance of dc pulse systems. (not claiming instant o.u here though) Just by forcefully pulling the core field orientation back down again when the dc pulse is over. I can demonstrate this with this video:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BMN5JRGU (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BMN5JRGU)
I decided to put the videos on a free host so just type in the 3 letters and click download - you probably have to wait 44seconds after that, before the download actually starts.
In the video you see a 'valve' (the lower part) in a 'transformer(upper part) configuration' The systems is driven with dc pulse circuit which has a slightly special approach to it to allow it to work reasonably well as a dc transformer. The dc transformer is powering a dc motor. Input is 12v 50% duty. So about: (12x4.5)/2= +-27watt. Now when the magnets are added on the valve, you will notice that the thing becomes more, or less efficient depending on the orientation of the magnets. Now it is my belief that the adding of the magnets flips the core magnetization polarity back to allow for a good field change in transformer action.
Also note how extremely sensitive the thing is, just by approaching the core there is an amp change, although I must say that that also could be due to the fact that these analogue meters have a magnet inside which could be acting to external fields.
But with the magnets in the 'good' position you are looking at (12x2.7)/2=16.8watt. Of course I was too stupid back then to measure the watt output...
So who knows the real efficiency.
Anyway here are the two test video's I made some time ago of the motor.
Video 1:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MKPZIM9T (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MKPZIM9T)
Video2:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6T09L80D (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6T09L80D)
-
Hi!
I think you should upload your videos to: http://www.mediafire.com/ This site has a faster service and it is free.
Jesus
-
Hmm well megaupload should be fine, free as well and I get 400kb/s
-
Steven Greer's AERO and Orion Project: sincere effort to usher in free energy or eloquent intel. front
Steven Greer, the chairman of The Disclosure Project, the organization founded in the early ninety nineties to disclose the presence of extraterrestrials and government suppression of evidence regarding the matter has taken on a newer, more daring escapade. This time, disclosing free energy technology to the world by presenting a robust , functional, closed loop, multiple kilowatt free energy device to the world, in tandem with a myriad of free energy inventors and a network of elite celebrities who are determined to see clean abundant alternatives into to the light. All this will be presented at a conference at the
National Press Club, in the same fashion as his famed 01 conference. The idea is to reach hundreds of millions, to make them aware that there are more clean alternatives than wind , geothermal and solar. He has stated that he is working on having a demonstrator unit built and have it be duplicated and verified by at least three independent sources. So, we assume that there are no robust units available in the public domain and that this is the obstacle to the grand press conference. He founded two organizations in this light- a non profit- Orion Project- to develop technology and a standard company- AERO(Advanced Energy Research Organization) for marketing. In addition to this, he has asked for the public to donate three million dollars for a research facility. He states repeatedly through radio talk shows and visual presentations that all free energy inventors needs to work with him because that's the only way they can get around the ardent suppression of the last 100 years. The suppression is without doubt but the fact of the matter is that there are numerous free energy machines in the public domain, robust , multiple kilowatt. They are few and far between , but the holders of these units would be more than happy to give Greer a unit if they believed he was sincere. Greer does not have to have it build and some have been on record for multiple decades and their validity is incontrovertible, already verified and either ready for production as is or on the
brink of it. It is doubtful that he is not aware of:
1. testatika 3kw self running, harnessing electrostatic energy, multiple units, ranging from 300 watts to 30 kilowatts have been running Meternitha ,Switzerland for the last 30 years
2. bedini generator 10kw, runs John Bedini's workshop lights, New Energy Series dvds
3. newman generator - has been on record for 20 years , validated by 40 professionals, Joe Newman appeared on johnny Carson, and given wide media coverage, has videos on google video showing his machines work
4. Daniel Dingel water cars, on record since 1968, has multiple cars running on water for everyday driving and farm work, Daniel Dingel is not dead and his cars, which exist today are as functional as anything Stan Meyer came up with.
Based of of his cozy relationship with people like the Rockefellers( the illuminati) and his lack of action as far the obvious is concerned, it must be looked upon as a likely possibility that whole affair may be nothing but a trojan hose, keeping tracks on inventors and keeping them from attempting anything on their own.this is not a novel concept, the Noetics Institute of Edgar mitchell is just that. On the other hand , free energy is not intangible such as aliens, and we are at the cusp of a totalitarian police state- the new world order- and free energy would disrupt that
i call upon governing members of the free energy movement, such as Sterling d Allan and Tom Beardan to look into this affair because something stinks
-
Hi!
I should have said that it is that when I tried to download the videos at the link, the site after the 45 seconds put another screen to click download again, I did, then 45 sec more and nothin downloaded. I was trying to download for about 15 min. That was why I recommended the other site. But If you are happy, it is ok. You do not need to prove anything with your videos. You already know your stuff.
It is us that do not know what you know and want to know. I think that I can handle that.
Jesus
-
Here it is:
dc magnet transformer
http://www.mediafire.com/?kjynetwy1nd (http://www.mediafire.com/?kjynetwy1nd)
Valve magnet motor video 1
http://www.mediafire.com/?hvyzn1q2din (http://www.mediafire.com/?hvyzn1q2din)
Valve magnet motor video 2
http://www.mediafire.com/?yyhttgywtzi (http://www.mediafire.com/?yyhttgywtzi)
-
Hi!
@nali2001
Thanks!!
I am downloading now to watch them.
Jesus
-
Hi!
@nali2001
In the first video it is incredible how with just an addition of a correct positioned magnet the motor acelerates using less amperage!!
The second video states that the addition of magnetes does not improve the torque in this case.
The third video first the bigger magnets increase rpm and lower amp, But the second time it draw more amps, the third time with a load it turned itself off.
Very interesting!
Jesus
-
Hello Ergo,
Well at the moment I have no plans for adapting the motor to magnet-less cores, since I have no cores that size left. Plus they are pretty difficult to 'round out' for the rotor. But maybe someday.
I didn't have a new motor in mind. I was thinking about a static force test. That shouldn't take as much time to build. And your skillful at the video documentation.
I think you put Jacks results in a bit of bad picture, Since his output was i think lower than 2hp (or +- 1500watt)
It was 90watt in, against 0.5hp(+- 370watt) out. So it is not all that extreme at 1500watt out. But I could be wrong also.
Your'e right about this. He's reported 90W in and 370W out but he also said he's not maximizing the load on the motor.
And he frequently states 2-3hp output on his motors.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.msg133108#msg133108
The really big motor a while back (the one he never got the magnets for) he claimed being capable of 5hp
Input is 12v 50% duty. So about: (12x4.5)/2= +-27watt.
But with the magnets in the 'good' position you are looking at (12x2.7)/2=16.8watt.
Of course I was too stupid back then to measure the watt output... So who knows the real efficiency.
Yes, it was to bad you never measured the efficiency. I don't think the small motor consumes either 27W or 16.8W at free rpm. (no load)
Your'e probably just boosting efficiency closer to an AC driven transformer by adding the magnet but the efficiency stays well below 100%.
If you try this setup again you should rectify the output using schottky diodes (low forward voltage) and then compare input vs output power.
-
Here's the 5hp motor I'm refering to.
He never got hold of the 4x2x2 magnets. At least not what he's been telling publicly
Then he built the smaller version of the type of motor, using 2x2x2 magnets.
The one that he reported 90W input and 370W (0.5hp) output but claimed capable of 2hp.
-
Steven Greer's AERO and Orion Project: sincere effort to usher in free energy or eloquent intel. front
snip
i call upon governing members of the free energy movement, such as Sterling d Allan and Tom Beardan to look into this affair because something stinks
But empirical, Greer, SA, and TB are on the same team.
Ron
-
@Nali
might sound trivial to You.
The reason for not noticing some change with PMagnets on that precise HQ motors of yours might be core material for which I assume
has low or lower saturation point. - should try with weaker magnets (AlNiCo - first). Wound core materials have very high permeabilities but saturation already at 0.5T. (except ones that uses lot's of cobalt).
Another reason i could think of is too high rpm. rpm should be low enough in order to switch on and off full magnet-coil flux. At least for first testing purposes rpm should be low.
can this help a bit ?
wiz
-
@All
to clarify how things works:
...Coil doesn't have to fight against -1.5T or make field of near such strenght...
Coil Only has to make magnetic resistance in original path HIGHER then magnetic resistance in alternative path. When this happens complete flux goes to alternative path - flux would not split like normal current in current resistors in corespondance of ratios of those resistances. it acts allmost binary (0 or 1) for small difference in mag. resistance.
Creating counterfield with coil is making neagtive permeability - mag.resistance...it is not just lowering down permeability.
....
another thing
Gap to rotor or distance from rotor represents very low rel. permeability (1) - so to make trigering even easiear or to make magnet catch
rotor at greater distance why not introduce small airgap (smaller or even equal to gap stator-rotor) within coil...
this gap should be made as such width to, when coil is off, complete flux closes through coil.
So to conclude there are many ways this MagTrans driven motor can go well into FE mode, and not to come back
Wiz
-
Introducing another air gap does nothing but to lower the material response to the magnetizing force.
In everyday electronics air gaps is introduced to decrease the sensitivty of the material to avoid saturation.
The more or larger air gaps, the more coil power is needed to obtain the 1.5T you desire in the magnetic circuit.
This is nothing remarkable. It's well known physics. Any electronic stuff you own is based on this principle.
The B/H curve above is only valid in a closed circuit with no airgaps. In a motor with 0.1mm gap the B/H curve is
slightly flattened out and the saturation point moved down the Amp/meter line, not much but clearly measurable.
-
Hi Wiz,
Nah the cores I have have are 1.5T with a max peak of 1.7T
I in some test I did, I noticed that such a core can soak up the field of a neo magnet with 1.5times the surface, without a noticeable surface leak.
Indeed the idle rpm is somewhat high for the switching.
When the thing is loaded down to lower rpm the magnets do cause and rpm increase.
So ya right lower it better for the time being.
@Nali
might sound trivial to You.
The reason for not noticing some change with PMagnets on that precise HQ motors of yours might be core material for which I assume
has low or lower saturation point. - should try with weaker magnets (AlNiCo - first). Wound core materials have very high permeabilities but saturation already at 0.5T. (except ones that uses lot's of cobalt).
Another reason i could think of is too high rpm. rpm should be low enough in order to switch on and off full magnet-coil flux. At least for first testing purposes rpm should be low.
can this help a bit ?
wiz
-
wizkycho, I feel with you. We live in a time where people get laughed at that want to change the world into a better place. Or get ignored if they want help on some research. We should be living in a world were research is promoted, where they throw all the equipment at you just so you can do research so humanity can keep advancing technologically. It's technology that solves problems not a credit system or the lies of a politician. The political monetary system must be destroyed and become a social technological system. No money no politics no poverty no bullshit.
Hot Damn Broli! Couldn't have said it better myself!!
-
snip
Here a list of simple but good LCR meters. I bought mine a year ago and have never been regretful. I use it in daily basis.
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38.l1313&_nkw=inductance+meter&_sacat=See-All-Categories
snip
Thanks Honk, mine arrived yesterday... what a treat! Shoulda had one years ago....
Ron
(http://)
-
Great Ron. ;D
Now you can see what you are facing when energizing the coils in your motor.
The resistance is of minor importance when pulsing an electromagnet.
All that matters is the inductance and less inductance give you a lesser magnetic field at faster response time and vice versa.
Keeping the resistance low is of course good to help keep the windings cool but the resistance doesn't really affect
the response time very much.
What you need is good core material with low eddy currents and hysteresis. Any solid iron stuff is almost useless.
The eddy currents is best described as short circuited current loops within the core. Thin laminates decreases this.
And the hysteresis is the difference of what you put in to magnetize the core and what you get back as inductive kickback.
Both these losses increase by frequency and is stated as loss/lb or loss/kg at various frequencies in the material spec.
Solid iron has the worst eddy currents and hysteresis loss among materials and should be avoided if possible.
To find out if your coil can handle your pulsing please use the Inductor Transient Calculation page.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.msg132830#msg132830
I use this very frequently and without it I would be totaly lost. ;)
-
Introducing another air gap does nothing but to lower the material response to the magnetizing force.
In everyday electronics air gaps is introduced to decrease the sensitivty of the material to avoid saturation.
The more or larger air gaps, the more coil power is needed to obtain the 1.5T you desire in the magnetic circuit.
This is nothing remarkable. It's well known physics. Any electronic stuff you own is based on this principle.
The B/H curve above is only valid in a closed circuit with no airgaps. In a motor with 0.1mm gap the B/H curve is
slightly flattened out and the saturation point moved down the Amp/meter line, not much but clearly measurable.
All !
Inserting another air gap could help equalize magnetic resistances of two paths, coil that way would need less energy to increase that resistance a bit more than resistance of alternative path. that gap doesn't have to be air - could be material with lower satturation point...
many ways to ease the input energy...If air is used by some calculation and expirience from another researchers in MEG-olike setups
this added gap should be 1/2nd of gap between driver-stator and core. even back Lenz bends (MEG-like) setups and has to be stronger to
neutralize main cause field.
It is in anyway very worth to try if alternative path (to rotor and back) is long and can not be well designed ("big" airgaps - rotor wobling a little), and meassurements doesn't show FE.
This gap could be main thing (depending on setup) in efficient switching magnetic field from permanent magnets.
Wiz
-
Nali !
Your core is cut to half where the coil is so seems to me that original path could have too high mag.resistance.
This is easily to test - see if, with added magnets (on both sides) and no current, rotor spins freely. and doesn't wan't to stick to stators.
If rotor wants to stick to stators - mag field doesn't close through coil(when off) completely. I think it should close completely (not genesis like) because those motors of yours are small and magnet field, if not closed properly, easily will "touch" rotor even not overlaped - especially
if one magnet pair is N-S and another is S-N....and rotor is allso high permeability.
This could be reason why RPMs droped !
Allso I would go with weaker magnets - 2/3 value of where satturation starts (0.8- 1T) - cause magnet fields must travel with coil field
besides I think that RPMs doesn't drop so much (few rpms) but current drops substantially - You have only two drivers
and current droped to half. with more drivers (four) curent drop will drop not half but probably to 1/3th
all other experiments with high rpm (beyond 1000) are not good I think for first FE results...maybe later on...
all the best !
Wiz
-
@Nali !!!
wonderfull videos... much to leran from them
I'm watching your videos over and over again and after some time I tought that there is one crucial thing that should be tried:
(except for checking flux leakage and complete flux closing - my previous replay to You)
- lower down RPM to 800 RPMs , but not with mechanical friction on shaft, but with lowering down input voltage (input energy).
this is principle of valve - (1.) low input energy pumping (2.) strong magnetic flux of PM (this is must procedure). And not (1.) 144W of input doing (2.) friction on mechanicall break (3.)...
- then add magnets
What happens ?
Please Can You do video of this ?!! :D
I expect RPM should rise significantly (not just few RPMs but huge difference) - due to RPMs input lowers further :D :D :D
then would be nice to place some generator on shaft....
Wiz
-
@Nali
...thinking further that start RPMs w/o mags should be as low as it can
and then put magnets.
that way we would see what is minimum input energy that we have to produce to start the machine.
and choose/construct gen in accordance. since eff. genearators are not that easily to find - maybe some small wattage is enough to close the loop and make proof. and after that intensify research in finding maxes.
again many many thanks for those well done and documented videos.
Wiz
-
@All,
Another simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor is by using a Shaded Pole Ac motor. It has the magnets before the rotor and can be connected into a multi valve unit. Downside, it is hard to find a large motor to use Jack size OU magnets.
