Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Honk on October 11, 2007, 08:30:42 PM
-
Hi folks.
F.B.D.I.S.S.M = Flux.Boosted.Dual.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2773.msg54028.html#msg54028
I'll continue to post my progress here on a F.B.D.I.S.S.M and it will be open sourced to be used by anyone.
I hope to have the blueprint and cad files ready within a month or two.
Using the Flux Booster technology I hope to be able to run the Electro Magnets at almost static current.
This feature will slash the current needs of the motor and enables more of the generator output to be used for work.
I guess I'll continue to develop a small and cheaper 3000W version just to see what the output is vs the calculations.
As I told earlier I will develop a small motor capable of an output of 2-3KW on paper just to see the end result.
Ones I have the numbers I can correct my power output formula and develop a bigger scale F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
I did some early calculations on 20cm diameter motor using smaller N45 magnets and I got an output of 2.25KW = 3Hp.
The next couple of days I'll calculate and continue to optimize the magnet angle to increase the attraction efficiency.
So far I have reached 34,33 ft-lbs but I believe I might be able to reach 36-38 ft-lbs.
The motor specs:
Diameter = 20cm, 7,87"
Height = 10cm, 3,94"
RPM unknown until built and tested
4 Pie Shaped Rotor heads
Dual Flux-Boosted Electro-Magnetic Induction
Dual Split Spiral built by 2 x 77pcs of 80x30x4mm N45, magnetized through 30mm.
I hope to be able to post an early design picture for inspection soon, perhaps in the weekend.
-
Here it is. The blueprint. Download the pdf for a closer look.
I increased the thickness of the rotor magnets to 3cm and the stator magnets to 2.5cm.
This will give about 20% more power according to calculations.
The external size will be 32cm. It's the diameter of the rotor that's 20cm wide. Sorry for that.
-
If you split the stator segments into 3 segments instead of 2, you will not have 2 rotor arm magnets going through the sticky spot at the same time. 3 rotor magnets will be providing rotational forces each time 1 gets to the rough place.
-
If you split the stator segments into 3 segments instead of 2, you will not have 2 rotor arm magnets going through the sticky spot at the same time. 3 rotor magnets will be providing rotational forces each time 1 gets to the rough place.
Good point. This is an open source development and I'm happy to receive all solution concepts.
lt's possible to design it like that but there will be less travel distance to gain momentum. Perhaps this will decrease performance.
The more the electro magnets, the more it's starts to look like an ordinary pulse motor. But three spirals might be a good middle way.
But the spiral attraction will be even greater in a shorter path. The motor might gain more power from this.
The electronics (Flux Booster) will be lot more complicated because of three phases instead of just one.
I will probably calculate the thrust force to see the outcome. If any good I'll have to rename the motor to F.B.T.I.S.S.M.
Flux.Boosted.Triple.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor.
-
I have calculated the Flux.Boosted.Triple.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor. (F.B.T.I.S.S.M)
The best spriral angle produces 235,68lb of thrust. This equals to 78,56 ft-lbs.
As usual I divide this value by two to give me some headrome and a more resonable output.
78,56 ft-lbs / 2 = 39,28 ft-lbs
HP at 500 RPM = (39,28*2*3,14*500)/33000 = 3,73Hp = 2788 watt
I only calculated the 3 free spining rotor magnets in this equation.
In the real motor, the torque from the rotor head attracted by the electro magnet should be added to the output.
There is only one electro magnet working at each time. If we estimate the average power consumption of the magnets to 100W
we can add some of this to the shaft output. The output of 2788W might increase by another 25-50W.
I haven't decided yet on what type of motor I will build. More investigations are needed.
-
The original Dual Split Spiral motor seems a little bit more powerful on paper.
I used the same magnets size and got 255,5lb thrust.
This equals to 85,16 ft-lbs. Divided by two I get 42,58 ft-lbs.
HP at 500 RPM = (42,58*2*3,14*500)/33000 = 4,05Hp = 3022 watt
And the Dual Split Spiral motor and it's Booster controller is a lot easier to build.
I have to make a design decision during this weekend.
-
If you split the stator segments into 3 segments instead of 2, you will not have 2 rotor arm magnets going through the sticky spot at the same time. 3 rotor magnets will be providing rotational forces each time 1 gets to the rough place....
...but you will get back the problem of hefty out of balance forces.
-
You are right, I didn't think of that. Thanks.
-
@Honk
I am always interested in what you're up to. Hope your work with Jack is moving along.
What if the stator being in two parts was split 55% one half and 45% the other half.
This would eliminate the two stickies at the same time, without having to sacrifice too much on momentum. So one side would be 198 degrees and the other 162 degrees.
It's better than having three at 120 degress each.
-
I believe it's more difficult to balance the rotor in that configuration.
Anyway, the benefit of having the electromagnets placed equally apart, is that it really simplifies
the electronic controll. Just parallel connect the coils and hook up the wires to the Flux Booster controller.
The reflective reading forks will be mounted to see when the rotor gets in position.
When one of the rotor heads are in position, then the other one is in the equal position as well.
Then fire the Pull pulse and rise the magnet field within 200uS to attract the rotor magnet into the electro magnet area.
When getting attracted away from the last of the stator magnets, no breaking occurs and no momentum is lost.
Once in place, reverse the field of the electro magnet within 200uS and Push the rotor into next rotation cycle.
Turn of the current when the rotor is out of the electro magnet area.
In all of the Pull and Push modes of the coil, the back emf is recovered and saved to the next phase.
Regarding Jacks motor, I'm still wating on the big test coils to arrive.
A local transformer factory was nice to help me wind the 3 coils with 520 turns on each core for free.
They forgot about it and I phoned to remind them. I got an email today that they will wind them today and that I could
expect them on monday. I hope so. I really need to test the new improved features of the Flux Booster controller.
I still believe in both Jack Magnet-Valve motor and the Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor. (And of course E.M.I.L.I.E)
If there is a path to over unity, there must be several ways to bridge it.
While I'm waiting for the outcome of Jacks testing I spend some time on the FBDISSM.
It seems like the FBDISSM is more expensive to build than Jacks valve motor due to more magnets but
the air gap distance is not so crusial inside a spiral motor and this will make it easier to build.
-
Honk, could you just clarify what sizes of magnet you are proposing to use? From your drawing the stator magnets are 80mm deep? is that correct? And rotor magnets also 80mm deep?
I will have a go at modelling it in FEMM. See what torque values that gives.....
-
The Rotor magnets:
Length (depth) = 3.149" (80mm)
Width = 1.5" (38.1mm)
Thickness = 1.181" (30mm)
The Stator magnets:
Length (depth) = 3.149" (80mm)
Width = 1.181" (30mm)
Thickness = 0.157" (4mm)
Please see the autocad DWG attachment on the FBDISSM blueprint.
It might come in handy when you are going to modell the motor in FEMM.
Good luck. I'm curious of what force you get at the simulation.
-
Here is a 6 pole motor.
The electro magnets will fire 33% more often but the power output should increase more than the increased input.
Six poles could be good solution in order to increase the power density.
-
Hi there Acp.
I have converted the 6 pole FBDISSM motor to a couple of FEMM files to make it easy for you to simulate its torque.
The ZIP contain two FEMM files, both the loop entry position of the rotor magnets and the rotor end position.
All magnets are 80mm deep (length) and grade N45 (1.33T) but you have to set the grade yourself in the simulation.
These files have no magnetic parameters set.
Please make the FEMM simulation when you have some spare time and post the result here.
If you have the time it would be interesting to see the torque at different magnet grades, N35 (1.2T) and N52 (1.45T).
-
I did my regular rotor force calculation on the 6 pole motor during this weekend.
As I suspected the force went up a little more than 33%.
I got 343,6lb and when converted to ft-lbs I get 114,53 ft-lbs
I don't expect more output than maximum half of that torque = 114,53 / 2 = 57,265 ft-lbs
But the output is still very good using 6 rotor heads. The 500 RPM is just a potshot.
HP at 500 RPM = (57,265*2*3,14*500)/33000 = 5,45Hp = 4066 watt
The four pole was 4.05Hp. The 6 pole is 5,45Hp. That's a power density increasement of 34.6%.
The question is whether I will have all of this torque available when running the motor.
My force calculations is made at static mode and I guess it will change at full speed under load.
The other question mark it how much energy is required by the two electro magnets during full speed and load.
If someone here can handle FEMM I'd like you to download the files from above post and perform a force simulation.
You will have to set the magnetic properties yourself in the files. Please simulate all three grades N35, N45 and N52 if possible.
I have really tried FEMM myself but I find the interface totaly strange and I don't feel I have the time and energy to learn it.
But if we cooperate and help each other, the development phase will pass much faster and I can build a real prototype.
-
Great, thanks Honk, I wanted to model a motor at the weekend, but house things got in the way, Like you, I just bought a house, They tend to need a lot doing to them ( if it's an old one like mine)!
-
Great. Congratulations on your new old house.
Now we really need some free energy devices to help us cut down on heating bills.
I look forward to the result of your FEMM simulations.
If you want me to add any features to the files, perhaps the steel attachments for the rotor magnets,
then I'll post new files according to your wishes.
-
Here it is. The continued development of the Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor.
Electro magnets added.
Steel magnet-holder added.
Please download the attached zip file containing PDF:s and DXF:s for examintion.
The rotor block holding the magnets securely in place will be ready in the next development phase.
-
Hi Honk, the motor design looks great. One thought, the electromagnets as shown, use only the flux from one end, the flux generated at the other end ( facing outwards)is not used, An electromagnet in somekind of horseshoe arrangement would have both the poles from the electromagnet firing at the rotor.
Also the Femm file
-
File attached
-
An electromagnet in somekind of horseshoe arrangement would have both the poles from the electromagnet firing at the rotor.
Using a horse shoe electromagnet wouldn't work any good in this design.
The rotor magnets does not change polarity. They are all facing the same direction, e.g in attraction mode towards the stator.
If I would use a horse shoe electro magnet it would apply both north and south polarity when activated, thus attracting and repelling
the rotor at the same time. The single rod electro magnet allows me to attract the rotor magnet into the electro magnet area.
Ones in place I flip polarity and repel the rotor magnet into the next loop. This can't be done so easily if using a horse shoe magnet.
Could you please post the Entry Femm to? Thanks in advance.
-
both files attached.
Yes I see what you mean. you would have to have two rows of rotor magnets and stator magnets, one on top of each other in reversed polarity in order to use the horse shoe idea.
-
Yes, thats right. I have thought of that idea to but it feels to difficult to build as a prototype.
Perhaps I'll try the dual pancake motor horse shoe idea if the prototype motor works out good.
You told me you got 50.85Nm in the spiral entry position simulation using N37 neos. That equals to 37.5 ft-lbs.
Today I recalculated the force at grade N37 using my own formula and I got 42,7 ft-lbs. I was surprised how
close my calculation was to the Femm simulation. There is only a 12% difference between torque values.
I feel this shows I'm on the right track.
Later when I have added all features, like the final shape, both electro magnets and back iron, you could
perform another simulation to see if more of the flux lines go were we want them to, e.g between the rotor and stator magnets.
I guess adding back iron will focus the flux lines the most possible.
-
Yes, Honk, In real motor the flux of the stator magnets will loop under and over the stator magnets, which it can't do in the simulation because of the closeness of the stator mags to each other, this is reducing the effectiveness of the mags in the middle of the stator ramps. So probably the torque will be higher than in the sim. That seems to fit with your calculation.
The dual pancake thhing would be very difficult to build..... but maybe more efficient, Would it be twice as efficient? because the electromag would only need the same electrical power as in your original design, but there would be twice as much torque because of the stacked stators and rotors.
-
Would it be twice as efficient? because the electromag would only need the same electrical power as in your original design,
but there would be twice as much torque because of the stacked stators and rotors.
I believe there are other forces that determine the amount of electro magnet power needed, while running the motor.
When the rotor magnet is approaching the electro magnet it will induce an electrical current in the coil that will have
to be fighted by the input current. The faster the spin, the more powerful induced current, thus requiring more
power to overcome the sticky spot. This is why Pauls E.m.i.l.i.e needs current pulses of 1000W while running.
My only hope to reduce input current, is the Flux Booster controller, that greatly reduces the power needed
to operate a high inductance coil at high speeds with very sharp flanks.
The Booster initialization of the electro magnetic flux field will be square instead of the regular slow rise time.
Ones initialized it only takes static current to maintain the strong field. When turned of the Back EMF is recovered for next cycle.
I will also redesign the controller to handle Magnetic Flip Field. Meaning immediate change between north and south polarization.
-
An electromagnet in somekind of horseshoe arrangement would have both the poles from the electromagnet firing at the rotor.
Using a horse shoe electromagnet wouldn't work any good in this design.
The rotor magnets does not change polarity.....
Yes. but supposing you had two stators and two rotors on one shaft, one stator with N facing in and the other stator with S facing in. And the electromagnets would bridge between the two.
Don't forget that the benefit, the OU, will include the back emf reclaimed when the electromagnets switch off, and so, you will need a pair of capacitors and a bridge rectifier and a battery to capture this lot.
Otherwise, you could have the BEMF on one revolution being used to do the job on the next revolution.
Not very clearly explained, I fear.
Paul-R
-
Paul-R,
Yes, it's a good idea, We'd already discussed this idea earlier , but probably not very well explained! pancakes and whatnot! I think this is a good idea as then the flux lines would have a much more closed path, and the force available at the pole of the electromagnet facing outward would not be lost, as it is at the moment. At any rate, it would be very difficult to build.
-
The main problem of a horse shoe electromagnet is forming the steel laminets into the right angle and size.
Paul is just using a single rod electromagnet of Supermalloy and that is doing just fine.
Supermalloy is the prefered material to use but very expensive and very hard to get hold of.
Using plain Oriented Silicon steel with an outer tip of Non Oriented silicon steel should do the job as well.
Oriented Silicon steel produces a lot more magnetism per amp than regular Non Oriented silicon steel.
But it's not a good idea of having Oriented Silicon steel facing the moving Neo magnets.
Oriented Silicon steel requires non moving fields accros the surface to avoid losses. Like a transformer.
This is why Oriented Silicon steel is never used in motors. But if the steel area facing the Neo magnets
is made of Non Oriented silicon steel and the core inside of the winding is Oriented Silicon steel then
we have the best combination of two cheap materials. The core produces lots of magnetism and the
outer tip of Non Oriented silicon steel transfer the magnetism towards the moving rotor magnets.
The steel laminates I'm going to use for the rod magnet will be precision laser cut to fit perfectly.
-
Otherwise, you could have the BEMF on one revolution being used to do the job on the next revolution.
Paul-R
The Back EMF will simply not be enough to run the coil.
You are right that there is Back EMF to be captured but this is no way near the power needed to keep
the magnetic field constant in the electro magnet while the rotor magnet passes by.
Lot's of energy going into an electro magnet is converted into heat.
The perfect coil don't have any resistance but in real life there is ohms law to be included.
There is also steel losses that is converted into heat as well. I guess I'll be happy if the recovered Back EMF power
covers 10-25% of the total energy needed to run the coil in this type of motor.
-
Otherwise, you could have the BEMF on one revolution being used to do the job on the next revolution.
Paul-R
The Back EMF will simply not be enough to run the coil.
You are right that there is Back EMF to be captured
If the switching is sharp, the BEMF can be very high indeed. It is an important ingredient in the energy equations:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/ElectricityMagnetism/BackEMF/BackEMF.html
As I understand it, it depends how sharp the voltage is taken off the coil - how vertical, or near vertical the vltage drop is.
-
You are right that the Back EMF is very high at sharp switching.
If the Back EMF is shorted out or kept low (any recover will lower the EMF voltage) the time of
back pull will increase as well. The only way to get almost non existent back pull time is to
let the Back EMF voltage climb as high as it wants, at the expense of recoverable energy.
But the spiral motor must not get any back pull when the rotor pass by the electro magnet.
The more you try to recover the Back EMF the lower the EMF voltage gets and the longer the
electro magnet is in back pull mode and preventing the rotor from a smooth ride.
This is why I estimate approx 10-25% of recoverable energy. The rest must be added from
outside the electro magnet. But using the Flux Booster will minimize the amount of added energy.
The whole point of the spiral motor is that it will provide great torque at high speeds and the
output from the mounted generator will provide more than enough power to become self sustaining.
But we can't know for sure until the whole setup (motor and generator) is built and tested.
-
The impression that I get from luminaries like Tom Bearden and Patrick Kelly is that the BEMF is a *good thing*. It is a route to get at zero point energy. Don't knock it. Love it. Use it.
Paul.
-
I guess Tom-B haven't really got any personal experience from working with Back EMF himself.
Trying to recover the BEMF will increase back pull time wich could in some cases be of
good use but in a Wankel or the Hilden-Brand motor it will cause back pull and this will
cause the motor to run less efficient or not run at all.
In a switched power supply circuit you actually recover almost all of the BEMF.
This is how switched power supplies can reach these high efficiencies of 95-99%.
They don't care about back pull because there is no moving parts. But a motor do care.
I have many years first hand experience of Back EMF from my daily work.
But I still don't know it all. ;)
I'm still learning every day and that is what makes life so good and enlightening. ;D
-
Hi Honk,
Great work, great concept! Thanks for sharing this.