The thin top piece of the motor is cut. The rotor is cut to a shorter arc instead of a circle. Magnets are placed on each side of the stator, a bar is added around to complete the outside flux path of the magnets. The inside flux path is thru the center of the electromagnet.
When the motor has the magnets it picks up the weight attached by a string to the side of the fan. When the motor doesn't have the magnets it cannot pick up the weight.
Regards, Larry
any current, voltage measurements ?
Wiz
-
any current, voltage measurements ?
Wiz
Hi Wiz,
I was using a small 9V battery. The coil is 20.6 ohms, so under ideal conditions it would be 437 MA.
It would be much better to use a precise DC source. If you check patent 6369479, tables 1 thru 11 shows the force at varying gaps by volts and amps with the magnets attached. Tables 12 thru 22 shows the force at varying gaps by volts and amps without the magnets attached. But if that is too much detail, the graph in figure 26 is excellent.
Regards, Larry
-
The only 'problem' I have with the graphs in their patent and website is that they were taken from a static valve setup to measure pure attractive power and were not taking from a running motor. And in such a dynamic mode things change rapidly. Would be very interested in data taken from a motor at speed.
-
The only 'problem' I have with the graphs in their patent and website is that they were taken from a static valve setup to measure pure attractive power and were not taking from a running motor. And in such a dynamic mode things change rapidly. Would be very interested in data taken from a motor at speed.
Did you see this page on their website?
http://www.genesis-corp.co.jp/type2.html
Regards, Larry
-
hmm good one.
-
Hi Wiz,
Yes that is a standard test. The valve will support a magnet bigger then the remaining core cross sectionof the valve. Without leaking to the tortor. It is all more or less tuned. The core easily supports the statdad 20x20x10 neo used.
But you are right about the lower rpm is better.
Nali !
Your core is cut to half where the coil is so seems to me that original path could have too high mag.resistance.
This is easily to test - see if, with added magnets (on both sides) and no current, rotor spins freely. and doesn't wan't to stick to stators.
If rotor wants to stick to stators - mag field doesn't close through coil(when off) completely. I think it should close completely (not genesis like) because those motors of yours are small and magnet field, if not closed properly, easily will "touch" rotor even not overlaped - especially
if one magnet pair is N-S and another is S-N....and rotor is allso high permeability.
This could be reason why RPMs droped !
Allso I would go with weaker magnets - 2/3 value of where satturation starts (0.8- 1T) - cause magnet fields must travel with coil field
besides I think that RPMs doesn't drop so much (few rpms) but current drops substantially - You have only two drivers
and current droped to half. with more drivers (four) curent drop will drop not half but probably to 1/3th
all other experiments with high rpm (beyond 1000) are not good I think for first FE results...maybe later on...
all the best !
Wiz
-
Well I will see what I can do.
Need to piece some things back together since these videos are a year old or something and the motor circuit and stuff is not complete anymore at the moment. Will look into it.
@Nali !!!
wonderfull videos... much to leran from them
I'm watching your videos over and over again and after some time I tought that there is one crucial thing that should be tried:
(except for checking flux leakage and complete flux closing - my previous replay to You)
- lower down RPM to 800 RPMs , but not with mechanical friction on shaft, but with lowering down input voltage (input energy).
this is principle of valve - (1.) low input energy pumping (2.) strong magnetic flux of PM (this is must procedure). And not (1.) 144W of input doing (2.) friction on mechanicall break (3.)...
- then add magnets
What happens ?
Please Can You do video of this ?!! :D
I expect RPM should rise significantly (not just few RPMs but huge difference) - due to RPMs input lowers further :D :D :D
then would be nice to place some generator on shaft....
Wiz
-
You can easily build and use a prony brake with a digital scale to measure the shaft output.
http://www.geocities.com/koneheadx/measuringshaftpower.html
-
You can easily build and use a prony brake with a digital scale to measure the shaft output.
http://www.geocities.com/koneheadx/measuringshaftpower.html
@Ergo
Many thanks for this info.
This should be easy to make and further more it will tell if added genearator for retrofeed is working efficiently enough.
I was looking for this missing part.
@All
do You think allso that Nali in his experiments is overdrivig the coils at least a bit too much, so amplification of force from magnets is not observeable ?
Wiz
-
hELLO ALL,
This was Jack W Hildenbrand patent,,,,,, Just simpn up up by billding a set of steel shale around. http://www.genesis-corp.co.jp/type2.html
How do you think there will be under getting a patrtent on the USA.
-
@All
do You think allso that Nali in his experiments is overdrivig the coils at least a bit too much, so amplification of force from magnets is not observeable ?
Wiz
Seems to be a new list on electromagnets...some of you are already there... but try...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5929.0
What intrigued me was ...
"The one thing that I still have in the back of my mind is the testing where I learned that a PM being accelerated away from an EM/solenoid induces a current in the EM/solenoid that appears to assist the acceleration and not oppose it. This is still very interesting to me"
mondrasek, message #10.
Ron
-
Just a question: Could anyone recommend a source online to buy e-cores? What I'm really looking for is just straight bars of grain aligned laminated steel for fabrication purposes. I was thinking of just buying a large C-core and cutting off the legs of it but this may be difficult.
Tim
-
http://alphacoredirect.com/index.html?lmd=39634.474294 (http://alphacoredirect.com/index.html?lmd=39634.474294)
At the c core section they say they have E cores so give them a mail.
E cores are never grain aligned though. Another source are of course old Micro wave ovens.
Regards
Steven
-
Question, is this list still read?
If so here is a short video of an experiment along the Hildenbrand/Genesis model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kQduMFLmhA
I don't think Jack ever solved the switching problem? Anyway, in memory of one of the greatest builders, I was doing some thinking on this and the vid lets you know how I see it.
Ron P
-
@i_ron,
How do you mean "in memory of ..."?
-
@i_ron,
How do you mean "in memory of ..."?
Omni,
Jack passed away on March 10th, 2009
I mention his work with great admiration and respect.
Take Care,
Ron P
-
Omni,
Jack passed away on March 10th, 2009
I mention his work with great admiration and respect.
Take Care,
Ron P
I'm really, really sorry to hear that. He was one of the best OU researchers around. It's so sad to lose such a fine person. I didn't participate in the discussions about his rig but I was following them regularly and I remember there was someone who made an electronic control system for him. Whatever happened to that project and where are now the machines Jack made?
-
I'm really, really sorry to hear that. He was one of the best OU researchers around. It's so sad to lose such a fine person. I didn't participate in the discussions about his rig but I was following them regularly and I remember there was someone who made an electronic control system for him. Whatever happened to that project and where are now the machines Jack made?
omni,
I believe that was honk. However I believe that led to a falling out as Jack thought the controller was unusable. As to the machines, I have no idea?
Ron P
-
Hi Ron!
Good demo.
Indeed a good way to release a Leedskalnin PPMH.
But I am not so sure it this really is needed for a Hidenbrand or Genesis valve.
The way I see it, it all depends on the core material. The PPMH can only be made with steel that tends to retain its magnetism when a good looped path is provided, more or less turning it in a permanent magnet after the input is energized. Much like the hard steel horseshoe magnets in the time before ferrite magnets were invited. You had to keep an steel bar at the open ends of the magnet to prevents its demagnetization.
Here is a Hildenbrand type valve that does not leak and releases the bar once power is turned off. Airgap is 0.06mm. Input about 1 watt, the core is grain aligned tape wound silicon steel with square HB characteristics:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/MagnetExtraPower.wmv (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/MagnetExtraPower.wmv)
People have seen it already before but here are some video tests of core steels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbQXnXK6Xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbQXnXK6Xc)
Anyway this is my take on this.
The right core type in the right place can make all the difference in the world.
-
...I remember there was someone who made an electronic control system for him. Whatever happened to that project and where are now the machines Jack made?
The controller's kept burning out as far as I can remember. It was too big an ask IMO to try and make a controller for someone else, in another country, to apply to a machine you'd never actually seen. I think Honk tried as best he could, putting together what he thought should work, but it's easy to imagine the communication problems there would have been, on top of the technical problems. Jack's last mention of the controller/s was that it/they had been a waste of time. But that was coming from someone firmly committed to going down the patent route, so it was a bit rough of him to accuse someone else of wasting time, or so I thought anyway.
As for the machines Jack made, he did mention once that he had one secured in a bank vault somewhere and that it and other information would be released to the public should anything happen to him. So much for that plan. I guess he didn't have it set up as well as he thought, or someone intervened. From other things he said along the way, it was clear his children and other relatives weren't interested in continuing on with his projects. I'm imagining they either didn't understand what it was he was doing, or they knew better than all of us the obstacles Jack had still to overcome, and saw no point in passing on the machines and related information. And as far as I know, no-one actually asked, or even tried to get hold of the devices, until it was too late and all contact with Jack's relatives had stopped.
On top of all this, Jack did write at one point that he thought he had been poisoned by the two university researchers who had visited him one time to see his machines (and who the university later denied knowing anything about), and that it was that poisoning that had led to his subsequent terminal illness. If that was the case, they could well have cleaned up and taken everything after Jack's death too. I have no idea about the truth of any of that, but to even consider it a possibility automatically leads me to wondering just who Jack's 'investors' were and what role they've actually played in all of this. Even if they were real and legitimate, it's possible they've ended up with all that was made and done with the money they put in.
At the end of the day, it seems to me Jack was his own worst enemy. I always thought he was a decent enough guy, and he did seem to be more committed than most to actually trying to get a 'free energy' device up and going. But there was a lot of self-contradictory information and behaviour mixed in with it all too, combined with some really poor communication skills, that made it difficult for anyone to really know what was what in regards to what he'd actually done.
At least he made more people aware of the fundamental concepts behind the particular kind of magnetic switching he claimed to be using. And he at least partly inspired some people to successfully replicate the Radus Boots type of magnetic switching units he referred to.
And again, pardon my ignorance, but I still don't know why someone doesn't use that effect in conjunction with a gravity-assisted wheel to overcome the sticky spot in some kind of perpetual motion design. Just how hard is it to turn some kind of dynamo or something that can generate enough electricity to switch the magnets when required? I know I could do the research myself, but it's almost too basic a question to find an answer for by looking around online, and I can't believe the answer could be so obvious, even though Jack himself did mention he had made up a similar working device once.
-
It's tragic if all Jack did should go to waste. What country was he from? Wouldn't it be possible to recover the motor and send it to Stefan for study and further development. I guess that gravity-magnetic idea is something worth exploring but but I don't know what it would look like in what Jack was trying to do. Otherwise, yes, that's one path that should be taken having in mind that it was exactly the gravity-assisted magnetic field in the magnetic propulsor which led to the conclusive proving the rreality of OU.
-
Hi Ron!
Good demo.
Indeed a good way to release a Leedskalnin PPMH.
But I am not so sure it this really is needed for a Hidenbrand or Genesis valve.
The way I see it, it all depends on the core material. The PPMH can only be made with steel that tends to retain its magnetism when a good looped path is provided, more or less turning it in a permanent magnet after the input is energized. Much like the hard steel horseshoe magnets in the time before ferrite magnets were invited. You had to keep an steel bar at the open ends of the magnet to prevents its demagnetization.
Here is a Hildenbrand type valve that does not leak and releases the bar once power is turned off. Airgap is 0.06mm. Input about 1 watt, the core is grain aligned tape wound silicon steel with square HB characteristics:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/MagnetExtraPower.wmv (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/MagnetExtraPower.wmv)
People have seen it already before but here are some video tests of core steels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbQXnXK6Xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbQXnXK6Xc)
Anyway this is my take on this.
The right core type in the right place can make all the difference in the
world.
Can't argue with that at all nali. I should have said the cores are cast iron.
The Genesis patent calls out "iron". Proper iron is hard to come by so am using second best, cast iron. I did try one with laminates before and the performance was way down.
Jack of course used laminates, Flynn uses metglass, so a good field to explore. So the vid is specific to my builds and shows me where my switching was not right before. I was just switching the coil and expecting the flux to cease when the pulse stopped, wasn't happening.
Thanks for the come back
Ron
-
It's tragic if all Jack should go to waste. What country was he from? Wouldn't it be possible to recover the motor and send it to Stefan for study and further development. I guess that gravity-magnetic idea is something worth exploring but but I don't know what it would look like in what Jack was trying to do. Otherwise, yes, that's one path that should be taken having in mind that it was exactly the gravity-assisted magnetic field in the magnetic propulsor which led to the conclusive proving the rreality of OU.
Jack was in the U.S. It was his brother who took the time to post here and notify us all of Jack's death. Someone posted here recently though that the contact details we/they were left with were no longer working. If someone were dedicated enough I'm sure Jack's relatives could be contacted. At the time though, all we did was give our condolences, as it didn't seem appropriate to ask for anything. But yes, I agree it should be possible to recover one of the motors now, or at least find out why not.
And indeed, the gravity-magnetic type device is very different to the motors Jack's most well known for. He himself was dismissive of the gravity assisted device he'd built, I assume because it was too simplistic compared to his other devices. But I'm interested in it because of that simplicity and just want to see a verified, replicable self-runner that almost anyone could make. At this point I don't care if it can't bear an extra load, as long as it can run itself for as long as it's parts hold out, in accord with clearly understood principles of operation.
-
At this point I don't care if it can't bear an extra load, as long as it can run itself for as long as it's parts hold out, in accord with clearly understood principles of operation.
Very much so. However, almost everyone is so much down and out now that ensuring a proper infrastructure to do that is almost impossible. To put infrastructure together is the impossible part, not the making of the working OU device if you had such infrastructure. Any thoughts on that?
-
Can't argue with that at all nali. I should have said the cores are cast iron.
The Genesis patent calls out "iron". Proper iron is hard to come by so am using second best, cast iron. I did try one with laminates before and the performance was way down.
Jack of course used laminates, Flynn uses metglass, so a good field to explore. So the vid is specific to my builds and shows me where my switching was not right before. I was just switching the coil and expecting the flux to cease when the pulse stopped, wasn't happening.
Thanks for the come back
Ron
Hmm indeed, I remember the Genesis patent said pure iron.
Which has a very high saturation level of above 2.6T by the way. Pretty pricey as well. I read, "very pure Iron cost in excess of $700/kg"
Thanks for you video! And keep us updated where you are going with this.
-
Hi Folks,
On pure iron: You have to consider eddy losses in it so some kind of thin sheets from it i.e. lamination-like pieces are to be obtained if they exist. But then the price may reach or pretty much exceed that of metglas.
Ron, keep up the excellent work.
Gyula
-
Lol yes I made a 3000 rpm generator once with solid steel cores. 10mm spacing between the cores and the magnets, and within 2 minutes the cores got over 80 degrees Celsius. Eddy was strong in this one... I never really use solid steel for cores anymore.
-
Lol yes I made a 3000 rpm generator once with solid steel cores. 10mm spacing between the cores and the magnets, and within 2 minutes the cores got over 80 degrees Celsius. Eddy was strong in this one... I never really use solid steel for cores anymore.
LOL, a learning experience!
Thanks for the great response, just going over some of the old posts, brought back memories, some good posts there, even some from Jack.
Researching "pure iron" and seems to be good stuff for what we are doing here. CMI magnet iron would be nice, 99.45 Fe, .028 Mn, .02 C
(ASTM-A-848)
Anyway will be involved with Christmas for the next while, so not much in the way of posting from me for a few days....
Merry Christmas All
Ron
-
Merry Christmas All
Ron
Right back at you! It's been a great christmas for me today.
Time spent with family and friends .. everything I could ever want or need, right there in those two F words. LOL
P.S.
Happy new year too!