I was inspired to print and study the drawings and couldn't help having questions popping up. I wondered how the magnets will be sitting in the magnet holder. Why steel? Will you be able to experiment with the shape of the magnet rings to adjust the quantity, distance and angle of the magnets? Could there be an advantage to follow a natural spiral (snail) path for the two segments?
You mention a flux booster and controller. What's that?
Sorry about so many questions but most likely more people will be interested and grateful to hear more.Thanks.
Cheers
ecc
-
Hi and welcome to this forum.
I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.
1) Which magnet do you mean. The stator magnet or rotor magnets?
Anyway, both the rotor and stator magnets will be keyed in place and cannot move out of position.
If you download the ealier posted F.B.D.I.S.S.M_v2.2_blueprint.zip you can see the stator steel layout with its keys.
In the earliar posts I hadn't finished the rotor magnet key holding mechanism. But you can see the rotor keys in the new pic.
2) I have chosen stainless steel to hold the stator magnets because this is easy to precision cut by laser.
This material is also strong enough to withstand the attracting forces between stator and rotor magnets.
The rotor will be made of light weight aluminum and magnetic back iron to enchance the magnetic properties of the rotor magnets.
3) I have used a formula that calculates the distance and angle in certain positions and then I use magnetsales
calculator to calculate the force. http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/Calc_filles/PullAndPushBetween2RectMagnets.asp
I enter the distance of both ends of the rotor magnet towards the stator magnets and get the difference in force.
Then I split it by two to get the mean value. And this I convert it into ft-lbs and enter it into the Hp formula.
4) I have calculated many types of spirals to get the most powerful twist towards the narrow end position.
When I chose to split the spiral in two halfes to balance the force against the ballbearings I got even better rotational twist force.
Finaly I couldn't get more force from the spiral angle. Further calculations just shifted around the area where the most torque was
created. Then I was pleased and designed the spiral in my cad system using the best output from my torque formula.
5) A Flux Booster Controller is simply a special type of controller I have designed. It's main purpose it to get rid
of the long charge time of a high inductance coil. It has lot's of other features as well, such as being self runner prepared.
An ordinary strong electro magnet can have a charge delay as long as 1 Second before reaching full magnetic field.
Using the Flux Booster it will minimise the flux build-up time to less than 200uS = 0.0002 Sec.
Inside a fast spinning motor this is very crusial to reach maximum performance.
Another feature is that it also cuts down on power requirement to run a coil at high speed.
Once initialized it just takes static power to maintain the strong field of the electro magnets.
Typically it lowers the power need of the coil by 10-15 times. When going for overunity this is a good feature to have access to.
You can read more about the controller here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2386.msg38801#msg38801
I hope this clear things up for you.
-
Hi Honk,
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer all those questions. Looks like you really have coverered all angles! ANo more questions for now.
As your answers no.3 and 4 show you were able to find a layout geometry with your split spiral which likely might surpass the Paul Sprain design. I really hope it works well so that many of us can replicate it and start making a difference.
I also looked up the link for the flux booster controller and followed the thread. There seems to be another amazing piece of electronics waiting in the wings and it sounds as if a lot of the experimenters working in O/U electro magnetics could benefit from the improved coil control. Hope to hear more about it soon. Any news about the Jack Hildenbrand project? Thanks again.
Cheers
ecc
-
Here's some news about Jacks controller.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2386.msg55689#msg55689
-
Hi Honk,
Just out of curiosity I inquired with a local magnet importer to find out the ballpark figures for the magnets. I gave the measures from your post as
The Rotor magnets:
Length (depth) = 3.149" (80mm)
Width = 1.5" (38.1mm)
Thickness = 1.181" (30mm)
The Stator magnets:
Length (depth) = 3.149" (80mm)
Width = 1.181" (30mm)
Thickness = 0.157" (4mm)
Is that still correct? I also understand that the magnet axis N/S runs along the 80mm Legth.
Maybe the company is not quite cutting edge as I was told that the sizes are non standard and would have to be custom made. Additionally they advised that it might be quite difficult to magnetize the material throughout the 80mm, possibly quite costly and take a few weeks.
Hmm, sounds quite expensive - which led to the thought , if the split spiral motor concept could be successfully realised with standard size magnets. That would make it a lot easier and affordable to replicate for others. What are your thoughts?
The flux booster controller - are you at liberty and willing to divulge more?
The properties of this device just sound absolutely amazing and seem to go against the behaviour of coils as understood by me. It almost sounds as if the electro magnet would behave more like a capacity than an inductance, given the speed of field buildup , collapse and reversal as well as power saving that you suggest are possible with your controller. So I was wrecking my head trying to figure out what could be going on. Not much success though.
Cheers
-
Thank you for getting a quote.
It always nice with some help.
Unfortionatly you have gotten the motor principle all wrong :D
If the magnets were magnetized along the the 80mm axis there would be no attraction between rotor and stator magnets.
The right direction is magnetized through width. The rotor magnets along the 38.1mm and the stator along the 30mm.
Please get a another quote from your local vendor using these new numbers and see what he can come up with.
-
Yep, I thought the stator poles would have to face the rotor poles directly, still not clear on this. Will have a look at the FEMM files. Request for quote send for 150 and 8 pieces with a few spares. Mentioned that I will post his prices on a forum.
-
If you split the stator segments into 3 segments instead of 2, you will not have 2 rotor arm magnets going through the sticky spot at the same time. 3 rotor magnets will be providing rotational forces each time 1 gets to the rough place.
I don't think the number og rotor magnets have any affect. If the rotor will rotate with 3 magnets, it would run with 4 or 2 magnets. The difference is the amount of reactive force and cogging. The interesting part is the result of the sum of force and counterforce in one revolution. If the magnets accelerate to a speed that overcome the sticky point, you'll have a perpetual rotation regardless of number of magnets. To achieve this, one or more magnets have to reduce its magnetical force when it passes the sticky point, and get stronger when this point has been passed. What magnet can do that without influence of some kind of external energy?
Iron parts? No, these will influence on the magnet itself and get stick to it.
A magnet will reduce its magnetic field by passing a shortcuted air coil. Is that the solution? No. The magnet will feel drag, or some resistance to movement at that point, and you will reduce the speed at the sticky point anyway.
If you can imagine a doughnut magnet, magnetized radially (Equivalent to an infinit number of magnets in the rotor). Make this magnet to spin, and you have solved the problem. The question is HOW?
Vidar
-
If the magnets accelerate to a speed that overcome the sticky point, you'll have a perpetual rotation regardless of number of magnets.
There is no way possible to get past the sticky point by pure speed in this type of design. All momentum gained in the loop would get lost.
The essense of the Wankel is to design it to rotate using the minimum amount of added electric current going into the electro magnets.
The electro magnet should firstly attract the rotor into its area and then instantaneously flip the field to repel the rotor magnet into next loop.
The best magnets are made of Supermalloy and the activated window of the electromagnet must be timed to the minimum possible to avoid end spiral breaking.
-
If the magnets accelerate to a speed that overcome the sticky point, you'll have a perpetual rotation regardless of number of magnets.
There is no way possible to get past the sticky point by pure speed in this type of design. All momentum gained in the loop would get lost.
The essense of the Wankel is to design it to rotate using the minimum amount of added electric current going into the electro magnets.
The electro magnet should firstly attract the rotor into its area and then instantaneously flip the field to repel the rotor magnet into next loop.
The best magnets are made of Supermalloy and the activated window of the electromagnet must be timed to the minimum possible to avoid end spiral breaking.
My point was in the first place that if the rotor accelerated enough, the speed of the mass will for sure overcome the sticky point. In the second place, this cannot be done without adding ekstra energy. Then the question was simply where to get this energy from.
The Wankel: The little amount of energy you put in, will be at most the little amount of energy you get out. No matter the complexity, simplicity, or arrangment of electromagnets etc. The energy you put in will be the most you'll get out. The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor. But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Vidar
-
The Wankel: The little amount of energy you put in, will be at most the little amount of energy you get out
Have you ever designed and built a Wankel motor of your own?
It seems like your just guessing here.
No matter the complexity, simplicity, or arrangment of electromagnets etc. The energy you put in will be the most you'll get out.
Most of the torque is created by the natural twisting force of the neo magnets, not by the electro magnets.
So how can you determine that I'll only get out what I put in?
The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor.
I have designed a couple of BLDC motors and also their controllers in my career. And I see no resemblence to a regular motor whatsoever.
In a regular motor all of the torque is created by the electro magnets continuously working towards the permanent magnets. Push and pull.
And when the motor increases in speed it will output Back Voltage. When the Back Voltage has reached the same level as the working
voltage that is feed to the motor it stops to accelerate. This is the regular motors rated RPM level.
When you load the regular electric motor you will lower the RPM and the Back Voltage vill decrease as well.
The difference in applied voltage and the generated Back Voltage divided by the internal resistance of the motor equals the current going into the motor.
Simply Ohms law. This is why a regular motor consumes more current when loaded harder.
I can tell you for sure that a Wankel does not operate in this way at all. You better study regular motors before comparing those two motor types.
No offense towards you. I just wanted to explain how it really works.
But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Of course OU is the goal. Otherwise I would not spend time at this forum!
-
Then the question was simply where to get this energy from.
The idea of the Wankel is to add a minimum of energy to keep the natural magnetic rotation continuously going on.
You can see it like a magnetic amplifier.
The torque of the magnets rotating is kept alive by a very small energy input.
The output is the sum of all torque x speed from the motor while the electro magnets are turned off.
Output = Torque x speed - input energy.
Of course the electro magnets will add torque while operating but this part is not OU.
-
The Wankel: The little amount of energy you put in, will be at most the little amount of energy you get out. No matter the complexity, simplicity, or arrangment of electromagnets etc. The energy you put in will be the most you'll get out. The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor. But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Vidar
By this statement I assume you believe Paul Sprain was lying his ass of when he reported his wankel
to deliver 11544 watts output at merely 200 watts in?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2648.msg38778#msg38778
On the new machine we are getting 222 Nm at 52 radians. The maximum I can put
into the Electro-Magnet is 110 volts at 9 amps firing 33 times a second.
As you can see the input is nowhere near what the output power is.
(added by admin: Output is a huge 12.5 KWatts, while the input is just 200 Watts only !)
Paul
-
The Wankel: The little amount of energy you put in, will be at most the little amount of energy you get out
Have you ever designed and built a Wankel motor of your own?
It seems like your just guessing here.
No matter the complexity, simplicity, or arrangment of electromagnets etc. The energy you put in will be the most you'll get out.
Most of the torque is created by the natural twisting force of the neo magnets, not by the electro magnets.
So how can you determine that I'll only get out what I put in?
The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor.
I have designed a couple of BLDC motors and also their controllers in my career. And I see no resemblence to a regular motor whatsoever.
In a regular motor all of the torque is created by the electro magnets continuously working towards the permanent magnets. Push and pull.
And when the motor increases in speed it will output Back Voltage. When the Back Voltage has reached the same level as the working
voltage that is feed to the motor it stops to accelerate. This is the regular motors rated RPM level.
When you load the regular electric motor you will lower the RPM and the Back Voltage vill decrease as well.
The difference in applied voltage and the generated Back Voltage divided by the internal resistance of the motor equals the current going into the motor.
Simply Ohms law. This is why a regular motor consumes more current when loaded harder.
I can tell you for sure that a Wankel does not operate in this way at all. You better study regular motors before comparing those two motor types.
No offense towards you. I just wanted to explain how it really works.
But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Of course OU is the goal. Otherwise I would not spend time at this forum!
1.
Sometimes it is quite easy to predict the sum of 2 + 2.
2.
The torque made by the neos will for sure make some work over a sertain distance. However, they are not turned off at any time, and will allways affect how the motor will run. You can make electromagnets to add the energy to overcome the sticky point, but the sticky point will be there allways. Let's say that you can reduce, or even equalize the sticky point, but these actions require more or less energy to do. The more energy you put in, the weaker the sticky point is, the more powerful the engine will be. Nothing spooky with that. It is just an ordernary electro motor.
As you encrease power to weaken sticky points, the less torque you will achieve by the permanent magnets as well. You see, the sticky point is the reason why you have torque in the first place. The torque equalize just when the magnets has got to rest at the sticky point. However, the sticky point must be turned off while the rotor is in motion and is suppose to pass it - just not to get stucked there forever. An electro magnet can do that. Nevertheless, the output power of the motor will be the same or less than the power you put into the electromagnets.
3.
Thanks for the explanation. I do however still see similarities between the Wankel and the brushless motor. The main difference, electronically, is to me the time of applied current to the electromagnet to avoid the sticky points. Where the similarities stops seems to me to be the difference in how the electromagnet affects the rotor magnets. In the wankel you make the permanent magnets do most of the job, at least how I have understood the concept, and let an electromagnet take care of the short period of sticky point. Well, this period is not very short afterall. If you turn off the electromagnet right after the rotormagnet has passed the sticky point, the rotor magnet will deaccelerate due to counterforce made by the magnetism behind it - when there is no electromagnet to take care of this magnetism anymore. Due to this little problem the rotormagnet will not have the expected speed you are hoping for - without this problem, you would for sure have more output than input.
Well, then the magnet will speed up a little bit when approaching the next sticky point. The short time of applied energy through the electromagnet will again let the rotormagnet pass, but the built up acceleration, will again deaccelerate when the electromagnet is turned off, before the rotormagnet takes another turn. Little energy in, and little, or less, energy out.
4. If OU is the goal, the Wankel will in my opinion not be the solution.
Vidar
-
The Wankel: The little amount of energy you put in, will be at most the little amount of energy you get out. No matter the complexity, simplicity, or arrangment of electromagnets etc. The energy you put in will be the most you'll get out. The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor. But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Vidar
By this statement I assume you believe Paul Sprain was lying his ass of when he reported his wankel
to deliver 11544 watts output at merely 200 watts in?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2648.msg38778#msg38778
On the new machine we are getting 222 Nm at 52 radians. The maximum I can put
into the Electro-Magnet is 110 volts at 9 amps firing 33 times a second.
As you can see the input is nowhere near what the output power is.
(added by admin: Output is a huge 12.5 KWatts, while the input is just 200 Watts only !)
Paul
1. If this is true, Paul Sprain should be dead by now
2. If this is true, the world should knew it by now
3. No, I do not believe Paul is lying. He just hasn't done his calculations right. It is no problem to achieve more power out than you put in, but not for longer time than a fraction of the total loop. Test results do often look promising, but one also very often tries to neglect the rest of the loop - or just forgets it in all the excitements. I believe it is as simple as that. Maybe I'm a little arrogant when saying this, but this is my truly opinion on the subject.
Vidar
-
I dont believe in conspiracy theories, like getting mr Sprain killed just because hes got OU. No way.
Just listen to Mark Dansie, a member of NEC, that have been around for a while investigating many new power
sources and looking for OU proof. He has never encountered any conspiracy against new power inventions.
On the contrary, all new power findings, OU or not, have always been appreciated and well founded.
It's people like you and me that invent the conspiracy theories, but there are really none.
Don't you think e.g USA would love to get their hands on a new great and cheap power source so they
could get rid of their oil dependence. Of course they would. Anything else is just imaginations of peoples minds.
You should take into account that every year thousands of billions of dollars is invested into new energy development
like fission power, fusion power, solar power, wind power, wave power, water power and so on.
Where's the logic in killing an inventer that can provide another power solution, besides of of those I just mentioned.
You are so wrong, my friend...so very wrong...
-
1.
Sometimes it is quite easy to predict the sum of 2 + 2.
2.
The torque made by the neos will for sure make some work over a sertain distance. However, they are not turned off at any time, and will allways affect how the motor will run. You can make electromagnets to add the energy to overcome the sticky point, but the sticky point will be there allways. Let's say that you can reduce, or even equalize the sticky point, but these actions require more or less energy to do. The more energy you put in, the weaker the sticky point is, the more powerful the engine will be. Nothing spooky with that. It is just an ordernary electro motor.
As you encrease power to weaken sticky points, the less torque you will achieve by the permanent magnets as well. You see, the sticky point is the reason why you have torque in the first place. The torque equalize just when the magnets has got to rest at the sticky point. However, the sticky point must be turned off while the rotor is in motion and is suppose to pass it - just not to get stucked there forever. An electro magnet can do that. Nevertheless, the output power of the motor will be the same or less than the power you put into the electromagnets.
3.
Thanks for the explanation. I do however still see similarities between the Wankel and the brushless motor. The main difference, electronically, is to me the time of applied current to the electromagnet to avoid the sticky points. Where the similarities stops seems to me to be the difference in how the electromagnet affects the rotor magnets. In the wankel you make the permanent magnets do most of the job, at least how I have understood the concept, and let an electromagnet take care of the short period of sticky point. Well, this period is not very short afterall. If you turn off the electromagnet right after the rotormagnet has passed the sticky point, the rotor magnet will deaccelerate due to counterforce made by the magnetism behind it - when there is no electromagnet to take care of this magnetism anymore. Due to this little problem the rotormagnet will not have the expected speed you are hoping for - without this problem, you would for sure have more output than input.
Well, then the magnet will speed up a little bit when approaching the next sticky point. The short time of applied energy through the electromagnet will again let the rotormagnet pass, but the built up acceleration, will again deaccelerate when the electromagnet is turned off, before the rotormagnet takes another turn. Little energy in, and little, or less, energy out.
4. If OU is the goal, the Wankel will in my opinion not be the solution.
Vidar
1) Let's see the final outcome. Perhaps 2 + unknown factor = 6 this time.
2) I guess you haven't heard of overlapping magnetic fields. They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot.
When the rotor magnet is next to the electromagnet it's activated to attract the rotor magnet away from the stator sticky spot ending.
When the rotor is passing the electromagnet area the controller will flip fields and repel the magnet away.
So there is no deacceleration due to any counterforce made by the magnetism behind it. It's pure repel. And this is how Paul does it.
Except for the flipping of fields. That's my idea. And I have developed a controller capable of doing this in less than 200uS.
And the power required by the electro magnets is minimised by using a Supermalloy core.
3) I repeat. There is no similarities between the wankel and a regular electric motor.
The regular motor does not have any powerful coasting at all. All movement is accomplished by the applied electricity.
-
Hi Honk,
Just an idea... But maybe you could try to use a Hilden-brand type valve in your Wankel, instead of a simple electromagnet... It would be more efficient, no?
Well, yes you can't reverse the field polarity to do a push & pull on the same valve, but think about... you can redesign the thing a little, place two valves there, and switch off the pulling valve at them moment when you switch in the pushing one... ;)
Sure you can do that, and thought about it already.
Good luck with your design!
-
1.
Sometimes it is quite easy to predict the sum of 2 + 2.
2.
The torque made by the neos will for sure make some work over a sertain distance. However, they are not turned off at any time, and will allways affect how the motor will run. You can make electromagnets to add the energy to overcome the sticky point, but the sticky point will be there allways. Let's say that you can reduce, or even equalize the sticky point, but these actions require more or less energy to do. The more energy you put in, the weaker the sticky point is, the more powerful the engine will be. Nothing spooky with that. It is just an ordernary electro motor.
As you encrease power to weaken sticky points, the less torque you will achieve by the permanent magnets as well. You see, the sticky point is the reason why you have torque in the first place. The torque equalize just when the magnets has got to rest at the sticky point. However, the sticky point must be turned off while the rotor is in motion and is suppose to pass it - just not to get stucked there forever. An electro magnet can do that. Nevertheless, the output power of the motor will be the same or less than the power you put into the electromagnets.
3.
Thanks for the explanation. I do however still see similarities between the Wankel and the brushless motor. The main difference, electronically, is to me the time of applied current to the electromagnet to avoid the sticky points. Where the similarities stops seems to me to be the difference in how the electromagnet affects the rotor magnets. In the wankel you make the permanent magnets do most of the job, at least how I have understood the concept, and let an electromagnet take care of the short period of sticky point. Well, this period is not very short afterall. If you turn off the electromagnet right after the rotormagnet has passed the sticky point, the rotor magnet will deaccelerate due to counterforce made by the magnetism behind it - when there is no electromagnet to take care of this magnetism anymore. Due to this little problem the rotormagnet will not have the expected speed you are hoping for - without this problem, you would for sure have more output than input.
Well, then the magnet will speed up a little bit when approaching the next sticky point. The short time of applied energy through the electromagnet will again let the rotormagnet pass, but the built up acceleration, will again deaccelerate when the electromagnet is turned off, before the rotormagnet takes another turn. Little energy in, and little, or less, energy out.
4. If OU is the goal, the Wankel will in my opinion not be the solution.
Vidar
1) Let's see the final outcome. Perhaps 2 + unknown factor = 6 this time.
2) I guess you haven't heard of overlapping magnetic fields. They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot.
When the rotor magnet is next to the electromagnet it's activated to attract the rotor magnet away from the stator sticky spot ending.
When the rotor is passing the electromagnet area the controller will flip fields and repel the magnet away.
So there is no deacceleration due to any counterforce made by the magnetism behind it. It's pure repel. And this is how Paul does it.
Except for the flipping of fields. That's my idea. And I have developed a controller capable of doing this in less than 200uS.
And the power required by the electro magnets is minimised by using a Supermalloy core.
3) I repeat. There is no similarities between the wankel and a regular electric motor.
The regular motor does not have any powerful coasting at all. All movement is accomplished by the applied electricity.
I'll quote in capital letters just to easier differ between the quote and the comments - and not because I talk loud :)
Let's see the final outcome. Perhaps 2 + unknown factor = 6 this time. UNKNOWN FACTOR IS PROBABLY = 4 ;D
I guess you haven't heard of overlapping magnetic fields. NO
They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot. THEN THERE IS NO STICKY SPOT AFTERALL?
When the rotor magnet is next to the electromagnet it's activated (I ASSUME THE ELECTROMAGNET IS ACTIVATED?) to attract the rotor magnet away from the stator sticky spot ending.
When the rotor is passing the electromagnet area the controller will flip fields and repel the magnet away. IN THIS PART, THE MOTOR SEEMS TO WORK AS A REGULAR ELECTROMOTOR. FIRST ATREACTING THE ROTOR, THEN PUSHES IT AWAY.
So there is no deacceleration due to any counterforce made by the magnetism behind it. It's pure repel. And this is how Paul does it. OK
Except for the flipping of fields. That's my idea. And I have developed a controller capable of doing this in less than 200uS. IT TAKES 200uS TO SWAP POLARITY? ANYWAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS TIME IS IMPORTANT. IF IT IS, I ASSUME THE DESIRED TIME SHOULD BE ZERO?
And the power required by the electro magnets is minimised by using a Supermalloy core. THESE CORES SHOULD DO THE JOB. THEY ARE EXCELLENT AS THE PERMEABILITY IS VERY HIGH, AND I BELIEVE THE RESISTIVITY IS AROUND 5-6 nΩ?CM2/CM OR SO.
I repeat. There is no similarities between the wankel and a regular electric motor. OK. I'LL ACCEPT THAT NOW.
The regular motor does not have any powerful coasting at all. All movement is accomplished by the applied electricity. YES, TRUE. HOWEVER, BRUSHLESS MOTORS WITH NEOMAGNETS IN THE ROTOR IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL. MY MODEL AIRPLAIN IS ACCELERATED INTO 100MPH+ IN NO TIME, EVEN THE MOTOR IS VERY SMALL AND THE PLANE IS CONSIDERABLY BIG.
MY FINAL QUESTION: DO YOUR WANKEL WORK, AND WILL IT BE EASY TO MODIFY IT TO MAKE IT SMALLER AND STRONGER?
Br.
Vidar
-
I'll quote in capital letters just to easier differ between the quote and the comments - and not because I talk loud :)
I'll use blue letters instead. 8)
Let's see the final outcome. Perhaps 2 + unknown factor = 6 this time. UNKNOWN FACTOR IS PROBABLY = 4 ;D
Perhaps, I can't tell yet. This is why I have to build the Wankel to test whether there is any OU or not.
They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot. THEN THERE IS NO STICKY SPOT AFTERALL?
There is a sticky spot at the narrow end, but the sticky spot is shifted into the area of the activated electro magnet.
The rotor does not stop at the permanent magnets sticky spot, it continues to the artificial sticky spot, being the electro magnet.
This gives me the opportunity to convert the sticky spot into a repelling spot, just like an ordinary motor, for a very short while.
When a repel force is applied onto the magnetic flux of the rotor, the back pull is cancelled out and the rotor can pass freely almost without braking.
The rest of the movement is entirely created by the spiral force acting on the rotor magnets when being outside the electro magnet area.
When the rotor magnet is next to the electromagnet it's activated (I ASSUME THE ELECTROMAGNET IS ACTIVATED?) to attract the rotor
magnet away from the stator sticky spot ending.
Yes, wrong of me. It's the electro magnet being activated. I should have checked my spelling more thoroughly.
When the rotor is passing the electromagnet area the controller will flip fields and repel the magnet away.
IN THIS PART, THE MOTOR SEEMS TO WORK AS A REGULAR ELECTROMOTOR. FIRST ATTRACTING THE ROTOR,
THEN PUSHES IT AWAY.
Yes, you are right, just like an ordinary motor, but just for 15% of the total movement through the loop.
The rest of the loop is magnetic force without any energy being added.
Except for the flipping of fields. That's my idea. And I have developed a controller capable of doing this in less than 200uS.
IT TAKES 200uS TO SWAP POLARITY? ANYWAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS TIME IS IMPORTANT.
IF IT IS, I ASSUME THE DESIRED TIME SHOULD BE ZERO?
If you really knew anything about electronics, especially coils, you should know that they act opposite to a capacitor.
When you apply voltage to a coil while supervising the current, you will notice that the current rise is relatively fast at startup.
But it will slow down fast as time passes until the resistance of the coil finally limits the current flow. Now the coil is fully saturated.
It took a very long time. If your coil is a high inductance type, like 250mH, it will typically take more than 500mS until fully saturated.
You cannot use such a long delay inside a motor. But there is more to it than just that. You can speed up the coil by applying a higher voltage.
But the backdraw is highly increased power consumption when pumping it on and off at high speed when operating the coil at high voltage.
Simply put. When you want to lower the 500mS charge time you will have to run your coil at several hundreds volt to charge it fast enough.
And this translates into power waste. If the static current of a 2 ohm coil to reach 1 tesla is 2 amps, then imagine running the coil at
200V x 2 amps just to shorten the charge time. 400watts, that is a lot of power going into the coil. In static mode it just needed 2 x 2 = 4 watts.
This is where my Flux Booster will come in handy. It will allow a coil to be operated at high speed, with low delay, at almost static current.
And the power required by the electro magnets is minimised by using a Supermalloy core.
THESE CORES SHOULD DO THE JOB. THEY ARE EXCELLENT AS THE PERMEABILITY IS VERY HIGH, AND I BELIEVE
THE RESISTIVITY IS AROUND 5-6 nΩ?CM2/CM OR SO.
I have no information about the resistivity. I just know the material is the best when designing an electro magnet.
But Supermalloy is hard to get hold of. Yesterday I sent some enquiries to a couple of companies that trade Supermalloy.
I hope to have positive answers after this weekend.
I repeat. There is no similarities between the wankel and a regular electric motor. OK. I'LL ACCEPT THAT NOW.
Good.
The regular motor does not have any powerful coasting at all. All movement is accomplished by the applied electricity.
YES, TRUE. HOWEVER, BRUSHLESS MOTORS WITH NEOMAGNETS IN THE ROTOR IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL. MY MODEL AIRPLAIN
IS ACCELERATED INTO 100MPH+ IN NO TIME, EVEN THE MOTOR IS VERY SMALL AND THE PLANE IS CONSIDERABLY BIG.
Yes, you are totaly right about this. Neomagnets in a conventional electric motor will make wonders.
When a high 1.5T neomagnetic field is used in a motor, the back voltage is increased, and the number of copper turns can be reduced to match
the desired RPM goal. This leads to much lower internal resistance, thus increasing the efficiency, up to more than 90%, sometimes 98%.
And the high flux field from neomagnets will also allow a smaller motor design with better torque at lower RPM:s, if desired.
MY FINAL QUESTION: DO YOUR WANKEL WORK, AND WILL IT BE EASY TO MODIFY IT TO MAKE IT SMALLER AND STRONGER?
I do hope it will work as good as I imagine it will. Once built, tested and learned, it might be possible to scale it in any direction.
But I don't think it can reach a higher power density than a regular electric motor, simply because the regular motor can be feed more
and more current to run it harder until it finally burns up. The Wankel is almost entirely dependent on the magnetic twist. It cannot be
forced to deliver more output by adding more current to the electro magnets. The Wankel is engineered to a specific output, so to speak.
-
>The Wankel is almost entirely dependent on the magnetic twist. It cannot be
forced to deliver more output by adding more current to the electro magnets. The Wankel is engineered to a specific output, so to speak.<
Please correct me if this misses the point:
What happens when a load is applied? My guess is that the rotor will slow down relative to the load applied until the attraction of rotor, stator and electro magnetic forces cannot overcome the load anymore. Then the rotor stalls. When the load is removed or lightened sufficiently, the rotor will accelerate again unless the rotor has stalled in the sticky position and the electro magnets are not able to supply enough attractive force for a restart. So the no load operation should also show the highest rpm.
Will the pulse speed and supplied current have to be adapted relative the speed of the
rotor , eg lower speed requiring more current for the electro magnets and adjusted timing for the field reversal?
Cheers
-
Oh, and thanks for more information on the coils and the high voltage trick
.
With a much higher coil voltage, does the field also collaps faster ast the end of the pulse when current is removed?
Can this collapsing field energy then be captured ( in a capacitor) to be recycled or directly used for the repulsive part of the electromagnets cycle?
Is there a chance that the repulsive part of the cycle will weaken the rotor magnets and adjacent stator magnets?
Look forward to the answers. Thanx.
ecc
-
we must to think in 3D fot find a solution
-
>2) I guess you haven't heard of overlapping magnetic fields. They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot.<
Could someone please explain the workings of those overlapping fields?
@ Honk
Is it correct that the magnets in the stator are stacked side by side N/S/N/S etc., standing up 80mm high?
You did said the magnets are magnetized through their width, didn
-
previous post was cut off.....
.....You did said the magnets are magnetized through their width, didn
-
The Wankel design is nothing more than a electromotor - in fact it seems to work pretty much like a regular brushless motor. But maybe overunity is not the goal?
Vidar
By this statement I assume you believe Paul Sprain was lying his ass of when he reported his wankel
to deliver 11544 watts output at merely 200 watts in?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2648.msg38778#msg38778
3. No, I do not believe Paul is lying. He just hasn't done his calculations right.
Ahhhh, so you GUESS Paul has not done his calculations right. Let me think.... guess vs calculations.....hummmmmm..... Paul's million+ investment and years of effort against anonymous guess....... lol???
I have the feeling I'm missing half the story here? What has Paul done to you to deserve this kind of treatment?
:-X
-
It may be helpful to understand the calculation better by converting 52 radians into revolutions. 52 radians is equal to 8.276057041 revolutions of the motor. Then consider the Nm rating in relationship to the number of revolutions in order to calculate hp. ;)
-
>The Wankel is almost entirely dependent on the magnetic twist. It cannot be
forced to deliver more output by adding more current to the electro magnets. The Wankel is engineered to a specific output, so to speak.<
Please correct me if this misses the point:
What happens when a load is applied?
My guess is that the rotor will slow down relative to the load applied until the attraction of rotor, stator and
electro magnetic forces cannot overcome the load anymore. Then the rotor stalls.
When the load is removed or lightened sufficiently, the rotor will accelerate again unless the rotor has stalled
in the sticky position and the electro magnets are not able to supply enough attractive force for a restart.
So the no load operation should also show the highest rpm.
Will the pulse speed and supplied current have to be adapted relative the speed of the rotor, e.g lower speed
requiring more current for the electro magnets and adjusted timing for the field reversal?
Cheers
I dont know for sure how much the load will reduce the speed. The only reference I've got is the statements from Paul.
His first Emilie motor was spinning at 190 RPM at no load, but at 6W load it was decreased to 90 RPM.
His new motor is spinning at 496 RPM at 11544W load (according to Sprain himself).
I don't know what the RPM will be at no load, perhaps twice as high, when comparing numbers to his old motor.
My idea of attracting then repelling the rotor magnets will perhaps let me start the motor without any interacting push.
I just know that the twisting torque can be calculated, and I got it to be approx 57 ft-lbs. And the highest useable RPM at that
torque will give the most horsepower output. I guess I'll have to wait until it's built and tested before I can answer your question any better.
-
The more the electro magnets, the more it's starts to look like an ordinary pulse motor.
The big difference would be that this design is not decelerating between it's pulse coils. That would make quite a big difference I think. :)
Here are my thoughts on that.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=107
View topic - constant velocity increase
Your solution is much better as my idea of adding large numbers of pulse coils. (as shown in the big pulse motor)
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/video?v=ArX7BDY1XRM
-
The big difference would be that this design is not decelerating between it's pulse coils. That would make quite a big difference I think. :)
Which motor do you mean? Mine or yours?
I believe strongly mine will accelerate between the electro magnets.
Once past the electro magnet the rotor magnets is attracted towards the most narrow gap area and
it will accelerate to get there because the flux and rotational twist increases along the ride.
According to my calculations the twist increases from 27lb at the loop entry to 168 lb at the loop exit.
That is quite a difference in force that will perform a powerful accelerating twist.
-
>2) I guess you haven't heard of overlapping magnetic fields. They will let the rotor pass without loosing momentum by the sticky spot.<
Could someone please explain the workings of those overlapping fields?
@ Honk
Is it correct that the magnets in the stator are stacked side by side N/S/N/S etc., standing up 80mm high?
You did say the magnets are magnetized through their width, didn
An overlapping field is simply when the force of a sticky spot is moved by applying a electromagnetic field of the same strength next
to the permanent field. And when reversing the electromagnetic field the backpull to the old sticky spot is neutralized.
The fast flipping of the flux field will give the rotor magnet an almost free ride past the sticky point without loosing to much momentum.
Acctually the fields doesn't need to flip, it's enough to let the rotor pass into the electro magnet area by sheer momentum
and then apply a reversed electro magnetic field to neutralize the effect of the sticky spot.
But I don't believe this way is the most optimal. The loss of momentum will be a lot smaller when using an attract/repel field.
Yes, the magnets are stacked side by side N/S to N/S, standing up 80mm high and magnetized through their width.
If they weren't magnetized through their width there would be no great attraction between the rotor and stator magnets.
-
The overlapping field is simply put the neutralizing of the sticky spot by applying a reversed field of the same strength.
The fast flipping of the flux field will give the rotor magnet a free pass from the sticky point without loosing any momentum at all.