KneeDeep
-
Right back at you! It's been a great christmas for me today.
Time spent with family and friends .. everything I could ever want or need, right there in those two F words. LOL
P.S.
Happy new year too!
KneeDeep
Good to hear from you Knee Deep! Yes, you said a mouthful, family dinner at the oldest daughter's to-night, then a special dinner tomorrow night for the youngest daughter, her three and and the two new great grand kids!!
Doesn't get any better than that!
Ron
Skype'd with my cousin in the UK (south) yesterday, her 86 year old uncle and 93 year old father... what an amazing world it is....
-
Take every chance to be with family when you can. When you
loose all, the world becomes rather empty. Still catch my self now
and then with the phone in hand and realize that no one will be
on the other end anymore.
Give 'em double hugs just in case.
thay
-
Take every chance to be with family when you can. When you
loose all, the world becomes rather empty. Still catch my self now
and then with the phone in hand and realize that no one will be
on the other end anymore.
Give 'em double hugs just in case.
thay
thay,
I was thinking my last post was a bit personal, and even OT, so was just coming in to delete most of it!
But your post so poignant I shall leave it stand.
This little preview is just for you... managed an hour or so yesterday...
and have it running on just the main coil...not very fast as my opto window is too narrow... on 9v it just ticks over at 20 rpm, sounds like a little steam engine, lol, tick tick tick... R
-
Looking good Ron,
As always a nice and efficient build.
Good setup to compare run behavior with and without magnets!
Keep us updated
-
fantastic build there Ron :)
-
Looking good Ron,
As always a nice and efficient build.
Good setup to compare run behavior with and without magnets!
Keep us updated
Thanks Steven,
A lot of people beside yourself are interested in this also, so here without any any spike recovery, or forward coils being energized, is a plain vanilla single coil shoot out. Keep in mind that the rotor is fairly heavy for just the single coil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMtc4JP0YGk
So 63 RPM coil only, 75 RPM coil and magnet.
This test just to show the effects of adding the magnet (1 inch dia, 3/4 L)
Rave,
Thanks for the compliment! Not quite as classy as Jack's, but open frame so everyone can see the construction.
Ron
-
Looking promising!
Nice to see you have a gain.
In my system I only noticed that magnets were actually doing anything, only when the mechanical load was very high (thus also the amp draw) or the magnets were over sized for the core.
And the most important part:
When the magnets were aiding in torque I noticed an real amp increase. So I got the magnets to add torque but I was also paying for it... Have you also noticed such a thing?
-
Looking promising!
Nice to see you have a gain.
In my system I only noticed that magnets were actually doing anything, only when the mechanical load was very high (thus also the amp draw) or the magnets were over sized for the core.
And the most important part:
When the magnets were aiding in torque I noticed an real amp increase. So I got the magnets to add torque but I was also paying for it... Have you also noticed such a thing?
The draw with no magnets is 290 mA
The draw with the magnets is 270 mA
But then the draw is RPM dependent so understandable why the slower no magnet model draws a bit more.
Ron
-
OK, I connected up the regauging coils to fire at the instant the main pulse ended. That is a 7555 one shot triggering on the falling edge of the main pulse.
This worked... after a fashion but to get max RPM I had to extend this regauging pulse to practically the entire blank period between main firing pulses. This gave me 120 rpm.
But I felt this was "wasting power" having these coils on full time, right?
So tried just sending the collapse spike to the regauging coils. This seems to work quite well, and with a further refinement of a cap over the diode gave me 113 RPM (for a draw of 300 plus mA)
Ron
-
OK, I connected up the regauging coils
Ron
First pic... no diode or regauging switching... just a healthy spike
Second pic... diode to regauging coils
Third pic... diode and cap
Each division is 5 volts vertical and 20 mS horizontal, you can see the speed increase if you count the squares. Diode and cap seem to take most of the meat out of the collapse spike.
Ron
-
OK, I connected up the regauging coils
Ron
It gets better. This doesn't seem to be the generator that my Adam/kone/Bedini builds seem to be. This is more like a reluctance motor.
Background:
The rotor and coil are from the previous build of two years ago. The "regauging" coils are from an even earlier parallel path experiment.
The cores are of a new design. The old cores were more along the line of genesis with the magnet stack adjacent to the rotor. In this build I have extended the front of the core to facilitate mounting the regauging coils.
I had two 6 ohm coils and two 2 ohm coils. The vid and previous post show the 6 ohm coils (in series)
Now this is the best part... I have just changed over to the 2 (1.9) ohm coils and the spike "nearly" goes away, and it runs a couple of RPM faster!
Here it is at 116 RPM
Free from generator action and with the negative spike only marking every now and then....
Ron
-
Hi Ron,
Very good progress.
I make a notice for myself: any time I am to make coils for such pulsed motors, I will make several taps on them to test the best inductance for a particular job.
One more thing I would do: I would remove a single magnet from the several stacked ones and repeat the tests with the missing magnet when there is airgap in its place, then I would fill the airgap with a ferromagnetic piece, all this to be able to control the amount of the flux of the magnets somehow.
Thanks for sharing.
Gyula
-
Hi Ron,
Very good progress.
I make a notice for myself: any time I am to make coils for such pulsed motors, I will make several taps on them to test the best inductance for a particular job.
One more thing I would do: I would remove a single magnet from the several stacked ones and repeat the tests with the missing magnet when there is airgap in its place, then I would fill the airgap with a ferromagnetic piece, all this to be able to control the amount of the flux of the magnets somehow.
Thanks for sharing.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
A couple of good tips... I am usually not that organized though, lol
I had cut down the magnet stack to six on the motor from the eight that I had on for the initial test vid. The reasoning for this from the Genesis patent which shows such small magnets. Whereas Jack used monster magnets... so just don't know at this time....
I filled in the open spaces on the rotor with some bits of teak, it has cut down on the windage and now runs at 122 RPM. The next move will be to get the coil/core ready for the other end.
Ron
-
Ron,
its interesting that sending the spike to the RG coils produces an improvement, it reminds me of gotoluc's tests where he used a diode to send the spike back into the coil that made the spike in the first place, using a magnet on top of the coil to "measure" the strength of the field he got a significant increase when sending the spike back into the coil
-
Ron,
its interesting that sending the spike to the RG coils produces an improvement, it reminds me of gotoluc's tests where he used a diode to send the spike back into the coil that made the spike in the first place, using a magnet on top of the coil to "measure" the strength of the field he got a significant increase when sending the spike back into the coil
Rave,
I like to watch gotoluc's vids, he has some good stuff, to make you think, on there.
Now, I have come back to this from pulse motor experiments, where the generated voltage is a major factor, so I was pleased with the lack of this "interference".
As you probably know, the diode across a relay coil shorts the spike back into the coil. Putting a resistor in line with the diode slows down the release and holds the relay engaged longer... which can be a problem, for the relay.
Edit: I have lots of good theories, trouble is not all of them work out, lol
Ron
-
Great work. I like your build.
I have a question regarding efficiency. (The shaft torque seems kind of low)
Have you considered that using no magnets the efficiency is e'g 50% and adding the magnets gives you a slight efficiency increase.
In that case it's an improvement but not OU.
Don't forget that the needed coil firing voltage increases by speed. This happens in all moving fields, using magnets or not.
Can you measure the voltage increase as RPM increases? That will determine the final outcome of the motor as input = I x V.
It will also be interesting to see the measured shaft output vs electrical input when you have completed the motor.
I can send you an efficient three phase 750W generator when you have a fully working prototype motor.
Keep up the good work.
-
Great work. I like your build.
I have a question regarding efficiency. (The shaft torque seems kind of low)
Have you considered that using no magnets the efficiency is e'g 50% and adding the magnets gives you a slight efficiency increase.
In that case it's an improvement but not OU.
Don't forget that the needed coil firing voltage increases by speed. This happens in all moving fields, using magnets or not.
Can you measure the voltage increase as RPM increases? That will determine the final outcome of the motor as input = I x V.
It will also be interesting to see the measured shaft output vs electrical input when you have completed the motor.
I can send you an efficient three phase 750W generator when you have a fully working prototype motor.
Keep up the good work.
Honk, Good to see you back, also. It was two years ago that we last corresponded. Yes you could be quite right as to the efficiency. It was so weak last time that I abandoned it for all this time.
Just sort of regained interest since JB's ferris wheel at the convention last fall and the renewed interest in the Radus Boot mechanism. Flynn is over cop 1 I would guess but that avenue is pretty well closed off to the home experimenter. Genesis seems to be near or over cop 1 and have product on the market. Is it possible for the home experimenter? I don't know.
I make lots of mistakes so like a friendly forum, such as this, to keep my thinking on the straight and narrow. It is only a 5 watt motor at the moment, so even with 4 coils it would only be a 20 watt motor, so only a tiny build in the scheme of things.
I have a 500 watt three phase generator... just need the "efficient" motor to drive it. If this doesn't work out then the RV, belted flywheel is another option I would like to look at...
Ron
-
Ron,
its interesting that sending the spike to the RG coils produces an improvement, it reminds me of gotoluc's tests where he used a diode to send the spike back into the coil that made the spike in the first place, using a magnet on top of the coil to "measure" the strength of the field he got a significant increase when sending the spike back into the coil
Thanks Rave, this prompted me to drill a pocket in the core and get out the gauss meter.
I was wrong. The RG coils do nothing, they are not needed, not working.
Here is a gauss pic (first) obtained with moving the opto... it shows that the flux (gauss) builds at the start of the pulse and only overshoots by a few mS at the end of the pulse.The flux field then goes opposite until the start of the next pulse. Why it does this I haven't figured out but it does.
(second pic) when I tune the opto for maximum speed then a positive going hump appears. The same thing happens with using the spike to the RG coils or pulsing the RG coils there is a rebound and a major hump. With the RG coils reversed the spike extends the pulse.
A word of explanation: the gauss meter reads positive for north and negative for south. I have the probe on the south extension but reversed so that it reads positive for power on. So with the power off and just the residual flux attraction it reads positive. With the RG coils connected to the PS it reads negative. No recovery diode on these two pics. 20mS per square, like the power pulse is 35 mS long....overshoot, 5 mS? Edit: while the sharp saw tooth might be tempting to put down as lack of current a more prosaic explanation is ... on a static test with the core and rotor bar only 25% in alignment the meter only reads 1G, and so on as the core is brought further into alignment the reading continues to rise to say 4G... so the saw tooth is a picture of the alignment!
So as they say, regarding the RG coils... "nothing to see here folks, move on"
What shows more promise is back spike collection... up to 80 mA before it starts extending the power pulse...
Ron
-
veryyyyyy interesting results there Ron
-
Hi, I've been watching your progress. Since you are already moving in the right direction... maybe this will kick things to the higher gear:
In your present physical configuration of device you will likely not reach OU. This is because present configuration gives you rather low theoretical force amplification, which means even lower real world amplification.
On the other hand Radus/Flynn style configuration gives theoretical maximum of around 4x force amplification. With around 3,5x real world figures.
Especially important is placement of the coils in Flynn configuration at the "flux crossroads" which radically reduces total consumption when rotor is moving AND there is collection of backspike.
Collecting backspike is a must! It may be deciding factor OU vs no OU. Also when motor has more than one "thruster" they can be arranged in such way that at each moment one thruster is giving a "kick" while others are busy sending backspike back to run capacitors. So all the electricity you are using is alaways used in "full power" 4x amp mode and there is never switching coils' polarity. "Regauging" is done by physical removal of flux path via rotor inertia.
This will likely give OU in relation to direct input (when utilizing rotor torque also), but of course not in relation to ability of the system to do physical work (4x vs 3.5x = <90% efficenty). There is no violation of any laws - whitch is the reason for fact that systems like this can be simulated on ordinary magnetic field simulators.
There is fair amount of theoretical information about this here:
http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1406.0
Comments are in Russian, so use Google Translate.
Good luck! ...and excuse typos I'm from Russia :)
-
Hi, I've been watching your progress. Since you are already moving in the right direction... maybe this will kick things to the higher gear:
In your present physical configuration of device you will likely not reach OU. This is because present configuration gives you rather low theoretical force amplification, which means even lower real world amplification.
On the other hand Radus/Flynn style configuration gives theoretical maximum of around 4x force amplification. With around 3,5x real world figures.
Especially important is placement of the coils in Flynn configuration at the "flux crossroads" which radically reduces total consumption when rotor is moving AND there is collection of backspike.
Collecting backspike is a must! It may be deciding factor OU vs no OU. Also when motor has more than one "thruster" they can be arranged in such way that at each moment one thruster is giving a "kick" while others are busy sending backspike back to run capacitors. So all the electricity you are using is alaways used in "full power" 4x amp mode and there is never switching coils' polarity. "Regauging" is done by physical removal of flux path via rotor inertia.
This will likely give OU in relation to direct input (when utilizing rotor torque also), but of course not in relation to ability of the system to do physical work (4x vs 3.5x = <90% efficenty). There is no violation of any laws - whitch is the reason for fact that systems like this can be simulated on ordinary magnetic field simulators.
There is fair amount of theoretical information about this here:
http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1406.0
Comments are in Russian, so use Google Translate.
Good luck! ...and excuse typos I'm from Russia :)
Excellent post yssurax, the type of feedback I am looking for.
No problem with your english but I am not clear at this time as to the direction this should take.
You do understand that the hildenbrand/genesis style of device uses a coil input as the second magnet? So this is what I don't understand at the moment as to why you would say this configuration is not equivalent?
Interesting to see my video at the end of that list! But in my two previous videos I show this HBG setup as a "four times" possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYcskBvSg6Q
Anyway welcome to the list and I hope you will continue to post your very informative information.
rgds, Ron
PS: thanks for the confirmation on back spike collection. Late in the day yesterday I was playing with a Phil Wood's collection scheme, trying different collection coils and sending the output to a separate battery.
Well I was only 20 minutes or so, the fully charged battery (at start) stood at 15 volts when I thought measure it!
-
Hi, to be 100% honest with you, I do not fully understand the reasons why two magnet design is more efficent. This is very hard thing to dig in. One of the reasons may be that in reality magnetic fields do not interact. What takes place is interference, like in waves. Thus giving 4x of physical force when you double the flux lines. E(nergy)=A(rea)^2 meaning twice the amplitude (flux lines), four times energy (physical force). So we have fact (at least for me) that fields do not interact, what we see is interference picture projected on the matter.
And now, when we analyze interference pictures of two designs in simulator we see that they are quite different, angles and staturation in the matter are different. In one magnet design coil sits in area with unidirectional field (with power off) and in two magnet design coils sit in inteference sweetspot with no apparent field projection on matter (with power off)... althrough in reality those fields exist, just their interference result is zero, so no visible projection on matter.
Lets compare this to a road and truck. One magnet thing - you stop the truck head on or push it, directly. On two magnet design you have Y shaped crossroad and you merely redirect the truck where you need it.
But this can cook brains pretty quickly... so I have gone the practical way and tested various designs on simulator and in steel. I strongy suggest to do the same - ViziMag is one of the easeisest to use. The picture above is not just the picture - it is exact simulation celarly showing that for some reason static performance of designs differ radically with equal electrical input.
In steel I have achieved over 6 times of amplification in static mode (with two magnet design). You achieved 4 times with one magnet design. Those numbers are way higher than in dynamics because of remnance effects. I would divide those numbers at least by 2 for dynamic application.
You can confirm "interference theory" in simulator very easily. Just put 2 magnets in free space. Measure field direction and strength (in gauss) in point X. Remove one magnet, measure again. Remove second magnet, measure again. Then calculate vector and strength sum in X for two last tests - you will discover 100% match with first test. Same can be done in steel with some measuring equipment, with not forgetting the fact that twice gauss equals four times force.