Actually the fields doesn't need to flip, it's enough to let the rotor pass into the electro magnet area by sheer momentum
and then apply a reversed electro magnetic field to neutralize the effect of the sticky spot.
But I don't believe this way is the most optimal. The loss of momentum will be a lot smaller when using an attract/repel field.
Stefan quotes Paul S. somewhere in the Steorn thread saying that because Steorn used repulsion in their model it would lead to a degaussing of the magnets and that his motor is running on attraction only. If it is indeed the case that the magnets can be demagnetized by applying repulsive magnetic forces, then repulsing the rotor away might demagnetize it and nearby stator magnets and lead to a loss of torque or function. That could be an important point to consider.
@Gaby
Also I wonder if the Lee Tseung lead out theory might offer insights into the function of the split spiral motor on perhaps how and when the the electromagnetic force could be applied in the cycle. As the coils are expected to be really fast perhaps a double or more pulses can help to overcome the sticky point, hopefully in attraction mode only and/or by leading out more energy?
Cheers
-
Shouldn't it be fully possible to use repelling forces without degaussing the magnets?
Let's say you have two magnets side by side vertically. Nort up and south down. These two magnets will repel each other without degaussing because the magnetic lines will allways be in parallell. However, if you twist the magnets 90 degrees in opposite direction, so north or south directly points into each other, you will have repelling with degaussing after a while. Isn't it so?
Vidar
-
The more the electro magnets, the more it's starts to look like an ordinary pulse motor.
The big difference would be that this design is not decelerating between it's pulse coils. That would make quite a big difference I think. :)
Here are my thoughts on that.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=107
View topic - constant velocity increase
Your solution is much better as my idea of adding large numbers of pulse coils. (as shown in the big pulse motor)
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/video?v=ArX7BDY1XRM
Maybe it's only me, but I'm quite sceptic to so called magnet motors with a lot of batteries ans wires all over the place...
Show me a video/evidence of a magnetmotor without any wires - at least no batteries ;)
Vidar
-
Stefan quotes Paul S. somewhere in the Steorn thread saying that because Steorn used repulsion in their model it would lead to a degaussing of the magnets and that his motor is running on attraction only. If it is indeed the case that the magnets can be demagnetized by applying repulsive magnetic forces, then repulsing the rotor away might demagnetize it and nearby stator magnets and lead to a loss of torque or function. That could be an important point to consider.
You missunderstand how magnets work and how they are used. And you haven't really grasped my FBDISSM yet.
1) Magnets in an ordinary electric motor is continuously working in both attraction and repel mode. Otherwise the ordinary motor
wouldn't work any good. And the magnets never demagnetize when being both attracted and repelled, just as in my motor but
with the difference that the repel mode is just applied for approx 4-7% of the loop time. The rest is pure attraction.
So there is really nothing to consider regarding the risk of demagnetizing the magnets.
2) So far I have never encountered any repel setup using neodymium magnets that will demagnetize each other.
I have read a lot about repel mode at this forum and others places as well, but nobody really knows if there is a risk of demagnetization.
People are just guessing about this subject and it has started a rumor that repel mode will demagnetize neo magnets.
But the truth is most likely that neos wont demagnetize in repel mode due to the fact that their demagnetization curve states that it
takes about 1200KA/m to even get close to the risk of damaging the magnets. Just to clarify you should now that 1200KA/m is a many,
many, many, many times stronger field than any neodymium magnet is capable of delivering. Like a 100 times stronger or more.
Perhaps there is somekind of eddy current involved at repel motion that will heat the magnet & lower the threshold of the demagnetization curve.
Just to find out about the risk of repel mode I have built a motor forcing 2 discs full of magnets in repel to interact in full motion at 1000 RPM.
I will let this motor operate the discs for several month, perhaps a year, and then I'll know for sure if repel mode can cause demagnetization.
3) I repeat. The FBDISSM does not operate in repel mode, it's pure attraction. The small repel pulse will not affect the magnets at all.
If it did affect them, then no other electrical motor of the whole entire world could work without getting demagnetized, and they dont.
-
Hi Honk,
Thanks for your patient explanation. This has cleared up a few missunderstandings.
As I am new to this field but fascinated by this split spiral motor concept there is lots to learn and relearn and very little in the sense of textbooks or prior art. Hence I am glad to be able to ask questions at this forum, hopefully contributing a little and not holding up or annoying anyone.javascript:void(0);
Your argument concerning demagnetization makes absolute sense to me, especially in light of your ongoing twin magnet disc experiment. I did not think thought that the FBDISSM was operated in repel mode, I just assumed the repel pulse to be equal to the attraction pulse.
Cheers
-
Hey Honk,
You got a fascinating thing goin on here... I've got a couple of questions of course, and maybe an idea or two that might throw a monkey wrench into the mix :)
1. Would it help the situation if there were 2 of these motors stacked on a single shaft? I.E. Have the 2nd motor rotated a bit so that the sticky spots do not overlap. Would having a setup like this decrease the "stickyness" to the sticky spot?
2. Instead of using a normal N/S magnet in the rotor, could you potentially replace it with a Halbach array? I've been surfing this forum for a while now and I don't think i've seen anyone mention using an array as a rotor or a stator anywhere (correct me if i'm wrong - i've been gone a while). If i'm reading the info on Halbach array's correctly they are the closest thing we could get to a magnetic monopole...
3. Why use a stainless steel guide for the stator magnets? Will that not affect the magnetic field lines a little bit? I understand that the effect will be fairly minimal, but in researching magnetic shielding a bit I'd think that there would be some kind of affect. Perhaps a good quality plastic would be a better idea - I understand that it wouldn't be laser precise, but a good injection mould can do wonderful things :)
4. This is just a pure question for you Honk, because you sound like you really know your stuff :) Would a product like Giron (http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html (http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html)) be of any use in a motor like this? I.E. inserting it into the sticky spot to change if from a sticky spot to a coast spot. My understanding of magnetic shielding is very limited...
Thanks for the great work and honest and forthright replies Honk! I look forward to more details so we can all get to building one :) or 2... maybe 3... :D
-
Hey Honk,
You got a fascinating thing goin on here... I've got a couple of questions of course, and maybe an idea or two that might throw a monkey wrench into the mix :)
See my answers in blue.
1. Would it help the situation if there were 2 of these motors stacked on a single shaft? I.E.
Have the 2nd motor rotated a bit so that the sticky spots do not overlap.
Would having a setup like this decrease the "stickyness" to the sticky spot?
No, it would not help. There would just be 4 sticky spots and four electro magnets to overcome the stickyness.
It would only help if the motors was made in the opposite attraction mode and mounted exactly in the same position onto the shaft to
make use of the same electro magnets that will have to be bent between motors like a horse shoe magnet.
By this setup just two electro magnets is needed to do the jobb in a dual motor.
Right now my focus is to build a single motor.
The dual pancake setup is just to difficult to make and it would take to long time to finish.
2. Instead of using a normal N/S magnet in the rotor, could you potentially replace it with a Halbach array?
I've been surfing this forum for a while now and I don't think I've seen anyone mention using an array as a rotor or
a stator anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong - I've been gone a while).
If I'm reading the info on Halbach array's correctly they are the closest thing we could get to a magnetic monopole...
No, a Halbach array can't be used in this type of motor. A Halbach array constantly switches polarity, that's the nature of this array.
All of the rotor magnets must face the same direction, and all of the stator must must also face the same direction, and there must be
attraction between the rotor and stator magnets, elseway there would be no rotational force due to the gradient slope of the stator magnets.
The rotor magnets seek to find the area with the most flux and this is at the most narrow area between the rotor and stator magnets
In other words, at the very end of the stator magnet array just before the electro magnet.
3. Why use a stainless steel guide for the stator magnets? Will that not affect the magnetic field lines a little bit?
I understand that the effect will be fairly minimal, but in researching magnetic shielding a bit I'd think that there would be some kind of affect.
Perhaps a good quality plastic would be a better idea - I understand that it wouldn't be laser precise, but a good injection mould can do wonderful things :)
The best would be to use magnetic back iron. This would enchance the flux of the magnets and make the motor stronger.
But magnetic back iron is to soft to be precision cut by laser into these fine tolorances that I need.
Second best is stainless steel. Perhaps hard plastic in certain areas, but I have no access to cut plastic in a good way.
I'd like to add that plain Non oriented silicon steel is the absolutely best choise of material to use as flux enhancing back iron.
It's easy to cut, pretty cheap but is to difficult to get hold of in the specific size and quantity I'll need.
Therefore I have chosen ordinary stainless steel.
4. This is just a pure question for you Honk, because you sound like you really know your stuff :)
Would a product like Giron (http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html (http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html)) be of any use in a motor like this?
I.E. inserting it into the sticky spot to change if from a sticky spot to a coast spot. My understanding of magnetic shielding is very limited...
No, if you insert some kind of shield into the sticky spot area you just shift the sticky spot to the magnets besides the old spot.
You see, the sticky spot is nothing more than the strongest flux position between the rotor and stator magnets.
If you take away the sticky spot by inserting a shield, then the magnets next to the shield will form a new sticky spot.
And the magnets always seek to find the area of the most flux.
Thanks for the great work and honest and forthright replies Honk! I look forward to more details so we can all get to building one :) or 2... maybe 3... :D
My pleasure / Honk
-
Just to add to what Honk said about Halbach arrays. They are nothing like a magnetic monopole at all. The "South" part of an Halbach array is just as large as the "north" part. I don't see any particular gain in using an Halbach array in a magnetic motor. A magnetic monopole would have flux leaving the magnet and not returning.
-
There seem to be some missunderstandings by some people or newcomers on how the magnets are arranged inside the FBDISSM.
They are simply placed side to side facing the same magnetization direction. The stator and rotor magnets are in attraction mode.
Please have a closer look at the attached picture to see the rotation direction and the magnetization direction.
The movement of the rotor magnets is created entirely by the twist towards the narrow area by the gradient slope of the stator magnet wall.
At the spiral end the closest rotor magnet is tricked into a new loop by the electro magnet and the other rotor magnets is helping to push it.
The free ride rotational twist is calculated to be very strong. I have found it to be 49 ft-lbs at the weakest point and 57 ft-lbs at the strongest.
-
Honk,
I am going to go out on a limb here and do another post. A rarity for me. I have been looking at your design, and something struck me that I couldn't let go. To state for the record, I am a newbe at magnetics, but I know enough to get me in trouble like this. :) I have not done a full read of everything so forgive if I suggest something dumb or already implemented.
I am not sure if this will help with the flow of flux to the correct magnet, but I altered your blueprint to show what I mean.
Each magnet on the outside does not seem to be linked to the rotor magnet on the shaft effectively. (could be very wrong here) To correct this I suggest putting a wire/bar/steel/whatever touching the outside of the stator magnet pole (N) and going in toward the center of the motor shaft. This would connect (via a brush type connection since that is all I can relate it to in regular motors) to central plates that are positioned to connect/touch the appropriate rotor magnets inner pole (S). (bad explaining here-- see picture) The wire would go above or below the rotor so as to not interfere in rotation.
I colored each of the center plates a different color for clarity, but they are identical except connecting to a different magnet. similar color are the ones that are currently "connected" via a brush type thing. The plates would be spaced such so that as the center rotates, different bars would touch them and allow the flux from a specific stator magnet to flow more easily toward the correct rotor magnet and maybe reducing the pull on the magnet that has already passed it while increasing the pull on the one comming toward it.
This is just a half baked idea that came while reading. It may be total trash, but who knows.
Regards,
Nut
-
Thank you for your suggestion. I appreciate all input.
But this modification seems to complicate the motor just to much and I dont really see the gain in strength here!?
The steel bares you suggest must be thick enough to carry the flux.
And considering that each magnets is 8cm high would require 154pcs of 4cm high and 4mm wide bars on each side of the motor to carry the magnetic flux.
Seems kind of heavy and bulky.
The only feasible way I know to strenghten the flux path would be to add magnetic back iron or silicon steel onto the stator magnets outside.
It's not neccesary to have a return path for the magnets. Back iron is enough and I have already planned to use back iron on the rotor magnets.
If you haven't seen this type of motor run I suggest you have a look at this video. It might give you a hint on how it operates.
http://freenrg.info/Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi
-
Honk,
Maybe you should use an air coil instead of one with iron core. The magnetic flux from all the stator magnets closest to the iron core, will be "busy" with closing a magnetic loop via the iron core in the coil. The same will happen with the magnetic lines in the next stator magnets to come. This will in turn weaken the attractive force between the stator and the rotor magnets, and you will at the end not get the desied acceleration of the rotor to pass the sticky spot - which hopefully will be dealt with by the air coil. With an air core you unfortunatly must have more electric current to make the same magnetic flux, but hopefully the more spread magnetic flux in the air coil, will cover a bigger area, helping the rotor magnet to pass the sticky spot.
Should this be something to consider?
Br.
Vidar
-
No, I dont think an electro magnet with an aircore will provide enough flux.
The purpose of the core material is to amplify the induced flux from the copper wire and the
permeability of the core material determines how much flux will be created by the applied current.
Using an air core you will get a flux strength approx 500000 times weaker than using a Supermalloy core.
And another bad thing with an air core is that only the flux created at the coil opening facing the rotor magnet can be useful.
Nothing of the flux created in the rest of the air coil will affect the rotor, simply because there is no metallic core to to conduct
the flux towards the rotor magnet. Air is just the worst case material possible to conduct magnetic flux.
Yes, some of the flux from the closest stator magnets will leak into the electro magnet core and this will shift
the BH curve working point, but I still believe the gain in using a solid core of good magnetic properties is the way to go.
-
And another bad thing with an air core is that only the flux created at the coil opening facing the rotor magnet can be useful.
This is a good concept I think.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=368&highlight=#368
Your flux booster rotor can be combined with this design.
-
It's my pleasure to tell you guys that I have completed all the cad drawings of the F.B.D.I.S.S.M
The next step is to check when my laser friend have the time to cut the material.
There's a lot of parts to be cut due to the stacked build-up of metall plates.
I will also place several price quotes on the custom made magnets during this week.
Once the motor is assembled I will order the magnets and finish the final motor.
Meanwhile I'll focus on the Flip-Field Flux-Booster Controller.
I estimate to have it built and tested well before the motor is completed.
One of my suppliers have reported that he can get Supermalloy from USA but
it's expensive. He will see if he can get it somewhat cheaper from China.
-
Honk, you don?t use both poles of your magnets, so you are wasting 1/2 of the possible power.
Just redesign it to use both magnet poles!
Just use "U" shaped rotor and stator magnets or just use bar magnets with a core, so they are "U" shaped all in all !
Good luck !
Regards, Stefan.
I don't follow exactly how you mean I should do this?
Designing a dual motor using horseshoe electromagnets that are bent into a the pancake motor would be
a simple task to the design your are suggesting, I think.
Perhaps you could explain the "U" shaped rotor more thoroughly?
Considering this will be my first prototype I don't think I want to make it to complicated to build.
But if the design you suggest is easy to insert in the existing design I might consider your proposal.
-
Itis very easy, just use "horseshoe" magnets inside the rotor
and inside the stators,leave everything else like it is.
This way you get double the mechanical output power, cause
both poles attract !
-
OK, that sounds good, but for now I'll stick to the original design just because I don't
have the power to remake the motor again at this time. Today I sent the cad files to my
old laser friend to hear what he has to say about them.
If the motor works out good (OU capable) I'll consider the design you suggested.
Thank you / Honk
-
In the original design, there is only one gate right?
What about using several gates in a series, and of course use equal amount of coils - placed in the same place as in the original version - "behind" each magnet? And what about using several single magnets, let's say 6 magnets in one revolution with one electromagnet each - maybe a coil wrapped directly around each magnet? With neo-magnets I think the coil wouldn't destroy the magnetism below a certain limit.
I cannot see that this idea shouldn't work if the original design works. The original design is nothing more than a slow way to approach the opposite pole in the stator! The torque in such design is extremely limited due to the weak angle these magnets are set up with.
Do you agree Honk?
Br.
Vidar
-
I don't follow you.
What is this "gate" your'e talking about?
Could you perhaps explain more thoroughly or perhaps post a drawing?
-
Here is a bad drawing from paint- I have left the rotormagnets out:
The "gate" is where the rotormagnet leaves the statormagnets end of the track.
-
OK, I see what you mean.
In the original design, there is only one gate right?
Wrong, there is two so called gates, being the two electro magnets faced equally apart on the opposite sides of the mtor
maybe a coil wrapped directly around each magnet?
Using a magnet as electro magnet core will not provide powerful flux.
The permeability of a magnet is very low, almost like air.
I cannot see that this idea shouldn't work if the original design works.
The original design is nothing more than a slow way to approach the opposite pole in the stator!
The torque in such design is extremely limited due to the weak angle these magnets are set up with.
Do you agree Honk?
No, I don't agree. The angular force in a split spiral motor is not weak. It is really good actually.
The torque in the original split spiral design is calculated to be approx 40 to 52 ft-lbs. That's not very weak or limited.
You forget that you need the rotor need to build up momentum over distance to harvest the free energy.
If you fill the motor with to many poles you will get past a point where the Wankel will get more similar to an
ordinary electric motor. I believe the split spiral is the best design choice of the Magnetic Wankel motor.
The best way to enhance efficiency (COP) of this type of motor is to build a dual pancake motor using horse shoe
electro magnets. That way you can use the same two electro magnets to control two motors, thus doubling the COP.