So I would do direct comparison with light. Just like on beam of light does no see another beam and passes thru and form interference pictures on the screen... Same way magnetic flux does not see another flux and only matter sees the interference picture. Also we see refraction of flux in matter just like the light does.
http://www.genesis-corp.co.jp/e/e502.html
"In the case of a reluctance motor in the form of "A" above, the energy conversion rate is usually about 30%. If a reluctance motor produced in the form of "B" above requires 30% or less of electric power input compared to a motor produced in the form of 1 above, electric output greater than input can be theoretically expected. This proves that energy of a permanent magnet is converted into dynamic power."
So you'll be indeed seeing hard times in trying to get Genesis inspired design to go OU. Margin is pretty small.
That's all the input I can give right now. Keep up the good work and if you hit the dead end there may still be ways out...
-
snip
That's all the input I can give right now. Keep up the good work and if you hit the dead end there may still be ways out...
Thanks!
Before you go... are you saying that Parallel path in this form would have a better chance of OU?
Ron
-
Actuator coils/magnets arrangement part yes. You can even finetune one coil for pushing (low inductance!) and one coil for collecting flyback. Or make both coils with dual or bifilar windings, some sort of double coil flyback. As for rotor your current design is better because there is simpler to finetune airgap. Minimal airgap is absolutely critical. Aim should be 0.1-0.2mm. Over air power falls in distance^3...
So you should be able to modify your current design with thin magnets and coils like your regauging coils were. All the extra space will be freed if you decide to remove current "main coil". On the picture is just rough example. Overall length of actuator can be much shorter-squarer, like your current design, and this disk shaped rotor on the picture is notorious to make and finetune - your is better.
Also like someone else pointed out, do not overshoot with power of magnets. It needs exact matching to coil(s) power and material saturation point.
Before doing anything I kindly ask to verify my words with some small test rig and volts/amps tunable power supply. On russian thread 24kg was pulled using 4.5V and 100mA (with static 6x amplification).
Bye!
-
Actuator coils/magnets arrangement part yes. You can even finetune one coil for pushing (low inductance!) and one coil for collecting flyback. Or make both coils with dual or bifilar windings, some sort of double coil flyback. As for rotor your current design is better because there is simpler to finetune airgap. Minimal airgap is absolutely critical. Aim should be 0.1-0.2mm. Over air power falls in distance^3...
So you should be able to modify your current design with thin magnets and coils like your regauging coils were. All the extra space will be freed if you decide to remove current "main coil". On the picture is just rough example. Overall length of actuator can be much shorter-squarer, like your current design, and this disk shaped rotor on the picture is notorious to make and finetune - your is better.
Also like someone else pointed out, do not overshoot with power of magnets. It needs exact matching to coil(s) power and material saturation point.
Before doing anything I kindly ask to verify my words with some small test rig and volts/amps tunable power supply. On russian thread 24kg was pulled using 4.5V and 100mA (with static 6x amplification).
Bye!
Thanks again yssuraxu!
What you say makes sense.
Jack's version had a much greater pole contact area which I think is better than the very narrow pole area of the Genesis. But neither have the same flux switching dynamics as the Radus or Flynn. I have stayed away from the Parallel Path version because it requires special cut laminates which puts it beyond my budget. This style though could be built at home.
The archiles heel of all these is that their power curve is not unlike a solenoid where full power is not developed until the last minute, on full penetration. (or in this case until full coverage)
Bye (for now)
Ron
-
Looking very good Ron, great to see so much effort and reporting back to the community. I should do that as well...
One thing I also wonder, is what amperage is doing. Meaning how fast does it reach "maximum draw" or saturation. With them reluctance motors you are in between a rock and a hared place. You want hard attraction to attract the distant pole in. And once the alignment is getting more and more in line you can in essence drop off much of the strong input.
You are right about many motors and solenoids. The strongest alignment is also the moment of worse mechanical transfer. I wonder if that can be fixed at all. Since it is a problem is next to all motors, electro or combustion...
One other difficulty with the Hildenbrand and genesis valve it that, as long as there is not yet a good pole alignment, the 'resistance' to switch the magnet is incredibly high. The magnet does not like to be switched into an huge air gap and would much rather stay in the core. So in order to force it to switch out, you need much power. This required power decreases squared with pole alignment. This also is not easily fixed I think.
You mentioned the long pole pieces of the Jacks rotors as being an advantage.
Well I think it depends how you look at it. Yes it gives you a longer attraction period. But since the 'on' time of such long poles is so long you will only be able to capture a traction of your input back. Since pole saturation in reluctance motors is reached very fast (and wanted) you are very likely to have reached maximum amp input long before the pole has reached full alignment. So this is all good for the motoring properties but not so good for spike recapturing. Since all past saturation is not recoverable. Personalty I prefer many narrow rotor poles and multiple overlapping http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/ref/sw_rel_mot1.gif (http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/ref/sw_rel_mot1.gif) stator poles.
Flynn is also very interesting I have no experience with it in a dynamic (fast switching) environment. It does seem interesting though since it works a bit different. It couples with 1 magnet and pushes another. And Jacks valves only pushes.
-
Looking very good Ron, great to see so much effort and reporting back to the community. I should do that as well...
One thing I also wonder, is what amperage is doing. Meaning how fast does it reach "maximum draw" or saturation. With them reluctance motors you are in between a rock and a hared place. You want hard attraction to attract the distant pole in. And once the alignment is getting more and more in line you can in essence drop off much of the strong input.
You are right about many motors and solenoids. The strongest alignment is also the moment of worse mechanical transfer. I wonder if that can be fixed at all. Since it is a problem is next to all motors, electro or combustion...
One other difficulty with the Hildenbrand and genesis valve it that, as long as there is not yet a good pole alignment, the 'resistance' to switch the magnet is incredibly high. The magnet does not like to be switched into an huge air gap and would much rather stay in the core. So in order to force it to switch out, you need much power. This required power decreases squared with pole alignment. This also is not easily fixed I think.
You mentioned the long pole pieces of the Jacks rotors as being an advantage.
Well I think it depends how you look at it. Yes it gives you a longer attraction period. But since the 'on' time of such long poles is so long you will only be able to capture a traction of your input back. Since pole saturation in reluctance motors is reached very fast (and wanted) you are very likely to have reached maximum amp input long before the pole has reached full alignment. So this is all good for the motoring properties but not so good for spike recapturing. Since all past saturation is not recoverable. Personalty I prefer many narrow rotor poles and multiple overlapping http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/ref/sw_rel_mot1.gif (http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/ref/sw_rel_mot1.gif) stator poles.
Flynn is also very interesting I have no experience with it in a dynamic (fast switching) environment. It does seem interesting though since it works a bit different. It couples with 1 magnet and pushes another. And Jacks valves only pushes.
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the kind words, yes, the response has been more than I expected. The number of 'hits' on my jpgs shows a strong interest still.
The amp draw would be much like a sine strongly favoring the right side. I have two coils up and running with the draw at .85 amps and 17.5 volts, so say 15 watts... no load.
I want to do a prony brake test (just for laughs) but the way I have it built I don;t have a bit of the shaft accessible on either end so will have to pull it down and either make a new shaft or extend the old... needed something to do, LOL so might get that done to day... or not...
You are right on the short pole piece, I hadn't thought that through too far.
Flynn is interesting, any working groups that anyone knows of? Other than
"what's his name" the one mentioned again in the Russian list, as this is the style I don't want to pursue...with the fancy cut lam's.
Ron
-
perhaps this would be more appropriate in the a smith thread
but since there has been some interest in pulse recovery i
thought i may as well throw this out there on the pile to
consider.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1PgRAAAAEBAJ&dq=6754091 (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1PgRAAAAEBAJ&dq=6754091)
the challenge for many is the high side switching control
for the power. there are off the shelf parts for this but
consideration on the specifications is very important.
component values have to be selected which will determine an
efficiency at different drive frequencies.
thanks for all your work Ron.
take care.
nap
-
I want to do a prony brake test (just for laughs) but the way I have it built I don;t have a bit of the shaft accessible on either end so will have to pull it down and either make a new shaft or extend the old... needed something to do, LOL so might get that done to day... or not...
Ron
OK, even worse than I thought!
with a 12 lever (300 mm) the weight on the scale is .95 Oz (27 g)
I make this to be about .74 watts out for 9 watts in = 8%
Now the usual disclaimer... not saying that the Hildenbrand/Genesis is faulty, just that my build is faulty.
I think I had 3% with my first Garry Stanley motor... so I am getting better!
Here endeth the lesson. Thank you for your support and attention. It comes as no real surprise to me as the lack of power was the reason I put it on the shelf for so long.
If anyone has had (or will have) better results, please post...
Ron
Edit: at 42 volts it runs a little brisker, and up to 12% now
-
Just a remark. Is is not about absolute efficency at this stage, it's about efficency with magnets and without them. For example when without magnets efficency will be 10%, with current design 15% and with Flynn style 20% then it will be clear sign to move forward to better materials, smaller tolerances and other ways to minimize losses. Also proper flyback collection may change things a bit. Scienculo did report up to 99% recovery.
This is far from dead end right now.
Besides, this is not a entirely proper way to measure output, would you measure internal combustion engine (also impulse powered!) this way and with what results? :) I would go for generator with permanent magnets and known efficency.
Hope we all make good progress with this in new year and more people will join in.
PS. http://www.faraday.ru/net.htm => http://www.faraday.ru/content12.html => files in attachment.
-
Just a remark. Is is not about absolute efficency at this stage, it's about efficency with magnets and without them. For example when without magnets efficency will be 10%, with current design 15% and with Flynn style 20% then it will be clear sign to move forward to better materials, smaller tolerances and other ways to minimize losses. Also proper flyback collection may change things a bit. Scienculo did report up to 99% recovery.
This is far from dead end right now.
Besides, this is not a entirely proper way to measure output, would you measure internal combustion engine (also impulse powered!) this way and with what results? :) I would go for generator with permanent magnets and known efficency.
Hope we all make good progress with this in new year and more people will join in.
PS. http://www.faraday.ru/net.htm => http://www.faraday.ru/content12.html => files in attachment.
I like your reasonable approach!
I feel that it has been shown that the magnets are helping but anyway, here is a test of the two different core styles ... with and without magnets
test 1, 56 G, 36 RPM, [no magnets]
test 2, 49 G, 75 RPM [4 magnet stack, 1/2 inch]
test 3, 59 G, 77 RPM [6 magnet stack, 3/4 inch]
test 4, 59 G, 80 RPM, [8 magnet stack, 1 inch]
final test with the original core, short length, wide foot...
test 5, 59 G, 89 RPM, [6 magnet stack]
Ron
pic of old core style
-
Hi Ron, yeah a better efficiency wood be nice... Hmm but like Yssuraxu_697 said the testing of the switching principle is what is most important here.
The Flynn principle is pretty old already, but back in the days more used as an alternator.
Problem indeed with the Flynn motor stuff is that the lamination have a difficult shape. I too have no idea how to realize such a project economically. Although Jetijs over at http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5145-mostly-pm-motor-joe-flynn-motor-my-attempt-replicate.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5145-mostly-pm-motor-joe-flynn-motor-my-attempt-replicate.html) did build one. He had his lamination laser cut. And he did not really find any good results as I recall.
But,
Its worth seeing this video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzVXAm_ONIk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzVXAm_ONIk&feature=related) the quality now seems to be better. This team seems to be getting O.U. with their Flynn build. They use a bicycle home trainer as a dynamometer. Since it can show real time watt while you cycle. Like these: http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=Elite%20RealAxiom&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1590&bih=913 (http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=Elite%20RealAxiom&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1590&bih=913)
-
Hmm just watched some video's again from my old Hildenbrand build.
Looks like I did get a small torque increase.
Only under heavy load though.
home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Motor.avi (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Motor.avi)
-
Hmm just watched some video's again from my old Hildenbrand build.
Looks like I did get a small torque increase.
Only under heavy load though.
home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Motor.avi (http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Motor.avi)
Yes, there is something there.
edit: lol
Good links, Thanks
Ron
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/KekkoAlkemi#p/u/7/kxG2G0DEKnU
Very nice machine in true spirit of parallel path tech. I especially like the fact that end pieces are pivoting, not just moving back and forth - so in the bottom part airgap may be zero and high torque is developed when piece pivots and airgap gradually turns to full zero.
Also when one gap closes the other one widens so flux "naturally" wants to move from one side to another, no problems with "regauging" and flux wanting to stay on the side w/o airgap like in i_ron current design or simple rotary PP concept from Russian forum / New Energy Technology magazine.
One smart guy on the Russian forum has said that free energy is when magnet does not know that it does work. I would add that in PP control coils also must not know that magnets do work... I'll keep that in mind and conduct some experiments in coming weeks.
-
From an Italian forum
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/KekkoAlkemi#p/u/7/kxG2G0DEKnU
Very nice machine in true spirit of parallel path tech. I especially like the fact that end pieces are pivoting, not just moving back and forth - so in the bottom part airgap may be zero and high torque is developed when piece pivots and airgap gradually turns to full zero.
Also when one gap closes the other one widens so flux "naturally" wants to move from one side to another, no problems with "regauging" and flux wanting to stay on the side w/o airgap like in i_ron current design or simple rotary PP concept from Russian forum / New Energy Technology magazine.
One smart guy on the Russian forum has said that free energy is when magnet does not know that it does work. I would add that in PP control coils also must not know that magnets do work... I'll keep that in mind and conduct some experiments in coming weeks.
Can't wait that long, how about to day? LOL
Fascinating link, thanks
Ron
-
From an Italian forum
Some beautiful machining there! Great models, thanks for the posts
No in and out numbers given... but I guess we can't have everything, ;D
-
Ron
take a look at this it gets even better, these two student are really involved, they also have a new patent on the Pp .
http://energiaalternativa.forumcommunity.net/?t=40166573
Mike
-
Not really clear what these guys are doing. Can someone please post a synopsis of what this is all about. Thanks.
-
Not really clear what these guys are doing. Can someone please post a synopsis of what this is all about. Thanks.
Omni,
Not sure which link you are referring to? Which guys?
Not saying I can answer... just curious which link
Ron
-
See, Italian is one of my favorite languages. I've studied it but I can't quite understand what is being said in the youtube vid as well as in that Italian forum. Same with the German. There is so much valuable info in the German forums too but the language barrier stands in the way.
-
Try this than http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fenergiaalternativa.forumcommunity.net%2F%3Ft%3D40166573 (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fenergiaalternativa.forumcommunity.net%2F%3Ft%3D40166573)
That "kekko.alchemi" dude is most likely the builder of the Flynn setup in the video some posts back, the one connected to the bicycle trainer. Also the pictures on the previous page are from his builds.
--------------------
This is the forum from where I pulled all the photo's seen on the previous page:
http://www.energeticambiente.it/parallel-path/ (http://www.energeticambiente.it/parallel-path/)
Translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energeticambiente.it%2Fparallel-path%2F (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energeticambiente.it%2Fparallel-path%2F)
-
See, Italian is one of my favorite languages. I've studied it but I can't quite understand what is being said in the youtube vid as well as in that Italian forum. Same with the German. There is so much valuable info in the German forums too but the language barrier stands in the way.
Omni,
Steven has the correct story (nali)
And on a little help from a friend I can contribute this about the two guys:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ribaudo Alessandro and Francesco Ranchella
NME Fair Presentation of Grottaferrata (RM)
Ribaudo Alessandro and Francesco Ranchella are two electrical engineering students at La Sapienza University of Rome, who, motivated by his passion for mechanics and electronics, have experienced three years, the prototype of an electric motor based on the principle of magnetic deviation generated by so-called Parallel Path. Now they have filed their patent for the invention of the "phased ELECTRIC MOTOR AND A STABILIZED MAGNETIC FLOW DEVIATION. Contributors to the prototypes that have allowed the patenting of the invention several engineers, planners and practitioners of mechanics and electronics. We want to thank all those who have brought their own contribution to the project and in particular the Forum EnergeticAmbiente for the support and cooperation of all the staff and its members.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I use google chrome and on these sites there is a task bar at the head of the page with a "translate" box... actually fairly understandable english, a few words missing but lets you get the gist of it...
Ron
-
Do you have Italian guys patent? I haven't found it yet. But found their website:
http://newmagneticengine.blogspot.com/
Myself I'm working on the first one in series of posts describing key problems in designs seen so far. There are surprisingly many of them. Of course solutions will be offered.
But I'm not professional electric motor engineer so everyone interested should do the same, together we have better chances to pinpoint all the problems.
Some key areas: material properties and strength of magnets, relative dimensions and proportions of various parts, absolute dimensions, rotation speed, winding type, airgap, controller, various other sources of losses.
With little digging you'd be surprised how far technology has actually moved from ordinary electric motors with high inductance round wire coils. Now is time to apply all that technology to PP motor.
-
Hi Folks,
I did a search on the European patent office site (ep.espacenet.com) with these names, separately, (Ribaudo Alessandro, Francesco Ranchella) and nothing came out. So probably they applied for a patent but it has not been granted, not even a patent application number has been granted yet.
Gyula
-
Do you have Italian guys patent? I haven't found it yet. But found their website:
http://newmagneticengine.blogspot.com/
Myself I'm working on the first one in series of posts describing key problems in designs seen so far. There are surprisingly many of them. Of course solutions will be offered.
But I'm not professional electric motor engineer so everyone interested should do the same, together we have better chances to pinpoint all the problems.
Some key areas: material properties and strength of magnets, relative dimensions and proportions of various parts, absolute dimensions, rotation speed, winding type, airgap, controller, various other sources of losses.
With little digging you'd be surprised how far technology has actually moved from ordinary electric motors with high inductance round wire coils. Now is time to apply all that technology to PP motor.
Well before we get to carried away with the rotary version, I think that the
first link you posted to the reciprocating model would make a good test bed.
I would like to do that first, OK?
I see one or two places where an improvement in design should make an improvement, for example their tiny crank off set is a major friction producer. If they can have this thing run, driving that large fan, then there must be some power in the design. I realize this is a dead end for commercial purposes but that in itself is an inducement.
Edit: another sticky point is their use of voltage from 4 volts to 30 volts.
Why? I find with a very small coil the thing will switch at say 9 volts. To my mind then they are ... with the huge coil... voltage diving it like a motor.
The switching speed should control the RPM, not the voltage.
Any voltage under that required to switch cleanly is not fully switching and any voltage over that required to switch is a waste. Admittedly postulating from a static test and a higher switching speed requires a higher voltage but then they also seem to be switching full time, that is 50% left 50% right.
Ron
-
Hi, as mentioned, I have identified various problems with PP designs seen so far. This is first post in series.
Problem #1: AIRGAP
I have "regular" PP demonstrator made from MOT. Works impressively w/o airgaps. Full control over 25kg. But since we need motor not magnetic boots... can't do w/o airgaps. So I conducted some tests:
TESTS
1.5MM SPACERS: -------------------------------------------------
Did not bother to test, force was almost non existent.
0.75MM SPACERS: -------------------------------------------------
Test 1, w magnets: ----------------
Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 0.1kg
Power RIGHT - left side pulls 0kg
Power LEFT - left side pulls 1.8kg
Comments: We have non existent force at power off and right, force "likes" right side. This can be used, but likely only with zero remnance materials. Overally miserable performance compared to w/o airgaps tests (25kg pull).
Test 2, w magnets: ----------------
Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0.75mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 2.6kg
Power RIGHT - left side pulls 0.4kg
Power LEFT - left side pulls 4.5kg
Comments: Now we have symmetrical system with same behaviour like w/o airgaps setup. In power off state flux aligns evenly between both sides. Maximal pull is 2.5 times better than in Test 1, but we must use "power right" to free the rotor.
Test 3, control, w/o magnets: ----------------
Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 0kg
Power ON - left side pulls 0.7kg
Comments: Power consumption is same as in other tests, so force gain in Tests 1 vs 3 is only 2.5x, far from 4x that PP should deliver.
Test 4, control, w/o magnets: ----------------
Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0.75mm (right)
Too weak to test despite same consumption as in other tests. Enormous gain in Tests 2 vs 4, over 4x for sure.
CONCLUSIONS: -----------------------------------------------------
- too big of an airgap will dramatically reduce power of the PP motor, of course this varies with size of the motor but for desktop versions anyting above 0.5mm is likely hopeless in terms of OU. Aim should be about 0.1...0.2mm.
- when using materials w remnance one airgap system will likely not reach OU because we have only 2x gain, but must waste energy for releasing rotor or face drag. When material has zero remnance picture is much better. We still have only 2x gain but flux is "auto switching" to right side and releasing rotor.
- perfect PP system is symmetrical, this calls for twin rotors or pivoting end pieces like in recently given Italian video
- in PP system with twin airgaps but only one rotor, size of the actuator inner airgap must be adjustable, it will need matching to all other variables
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: -----------------------------------------------
As shown, PP system w/o airgaps vs system with airgaps differ big time in their pulling power. So question arises, can we get rid of an airgap in motor? Luckily yes - answer is the ferrofluid. It cools the machine much better than air and provides path for flux. Only problem is that currently widespread ferrofluid saturates in 100...400 gauss range. This results in sub 10% gains in big motors but radical gains in small motors and acutators. So there are good chances that even ordinary low power permament magnet motor will go OU, when converted to ferrofluid in "airgap". This can be also life-saver for small homemade PP motor on ceramic magnets where needed <=0.2mm airgap cant be achieved.
Ferrofluid boosted motors must be low-speed, in sub 1000rpm range to see big gains.
If we should see an arrival of ferrofluids with saturation in thousands of gauss... well... you can guess what happends then...
Some materials about ferrofluid boosted mechanisms are in attachment.
SUMMARY: -----------------------------------------------------------
I would bet on:
- small, weak ferrofluid-boosted motor
- medium sized motor from material without remnance and single airgap
- medium sized motor from material with/without remnance and twin airgaps (one adjustable)
- big motor where airgap is not that critical and symmetry comes "for free"
- non-rotary (ferrofluid-boosted) symmetrical design
NB! Picture below is illustrative, in Test 1 some flux goes to the right also, it is not shown here.
-
Well before we get to carried away with the rotary version, I think that the
first link you posted to the reciprocating model would make a good test bed.
Of course. This is perfect testbed. You fill find reasons in my previous post, also it is cheap to make and even cheaper to tweak and modify. No sense to move to rotary designs before fully understanding all aspects of the problem.
Why? I find with a very small coil the thing will switch at say 9 volts. To my mind then they are ... with the huge coil... voltage diving it like a motor.
I have not yet started tests on this but yes, preliminary data points out that PP drive coil should be:
- low to none inductance
- low voltage
- low resistace
- backspike collection from separate coil
- there is interesting proposal to make bifilar coil and short second strand for drive pulse (kills inductance, instant rise of drive current) and collect backspike from it after that:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8796.msg229608#msg229608
I have not yet done physical expirments with "clever" coils but I will soon. Focus will be low / variable inductance solutions.
Good luck!
-
Nice to see interest in this design.
Well to me the major advantage of the Flynn motor over the Genesis and Hildenbrand valve is that the fields of the magnets do not have to be forced out the core loop > over the air gap > into the rotor. In the Flynn motor the fields of the magnets naturally go outside the core and interact with the rotor. The coils only control WHERE the fields of the magnets interact with the rotor.
See the first image below. This is with the coils off and since the magnets are repelling they exit the core and interact with the rotor. In image 2 you see what happens with the coils on, and image 3 is with the coils on in the reversed polarity. So the coils only steer the fields. This is not so with the Hildebrand valve, there you first need to force the fields out of the valve, which takes plenty of power, especially when the alignment is not yet good enough.
You will also notice in the last image, that at position 3 you don't need to power the coils at all to do that cycle. It's only a short period but the input can be turned off at that point.
Flynn said that the coils should be controlled with Pwm and not voltage.
Regards,
Steven
-
I have not yet started tests on this but yes, preliminary data points out that PP drive coil should be:
- low to none inductance
- low voltage
- low resistace
- backspike collection from separate coil
- there is interesting proposal to make bifilar coil and short second strand for drive pulse (kills inductance, instant rise of drive current) and collect backspike from it after that:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8796.msg229608#msg229608
I
Good luck!
This has come up with the Bedini Ferris Wheel experiment also. JB has separate windings on this wheel doing the same thing. Ties in with mag amp technology I believe. Yes, this is a very interesting development that
needs to be investigated. (for any motor/generator)
Ron
-
Nice to see interest in this design.
Well to me the major advantage of the Flynn motor over the Genesis and Hildenbrand valve is that the fields of the magnets do not have to be forced out the core loop...
snip
Flynn said that the coils should be controlled with Pwm and not voltage.
Regards,
Steven
Thanks for that Post Steven, I can never remember how it works but that explanation makes it clear.
Ron
-
Little sidenote,
depending on the form of the available material or transformer. pivoting can be made in different planes. When having something like typical MOT trans as source material it is possible to make pivoting both in XY and XZ planes, depending on the height of the magnets, XY with tall ones and XZ with flat ones.
With square cross section core only XY makes sense, like Italians did.
Interesting is that in XZ plane variant flux path is never entirely broken but in static test I could not find big difference between the two, kick was only a little bit better.
In any case pivoting works much better than piston-like movement (just varying airgap), "power zone" reaches about twice as far with pivoting. With piston zone is too narrow to convert into rotary action.
-
see last video from KekkoAlkemi - comparison asynchronous motor and MK12
http://www.youtube.com/user/KekkoAlkemi#p/a/u/0/gwaPV7gqFaE
Test Comparativo MK12 vs Asincrono.avi
-
Hello, I'm Francesco Ranchella, I'm glad you are seeing my work on the Parallel Path. The video "Comparison asynchronous motor and MK12" I'm translating in English and Spanish, so you can better understand what I say.
If you have any questions that I have available, sorry my bad English.
Kekko Greetings!
-
Hello, I'm Francesco Ranchella, I'm glad you are seeing my work on the Parallel Path. The video "Comparison asynchronous motor and MK12" I'm translating in English and Spanish, so you can better understand what I say.
If you have any questions that I have available, sorry my bad English.
Kekko Greetings!
Hello Francesco and welcome!
Great work, yeas please translate your video(s) it would help us a lot.
Well I have one 'basic' question at this point:
'Have you reached overunity?'
You use pretty big IGBT's! 8)
Thanks for sharing.
Steven
-
Instead of cutting laminations you could also get some C-cores and machine them a bit and bridge the magnets in between.
C-core online shop: http://www.alphacoredirect.com/ (http://www.alphacoredirect.com/)
Regards,
Steven
-
Hello, I'm Francesco Ranchella
Hi, glad you joined us :)
I have a question:
Have you any idea what is force amplification factor in your motor?
I mean what is the torque with magnets versus torque without magnets.
It still works without magnets, yes?
This is VERY important, if you have not tested it maybe you could try it in simulator, as I understand you have proper simulation of your motor.
Thanks in advance!
-
Hello, I'm Francesco Ranchella, I'm glad you are seeing my work on the Parallel Path. The video "Comparison asynchronous motor and MK12" I'm translating in English and Spanish, so you can better understand what I say.
If you have any questions that I have available, sorry my bad English.
Kekko Greetings!
Welcome! very inspirational to see your work. Feel free to share what you can...
rgds, Ron
-
- perfect PP system is symmetrical, this calls for twin rotors
yssuraxu,
A positive delight to see your test results, excellent work!
Incidentally, had you seen this twin rotor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9q0JbldoCM&feature=related
Ron
-
Hi and thanks :)
No, I havent seen this, twin rotor was just logical conclusion after seeing power gain in my static twin-gap experiments.
But seems that guy on the video did not get very good results and also moved to multi-pole motor.
Possible that twin-rotor like this (or pivoting system) has too many mechanical losses compared to actuator power.
But there are million other things that may degrade performance so who knows.
But most important in these motors is amplification factor, most other things can be tweaked but amplification factor is bound to design principles. So for me a lot of questions will be answered if Francesco would tell amplification factor in his motor.
-
yssuraxu,
A positive delight to see your test results, excellent work!
Ron
Hi all,
I am working on a solid steel (cold rolled) reciprocating model, which is nearing completion. But drilled the three holes for the ball joints too big which upset me no end. Quit for the day (Saturday) and will resume Monday by making bushings to fix my mistake...
I am going this route (reciprocating) because of my age, my fascination with reciprocating steam engines when young, which allows me to identify with the model posted in that first link.
Ron
-
Hi Ron,
oh je, I can understand you were upset.
Yes, this is the reason I named this maschine "magnetic steam-engine" or in german "magnetische Dampfmaschine"
Have some coffe and relax :)
Regards
Kator
-
Hi Ron,
oh je, I can understand you were upset.
Yes, this is the reason I named this maschine "magnetic steam-engine" or in german "magnetische Dampfmaschine"
Have some coffe and relax :)
Regards
Kator
Hallo Kator,
New day, just did up a teak wood base for a pottery vase for my sister that turned out not too badly, lol, yes good advice, will have a cup of tea and get on with some stepped bolts for my magnetische Dampfmaschine,
I like it!!!
Bis dann
Ron
-
Hi, by coincidence I was working with wood also, oiled oak dining table :)
Otherwise I started work with "über-windung". Inductance is under control, will start with investigating backspike boosting possibilities. Ordinary "solenoid" winding is thing of the past :)
Will post again when full analysis is complete. Sometime in weekend I guess.
-
Hi all,
I am working on a solid steel (cold rolled) reciprocating model, which is nearing completion.
Ron
It works!
Pics and vid maybe tomorrow
Ron
-
It works!
Hi All,
Here is the video link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb-wvvWIecg
and a couple of jpg's, #4 is the hinge detail
Ron
-
Looks tha bomb as usual!
Works nice as well. Love the top extra flux guides, that's a good little extra.
I know how much work it is to build such a machine so you have my deep admiration!
Any data on input and such, little scoping?
Great work man!
BUT:
After detailed video inspection I noticed you partially trapped a mosquito...
-
Looks tha bomb as usual!
Works nice as well. Love the top extra flux guides, that's a good little extra.
I know how much work it is to build such a machine so you have my deep admiration!
Any data on input and such, little scoping?
Great work man!
BUT:
After detailed video inspection I noticed you partially trapped a mosquito...
Thanks Mate!
Now I can assure you no flying insects were harmed during the filming of this video!!! LOL
The end of the bench is in direct line of fire from the lathe... and what you see there is a tiny blue chip, steel of course... and an amazing demonstration of the extent of the flux field.
Ron
-
Hi Ron,
Hats off for your device, excellent job!
Is the current draw changing when trying to load the shaft I wonder.
Yes, seeing a scope shot on the pulses across the coils is a good idea from Steven if you also agree... :)
Gyula
-
Any data on input and such, little scoping?