Sorry for being so negative on your design comment. :-\
-
Directions of Magnetization
The HK manufacturer Magtech has a page showing Directions of Magnetization of their products.
http://www.magtech.com.hk/index_product.htm (http://www.magtech.com.hk/index_product.htm).
Other pages there give technical specs for different mag types.
-
Here it is.
The complete Autocad drawings and Mounting instructions on the F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
Anyone can get the parts manufactured by a laser or waterjet cutter company.
Please download and continue to spread the files among interested users.
I want to keep the motor totaly Open Source.
Also keep an eye on my posted Zipped Drawing Pack v1.0, now and then.
I will update the Zip file if any errors or improvements is discovered.
/Honk
V1.0 Original release
V1.01 Pdf and Gif file added showing the entire motor from above view.
V1.02 All drawings was made in scale 1:1 and this is now stated in every file.
-
Hi Honk,
very well done,
just make a "2 floors"model,
where in the upper floor you have all magnet poles reversed,
so you can couple floor 1 and floor 2 with some iron core pieces,
so you use both magnet poles and have double the torque.
Hope it gets clear this way.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Thank you for your input.
I have planned to build dual pancake motor like you suggestion if the current model is successful.
On tuesday a salesman is coming to my office to give me a price quote on Supermalloy for the electro magnets.
He's got chinese connections and I hope this will lower the otherwise expensive price.
-
Here it is.
The complete Autocad drawings and Mounting instructions on the F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
For those who don't have Autocad, can you save your work as a jpeg?
Paul.
-
Here it is. The continued development of the Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor.
Electro magnets added.
Steel magnet-holder added.
Please download the attached zip file containing PDF:s and DXF:s for examintion.
The rotor block holding the magnets securely in place will be ready in the next development phase.
Have you ever think, instead of using electromagnets, that are very close to the rotor magnets, and have induction problems, do something else. I'll give you my humble opinion. Instead of electromagnets, use moving magnets that are moved with a solenoid far away. The magnet will be pulled outwards, so there is less effect when the rotor magnet approaches the sticky spot. When the rotor magnet is at the sticky spot the solenoid will push the magnet inwards, so the rotor magnet will be repelled.
The moving magnet must continue the ramp when pulled away, so, when pulled, it must be further away than the last magnet in the ramp, and when pushed in, it must be closer than the first magnet of the next ramp.
I have done very simple experiments, but I have made a conclusion about the field strength. It decreases very much with distance, So little movement must be done with the moving magnets. I have tried pulling a metal bar from a magnet,and it takes some power. If a sheet of paper is placed between the magnet and the metal bar (paper thickness 0.1mm) the needed force is much lower. So I believe that the distance the moving magnet need to do, is not more than 2mm. Of course the magnetic ramp must have maximum distance difference from the rotor magnets 2mm. If you have problems with construction, with that level of accuracy, try to make the smallest difference you can.
The smaller the difference, the smaller the distance the moving magnets have to do.
That's my idea, hope it helps.
Kostas
-
Here it is.
The complete Autocad drawings and Mounting instructions on the F.B.D.I.S.S.M.
For those who don't have Autocad, can you save your work as a jpeg?
Paul.
Sorry, No jpegs. But maybe you can get an Autocad trial version, or even more daringly, try getting it through a torrent....
-
Have you ever thought, instead of using electromagnets, that are very close to the rotor magnets, and have induction problems, do something else.
I'll give you my humble opinion. Instead of electromagnets, use moving magnets that are moved with a solenoid far away.
The magnet will be pulled outwards, so there is less effect when the rotor magnet approaches the sticky spot.
When the rotor magnet is at the sticky spot the solenoid will push the magnet inwards, so the rotor magnet will be repelled.
Kostas
No, I have not ever thought about using a mechanical sticky point solution. :o
There is simply no gain in using a very fast moving object with lots of mass in the way you describe.
Just imagine the complexity of an mechanical solution pumping a magnet forwards and backwards in full speed at 6000Hz.
It is totaly impossible to make this type of design and keeping it simple. Every direction shift would consume heavy amounts of energy,
And it would be very very inefficient compared to a electro magnet of Supermalloy.
The solenoid your'e talking about have to be many times more efficient than the Supermalloy electro magnet
to make up for the loss of moving a heavy mass counter magnet at 6000Hz. It's impossible. 8)
And you would have to move the counter magnet more than a couple of millimeters. It's more like 2-3cm away to make any difference.
There's another thing to. You cannot change polarity using a moving counter magnet. End of story. Mechanical solution is dead. ;D
-
No, I have not ever thought about using a mechanical sticky point solution. :o
There is simply no gain in using a very fast moving object with lots of mass in the way you describe.
Just imagine the complexity of an mechanical solution pumping a magnet forwards and backwards in full speed at 6000Hz.
It is totaly impossible to make this type of design and keeping it simple. Every direction shift would consume heavy amounts of energy,
And it would be very very inefficient compared to a electro magnet of Supermalloy.
The solenoid your'e talking about have to be many times more efficient than the Supermalloy electro magnet
to make up for the loss of moving a heavy mass counter magnet at 6000Hz. It's impossible. 8)
And you would have to move the counter magnet more than a couple of millimeters. It's more like 2-3cm away to make any difference.
There's another thing to. You cannot change polarity using a moving counter magnet. End of story. Mechanical solution is dead. ;D
I didn't realise that you designed the motor to turn so fast. You are right. Mechanical solution is impossible. By the way 6000Hz/2=3000hz if you have 2 segments or 6000/3=2000hz if you have 3 segments. Best case 2000hzX60=120000rpm. Can you build a motor that turns 120000rpm? It must be amazing.
-
Sorry, wrong of me. I was to fast and sloppy when calculating.
The motor has 6 poles and I excpect the motor to free spinn at least 2000-3000 RPM
If I hit 3000 RPM then this is 50 revolutions per second. 50 x 6 rotor heads = 300Hz
300Hz is still to high for any mechanical solution to be effective. Don't forget you'll have to move the magnets at least 2cm.
The solenoids would also cause a lot of noise while operating the magnets. A terrible thing to listen to.
Any mass movement unless being circular is a total waste of energy.
The highly advanced Supermalloy electro magnet solution is beyond question the best and most efficient way to go.
You must also consider that I must be able to design and build the motor myself.
The mechanical design you suggest is impossible to build in an simple and reliable, yet robust way.
The timing would be the most tricky part, and sensitive to any external influence, like vibrations and shock.
-
3000rpm should be a quite suitable speed. I suppose the electro magnet must be trigged with a connector that is turned on/off in respect of rpms. Fixed 20ms, or what your goal was to have the electromagnet turned on, is one complete revolution of the rotor at 3000rpm, so you have to make a mechanism that turns the electromagnet on for a much shorter time as the rpm increase. In the other hand, the inductance of the electromagnet will delay the current flow through the coil, when voltage is applied. Depending on the load this magnet is going to have, and the time it is turned on, the phase delay between current and voltage can be determind. If the load is too low, the delay will end up with a electromagnet that does not have time to achieve enough magnetic field to push the rotormagnet out of the sticky spot.
Just a tip on the way :)
Br.
Vidar
-
I guess you haven't downloaded and read the drawing and mounting instructions I have posted.
It tells which Reflex Detectors to use when determining the position of the rotor magnets.
They are very fast and can read the position within 25uS.
The delay times is no problem when using the Flip-Field Flux-Booster Controller I have designed.
I have estimated the delay charge of the coils to be less than maximum 300uS, perhaps a lot lower than this.
It all depends on how the controller responds to the rotational induction of the electro magnets.
The timing of the electro magnets vs the rotor magnets is the least of my problems.
It's timed by shifting the position detectors along the track opening in the top lid while running the motor at full load.
Thank you for your concern. / Honk
-
Free AutoCad viewer software
For those who
-
Hi Honk.
I'm just wondering about how you are going to distribute the magnetic flux along each stator with that kind of shape. I wonder about this as you sure know that a smaller magnet which is approaching a long magnet are forced into the middle of the long magnet, and not necessarily forced to the closest end of it. What I mean is that the rotor magnet in your design in fact will deaccelerate before it reaches the closest end of the stator magnet, because the greatest magnetic attraction is not at the clostest end but some distance before it - however, not in the middle as the stator magnet is not in "parallell" with the rotation.
Hence, I think you have to add more energy to the electromagnet than calculated to force the statormagnet to pass that most attraction point to the stator magnets. Then you probably already have used that excess energy you, or Paul Sprain for that matter, are hoping for. Any thoughts about this problem - if it is a problem?
Br.
Vidar
-
Sorry, wrong of me. I was to fast and sloppy when calculating.
The motor has 6 poles and I excpect the motor to free spinn at least 2000-3000 RPM
If I hit 3000 RPM then this is 50 revolutions per second. 50 x 6 rotor heads = 300Hz
300Hz is still to high for any mechanical solution to be effective. Don't forget you'll have to move the magnets at least 2cm.
The solenoids would also cause a lot of noise while operating the magnets. A terrible thing to listen to.
Any mass movement unless being circular is a total waste of energy.
The highly advanced Supermalloy electro magnet solution is beyond question the best and most efficient way to go.
You must also consider that I must be able to design and build the motor myself.
The mechanical design you suggest is impossible to build in an simple and reliable, yet robust way.
The timing would be the most tricky part, and sensitive to any external influence, like vibrations and shock.
Yes, mechanical way has problems, but electromagnets have too. You know your design better than any other. If mechanical is out of question I don't have a problem with that. I only just tried to help. I still believe that the magnetic ramp can have small distance difference first-last magnet. But as you said, you want to make the motor yourself, so you may not have the tools to do mechanical work with accuracy of 0,5mm and higher.
Just remember, there is a huge difference in strength when the magnets are 1mm away than being 1cm. You may have the same power at 1/10th of the speed, so mechanical might not be a problem at that speed. (In case you get stuck with electromagnets, and cannot continue using them.)
Kostas
-
But as you said, you want to make the motor yourself, so you may not have the tools to do mechanical work with accuracy of 0,5mm and higher.
I have the tools but the complexity of a reliable mechanical solution is far more difficult to design than using advanced Supermalloy electro magnets.
Just remember, there is a huge difference in strength when the magnets are 1mm away than being 1cm.
You may have the same power at 1/10th of the speed, so mechanical might not be a problem at that speed.
(In case you get stuck with electromagnets, and cannot continue using them.)
Sorry, you are wrong about the huge difference in force between 1mm and 1cm. The distance you mention applies to small thin magnets.
You can see for yourself the difference in force between 1mm and 1cm on the magnet size I intend to use. At 1mm there is a massive force of 189,6kg to move.
At 1cm distance there's still 85kg force left to be moved by the solenoid. Not an easy task.
At 2cm there is still 1/4 of the force left to be moved, and that is a very heavy work to perform at 300hz speed on a rotor magnet
weighing 650grams, and each rotor magnet does weigh this much. The moving stator magnets would need to be of the same size.
-
I'm just wondering about how you are going to distribute the magnetic flux along each stator with that kind of shape.
It is evenly distributed by the stator magnets being equally strong of the same size and polarity.
I wonder about this as you sure know that a smaller magnet which is approaching a long magnet are forced into the middle of the long magnet,
and not necessarily forced to the closest end of it.
This does not apply to a situation where the rotor magnet is traveling along a gradient slope. You must not see it as linear magnets approaching each other.
In this setup the highest flux is found at the narrow end of the spiral where the magnets can meet together at the closest distance, thus seeking the most flux.
What I mean is that the rotor magnet in your design in fact will deaccelerate before it reaches the closest end of the stator magnet,
because the greatest magnetic attraction is not at the closest end but some distance before it - however, not in the middle as the
stator magnet is not in "parallell" with the rotation.
It will not deaccelerate at all. Haven't you seen the video I mentioned earlier in this thread? ::)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg56873.html#msg56873
http://freenrg.info/Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi
His magnets doesn't stop a bit past halfway as you seem to believe, simple due to the gradient wall of stator magnets.
It will however stop at the very end of the stator magnets, but the electro magnets will act as an extra stator magnet and this will trick the rotor into a new loop.
The gained momentum of the movement and the other rotor magnets pushing will help push the end rotor magnet into the electro magnet area while also getting attracted & then repelled.
I have explained this several times. And there is the video to. It's working fine for him, why not me? What is so difficult to get? ???
Hence, I think you have to add more energy to the electromagnet than calculated to force the statormagnet to pass that most attraction point to the stator magnets.
Then you probably already have used that excess energy you, or Paul Sprain for that matter, are hoping for. Any thoughts about this problem - if it is a problem?
I don't know the amount of energy I have to add to overcome the sticky spot, but it is minimised by the Supermalloy.
And I have no clue of there will be any OU with this type of motor. I just have the earlier report from Sprain to rely on.
His claims is 200W in and 11544W out. But I do understand how the motor works and how the OU is supposed of being achieved.
Simply put: 8)
The electro magnets have to be timed to feed the least possible power to the motor to keep the natural high torque spinning continue.
Forget all bedtime stories about recapturing the induced back EMF to achieve OU or other theories.
Recycling the BEMF will give a higher COP but its not crusial to achive OU according to the reports from Sprain himself.
Don't forget that if you recapture all of the BEMF you will get back pull on the rotor magnets. In real life you can perhaps recycle 10% at most.
It's the natural high torque at the highest usable RPM that is responsible for the OU claims. Not the BEMF.
I hope this clear things up for all of you interested guys. :D
Sorry for not being humble today! :-*
Thank you / Honk
-
Honk,
I have seen the video many times, and also your explanations, but there is a few holes in your explanations you haven't taken into account (That's how I feel about it, anyway - so never mind :)).
There is no guarantee that the video is not a trick - I can see a distortion every same place of the stator magnet. As it encrease the speed, the distrortion is just moved to another position. Look close and you'll see that the acceleration is also very sudden at the very same time this happens.
Well, so I assumed this video was a trick.
Anyway, an array of equal magnets will distribute the magnetic field in 90 degrees across the length only in its middle, and there will also bee the most attractive place to attract a smaller magnet. The flux regardless of magnetic angle is however even through the whole magnet array but as the angle shifts, the attractive force to another magnet will be less powerfull even if the flux density is the excact same all the way. So that's why I asked.
It will be interesting to see your final product anyway. Good luck :)
Vidar
-
Sorry, you are wrong about the huge difference in force between 1mm and 1cm. The distance you mention applies to small thin magnets.
You can see for yourself the difference in force between 1mm and 1cm on the magnet size I intend to use. At 1mm there is a massive force of 189,6kg to move.
At 1cm distance there's still 85kg force left to be moved by the solenoid. Not an easy task.
At 2cm there is still 1/4 of the force left to be moved, and that is a very heavy work to perform at 300hz speed on a rotor magnet
weighing 650grams, and each rotor magnet does weigh this much. The moving stator magnets would need to be of the same size.
Understood, good luck with your design.
-
I have seen the video many times, and also your explanations, but there is a few holes in your explanations you haven't taken into account
(That's how I feel about it, anyway - so never mind :)).
Perhaps, perhaps not. I have thought of this motor a lot. Time will tell.
There is no guarantee that the video is not a trick - I can see a distortion every same place of the stator magnet.
As it encrease the speed, the distortion is just moved to another position.
Look close and you'll see that the acceleration is also very sudden at the very same time this happens.
Well, so I assumed this video was a trick.
The video is no trick. What you see is just a video distortion. Look in your mailbox tomorrow. I have posted you proof.
Anyway, an array of equal magnets will distribute the magnetic field in 90 degrees across the length only in its middle,
and there will also bee the most attractive place to attract a smaller magnet.
The flux regardless of magnetic angle is however even through the whole magnet array but as the angle shifts,
the attractive force to another magnet will be less powerfull even if the flux density is the excact same all the way.
So that's why I asked.
Yes, you are right about the most flux being in the middle of the stator array, but you forget that the rotor magnets have no way
of getting near the stator in that area. So it dosen't matter in this case. The only way to seek the most flux is to rotate towards
the most narrow gap, and this gap is at the end of the stator magnets. The rotor magnet will not reach the same high flux levels
at the middle area. The gap to the wall is just to great. This is why it does seek to find the flux at the narrow end gap.
Because of the angled gap difference between the two sides of the rotor magnet there will always be a twist to the end.
It will be interesting to see your final product anyway. Good luck :)
Vidar
Thanks / Honk
-
Prices for magnets
A quote has come in from an Australian distributor. Prices are in Australian dollars.
DETAILS
Quantity - 8 Units (Rotor)
Size - 80mm x 38.1mm x 30mm
Shape - Block
Material - Neodymium Iron Boron
Grade - N45
Magnetized - Through the 38.1mm
Finish - Nickel Plated
G. S. T. - Not Included
Delivery - Not Included
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE - $78.00 ea (Plus Delivery & G. S. T. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity - 150 Units (Stator)
Size - 80mm x 30mm x 4mm
Shape - Block
Material - Neodymium Iron Boron
Grade - N45
Magnetized - Through the 30mm
Finish - Nickel Plated
G. S. T. - Not Included
Delivery - Not Included
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE - $14.50.00 ea (Plus Delivery & G. S. T. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Wow, pretty expensive. That equals to $2450 US.
I hope my own magnet request comes out cheaper.
I'll get the price in grade N38, N45 and N50, perhaps this week.