Well as usual my "good" ideas don't always work out. I am using a A1212 hall which is a latching device that turns on with a south pole and off with a north pole. Works fine as you can see but IF i put a diode across the coil the spike will happen in the wrong pulse! (code wheel has two magnets, N, S, 180 degrees)
I have four coils, two top and two bottom (coils in series) so am just low side switching. But there needs to be a dead band in between the pulses for the spike to either aid, or be recovered, not happening.
So it is running with no diode, no recovery.
At 9 volts it is running at 277 RPM and 490 RPM at 18 volts, for a total of 100% on time. (at 2 amps?)
On a static test at 9 volts it won't pull in. At 12 volts it just pulls in, at this gap, .3 inches (7.7 mm) which is more that mac and keko's I think, hence the extra flux guide on top. But it runs at 9 volts because of the flywheel.
So I guess I need to go back to opto switching for control over pulse length
Ron
-
Hi Ron,
I have to think this over tomorrow but is it really needed to keep any 2 coils ON for at least half a revolution? I have to finish now, and I understand you have the latching type Hall sensor. The parallel diode may work differently with another Hall sensor (not a latching one).
Gyula
-
Hi, glad you joined us :)
I have a question:
Have you any idea what is force amplification factor in your motor?
I mean what is the torque with magnets versus torque without magnets.
It still works without magnets, yes?
This is VERY important, if you have not tested it maybe you could try it in simulator, as I understand you have proper simulation of your motor.
Thanks in advance!
Hello, the amplification factor in our engine is 1:4 as regards the torque in the static regime, but in dynamic regime the efficiency does not exceed 99%.
Remove the magnets to the motor that stops and does not work.
Greetings Francesco.
-
Wow, superb work! :o
In terms of efficency I see 2 clear problems (not counting controller):
Freedom of movement may be a bit too large (but on the other hand mechanical losses are less this way).
But the real bugger is the amount of neo magnets - I suspect that core may be saturated. Scienculo downgraded magnets 2 times. From big neos to small ones, and after that to ceramics - and only then he made a hint about OU.
In your case you could remove some middle ones and leave airgap, just to see how it effects the system and if it affects it in the good way replace as many as possible with steel spacers.
At least thats the theory, but I tend to do my homework well so...
But for metal work of this class I have no tools or skills :) Respect!
-
Congratulations for your engine! What do you Used in the electronic, mosfet or IGBT?
Are you able to calculate the performance of your engine, torque and RPM?
-
but in dynamic regime the efficiency does not exceed 99%.
Hi, does that 99% stand like some "magic wall" or you think that it can be crossed with better materials, windings, smaller airgap etc improvements? In general (with other type motors) people report huge improvements when switching to modern core materials etc.
Could you post the FEMM file of your motor for others to investigate? I have some ideas what may be the fundamental problem. Would be interesting to experiment with model of the real motor.
I think with joint effort 100% can be crossed. It is purely an engineering problem, not theoretical impossibilty.
Edit: Actually if you have 99% mechanical output then 100% of total output is far behind, if you count in Joule heating and other losses.
-
In your case you could remove some middle ones and leave airgap, just to see how it effects the system and if it affects it in the good way replace as many as possible with steel spacers.
Thank you! Not as neat as some builders on this list, just a fling together to test the theory.
Gyula is always on to me also to use less neo's, lol but I wanted a 1 inch gap between top and bottom bars...once I get it working I will do some tests. Rule of thumb I was going by is the bar should be 1.5 or more times bigger in cross section so 1 inch round magnets are only .78 sq inches versus 1 sq inch for the bar.
Ron
-
Congratulations for your engine! What do you Used in the electronic, mosfet or IGBT?
Are you able to calculate the performance of your engine, torque and RPM?
Thank you too! I am using mosfets.
No calculations at this time, as this was just to show that it runs and it still needs some serious work.
Ron
My apologies for spelling kekko with only one K on Youtube, nevertheless, glad to have your presence here on this list.
-
Hi Ron,
I have to think this over tomorrow but is it really needed to keep any 2 coils ON for at least half a revolution? I have to finish now, and I understand you have the latching type Hall sensor. The parallel diode may work differently with another Hall sensor (not a latching one).
Gyula
Gyula,
I think it is the nature of the beast... it won't switch to the open end until most of the bar is in alignment. Also when one has maximum gap it won't pull in on a lower voltage.
So in theory one could switch at a higher voltage and reduce said voltage as the bar comes into alignment.
This is common practice in solenoid drivers such as the DRV101 or one I would like to try, the FDMS2380. This not only goes into PWM after an initial
full volt on period but handles recycling of the multi back spike completely, wow!
http://www.datasheetdir.com/FDMS2380+Power-Drivers
But it needs a controller to run it, lol
Arduino challenged, Ron
-
...
it won't switch to the open end until most of the bar is in alignment. Also when one has maximum gap it won't pull in on a lower voltage.
So in theory one could switch at a higher voltage and reduce said voltage as the bar comes into alignment.
This is common practice in solenoid drivers such as the DRV101 or one I would like to try, the FDMS2380. This not only goes into PWM after an initial
full volt on period but handles recycling of the multi back spike completely, wow!
http://www.datasheetdir.com/FDMS2380+Power-Drivers
But it needs a controller to run it, lol
Arduino challenged, Ron
Hi Ron,
I see, thanks for explanation. Would like to suggest using 2-2 coil pairs that could be positioned on BOTH sides of the bars, see my edited picture (coils at the other side is not shown of course), orange circles symbolize air core or ferromagnetic cored coils. One coil pair is on the left (one member of it is behind the bar, not shown), the other coil par is on the right (one member of it is not shown either). The coil pairs could be connected in parallel by themselves (like in Garry Stanley motor) any any one of such coil pairs are connected in series (or in parallel) with the appropiate main coils you presently use. When you have to fire one main coil as needed, the appropiate coil pair on that side (between which a bar moves in) could be also energized, this way help attracting the bar towards the closing position. The same happens in the next phase to the other coil pair when the other main coil is fired as needed.
So any two of these side coils could help to draw inwards the bars when needed, by using them surely helps reduce the input voltage amplitude, hence input power requirement.
And perhaps even further input reduction could be had beyond that by the solenoid drivers you have referred to.
Gyula
-
Hi Ron,
I see, thanks for explanation. Would like to suggest using 2-2 coil pairs that could be positioned on BOTH sides of the bars, see my edited picture (coils at the other side is not shown of course), orange circles symbolize air core or ferromagnetic cored coils. One coil pair is on the left (one member of it is behind the bar, not shown), the other coil par is on the right (one member of it is not shown either). The coil pairs could be connected in parallel by themselves (like in Garry Stanley motor) any any one of such coil pairs are connected in series (or in parallel) with the appropiate main coils you presently use. When you have to fire one main coil as needed, the appropiate coil pair on that side (between which a bar moves in) could be also energized, this way help attracting the bar towards the closing position. The same happens in the next phase to the other coil pair when the other main coil is fired as needed.
So any two of these side coils could help to draw inwards the bars when needed, by using them surely helps reduce the input voltage amplitude, hence input power requirement.
And perhaps even further input reduction could be had beyond that by the solenoid drivers you have referred to.
Gyula
Interesting concept Gyula, but not sure that the level of complexity and resulting gain would warrant the effort? I will keep this in mind but there are several things I wish to try first, OK?
rgds, Ron
-
Ok Ron, of course, no problem it was an idea.
Cheers
Gyula
-
Any data on input and such, little scoping?
Pre tty pic ture for yu all,
This is just over one set of co ils... (one pulse)
Ron
LOL, the spa cing is to get rid - of - all the blew crap
-
Pre tty pic ture for yu all,
This is just over one set of co ils... (one pulse)
Ron
Here it is as a generator: first pic
Motor driven at 645 RPM (approx)
No power to coils, no power to logic
And showing the fet gate trigger as a reference: second pic
Fet not powered, logic only
Ron
-
PROBLEMS:
The first pic shows the model running on one coil set (one side operation)
The second pic shows the clean result with a diode over the coil.
The problem arises when I run both coil sets. The one set feeds the other and vise versa, to extend the pulse with a glitch on the front to cause it to run slower with diodes than without. No matter how much I shorten up the opto shutter the pulses overlap and cause conflict.
All pics are 'over the coil', pic three, left coil set in blue, right coil set in red
It would seem that the four coil idea is not working and a single coil set with an H bridge is the "proper" way to go....?
Ron
-
Hi, don't 100% understand the arrangement right now. Circuit logic and coil params would help: wire, no of turns, inductance, resistance.
-
Hi, don't 100% understand the arrangement right now. Circuit logic and coil params would help: wire, no of turns, inductance, resistance.
There are two side by side coils on the top bar and two on the bottom.
One top and one bottom wired in series.
Reverse phase connected so each set low side driven.
But they interact detrimentally....lol
not to worry ... will go to an H bridge
Ron
-
There are two side by side coils on the top bar and two on the bottom.
One top and one bottom wired in series.
Reverse phase connected so each set low side driven.
I used this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys1.png
to switch the coils on PPMM
and it did not perform as good as this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys12.png
The second circuit gave higher overall efficiency.
-
I used this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys1.png
to switch the coils on PPMM
and it did not perform as good as this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys12.png
The second circuit gave higher overall efficiency.
Welcome scianto! good to see you posting here too.
I am still a few steps behind you on this, lol.
On your first schematic I see the two coils paralleled but driven separately on the second schematic, so not clear if we are on the same page here?
What I suspect is happening with the four coil setup is the collapsing flux is generating a potential in both pairs. The diode recirculates this spike in the pair just powered but induces an opposite polarity in the unpowered pair which causes the fet to be powered before the pulse arrives, sound good?
I had looked at the hip4081 but was nervous about the possible shoot through on power up... the MC33035 I haven't looked at yet. Trouble is all these new chips are only available in surface mount, so I am kind of partial to the old chips.
Anyway thanks for the schematics to this list. I have some of yours already from other lists. I like your work!
rgds, Ron
-
Hmm I guess one coil is causing induction into the other via normal transformer action. And the diode is providing an easy current path, or a dead short 'load'.
I too had the idea not too long ago to use two coils like you do, but I dropped the idea because I expected cross feeding and them loading each other.
So I guess you will be doing a half- or full bridge next?
Problem with the half bridge is that you only get to use half the voltage your power supply puts out. Since you make a floating ground.
Other problem with these bridges is that since the polarity now is bi-polar you can not use a diode to capture the fly-back.
-
Hmm I guess one coil is causing induction into the other via normal transformer action. And the diode is providing an easy current path, or a dead short 'load'.
I too had the idea not too long ago to use two coils like you do, but I dropped the idea because I expected cross feeding and them loading each other.
So I guess you will be doing a half- or full bridge next?
Problem with the half bridge is that you only get to use half the voltage your power supply puts out. Since you make a floating ground.
Other problem with these bridges is that since the polarity now is bi-polar you can not use a diode to capture the fly-back.
Steven,
You got that right, two adjacent coils can be a problem.
Looking at H bridge pre drivers and the only one available it seems is the A4940, still only in surface mount but looks like a winner. Looked at dozens of others but no stock anywhere, let alone my two favorite suppliers... Digikey and Newark.
Another bit of info for the group, I was in touch with sales at Ed Fagan and
Vimvar costs $30 a pound. a 2 foot bar of 1 1/4 inch dia weighs 9 lbs, so would cost 275 dollars, plus $25 handling, ...plus shipping......wow
Ron
http://www.edfagan.com/vim-var-core-iron-rod.php
-
Mate, a good dip available full bridge driver is the HIP4081A (aka HIP4081AIP)
http://www.robotpower.com/downloads/HIP4081A-datasheet.pdf (http://www.robotpower.com/downloads/HIP4081A-datasheet.pdf)
more info about it:
http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an9405.pdf (http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an9405.pdf)
High driving power as well.
They are a bit touchy and I have burned out like 5 already, never too clear why...
But you electronics skills is far better than mine so that should be no problem.
They don't really seem to like the flyback going to the prong places so keep an eye on that. Plus one other 'issue' with all full bridge drivers is the lower input max voltage of 15v. So 15v is as hard as you are allowed to switch the fets. But it should be alright.
-
Nice Iron rod lol
But at 2.1 max Tesla is it really that much better than regular steel/silicon steel?
Nice price as well!
-
Hi Ron and Steven,
Does not the iron rods give eddy current losses? Once they are solid (I understand they solid and not ribbon or stripe) and not laminated and changing flux travels through them?
Ron, at Digikey here is full bridge MOSFET driver choices:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Cat=2556427 and click on H bridge in the Configuration column and then In Stock as filters and then click on Apply Filters.
You will get a list, including the Allegro types too.
Steven, Sciento has had issues with oscillations in the output driving pulses going to the gates of the MOSFETs and the series small Ohm resistors and some low ESR decoupling capacitors may have a role in killing those unwanted ringings that may burn the driver chips. I have not used such full wave drivers so cannot advise too much. Printed circuit layout is sometimes critical for sure.
Gyula
-
Does not the iron rods give eddy current losses? Once they are solid (I understand they solid and not ribbon or stripe) and not laminated and changing flux travels through them?
Big time yes, will get hot pretty quick. But is allows for easy prototyping.
Steven, Sciento has had issues with oscillations in the output driving pulses going to the gates of the MOSFETs and the series small Ohm resistors and some low ESR decoupling capacitors may have a role in killing those unwanted ringings that may burn the driver chips. I have not used such full wave drivers so cannot advise too much. Printed circuit layout is sometimes critical for sure.
Thanks, yes they are known to be sensitive. I always use series gate resistors and various decouple caps. I only got it more or less right with tvs diodes in the bridge.
-
I used this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys1.png
to switch the coils on PPMM
and it did not perform as good as this one:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys12.png
The second circuit gave higher overall efficiency.
scianto,
This is an open forum where we would love to hear about your motor and latest experiments also. Feel free to bring us uptodate.
The same message to yssuraxu and kekko, jump in, whats happening?
rgds, Ron
-
scianto,
This is an open forum where we would love to hear about your motor and latest experiments also. Feel free to bring us uptodate.
I am very willing to share and all that was worth to share I did on my yt channel, as you can find it here posted.
I am still working on it but there is nothing new, no new findings, so not worth to post. If I post it must be something concrete, not a philosophy :)
-
I am very willing to share and all that was worth to share I did on my yt channel, as you can find it here posted.
I am still working on it but there is nothing new, no new findings, so not worth to post. If I post it must be something concrete, not a philosophy :)
I understand all too well. I have read much of your yt channel but wasn't really up to date on your work.
Just went through a learning experience these past few days... I can work with soic but tssop is beyond me, just too tiny. So back to square one and find a driver in a size I can work with.
There will be no reports for several days from me...
Ron
-
Just went through a learning experience these past few days...
Ron
Thank goodness for Youtube!
Watched one of the tutorials and they say its easy, lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN7UGWYmBY
But here is the proof, a bit messy in this magnification. The technique of "wiping" was what worked for me. With the chip fluxed and corner tacked, just a small amount on my regular tip and one pass down the row of half mm pins and a couple of dabs with the solder wick!
My first mistake had been buying the smallest tip which, like he says, doesn't work. In the pic the board is mounted on a 600 pitch machined pin 24 dip socket. These are great as there is a little spring catch in each pin socket that makes firm contact with 24 gauge buss wire.
Ron
-
I am very willing to share and all that was worth to share I did on my yt channel, as you can find it here posted.
I am still working on it but there is nothing new, no new findings, so not worth to post. If I post it must be something concrete, not a philosophy :)
Hi Scianto,
What is the best efficiency you have ever achieved from your machines?