I sent the request to both www.magnesy.eu and to www.magnet4less.com but only Magnesy have responded so far.
They'll get back to me soon. Just to be pricewise I guess I will have to get more quotes from several other suppliers.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the updated Drawing pack.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg58338.html#msg58338
-
Yes I was shocked about the price, too. That supplier did know that his prices would be posted on an internet forum.
Perhaps it would be worthwile to approach the manufacturers directly to possibly reduce costs and as it seems that the rotor magnets are custom shaped direct contact with the manufacturer might lead to a better product faster.
The Australian supplier told me that machining neos would be hard to do if not impossible.
One manufacturer I discovered but have not approached so far is
[url http://www.magtech.com.hk/index_product.htm[/url]
On their rare earth neo page are additional buttons pointing to magnetization and dimension diagram pages.
-
I have now sent the magnet requests to a total of nine manufacturers, and also Magtech as you suggested.
www.magnesy.eu <--- They will deliver the magnets for $1915 US (shipping and Vat included)
www.magnet4less.com <--- No response so far
www.kjmagnetics.com <--- No response so far
www.cy-magnetics.com <--- No response so far
www.buymagnet.com <--- They will deliver the magnets for $1328 US (shipping and Vat included)
www.magnetsales.co.uk <--- They will deliver the magnets for $3405 US (shipping and Vat included)
www.supermagnete.de <--- They could not make the magnets.
www.magtech.com.hk <--- No response so far
www.ibsmagnet.com <--- They were not interested in making the magnets.
I guess we have a winner. -> www.buymagnet.com
Now I just need to get the price on Supermalloy.
I don't think the machining should be that hard. It's standard procedure to machine neos (using the right tools) into the desired shape.
If any of you guys reading this know any good custom magnets suppliers, please tell me of those.
-
I'm just wondering about how you are going to distribute the magnetic flux along each stator with that kind of shape.
It is evenly distributed by the stator magnets being equally strong of the same size and polarity.
Do you have a means of testing the strength of the magnets that you buy, to verify that they are the same strength? If there are slight variations in their strength, will that matter to your design? If it does matter, can the design be changed, to allow for the magnet position to be adjusted, to compensate for the slight variations in strength?
I've read somewhere at http://www.fieldlines.com that same size magnets that are nominally the same strength, often have slight variations.
-
If necessary I'll buy a gauss meter and measure every single magnet to match them best possible.
-
Hi Honk!
I just read you're already ordering the magnets...
I can recommend a manufacturer in Germany for you. Neotexx is the name of the company. I ordered some custom manufactured magnets from them some time ago, and they did a great job for a reasonable price, despite the fact that I ordered more uncommon ring sizes and quite small quantities. Also they were very quick and replied to my email within 2 days, as far as I remember. If the dimensions of your magnets are not too big, I think they will be happy to help you. I emailed with a certain Jessica, I didn't remember his surname, but she was helpful. So if I were to order custom magnets once again, I would sure to send a request for this company.
http://www.neotexx.com/
Also few more companies:
http://e-magnetsuk.com/
http://www.supermagnetman.net/
Good work on your design, I am sure it will run nicely!
-
deleted as it loaded incomplete
-
Another try to post complete text, my Safari browser seems to spit the dummy sometimes.
Magnet suppliers
Manufacturing neodymium magnets seems to be quite a hi tech business, a reason that most suppliers only offer standard sizes and small manufacturers buy in custom shapes, sizes and advanced qualities.
Quote: Machining
<Since neodymium magnet material is prone to chipping and cracking, it does not lend itself to conventional machining methods. It can, however, be abrasively ground, but only with the use of liberal amounts of coolant.The coolant minimizes heat fracturing and the risk of fires caused by oxidized grinding dust. <
Another Chinese manufacturer with Qc and advanced tech is:
[urlhttp://www.ndfeb-magnet.com/eprofile.htm[/url]
-
Hi Honk!
I just read you're already ordering the magnets...
No, I haven't placed the order yet. Still waiting on the best price.
Thanks for the other suppliers.
Actually I reguested a an quote on 200 custom wedge shaped motor magnets 1.5 years ago at both Neotexx and Magnesy.
Neotexx quote was at pricy $1640 US, shipping included.
But Magnesy was cheap at $515 US, shipping included.
Guess who got the order from me.
I hope Magnesy is still competitive in the custom magnet business.
They are reliable and always deliver on time.
-
Here are a couple sites you may want to check out for magnets.
http://www.armsmag.com/index.html
http://www.amazingmagnets.com/index.asp
-
Here are a couple sites you may want to check out for magnets.
http://www.armsmag.com/index.html
http://www.amazingmagnets.com/index.asp
Thankyou. I checked them out.
Quoted from www.amazingmagnets.com
"We are unfortunately unable to produce very small runs of products due to overhead involved."
"If you are able to use a quantity of a specific part, please let us know and we'll let you know what the minimum quantity is for a given size."
-
Wow, pretty expensive. That equals to $2450 US.
I hope my own magnet request comes out cheaper.
I'll get the price in grade N38, N45 and N50, perhaps this week.
I sent the request to both www.magnesy.eu and to www.magnet4less.com but only Magnesy have responded so far.
They'll get back to me soon. Just to be pricewise I guess I will have to get more quotes from several other suppliers.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the updated Drawing pack.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg58338.html#msg58338
If it works with neos, it should work with ferrite magnets also. Much cheaper.
Vidar
-
Now I have done some simulations on the Paul Sprain motor. My findings are not very suprising, but nor as expected. I made a spiral out of 22 magnets. A rotor with 2 magnets. The sample steps is in 15 degrees, one for each magnet. The end of the magnet array I did put pure iron which I turned into a magnet for 15 degrees - that should be approx 25ms in 100 rpm.
First I simulated the sum of all forces during one revolution where I just leaved the iron be iron for the whole revolution. The sum of forces is almost zero. Hav in mind that the resolution is only 15 degrees, so I did get +669Nm in total which is an average of 27Nm in one revolution. Taken in account that the most torque measured was between +80 000Nm -80 000Nm, 27Nm is as good as zero.
Now I turned on the electromagnetsimulation for 15 degrees. The sum of all torque is now -34 000Nm with an average of 1416Nm. Average torque is what that counts to calculate the energy output.
So then I did remove the stator magnets, and leaved the electromagnet alone. Guess what! Average torque of one revolution is 3250Nm.... Well, the corase resolution are playing with me here, so make your own conclusions.
PS! The motor in my simulation was made 5 meter in diameter and 1 meter thick, hence the high torque.
If you want to play with this simulation, a FEMM file are attached here. Use LUA script attached. It can be modyfied to suite your own measurements, but make the last iron piece in the stator into an oposite polarized magnet for 15 degrees rotation starting at 90 degree of the rotor and clockwise.
Br.
Vidar
-
I did a few more accurate simulations and got an average torque of (Resolution is now 0,5 degrees) :
8872Nm with the electromagnet active for 15 degrees revolution, with stator magnets
3901Nm with the electromagnet active for 15 degrees revolution, without stator magnets
I am simulating a very big botor, so this difference is maybe not more than the inaccuracy of the simulations.
Vidar
-
Hi Vidar.
I cannot tell if your simulation was any good or not. I don't know how to operate Femm.
And I don't know how you could simulate any torque without the stator magnets in place.
When the rotor magnets are out of electro magnet position you have zero stall torque.
Your simulations must calculate stall torque in various positions. when you do this you'll
see that using stator magnets will create torque to twist the rotor. Without the stator no twist.
You could use the original simulation file posted here to see if you get some other output.
ACP got 50.85Nm torque in his simulation using grade N37. My calculations is based on N45.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg54963.html#msg54963
It's not the first time Femm have been flawed in situations it haven't been programed to cope.
-
Hi Vidar.
I cannot tell if your simulation was any good or not. I don't know how to operate Femm.
And I don't know how you could simulate any torque without the stator magnets in place.
When the rotor magnets are out of electro magnet position you have zero stall torque.
Your simulations must calculate stall torque in various positions. when you do this you'll
see that using stator magnets will create torque to twist the rotor. Without the stator no twist.
You could use the original simulation file posted here to see if you get some other output.
ACP got 50.85Nm torque in his simulation using grade N37. My calculations is based on N45.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg54963.html#msg54963
It's not the first time Femm have been flawed in situtations it haven't been programed to cope.
I will simulate this once. It is just so many nodes in the drawing that it takes forever to calculate just one sample. It will take time, so I have to simulate it tonight and let the computer finish the calculations during the night. Probably I will sample just 60 degrees, at 0,5 degree resolution, as it is 6 equal poles in the rotor.
btw: Shouldn't it be an electromagnet at the end of each stators?
Vidar
-
Yes, but I haven't drawn the electro magnets in these drawings. I just wanted to see the stall torque of the rotor.
You can look at the PDF how they are designed and then insert them yourselves before simulating.
The blue area is just the winding. You don't need to draw that to perform the simulation.
-
Femm can't simulate this properly, look at the reszlts of the simulation, all the flux is concentrated around the ends of the spiral. Because the program is 2d it can't simulate the flux lines flowing under and over the spiral which is what happens in real life.
The flux lines have to complete a closed circuit because the program is 2d the only way the magnets can complete the cycle is by looping around each end of the spiral.
I allready tried some practical experiments, and from what I can see, the spiral behaves quite differenty than that shown by Femm, It has some torque around the whole spiral as Honk predicted and not just at the extreme ends as shown by the Femm simulations.
-
Femm can't simulate this properly, look at the reszlts of the simulation, all the flux is concentrated around the ends of the spiral. Because the program is 2d it can't simulate the flux lines flowing under and over the spiral which is what happens in real life.
The flux lines have to complete a closed circuit because the program is 2d the only way the magnets can complete the cycle is by looping around each end of the spiral.
I allready tried some practical experiments, and from what I can see, the spiral behaves quite differenty than that shown by Femm, It has some torque around the whole spiral as Honk predicted and not just at the extreme ends as shown by the Femm simulations.
Magnetic fields interact only in the same plane. Two magnetic fields that are crossed by 90 degrees does nor repel or attract, so 3D is not necessary. However I understand your concern regarding FEMM, but as far as I know, the magnet arrays, even if they are bent like a half "circle", it will behave as a long straight magnet to a smaller magnet. A smaller magnet will allways try to find the middle of the long magnet - an optimum resting point. As you can see in FEMM, there are few or no magnetic lines in the middle of each statormagnet array which in fact (as far as I can see) is simulating exactly that. Maybe I'm totally wrong - I hope so. Maybe Honk will succeed with his project :)
Vidar
-
A smaller magnet will allways try to find the middle of the long magnet - an optimum resting point.
If so, why isn't Paul Sprain magnets then focused further away from the spiral ending, than the video show us?
Well, just because the rotor magnet cannot reach a higher flux area due to the gradient spiral. It has to travel to the end to find the most flux.
If there was no shaft or the spiral was not gradient, then of course the rotor would seek to find the middle. But in this case it can't.
-
Magnetic fields interact only in the same plane. Two magnetic fields that are crossed by 90 degrees does nor repel or attract, so 3D is not necessary. However I understand your concern regarding FEMM, but as far as I know, the magnet arrays, even if they are bent like a half "circle", it will behave as a long straight magnet to a smaller magnet. A smaller magnet will allways try to find the middle of the long magnet - an optimum resting point. As you can see in FEMM, there are few or no magnetic lines in the middle of each statormagnet array which in fact (as far as I can see) is simulating exactly that. Maybe I'm totally wrong - I hope so. Maybe Honk will succeed with his project :)
Vidar
But magnetic fields in real life are 3d not 2d. The flux lines have to complete a circuit, they have to leave and enter the same magnet. In Femm this is only possible for the middle magnets of the spiral by running around the ends of the spiral and back again, This distance is too far, consequently the fields are negated. In real life however, the magnets in the middle of the spiral can complete their cirduit by looping under and over the spiral which is a much shorter distance than looping around each end of the spiral as in the 2d case. Long lengths of magnets arrays without gaps between aer not acurately modelled in Femm.
-
We have a winner in the magnet supplier contest!
And first place goes to www.buymagnet.com.
They will deliver the magnets for $1328 US (shipping and Vat included)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg58948.html#msg58948
-
Great Saving
By the way, buymagnet.com and ndfeb-magnet.com seem to be one and the same manufacturing company, Shenzen Shan, in China. They also produce small motors.
Will they supply the rotor magnets shaped according to the drawing? Are there any news on the laser cutting of the steel parts?
-
Yes, they are the same company.
But when I emailed ndfeb-magnet.com I got the reply from buymagnet.com.
It's probably the Shenzen Shan face towards customers.
-
I guess I'm ready to place the orders on the material I need to build the motor.
1) Magnets from China.
2) Laser cut parts from my buddy.
3) Supermalloy for the electro magnets (not yet confirmed price)
4) Various lokal parts, bearings, steel shaft, screws, generator gear.
-
Electro magnet core update:
While searching the Internet on more information regarding Supermalloy I found another material that ought to perform even better.
It's called Magnetic Alloy 2605SA1 from Metglas. http://metglas.com/products/page5_1_2_4.htm
It has high permeability, strong saturation flux levels, and is manufactured in large volumes thus being pretty cheap.
Iv'e seen prices around $20 per kg in small volumes. At larger production volumes it comes down to $4 per kg.
Today I requested a sample on this material to be evaluated in the pre-built electro magnet core I've been using to estimate the
power levels required to operate the motor. I hope they respond fast and really delivers the sample to the company where I work.
-
Sounds great Honk, I really look forward to your updates. Thanks
-
More news on the 2605SA1 alloy:
Today I was contacted by a representative for Metglas products.
They told me they would be happy to provide the 2605SA1 samples I had requested.
But the Longitudinal Field Annealed alloy would take some weeks before delivery due to exhausted stock.
On the other hand, the regular Non Annealed alloy they could provide overnight.
I will begin testing on the regular alloy and see the outcome. I hope for strong flux levels.
Then I can compare efficiency results to the Longitudinal Field Annealed alloy and see if it's worth the higher cost.
I guess Supermalloy is out of the game now. Extremely expensive and not capable of stronger flux levels than 0.8T.
-
Another report.
I received the Metglas alloy 2605SA1 but I was disappointed to see how thin is acctually is.
It is 0.0009" and to form it into the electromagnet shape I would like to test, was impossible.
I performed some more research and I found another alloy called PERMAX M.
The permeability is 110000 and it handles 1.5T saturation. I have asked for samples on this alloy.
It can be delivered in 0.2mm thick laminates.
Meanwhile I found out that every harddisk contains 2 plates of Mu-Metal alloy.
This alloy have high permeability at approx 150000 and handles 0.8T.
I managed to collect the old HDD:s at my work. During this week I will salvage all of the Mu-Metal
plates and then mill them into the shape I desire. Hopefully there will plenty of Mu-Metal.
I need to build a test rig to see what power levels I will have to feed to the electromagnets during the attraction/repel pulse.
-----------------------------------
Update:
I have now salvaged a lot of the assumed Mu-Metal.
There seem to be two types. One that has yellowish color, and another ordinary silverish type.
Are both of these types Mu-Metal? Or is one of them some other type of alloy, or perhaps just plain iron?
I ask you guys here. Some of you might know the answer!
-
Honk,
Some months ago I saw that material in my friend's workshop. To my recollection it was grey-silver in appearance. The yellow one could be just brass or zinc-plated steel. If no one posts a definite answer, you'll probably have to test both of them...
-
I just bought these mu-metal boxes from ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190177879791&ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:US:1123
When they arrive I will cut and mill them into an electromagnet core.
I need to perform the important electromagnet test to measure the required power level to match a solenoid to the flux levels of a ndfeb magnet.
Just to be on the safe side I have decided to use N24SH magnets in the Stator and N50 or N52 in the Rotor.
The N24 flux level is approx 1.05T and the N52 is 1.45T.
By weakening the Stator and increasing the Rotor strength it will be a lot easier to make the solenoid electromagnet match the N24 Stator magnets.
I have also three other types of high permeability alloys coming in as samples.
One of the types is very interesting, as it is capable of both strong flux levels and high permeability. A rare combination.
-
I better give you all an update on how the motor design is proceeding.
Early next week I will receive both Mumetal and Permenorm 5000 H2 in letter sized shets. They were out of type S4.
Mumetal at 1mm thickness and Permenorm at 2mm thickness.
I have found out that the material will need final heat annealing after being cut to obtain the full permeability.
I will laser cut the alloy into the desired test shapes and then the deliver company will heat anneal the parts for free.
When the Solenoid vs Ndfeb strength test result is ready I will know if my design needs some last minute changes.
I guess this will happen mid january. Shortly after that I'll order the magnets.
-
I'm very interested in this design Honk, Thanks for the update.
-
I am very interested in this design. I've read all of the posts regarding the FBDISSM and Iam still puzzled about one thing. How can the rotor magnets be oriented the way shown in the diagram? I've tried building a stack of magnets oriented with all of the poles facing in the same direction and they don't like it at all. they repel each other. Some insight would be appreciated.
Ray
-
The rotor magnets is no problem in this motor. They are located to far away from each other to be in any repel mode.
But the stator magnets, on the other hand, will be strongly repelled away from the closest neighbour magnets.
This is why I keylock the magnets into place. This prohibits them from slipping around and also from getting
janked out of place by the strong attraction forces between rotor and stator magnets.
It is no problem that the stator magnets are being repelled by each other. It will not damage them at all.
Once mounted all of the stator magnets will form a long wall of uniform magnetic field.
And then the rotor magnets will travel along this uniform field towards the narrow end where they would stop if it
hadn't been for the electromagnet that helps the rotor magnet past the sticky spot.
-
Thanks Honk,
I mistyped, I meant stator not rotor. Another thought, If the majority of work in this system is done by the interaction of the rotor and the spiral configuration of the stator magnets and not by the EM's then couldn't an electric motor or some other source of power with X amount of horsepower be connected directly to the FBDISSM without the EM's (in which case it would become just a SSM) and have a power output greater than X ?
Ray
-
Pehaps you need to clarify this to me!
If I get you right, then your'e meaning that motor connected to the shaft shall assist the rotor to overcome the sticky spot instead of a EM.
If so it must be pulsed at the end positions. But I don't think that will work any good. The forces are tremendously high at the sticky spot.
The braking is calculated to 350lb. Kind of hard and inefficent to overcome that spot by brute force.
-
Pehaps you need to clarify this to me!
If I get you right, then your'e meaning that motor connected to the shaft shall assist the rotor to overcome the sticky spot instead of a EM.
If so it must be pulsed at the end positions. But I don't think that will work any good. The forces are tremendously high at the sticky spot.
The braking is calculated to 350lb. Kind of hard and inefficent to overcome that spot by brute force.
Yes, that is what I mean. If a motor is used to overcome the sticky spots, the power that the motor produces in between the sticky spots is going to be added to the power produced by the SSM and is not going to be wasted. Excess power can be stored in a flywheel to help overcome the high forces at the sticky spots.
-
Well, perhaps that could work. Feel free to build it and please report your findings here at OU forum.
I'll bet my own money on the high permeability solenoid electromagnet solution.
-
I might just try it. It may be possible that a pulsing high permeability solenoid electromagnet is fractionally more efficient than a BLDC motor but considering the circuitry and control of the EM the motor seems to be way simpler for my money. Once the machine is proven, efficiency can be worked on. Be very careful assembling the stator magnets. Sounds like it could be dangerous. Keep up the good work.
Ray
-
Flux.Boosted.Dual.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor.Turbo ;)
-
Today I performed some more Solenoid vs NdFeb matching tests to see how much the sticky spot is weakened
by the applied parallel magnetic field. The more the stickyness is weakened, the more the motor output is increased.
My powersupply could only feed 180W into the coil but this was enough to slash the stickyness by one third.
I intend to use pulses at approx 600-700W and this should soften the tough sticky spot a lot more.
Perhaps as much as three quarters weaker if lucky. These test were made using an ordinary steel core.
Later when the High Permeability Ni-alloy core is processed and ready to be wound I will get even better results.
I'm slowly but steadily making progress in the FBDISSM development.
The Flip-Field Flux-Booster controller schematic is finished and ready to be cadded into a PCB layout.
This new controller will deliver heavy duty currents (60amps) to the Solenoids at very fast rise times.
Edit: Just to clarify things about the power consumption. The solenoids will only run at 600W for a very short time.
I have calculated the average ON time to about 20-25% for all six rotorheads in one revolution.
This will result in each Solenoid dissipating 120-150W. They will be fan cooled via inserted copper fins to help conduct heat.
-
Honk,
When you're finished whith this motor, could you (just as an experiment) maybe remove all the stator magnets and keep the electromagnet to see if the rotor produce less amount of power? Should be an easy way to determine if the motor goes OU or not with the stator magnets in place.
Br.
Vidar
-
Sorry Low-Q.
I will not perform this test. The motor is just to hard to build to be disassembled again.
And I don't know how you managed to simulate this type of motor using no stator magnets.
Without any stator magnets there is no stall torque. And without stall torque there is no thrust forward.
It's the releationship between Stall Torque at Zero RPM and the Zero Torque at Full RPM that
determines the capacity of an electric motor.
Quoted from another site: http://www.gizmology.net/motors.htm
Torque vs RPM
For permanent magnet DC motors, there is a linear relationship between torque and rpm for a given voltage.
The maximum torque occurs at 0 rpm, and is called stall torque.
The minimum torque (zero) occurs at maximum rpm, reached when the motor is not under a load, and is thus called free rpm.
The formula for torque at any given rpm is: T = Ts - (N Ts ? Nf)
where T is the torque at the given rpm N, Ts is the stall torque, and Nf is the free rpm.
-
Sorry Low-Q.
I will not perform this test. The motor is just to hard to build to be disabled again.
And I don't know how you managed to simulate this type of motor using no stator magnets.
Without any stator magnets there is no stall torque. And without stall torque there is no thrust forward.
It's the releationship between Stall Torque at Zero RPM and the Zero Torque at Full RPM that
determines the capacity of an electric motor.
Quoted from another site: http://www.gizmology.net/motors.htm
Torque vs RPM
For permanent magnet DC motors, there is a linear relationship between torque and rpm for a given voltage.
The maximum torque occurs at 0 rpm, and is called stall torque.
The minimum torque (zero) occurs at maximum rpm, reached when the motor is not under a load, and is thus called free rpm.
The formula for torque at any given rpm is: T = Ts - (N Ts ? Nf)
where T is the torque at the given rpm N, Ts is the stall torque, and Nf is the free rpm.
Wouldn't it be smart to make a module based motor, where the two magnet arrays are separate assemblies you can put in and take out as you whish? With the tools you have, that should be as easy as scratching your head. Or are you afraid the motor shows up more efficient without all the magnets? (I'm just questioning - I hope it's ok :))
Vidar
-
With the tools you have, that should be as easy as scratching your head.
What tools? I don't have any tools to easily make any mechanical setups.
When I need specific stuff like this I ask my laser friend to cut the stuff from drawings I provide.
And most of the times I have to wait for several month before he has the time to cut it.
If I pay his company it would of course just take a couple of weeks to get it. But I can't afford this.
Regarding the motor, I know for sure that you don't get any torque if you remove the stator magnets.
So I won't perform this test. I just don't have enough time to play around. I must focus on the project.
And you don't realise the forces within this type of magnet spiral motor. There is no way to remove any
module based stator spiral in a simple way once assembled. Each stator spiral is attracted towards three
of the rotorheads at 261kg (575lb) of force. I wouldn't be able to move the module, no matter how hard I tried.
Btw, it's always OK to ask or make suggestions. ;D
-
I look forward to see the result :)
Good luck!
Br.
Vidar
-
Today I performed some more Solenoid vs NdFeb matching tests to see how much the sticky spot is weakened
by the applied parallel magnetic field. The more the stickyness is weakened, the more the motor output is increased.
My powersupply could only feed 180W into the coil but this was enough to slash the stickyness by one third.
I intend to use pulses at approx 600-700W and this should soften the tough sticky spot a lot more.
Perhaps as much as three quarters weaker if lucky. These test were made using an ordinary steel core.
Later when the High Permeability Ni-alloy core is processed and ready to be wound I will get even better results.
I'm slowly but steadily making progress in the FBDISSM development.
The Flip-Field Flux-Booster controller schematic is finished and ready to be cadded into a PCB layout.
This new controller will deliver heavy duty currents (60amps) to the Solenoids at very fast rise times.
Edit: Just to clarify things about the power consumption. The solenoids will only run at 600W for a very short time.
I have calculated the average ON time to about 20-25% for all six rotorheads in one revolution.
This will result in each Solenoid dissipating 120-150W. They will be fan cooled be using inserted copper fins to conduct heat.
ain't you afraid paul sprain will steal your attract-repel idea and then patent it?
looks to me like this would be an easy task and then you can kiss your motor goodbye!
-
I haven't really thought about Paul Sprain stealing my idea. I don't believe he can do that because of this openly ongoing discussion.
If he want's to use this feature in his machine then it's OK for me as long as he doesn't prohibit me in my FBDISSM goals.
But you can't really use this feature unless you have access to the controller I have designed.
A heavy duty high inductance coil is just to slow to efficiently shift field polarity inside a fast magnetic wankel motor.
As soon as the rotor is attracted into place the field must flip instantaneously to brake the back pull from the stator magnets.
But it takes time to flip field using an ordinary controller. It could easily take as long as 5 to 10ms and then it's to late.
My controller will flip the field within 200uS, perhaps faster.
-
Hi all of you guys following this thread.
Here's a picture on the simple setup I have used to see how much power is required to weaken the sticky spot.
Tomorrow I will use a fish scale to measure the forces needed to pull the lever with and without the solenoid activated.
Btw, I made a small mistake when reporting earlier. It was not 180W going into the coil. It is 140W.
Considering I'll use 600W pulses in the motor I really look forward to see how this will affect the sticky spot.
I have calculated very roughly that 600W is capable of creating a surface flux field of 2700 gauss.
The field between the Rotor and Stator magnets is calculated to approx 2746 gauss at the sticky spot.
The Rotor magnet should pass almost freely. It does look good on paper. I hope it will look just as good in real life.
The magnets in the picture is grade N45, 40mm long, 18mm wide, 10mm thick.
The solenoid is 25mm thick, 27mm wide, 55mm high. (Wire included in the measurements, the core is equal in size to the neos)
-
When you use a fish scale, you should make a mark at every one millimeter (Or use a ruler), to measure the forces versus position. When you adds up all measurements, it should approx. be possible to calculate the total energy required in the coil to pass the sticky spot. If the sum in the measurements without the coil activated is greater than the sum of energy provided to the coil, + possible sticky spots, over the same distance, the rotor will produce more energy than it consumes by the coil.
Also remove the stator magnet, and only use the coil. And see if you can get the same or more energy out of the machine with the magnet attached (If the rotor is free to rotate). This will be an easier and absolutely accurate way to determine if the [funny_mode]F.B.G.T.D.H.S.A.W.N.I.S.Y.P.B[/funny_mode] will work in OU with the stator magnets.
PS! This is easy, on this test machine - no poor excuses this time ;D
Good luck!
Vidar.
-
Also remove the stator magnet, and only use the coil. And see if you can get the same or more energy out of the machine with the magnet attached (If the rotor is free to rotate). This will be an easier and absolutely accurate way to determine if the [funny_mode]F.B.G.T.D.H.S.A.W.N.I.S.Y.P.B[/funny_mode] will work in OU with the stator magnets.
PS! This is easy, on this test machine - no poor excuses this time ;D
Good luck!
Vidar.
Sorry to dissapoint you again, Vidar.
There is no OU to be gained from this test.
Simple because there is no long uniform wall of stator magnets, only the end magnet closest to the solenoid.
This test just show the energy required to soften the last permanent magnet sticky spot in the spiral..
When the field from the solenoid have the same strength as the neo magnet, it's easy to move the lever between
the two sources of flux. Btw, my fish scale is digital showing kg or lb. I will mark the measurements thoroughly.
The OU from a magnetic wankel motor is entirely dependent on the high torque free ride along the long row of stator magnets.
You will just have to wait until I have built the complete motor to find out if I'm able to make a self sustaining unit.
I have the generators secured. I willl soon build the controller. I will place the magnet order in a couple of weeks.
Meanwhile I'm testing some important parameters. I have found out that the solenoids in the posted drawings is to long.
I will change this before ordering the motor parts.
-
Nice progress too on this Honk!
I have a good experiment in mind to determine how much power you have to feed into the electromagnet for optimal & smooth operation.
Measure the distance between the rotor magnet and the closest stator in the spiral.
Fix one stator magnet on a test-board, and with a non-magnetic keeper between them place the rotor magnet in front of the stator to attract.
Then take the electromagnet and fix it near to the other side of the rotor magnet in the same distance.
Now you only have to slowly increase the input into the electromagnet and check it out how much energy you have to put in to pull the rotor magnet out of the stator's field.
This will be the minimal power input for a really good & smooth operation. Although somewhat less would be still enough...
To figure the maximum useful input, you can use your current test rig with the electromagnet at the sticky spot, and check it out how much input you should put in to pull the rotor out from the stator magnet's field. I think this value will be greater than the other, because of the distances.
So, after you have noted both values you can use any between the two for experimentation.
One last comment: If you fix your electromagnet at a radius which is smaller than the radius of the last stator, then a little bit less energy should be enough to do the same.
Great work by the way... It will be a nice motor for sure.
Good luck!
-
Thank you for your input.
I have tested various distances between the rotor magnet to both the stator magnet and solenoid.
If have noticed that placing the solenoid to close will cause to strong attraction to the rotor magnet
and this is hard to break. If I increase the distance by a couple of millimeters then it still have good
attracting and also good repel force.
I did another test as well where I placed a strong NdFeb on the back of the solenoid to increase the
attraction mode. This boosted attraction a lot but the nessecry repel mode was weakened at the same time.
But it wasn't to weak. It was more like an equilibrium state where the repel let the rotor pass freely without force.
These tests was performed using smaller neo magnets than inside the final motor and the solenoid power was only 140W.
But I get a good feeling on how to design the most optimal solution. The research and evaluating tests will continue.
-
have noticed that placing the solenoid to close will cause to strong attraction to the rotor magnet
True, indeed!
I did another test as well where I placed a strong NdFeb on the back of the solenoid to increase the
attraction mode. Doing this boosted the attraction but requried the repel was weakened at the same time.
Good idea. What about trying the opposite, and boosting the repulsion instead of the attraction? I think I would also tried this. When the motor is running let's say at 1000 Rpm, the rotor can pass the last stator by its own momentum. So giving it a stronger repulsion may be more effective than the attraction. Not sure of course, just an idea to test once you have the motor completed! ;)
-
I haven't really thought about Paul Sprain stealing my idea. I don't believe he can do that because of this openly ongoing discussion.
If he want's to use this feature in his machine then it's OK for me as long as he doesn't .....
Honestly, folks, don't worry about Paul Sprain. Here are his claims:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. An apparatus for generating energy, wherein the apparatus comprises:
A. a rotor movable in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction and having
at least one magnet affixed to the rotor;
B. a plate located adjacent to but spaced apart from the rotor;
C. one or more magnets affixed to and around an upper side of the plate and having
a polarity which is opposite to the magnet affixed to the rotor;
D. a magnetic field of increasing magnetic field strength which is provided by the one or more
magnets affixed to the plate, wherein the magnetic field is continuous except for a defined space;
E. an electromagnet capable of delivering an magnetic field and located adjacent to but not within
the defined space, wherein the device is in sequence with movement of a magnet affixed to the rotor.
2. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein the rotor is attached to a direct drive assembly.
3. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein a single magnet is affixed to the plate.
4. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein a series of magnets is affixed to the plate.
5. A process for generating energy in which a rotor is moved through a magnetic field in a generally
circular direction, thereby turning a shaft attached to the rotor.
6. A process as defined by claim 5 wherein magnetic energy is converted into mechanical force or kinetic energy.
7. A process as defined by claim 5 wherein magnetic energy is converted into electrical energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me which claims mean anything. Which claims have been
done before? It is all excrement.
Paul.
-
I don't worry about the patent unless I get prohibited in my goals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now some new sticky spot force info:
I have measured the force need to overcome the back pull from the last magnet.
You can interpret the numbers yourselves.
Test device: 1pcs of neo N45 at 40x18x10mm representing the last stator magnet.
1pcs of N45 40x18x20mm representing the larger rotor magnet.Twice the size of the stator magnet in depth.
One Solenoid using oriented steel core.
Core size at 40x20x25mm using 532 turns of 0.6mm wire, 9mm deep. Res 4.4 ohms at 6amps equal to 160W.
In some tests I placed a N45 neo on the back of the Solenoid core to enhance the electromagnetic performance.
I'd like to clarify that this setup uses 2 rotor magnets on top of each other. It's not the same rotor as the earlier picture.
Test results when moving the lever from the Neo into the Solenoid area:
No power and no added backing neo = 6.5kg force.
No power but added one backing neo = 5.5kg force.
160W input and no added backing neo = 3.2kg force.
160W input but added one backing neo = 1.5kg force.
Using an extra Solenoid neo magnet and feeding 160W into the solenoid will decrease the sticky spot force from 6.5 to 1.5Kg.
Pretty good results from this simple setup.
If I had used a high permeability core and used twice the current at 12 amps (600W) then it would probably drop less than 0.5Kg or better.
Ones the rotor have entered the solenoid area there is no back pull at all while the solenoid is active.
600W might sound a lot to you guys, but it is really not as bad as it sounds.
One must consider that every passing across the solenoid just take a couple of milliseconds.
At 500 rpm each rotor magnet will pass in approx 3.6ms. This is equal to 600W x 0.0036 = 2.16 watts to soften the sticky spot.
When I sum up all six rotor magnets I get an average power of 108W going into the solenoid continuously.
At 500 rpm: 2.16W x six heads = 12,96 watts. And 8.33 Revolutions per Sec x 12.96W = 108 watts.
-
Honk if you like progress! ;)
- Schpankme
-
Sticky Spot force update:
I replaced the 25mm deep solenoid with a 12mm deep (shorter) solenoid.
It has the same type silicon steel core as the larger one and same face dimensions.
I used the same 160W input power when activated.
Test results when moving the lever from the Neo into the 12mm Solenoid area:
No power and no added backing neo = 7.2kg force. (25mm Solenoid = 6.5kg)
No power but added one backing neo = 5.8kg force. (25mm Solenoid = 5.5kg)
160W input and no added backing neo = 4.1kg force. (25mm Solenoid = 3.2kg)
160W input but added one backing neo = 2.4kg force. (25mm Solenoid = 1.5kg)
As you can see the results became worse when using a shorter solenoid.