Thanks!
Steven
-
Thank goodness for Youtube!
Watched one of the tutorials and they say its easy, lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN7UGWYmBY
But here is the proof, a bit messy in this magnification. The technique of "wiping" was what worked for me. With the chip fluxed and corner tacked, just a small amount on my regular tip and one pass down the row of half mm pins and a couple of dabs with the solder wick!
My first mistake had been buying the smallest tip which, like he says, doesn't work. In the pic the board is mounted on a 600 pitch machined pin 24 dip socket. These are great as there is a little spring catch in each pin socket that makes firm contact with 24 gauge buss wire.
Ron
Great video and nice little board you got there!
Hope it works out for you.
-
What is the best efficiency you have ever achieved from your machines?
The highest overal efficiency of motor=>alternator (or DC gnerator) setup, calculating as [total electrical Power out] / [total electrical Power in], was 98,9%. I did not measure I^2R losses and mechanical power output.
-
The highest overal efficiency of motor=>alternator (or DC gnerator) setup, calculating as [total electrical Power out] / [total electrical Power in], was 98,9%. I did not measure I^2R losses and mechanical power output.
Thanks,
So in other word purely mechanical this thing is overunity.
Have you ever tried capturing the inductive spike (or flyback, bemf as some call it)?
Regards,
Steven
-
Have you ever tried capturing the inductive spike (or flyback, bemf as some call it)?
I did and exactly that curciut gave me the 99% overall efficiency. This circuit:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys12.png
Also, all ICs I am using are with the pins, so no surface soldering. I bought the MC33035 on ebay USA, from him:
http://stores.ebay.pl/cordless89
BTW, I am uploading a new video to my yt channel, where I am showing, how PPMM can run well on one direction impulses. It should appear within a few hours but the English subtitles will take a day or two.
-
I did and exactly that curciut gave me the 99% overall efficiency. This circuit:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2i3_sterowanie_rys12.png
Also, all ICs I am using are with the pins, so no surface soldering. I bought the MC33035 on ebay USA, from him:
http://stores.ebay.pl/cordless89
BTW, I am uploading a new video to my yt channel, where I am showing, how PPMM can run well on one direction impulses. It should appear within a few hours but the English subtitles will take a day or two.
Hi Scianto,
Yes I have worked with that chip before in brushless motors.
So that 99% includes the re-captured power?
Thanks for the circuit and video.
Steven
-
So that 99% includes the re-captured power?
Yes.
-
As promised, the new tests and video:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg271931#msg271931
-
Hi Scianto,
Question, do you have some pictures of the inside of the motor?
Not all that important, but I am curious about the the core, coils, magnets and such.
Thanks,
Steven
-
Sure, Steven, I do have, as already posted a few times --
look in the folders starting with SRSM:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/
-
Sure, Steven, I do have, as already posted a few times --
look in the folders starting with SRSM:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/
see PM
-
Sure, Steven, I do have, as already posted a few times --
look in the folders starting with SRSM:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/
Hi Scianto.
Thanks! I see a few models.
But I can't see it too well, but does the latest model use solid steel instead of laminations? And did you had it laser cut or something?
Thanks!
Steven
-
does the latest model use solid steel instead of laminations? And did you had it laser cut or something?
All stators and rotors in these motors are made of laminations.
-
North america seems to be a wasteland as far as chips are concerned. No stock anywhere on H bridge pre driver chips such as A4940 or MC33883....
Wait times of 23 weeks put it into the never never land. My good friend from Hungary suggested Westmark, the North American Distributor... but they have no stock... and a minimum "package" of 4 thousand pieces, LOL mind you, the price was right at only $1,61 each....
Anyway the only really important news is that I got my HIP4081 working!
Ron
-
To make a long story short, my PP reciprocating was an interesting experiment but one that shows no promise. Only runs on 22 watts but the output is just not there.
Just for interests sake, here is a voltage current chart taken with a powered shunt and an isolated voltage monitor which is a divide by 10 amp.
Channel A is the current, channel B is voltage (negative, then positive)
edit: must check that I have my dead band right way around!
Ron
-
yssuraxu and all
I will do this in two posts as I just lost my last post
Here is why the reciprocating PP will never work
first pic, blue trace is with the bar closed (static)
second pic is with the bar open, (static)
to be cont'
-
yssuraxu and all
I will do this in two posts as I just lost my last post
Here is why the reciprocating PP will never work
first pic, blue trace is with the bar closed (static)
second pic is with the bar open, (static)
to be cont'
The reason for the asymmetry is the gauss probe is on the right end, not in the middle.
First pic (pp17) shows the gauss against the trigger pulse
Second pic (pp19) shows the gauss against the voltage plot taken over the coil.
A proper working model would show a square wave. This approximation of a saw tooth wave is indicative of a non working unit. The peak flux is only present for m Seconds.
Back to the drawing board
Ron
-
Nice H driver you got there, ya put them 3205's to work again?
Anyway, the slow flux change isn't that caused by the too low volts? Meaning that your volt input is too low for current to start building up quick enough? There indeed is a difference in your current rise curve and magnetism curve. But perhaps the magnetism curve shape can be explained by the air gap behavior? The smaller the air gap gets the lower the reluctance gets and the easier the magnetism build up. An open air gap in such a system is a big hinder for switching the magnet. After all it kinda makes sense that the highest level of magnetism is seen at the end of the input pulse duration since (I presume) the end of the pulse input is also the moment of maximum pole alignment. All in all it seems (to me) the air gaps are too much of a 'resistance'.
-
Well... in past weeks, after learning electrical motor theory I started to suspect that these graphs look exactly like they look. Too bad that theoretical knowledge lagged a bit behind with this and we did not spot the dangers sooner. But please do not dismantle the unit, it still may prove useful in testing coils etc.
The problem is now very sharply if focus and thats a good thing. "Classical" coils will get us nowhere. We need something with lots of turns but very sharp current rise. Impossible? Maybe not.
Also there may be some other, more clever way to change core reluctance.
It will take totally out of the box thinking.
-
Nice H driver you got there, ya put them 3205's to work again?
Anyway, the slow flux change isn't that caused by the too low volts? Meaning that your volt input is too low for current to start building up quick enough? There indeed is a difference in your current rise curve and magnetism curve. But perhaps the magnetism curve shape can be explained by the air gap behavior? The smaller the air gap gets the lower the reluctance gets and the easier the magnetism build up. An open air gap in such a system is a big hinder for switching the magnet. After all it kinda makes sense that the highest level of magnetism is seen at the end of the input pulse duration since (I presume) the end of the pulse input is also the moment of maximum pole alignment. All in all it seems (to me) the air gaps are too much of a 'resistance'.
Steven,
I think the simplest explanation is the best. The voltage has a flat top, the current has a flat top after a bit but the flux does not correlate with either.
However it matches almost to a tee the gap distance!
Higher voltage would only make it into a pulse motor. It is the switching of the flux from the magnets that allows the four times power increase of the magnets that should drive the motor. Maximum flux only takes place in the final closing moments. That is all the proof that I need, lol
Thanks for the H bridge compliment. For the future I think I will not miss the surface mount "wonder" chips but go with pdip IR2117's for the high side and TC4427's or 4422's for low side. And to simplify the logic, that is get it off board... I have an order in for some "EE-SX4088" , opto's with build in logic,
only 3 bux, worth the simplification.
http://www.omron.com/ecb/products/photo/35/ee_sx3088_4088.html
Ron
-
I thought about the Hilden-Brand concept and also about the Klinsing-coil.
Then I worked for a short time with Dr. Pavel Imris to realize his capacitive foil/coil invention.
The target: a very strong electro-magnet with no/low resistance alike this:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&NR=19927355A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20001221&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
One success with whom I worked:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2009154492A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20091223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
in details:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=WO&NR=2009154492A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20091223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
a "simple machine",is it not ?
Sincerely
CdL
-
Hi LancaIV,
in regard to your statement :
One success with whom I worked:
i like know what frequency you used in driving this coil ?
Regards
Kator01
-
Hello KatorO1,
during the first demonstration ( January 2008) with my presence it was used the conventional net frequency : 50Hz !
But to controle the RPM the current has to be managed by a frequency generator,
this machine RPM - as built- goes to the 18000 rounds without controller !
Sincerely
CdL
p.s.: ......whom......= technician Jorge Ferreira/ Campos& Cardoso,Porto
The rotor/stator magnets following this principle:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&FT=D&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
-
Hi,
Your zip file needs password for opening it... why I wonder
Gyula
Well... in past weeks, after learning electrical motor theory I started to suspect that these graphs look exactly like they look. Too bad that theoretical knowledge lagged a bit behind with this and we did not spot the dangers sooner. But please do not dismantle the unit, it still may prove useful in testing coils etc.
The problem is now very sharply if focus and thats a good thing. "Classical" coils will get us nowhere. We need something with lots of turns but very sharp current rise. Impossible? Maybe not.
Also there may be some other, more clever way to change core reluctance.
It will take totally out of the box thinking.
-
PP Problems:
In static mode the parallel path model has a magnet strength gain of nearly four.
Yet several factors work to negate this in actual practice.
Primarily, the worst offender is that the flux will only switch, with the four times advantage, when the bar is fully aligned with the main bars.
I have prepared a simple chart from actual numbers to illustrate this fact... chart one. The gauss numbers are actually unreferenced milli volt numbers but are used to indicate the trend.
That is, the smallest distance is 1/8th of an inch that the bar has covered the main bars and the gauss is very weak at "45". The bars are in each case 1 inch CR steel so when the two bars are fully aligned, meshed, TDC, what ever term you wish to apply... then the Gauss has reached its maximum at the distance covered of ! inch.
In chart 2 we see the Kg's versus distance covered. In this case, on approach the Kg's are zero but the maximum pulling force to align the bar occurs just as the bar has covered the main bars by 1/8th of an inch. When the bar reaches full alignment the pulling force is zero. I am speaking of a rotary machine here, not the reciprocating model previously mentioned. So all same as any motor, when the poles are fully aligned, then there is no further rotational force left to operate said machine, understood?
But here we see the Achilles heal of Parallel Path machines. The maximum pulling force occurs just as the poles start to align but this is the period of minimum flux strength! And when the flux strength reaches maximum, at full alignment, then the 90 degree vector driving the machine in rotation has reached zero.
Maximum flux strength (our four times gain) = zero rotational drive.
Ron
edit: as JPG's
-
why I wonder
It is not a good OU thread without a bit of mystery ;)
-
Olá LancaIV,
If I understand the Imris patents you referred to and also Jorge Ferreira's patent, the principle is to use resonant LC tank circuits for motor, generator or electromagnet coils and use the reactive current of the L or C components for doing the work, is this correct?
Would like to ask if you can answer, that in the Ferreira patent when the 6mA current consumption was measured, what mechanical load was used for the rotor? This question is broader of course: what COP has been achived in practice, for a particular setup?
Obrigado,
Gyula
Hello KatorO1,
during the first demonstration ( January 2008) with my presence it was used the conventional net frequency : 50Hz !
But to controle the RPM the current has to be managed by a frequency generator,
this machine RPM - as built- goes to the 18000 rounds without controller !
Sincerely
CdL
p.s.: ......whom......= technician Jorge Ferreira/ Campos& Cardoso,Porto
The rotor/stator magnets following this principle:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=DE&NR=20317795U1&KC=U1&FT=D&date=20040226&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
-
It is not a good OU thread without a bit of mystery ;)
Well, basically you are right but the problem is many members here either speak nonsense in a believe they have something good (but they don't) or simply tease people to have fun... This is supposed to be an open forum for sharing and if someone has got a brilliant idea, he or she should either follow through it into a marketable (small or big, whatever) product or if he is not capable to do so then he should look for some help, advice etc (not money) to achive his goal.
rgds, Gyula
-
Well, basically you are right but the problem is many members here either speak nonsense in a believe they have something good (but they don't) or simply tease people to have fun... This is supposed to be an open forum for sharing and if someone has got a brilliant idea, he or she should either follow through it into a marketable (small or big, whatever) product or if he is not capable to do so then he should look for some help, advice etc (not money) to achive his goal.
rgds, Gyula
Gyula,
LOL, It was not a brilliant idea necessarily... just a sim. It was primarily for me so the password you could try would be "iron" (less the quotes)
I had hoped to get to it yesterday but the forces in the gap are of an extreme nature causing the insert to favor one side or the other. My build was not strong enough to keep the insert centered and so my experiment was not conclusive, but I think what it was showing is that there is no further movement of the insert into the gap once the last part of the insert has entered into the gap. Not unlike the operation of a solenoid, no matter how short the plunger is in comparison to the length of bore, the plunger will tend to center... then cease further pull in.
As common sense dictates the "pull in force" is greatest with the insert part way out of the gap and reduces to zero when fully entered, as my charts for a different mode of operation show (with the bar passing at 90 degrees on the outside of the pole pieces)
However, good question to lanca!
Welcome to the group lanca, hope to hear more on this subject.
rgds, Ron
-
Well, basically you are right but the problem is many members here either speak nonsense in a believe they have something good (but they don't)
Exactly, so I do not want to post around pics from low quality sim with people around who may blindly copy or reproduce them and make OU research even more of a trashbin. The problem was that at the given moment I had no other way to send it to i_ron (PMs dont allow attachments).
-
:D :D
Hi yssuraxu_697,
I had no idea the zip file was meant for Ron... otherwise I would not have made any notice. ;D
Gyula
-
PP Problems:
In static mode the parallel path model has a magnet strength gain of nearly four.
Yet several factors work to negate this in actual practice.
Primarily, the worst offender is that the flux will only switch, with the four times advantage, when the bar is fully aligned with the main bars.
I have prepared a simple chart from actual numbers to illustrate this fact... chart one. The gauss numbers are actually unreferenced milli volt numbers but are used to indicate the trend.
That is, the smallest distance is 1/8th of an inch that the bar has covered the main bars and the gauss is very weak at "45". The bars are in each case 1 inch CR steel so when the two bars are fully aligned, meshed, TDC, what ever term you wish to apply... then the Gauss has reached its maximum at the distance covered of ! inch.
In chart 2 we see the Kg's versus distance covered. In this case, on approach the Kg's are zero but the maximum pulling force to align the bar occurs just as the bar has covered the main bars by 1/8th of an inch. When the bar reaches full alignment the pulling force is zero. I am speaking of a rotary machine here, not the reciprocating model previously mentioned. So all same as any motor, when the poles are fully aligned, then there is no further rotational force left to operate said machine, understood?
But here we see the Achilles heal of Parallel Path machines. The maximum pulling force occurs just as the poles start to align but this is the period of minimum flux strength! And when the flux strength reaches maximum, at full alignment, then the 90 degree vector driving the machine in rotation has reached zero.
Maximum flux strength (our four times gain) = zero rotational drive.
Ron
Very good work Ron.
Nice detailed report and tests. Lol to see you probably print and scan these graphs.
Yes it's a shame that the magnet won't really switch that well when resistances like air gaps are involved. Well you 'could' switch them over big air gaps, only thing is that you will be needing much more input. Which more or less goes against the whole 'energy efficient' principle. I wouldn't surprise me if Flynn uses microscopic air gaps. Plus I think he only switches 'on' when the alignment is at least 25%+ established. So no open space switching when there is not yet much alignment. Drawback of this is that the attraction moment is very short, but than again the Flynn motor has many poles, so the attraction is more or less continuous. Plus it could be that he uses an initial input which is of much higher current to hard switch the magnets despite the less than optimal alignment, and then drop off current when alignment gets better. And then again, he is not stating over 90% efficiency on his site, but there could be other reasons for that.
-
Very good work Ron.
Nice detailed report and tests.
Thank you Steven, having seen the detail and craftsmanship displayed in your projects I take that as a sincere compliment.
Next Phase:
The following then can be considered in comparison with the previous experiment where the poles passed as in a rotary machine.
The model shown below is based on yssuraxu's suggestion, based on QM power's page 13 reciprocating model.
To make the comparison on a level playing field I have kept the same bars/coils/voltage in each model. Even the gaps are not too dissimilar, .03 inches in this model and .04 inches in the previous (ball park numbers, in the rotary model I used a two meter long arm so as to avoid the necessary radius on the arms and bar...then kept increasing the gap until they no longer locked together on power up)
But it would seem that this model that pulls a slug into the gap formed by the arms is more powerful... by about 2 1/2 times.
Edit: possibly closer to two times as in the rotary one edge is pulling one edge but here two edges are pulling two edges
First picture: overall view with the slug pulled out
Second picture: with slug in gap
Third picture: chart showing pull in force. Maximum pull is with the slug nearly out of the gap. I made the slug 1 1/4 long which seems to be a bit on the long side. but force ceases at number 9 where the ends of the slug and arms are flush. Slight pull as the slug is drawn further in at #10
Conclusion:
This model seems to have better performance than the rotary.
The initial pull is 3.2 Kg's as compared with 1.3 Kg's for the rotary
Incidentally, each model has had a closing bar on the left with a .2 mm shim.
A run with just the coils, no magnets yielded a 1.05 Kg's reducing to .41 at the fully inserted mark
Ron
-
Hello gyula,
no,I can not give the wished answer !
The Ferreira-patent-page was only listed to explain the incompetence to
answer the practical behaviour of the machine in contrast to the known
physical laws/formulas !
We have had a project member split and Mr. Ferreira later built greater machines using the band condensator effect ,
then for the company Envez Lda.:
http://servicosonline.inpi.pt/pesquisas/main/patentes.jsp?lang=PT
click "Entidade" next "continuar" following "Nome" filling with Envez now
click "pesquisa" and see:
PT104491 and PT104492
He is now fixed as soçio to this company Envez Lda.with one contract paragraph:
he can leave the company paying 1.000.000.000 Euros compensation !
Wih my kindest regards
CdL
-
Hello Lanca,
OK I understand. Thank you anyway.
Hopefully a 'clever' product is to be marketed from all the efforts Envez Lda and Sr Ferreira jointly manifest.
Best Regards,
Gyula
-
More useful info on running this kind and similar motors:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg274579#msg274579
-
More useful info on running this kind and similar motors:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg274579#msg274579
Congratulations !!! worth repeating here
Quote:
This example shows, as far as I understand the oscilloscope traces, that
parallel path magnet motor can be run and function very well, when it is powered
with only unidirectional impulses. So, no transistor H bridge or other circuit
producing alternating direction current impulses are needed, as I have thought
till now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxhJlKuZgfA
In this example you can see, that 50% of the cycle the motor winding are pulsed
and the other 50% of the cycle they generate current. What is most important
here is, that the generating current is powering the motor, so it created the
other 50% of the cycle running the motor.
Theoretically it means that half of the power is needed to run the motor
compared with circuits running it with alternating current impulses.
Note it down and use it with other motors. Now we know that DC motors, pulse
motors and even 3 phase induction motors can be run using this kind of powering.
How about rotoverter run like this? I am sure Hector knows the secret :)
Now you can call it tuning and saving as much as possible but still run motors
at that give same amount of power on shaft.
-
BTW, this is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM with unidirectional impulses:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png
I would really like to see you to try it too with your motor and show us oscilloscope tracee. Will you?
-
And here is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM as in the above video:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png
-
And here is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM as in the above video:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png
Hi Scianto,
Very interesting test, did you have to rewind your earlier PPMM coils or change something mechanically to run it with unidirectional pulses? (Because earlier the H bridge did polarity changings, right?)
In your earlier video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii6_mKO92Y showing the unidirectional pulses (when you used a function generator instead of the optical sensor) you used power resistor as the load for the generated power, is this correct? There was one power resistor on the shelf (in head-height) for which you showed 22.8V and 1.92A (at RPM=8066) and there was another load resistor on the table what you hand switched in by the banana plug (8.7 Ohm?) this had 18.7V and 2.1A power dissipation: could you explain which power resistor was connected to where? And at this RPM 8066 the input power was 40V at 3.6A from the power supply if I saw it correctly?
And in you latest video you utilized the generated power of the motor for running it, instead of dissipating it in the power resistors: here you used another PPM motor or you used the same one as before? (It is ok that the opto interruptor was used now instead of the function gen.)
My other question: In you schematic there is a battery shown that is charged from the motor coil and how you utilize the generated power for running the motor: it is not shown. Could you ellaborate on this?
Notice: You may wish to correct your schematic, the input Pin 2 of the MAX4420 is connected to the 12V battery positive line (opto transistor collector) instead of its emitter (or there is a collector resistor missing, that would be another solution if inverted switching is also good).
Very good job/videos!
rgds, Gyula
-
BTW, this is a drawing of the circuit I am using for running PPMM with unidirectional impulses:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM_1_1_impuls.png
I would really like to see you to try it too with your motor and show us oscilloscope tracee. Will you?
First, thank you for the links and information.
I have a problem with your request though, lol, the little engine has been taken apart in preparation for the next build.
But my coils had few winds and when I did power it with another motor there was not much output so am not sure as it would have worked as well as yours seems to.
Ron
-
>> did you have to rewind your earlier PPMM coils or change something mechanically to run it with unidirectional pulses?
*
I made no changes.
>> Because earlier the H bridge did polarity changings, right?
*
Right.
>> you used power resistor as the load for the generated power, is this correct?
*
Yes.
>> There was one power resistor on the shelf (in head-height) for which you showed 22.8V and 1.92A
*
That one was to dissipate the recovered power (coming after the diode from the coil connected to the FET dren.
>> there was another load resistor on the table what you hand switched in by the banana plug
*
That one was connected to the parallel winding of the run PPMM stator coils. All the coils in the motor stator are bifilar. I used one wire to power the motor and the other was connected to the resistor. So the stator was used as a transformer.
>> at this RPM 8066 the input power was 40V at 3.6A from the power supply if I saw it correctly?
*
Yes, but the rpm reading has to be divided by 2, so it was 4033 rpm.
>> And in you latest video you utilized the generated power of the motor for running it, instead of dissipating it in the power resistors.
*
This is a different setup. Here the windings of the stator are all connected to the power source, so it does not work as a transformer, thus no resistor as transformer load as before.
>> here you used another PPM motor or you used the same one as before?
*
A different one, smaller and less powerful, the first version.
>> It is ok that the opto interruptor was used now instead of the function gen.
*
That is to make the pulsing at the right time according to the position of the rotor poles to the stator poles.
>> there is a battery shown that is charged from the motor coil and how you utilize the generated power for running the motor: it is not shown.
*
All is connected exactly as on the circuit drawing, no other connections. There is only one battery bank (3 x 12 V 7 Ah) running the motor (in fact, on the video it was substituted by the power supply on the left).
The generated power, half sinusoidal pulse, was powering the motor ONLY during the generated pulse. In other words, when the motor was working as an alternator, it was using it's produced power to turn the shaft.
This is my interpretation of the oscilloscope traces. I may be wrong, so I am making more tests to find out, what exactly is happening.
>> You may wish to correct your schematic,
*
That was an obvious error on the drawing only. Now it is corrected. Thank you.
-
Hi Scianto,
Thank you for the detailed answers, I appreciate them.
There is one thing I do not understand: you say that for half period (when the MOSFET is off) the motor runs by the generated half-sine voltage (shown in the scope shot).
I do not think this works like that because the cathode point of diode Dq is at 2 x 36V with respect to the negative point of battery Bzm and is at 1 x 36V with respect to the drain point of the MOSFET. This means that in the 1st case the diode anode needs higher than 72V peak AC to conduct and in the 2nd case the diode anode needs higher than 36V peak AC to conduct, ok?
So in the schematic as you show the diode Dq cannot conduct and from this it follows that the generated half waves during the switch OFF periods are unloaded, this is how I see it. Am I wrong?
Thanks, Gyula
PS: please what is the type of the MOSFET you were using for this test and showed the scope shot for?
-
>> I do not think this works like that because the cathode point of diode Dq is at 2 x 36V ...
*
You may be right that it is unloaded voltage trace, this seems to me more probable. I am not sure too. I need some time to explore it more, but I rather prefer to continue testing, building now the motor into a bicycle for practical run tests.
But I will come back for deeper understanding of this phenomenon. Thanks for you input.
>> please what is the type of the MOSFET you were using for this test and showed the scope shot for?
*
That was (not any more, burned in flames) IRFP250N.
-
Hi scianto,
Thanks for the answers.
I have had a look at the data sheet on the IRFP250 ( http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/fairchild/IRFP250.pdf ) and in Figure 2, Page 3, the graph shows how the maximum drain current values are derated in the function of case temperature. Assuming your coil DC resistance say 1 Ohm, your 36V battery voltage establishes about 36A peak current during the ON time of the FET, this abuses the FET when it gets up to 70-80 degree Celcius case temperature (even though you use heatsink and ventillation).
Another abuse for the FET is when you switch it off, the inductive spike created by the collapsing field in the coil can be in the some hundred Volts range (because of the fast 25-30 nanosec switching speed the MAX4420 provides, induced voltage Vi=L*dI/dt) and this FET has a 200V max drain-source breakdown voltage, small for this task (no wonder the FET eventually got ruined as you wrote).
I included below the scope shot you showed in your video because I wish to refer to the narrow voltage spike's amplitude of being only about 36V, seen at the biggining of the induced sinewave. This means that some Zener or VDR device may have clamped the drain-source voltage (and you did not draw it in the schematic, this is not complain :D ) or if you did not use any such protection, then the FET already was abused and it showed a 36V breakdown voltage limit instead of the data sheet-specified 200V.
I would like to show you two possible schematics that can utilize the induced voltage (and the spike too) that appears across the coil: they simply add the rectified voltages to the DC supply voltage, helping the motor (or whatever application).
first is here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8731.msg233576#msg233576 that uses two reed switches what you can replace with an N and a P channel power MOSFET, driving BOTH ON or OFF at the same time for your application too.
the second is here: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html#post56075 this seems simpler for your application by showing 1 switching device only (you do not need the shunt resistors) and includes the series diode D1 that separates automatically the output of the DC power supply from the recovered induced voltages (in Ossie's circuit the two switches do this, you drive them ON or OFF at the same time so that B1 never "sees" B2).
I wish you good luck for the bycicle tests, I agree the practical tests are what eventually count.
rgds, Gyula
PS I assume the vertical scale was set as 10V/DIV in your scope shot.
-
After burning the IRFP250 I installed an IGBT FGA25N120ANDT 1200V 50A 312 W. Now tuning the system to it.
>> Assuming your coil DC resistance say 1 Ohm
*
In fact it is 50 mili ohms and 260 µH now.
>> FET has a 200V max drain-source breakdown voltage, small for this task
*
Yes, too little. I had to use 200 V varistor on D-S of the FET. It was cutting the spikes very well but this way energy is waisted.
>> narrow voltage spike's amplitude of being only about 36V, seen at the biggining of the induced sinewave.
*
I've noticed that the amplitude of this spike is always limited by the charged battery regardless of the voltage powering the circuit.
>> This means that some Zener or VDR device may have clamped the drain-source voltage (and you did not draw it in the schematic, this is not complain :D )
*
No, I didn't have any diode or varistor there, the charged battery was clamping it.
>> I would like to show you two possible schematics that can utilize the induced voltage (and the spike too) that appears across the coil:
*
Thanks. Several months before I was experimenting along this line. In fact, this is my conclusion, this circuits gave me nothing better. The high voltage nanoseconds spikes were still there and more parasitic oscillations were produced.
In some cases these circuits may work well, if Time On and Time Off of the two FETs are well matched and the diodes are very fast (below 20 nS) with almost zero capacitance, and all the wires connecting the FETs, diodes, coil are very, very short, thick, heavy soldered.
I am going to test these kind of circuits again.
-
Hi Sciento,
Yes, the voltage spike amplitude is 36V when you measure it directly across the coil with the scope, due to the clamping action of the charging battery of course,
EDIT: and that is true if your scope ground clip is placed onto the common +/- point of the two batteries! Because the spike appears across the coil.
HOWEVER your scope shot showed the scope zero level was at the source point of the MOSFET, is that right?
If yes then there is no way (in a normal circuit you show in the schematic) the spike should be limited to 36V. Normally if everything is ok, the top peak of the spike should be at 72V, (2 x 36V plus the 0.7V diode forward voltage) in your shown schematic.
Your 50 milliOhm coil resistance demands switches in the several hundred Amper range if you use 36V supply voltage, the FGA25N120ANDT has 'only' 50A collector current rating (90A when pulsed, pulse width depends on junction temperature).
Good luck with the recapture circuit, maybe the second link I referred to is simpler, using a single switch. Start with low supply voltage like 5-10V to be within safety peak current limits for your switching device.
rgds, Gyula
-
>> HOWEVER your scope shot showed the scope zero level was at the source point of the MOSFET, is that right?
*
That is right.
>> If yes then there is no way (in a normal circuit you show in the schematic) the spike should be limited to 36V. Normally if everything is ok, the top peak of the spike should be at 72V, (2 x 36V plus the 0.7V diode forward voltage) in your shown schematic.
*
Well, I feel a need to explore it deeper because, any way, it looks to me as interesting phenomenon. I am going to explore it in detail but later.
>> Your 50 milliOhm coil resistance demands switches in the several hundred Amper range.
*
Sure, but such FETs cost nicely, so I am trying to find solutions with transistors of "normal" prices :)
>> if you use 36V supply voltage, the FGA25N120ANDT has 'only' 50A collector current rating (90A when pulsed, pulse width depends on junction temperature).
*
That is true. One nice thing about this IGBT is that it can withstand 1,2 kV between the D and S. The G-S is well protected and I see no spikes there. This is the first transistor that let me run the bicycle wheel today :)
I am uploading a video of the first run test to yt. Now improving on the electronics in order to remove the high voltage spikes and avoid over charging the charged battery.
-
More on bicycle test:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg274884#msg274884
-
I am using this circuit to drive parallel path magnet motors, also the one build in my bicycle:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10387
Please, try it with your motor, tell me how it works.
-
My last tests with PPMM on a bicycle:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9713.msg276192#msg276192
-
I have a problem with your request though, lol, the little engine has been taken apart in preparation for the next build.
Ron
Hi all,
Here is that next machine! (finally) usual problems along the way..
But here is the first run...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2TcPgwP_rA
Changes to the H bridge ...now using the Si8220 chip
http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/Si8220-21.pdf
Which allows me to use far fewer components in the high side drive.
Ron
-
Ron, I am in full admiration of your device. I think it may work more efficiently than the ones I have.
I guess you will need to put the H-bridge FETs on a heat sink(s).
I truly wish you success.
-
Ron, I am in full admiration of your device. I think it may work more efficiently than the ones I have.
I guess you will need to put the H-bridge FETs on a heat sink(s).
I truly wish you success.
Thank you, coming from a fellow builder that carries more weight (does that translate well? "it has more meaning")
That was one of the things that the prior experiments showed... that the rotor piece was pulled in on the bottom and the top surfaces, thus doubling the pull in force.
It is only running on 6 watts in the video so the fets run cold
Ron
-
any news on this?