These tests have shown me how a Solenoid reacts to the fields of a permanent magnet.
In order to design the strongest Solenoid possible to help attract the rotorheads past the
sticky spot it must have the same depth as the NdFeb rotor magnet
E.g, if the rotor neo is 5cm thick then its field will reach out approx 5cm at strong flux levels.
This field will enter the solenoid core and get attracted to the field genererated within the core.
If the solenoid was made any longer e.g 10cm, then the 50% of the energy going into the coil
would not affect the neo magnet because the other end is located to far away to contribute any force.
The flux field of a solenoid is always taking the shortest return path, and this is actually inside the core itself.
This is the reason of solenoids having a very weak field at the ends, but the inside of the core is strong.
The next step is to test a Solenoid at 50mm depth to see if my understanding is correct.
-
Hi Honk!
Interesting...
I would thought it should work better with a shorter solenoid. Maybe the rotor magnet can more easily saturate the shorter solenoid's core, which is smaller in volume than a thicker one?
By the way, I noticed that you used only one rotor magnet in the earlier test, but now you are using two magnets stacked. This changed the setup and can change the outcome too! So because of this, I think you cannot compare the results.
Another thing... Though it is not for magnetic simulations, I have done some simulation of the spiral motor's principle in Wm2d, and noticed a few things I would like to question in case you have the spiral track completed or tested one before.
If you release the rotor from the starting point just after the solenoid, where will it stop? (without activating the coil)
Does it stop at the last magnet before the coil, or does it stop sooner?
And if you start the rotor from 90 degrees to the coil or even closer, does it stop in the same position?
I think these are important things to check it out.
-
By the way, I noticed that you used only one rotor magnet in the earlier test, but now you are using two magnets stacked.
No I didn't use just one magnet in the first set of tests. Please see quoted text from my earlier message
"1pcs of N45 40x18x20mm representing the larger rotor magnet"
The picture I posted was showing just one rotor magnet, but I did not use this setup in the solenoid tests.
I switched to 20mm thickness (2 magnets on top) before testing any of the various combinations.
If you release the rotor from the starting point just after the solenoid, where will it stop? (without activating the coil)
I don't know. I have no complete spiral of stator magnets. But I don't believe it will stand still simply because the torque
from the other rotor magnets well inside the stator spiral will thrust forward with great power.
Does it stop at the last magnet before the coil, or does it stop sooner?
Without speed it will stop a little bit, perhaps 1 or 2cm, before the Solenoid.
But at speed it cannot stop right on the spot. It will travel well past the last stator magnet but it will travel a lot easier
when being helped by the Solenoid. My wodden test rig show a great difference in how far the rotor magnet travels.
-
I just bought a gaussmeter at eBay. It's capable of measuring up to 3 teslas, both AC and DC.
Now I can measure the face flux on the solenoids and magnets very precisely.
-
No I didn't use just one magnet in the first set of tests. Please see quoted text from my earlier message
"1pcs of N45 40x18x20mm representing the larger rotor magnet"
The picture I posted was showing just one rotor magnet, but I did not use this setup in the solenoid tests.
I switched to 20mm thickness (2 magnets on top) before testing any of the various combinations.
Ok, I took back my bad words on that.
I uploaded the simulations in case someone would like to have a look at them.
These simulations cannot be compared to a real world device, only show a rough approximation of the main principle involved.
I found that in these sims, the sticky spot appears not exactly at the end of the spiral, but some degrees before. And because of this, the motor worked the best (per input ratio) when the operation of the electromagnet was asymmetrical both in timing & field strength, so giving a greater pull for more time, and a smaller push for less. This may or may not be true in a real motor, however I found it interesting.
I would be interested to know about the differences regarding these things, when compared to an operating real world model of the motor.
Have a Good work!
-
The motor worked the best (per input ratio) when the operation of the electromagnet was asymmetrical both in timing & field strength,
so giving a greater pull for more time, and a smaller push for less. This may or may not be true in a real motor, however I found it interesting.
Thank you Gregory for doing the simulation. This proves my own observations in the last couple of days.
For once the sim and real world is confirming each other.
While playing around with my setup I noticed the asymmetrical behavior and I made some changes to the controller to make it more flexible.
Now it can be switched between high currents in attract mode and a lower current level for the repel mode or vice versa.
I strongly believe this will boost solenoid efficiency and help me to find the sweet spot.
I have began prepairing the Mumetal samples I got for testing. I will cut it into pieces to form a magnetic core.
Man, is this 1mm thin mumetal sheet tough to saw... >:( It's like hardened stainless steel. My hands ache. :'(
The pieces will then have to be heat annealed in a special gas environment to get the high permeability properties of the final product.
It will be interesting to see the force difference when using a high quality solenoid core vs the oriented steel Iv'e been using.
Btw, which codec is needed for these simulation files of yours?
-
No I didn't use just one magnet in the first set of tests. Please see quoted text from my earlier message
"1pcs of N45 40x18x20mm representing the larger rotor magnet"
The picture I posted was showing just one rotor magnet, but I did not use this setup in the solenoid tests.
I switched to 20mm thickness (2 magnets on top) before testing any of the various combinations.
Ok, I took back my bad words on that.
I uploaded the simulations in case someone would like to have a look at them.
These simulations cannot be compared to a real world device, only show a rough approximation of the main principle involved.
I found that in these sims, the sticky spot appears not exactly at the end of the spiral, but some degrees before. And because of this, the motor worked the best (per input ratio) when the operation of the electromagnet was asymmetrical both in timing & field strength, so giving a greater pull for more time, and a smaller push for less. This may or may not be true in a real motor, however I found it interesting.
I would be interested to know about the differences regarding these things, when compared to an operating real world model of the motor.
Have a Good work!
You're right about the sticky spot. At the end, the magnetic lines finds its shortest way to the oposite pole, so there is in fact a strong counterforce at the very end of the magnet array. In the same way, it requires energy for the rotormagnet to enter the statormagnet again for a new turn. Sounds untrue, but as the magnetic fields at the end of a magnet array is going the oposite direction, there will be some repelling forces right there. This repelling forces will adds up to zero as there is the same effect after the magnet arrays end, where the rotor magnet will exit. So left, you have the solenoid and a sum of pure attraction.
I wouldn't bet a cent, but I like to believe Honk have something good going on here. Looking forward to see the results.
Vidar
-
Honk,
download this: http://www.design-simulation.com/WM2D/documents/wmdemo.exe
or this one: http://rapidshare.com/files/85555662/Wm.zip.html
to open the simulations.
I have began prepairing the Mumetal samples I got for testing. I will cut it into pieces to form a magnetic core.
Man, is this 1mm thin mumetal sheet tough to saw... >:( It's like hardened stainless steel. My hands ache. :'(
The pieces will then have to be heat annealed in a special gas environment to get the high permeability properties of the final product.
It will be interesting to see the force difference when using a high quality solenoid core vs the oriented steel Iv'e been using.
Sounds like a good piece of Man's work.
-
You're right about the sticky spot. At the end, the magnetic lines finds its shortest way to the oposite pole, so there is in fact a strong counterforce at the very end of the magnet array. In the same way, it requires energy for the rotormagnet to enter the statormagnet again for a new turn.
Of course, I know I am right. I just wanted to see how much time it takes to get a reply on the mentioned things! ;)
With other words, thanks for your reply & confirmation!
-
Here is the formula to control the "electromagnet":
IF ((And ( body[152].p.x < 0 , and ( body[152].p.y < 4 , body[152].p.y > -12.5 ) )), IF(Sign(body[152].p.y / 18) < 0, -6.5, 2.5) , 0)
I attached an image to make it easier to understand what is for what.
-
Yesterday I sent the Mumetal pieces forming the new high perm solenoid core for heat threating in a hydrogen owen.
I asked for maximum permeability and hopefully they'll reach 250000 if possible. When the pieces return I can finally test
the difference between ordinary Oriented Steel at ?=15000 versus Mumetal at ?=250000 to see the flux difference.
My new gaussmeter have probably arrived by then and I can test the face flux and also test the force gain in the wodden rig.
I've read that most flux is returned inside the Solenoid through the core itself because this is a lot better conductor than air.
This is why Solenoids have small levels of face flux on the outside of the core. It's simply because the core is not getting
saturated due to the very large airgap of a Solenoid. But using a high permeability core that saturates at a lower level (0.8T) will
allow for higher ouside face flux. When the core is getting more saturated, less flux can return inside the core material itself.
There's some other very interesting Magnetic Alloy materials that have great permeabilites at ?=1000000 and saturates at 0.57T.
Later on, if successful, I might have a core made to fit the motor. Perhaps it will increase the performance of the motor.
http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_2_6.htm
-
My new gauss meter have probably arrived by then and I can test the face flux and also test the force gain in the wodden rig.
Hey Honk,
When you ordered your gauss-meter, were you looking for a specific brand or specific features ?
- Schpankme
-
Yes, I wanted a gaussmeter capable of measuring both AC and DC fields up to at least 2 tesla.
And I wanted an attractive price to. Many gaussmeters at eBay is overpriced.
The one I bought at $240 handles AC and DC fields up to more than 3 teslas at very good precision.
-
The magnets have been ordered and Iv'e been promised delivery on the 28 of february.
Meanwhile I'll continue my cad drawings and solenoid testing.
Soon I can start building the Split Spiral Magnetic Wankel Motor and not long after that
we will know if there is any OU to collect.... 8)
Btw, I made a decision to build a lot bigger motor than the small 20cm rotor.
I believe that size matters in the potentiell OU capacity of this design.
The new motor is using a 60cm diameter rotor and a lot bigger magnets.
Expensive as hell, but I hope it will pay off in the end.
-
@honk,
i think you maybe thinking in the wrong direction! asimov, once depicted a world that was getting smarter by getting smaller, with more more power. i think this is the wave of the future. smaller but still with the same power! not that you are wrong, but i think, that you can benefit from looking at the concept even from a micro, standpoint. there are alot less energy requirements from systems on this level. and also alot less things to go wrong. just my thoughts, and some others! think about it for a minute. what if atomic powered devices fit on your wrist? where is the major radiation problem? how much radiation could be released from a device that was meant to run a wrist watch? not much. you see the point. how much plutonium to run a car? i guess not much really. the problem is in consolidating enough to run los Angeles then you have enough to blow up alot of people..
the problem is getting people out of the mindset that this might be acceptable. sorry i am not convinced that certain governments are of the same mindset. so let's just hold onto the knowledge. even though we have now discovered something even better, that doesn't have the same potential for damage to the environment strategically, however it has the ability to provide any one person with all the power needed to explode the planet.
do we release this knowledge? hmmmm!
lol
sam
-
@honk,
i certainly didn't mean to derail you with my pessimistic view. i only wanted to steer you in the direction of the micro, with your vision. it just seems to me it would be alot easier to make a flux boosted dual induction split spiral motor that could produce milliwatts of electricity than one that had to produce megawatts. you can take that however you want and don't let me hinder you from your dream, but the sooner you see the limitations of a magnetically driven system, then the sooner in my opinion you will start to see the benifits of the reduction of size. i would love to just have one of your units that could power a single light. or maybe my refridgerator even if it is a seperate unit. small though they may be.
lol
sam
-
It just seems to me it would be alot easier to make a flux boosted dual induction split spiral motor that could produce milliwatts of electricity than one that had to produce megawatts.
Sorry Supersam.
I'm not interested in a milliwatt unit. If I'm going to build this I will aim for kilowatts output, but I'll be happy if I hit 500W.
You see, if the output is to low you cannot create a self runner due to all frictional losses of the gear box, generator and other inefficiencies.
If I hit at least 500W output I can easily measure the outcome and perhaps even prove it by a self runner.
But if this device is working just as good as my calculations, I expect it to deliver approx 4500W at 500 RPM, perhaps more.
The average stall torque from the new 60cm motor is calculated to 135ft-lbs. The torque will decrease at speed and some is eaten by the sticky spot.
At 500 RPM I'll be happy if I can harvest half of the stall torque at 67.5ft-lbs.
And the output formula is simple.
Hp at 500 RPM = (67,5 * 2 * 3,14 * 500) / 33000 = 6,42 Hp
Hp in Watts = 6,42 * 746 = 4789 watt
If successful, whether I hit 500W or 4500W, then it's easy to upscale the next unit to meet the requirements of the average household.
But that belongs to the future. Right now I'm focused on finishing the present motor.
-
Another small but important update:
The heat annealed Mumetal samples will arrive early next week.
I can then test if this new core material really improves the magnetic properties and attraction force.
I have also increased the efficiency of the final Solenoid simply by swapping the round copper wire into square wire.
It allows for a lot better fillrate thus having less copper losses per turn ratio. Calculations show a 17% improvement.
This translates into a solenoid running at 600W and using square wire, will have the same strength as 720W input when using round wire.
But I haven't changed the small test solenoid into square wire. I will only do this on the final solenoids going into the large motor.
Elseway I couldn't compare differences towards the earlier solenoid test results.
I some other very good news to tell you guys.
Yesterday I applied my torque and Hp formula on Sprains small prototype wankel, aka Emelie, to see what the outcome would be.
http://freenrg.info/Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi
I know by fact that he is using 2x2x1" rotor magnets and I suppose he used the most regular grade N35.
From knowing the rotor magnet dimensions I estimated the real size and stator gradient of the entire motor.
His output claim on this motor was about 7W on the shaft at 90 RPM, and 3.1W going into solenoid. Meaning 4W surplus of Overunity.
Well, on to the good part. My calculations showed 7.66W output at 90 RPM. Now this is extremely close to his claim of 7W.
Just imagine my own design at the calculated 4.5KW output at 500 RPM.
Suddenly it seems even more likely I'm right on track due to the new numbers that prove his old claim.
Why shouldn't the formula be true on my own design when it fit's the Emilie. Soon we will know.
I guess the motor will be assembled and ready for testing within 1 1/2 month from now.
-
This is great news Honk, I'm looking every day at your updates. I agree also that bigger will be better, I believe the friction losses in a very small motor would not be much smaller than a larger motor, and as the larger motor is going to produce more power for not much more friction it will be more efficient.
One small question, possibly stupid, Sprain motor was running at 90 rpm, and you estimate 500rpm for yours. Why do you think Sprains motor ran so slowly?
-
One small question, possibly stupid, Sprain motor was running at 90 rpm, and you estimate 500rpm for yours. Why do you think Sprains motor ran so slowly?
Not stupid. Good question. ;)
Well, simply because his first prototype had extremely low torque. I have calculated the stall torque to 1,2ft-lbs.
It's the force of the stall torque that is the causing the free RPM. The stronger the stall torque, the higher the RPM.
And I know by fact that his motor was free spinning at 180 RPM at no load. The 90 RPM was at 7W load.
The torque of an electric motor is a linear line between maximum torque at zero RPM and zero torque at maximum RPM
From this I can cut the stall torque at 1,2ft-lbs in half at 90 RPM, giving 7.66W at 0.6ft-lbs.
I'm happy to see that at least you find my ongoing development interesting.
Not many other readers here at OU forum seem to care to much.
But I'll push forward and finish the motor and if I'm not totaly wrong on this I will get myself a strong OU motor.
-
@honk,
don't fool yourself into thinking, that you don't have a very intriguing idea! trust me you have my full attention, and my order. i would love the idea of a unit that can just power my whole house. i was only trying to point out that miniaturisation, can only provide greater efficiencies. which i believe acp also accepted as a given. i am sure that eventually, that will become self evident. it would really be neat just to have a unit that fits into the decorative scheme of my lamp that powers the thing. or a nano sized unit for the power supply for my dad's pacemaker that doesn't have to be replaced! thanks for all your efforts, in advance! keep up the good work.
lol
sam
-
Thank you for your support, Supersam.
Perhaps the magnetic wankel is possible to miniaturize but the magnetic force will decrease in a even greater order.
And there is the effect of mass to. In a very small design I believe the accelerated mass is to small to affect the sticky spot.
It's not possible to design a solenoid equal in strength to a neodymium magnet without using supercooled wire.
And when the artificial sticky spot is weaker than the neo magnets some of the gained mass movement must be
sacrificed to help overcome the neodymium sticky spot. This is the reason for me moving to a larger design. More mass vs sticky spot.
And the stronger I can make the solenoid at manageable cooling, the less momentum is lost.
-
Honk, In my opinion, your project and Jacks show the greatest potential of success out of all the different projects going on here on this forum. I'm not really that interested in the Al motor that everyone is currently trying to replicate, as it doesn't really show any potential for doing real work. Yours looks like it could be more than just a self runner, it might do some real work aswell.
What's most interesting about your project is that you are obviously a professional in electronics and engineering and have the skill to be able to build, test and report on the motor properly when it is finished.
-
Thanks Acp.
Check your inbox...a small, but big, surprise for you... ;D
-
Here's a pic on the generator I intend to use when testing the FBDISSM.
It's actually an industrial 3 phase servo motor at 400V capable of 3.5KW.
But I does work fine as a generator to.
I will use a simple chain gearbox to fit the generator to the FBDISSM.
When running at 1600 RPM it delivers 230V, 3 phases at 94% efficiency.
If I just want 115V output I can lower the generator speed to 800 RPM.
It clocks in at 19kg or 41.8lb.
-
Keep the Spiral spirit alive! I admire your model as I lurk in from time to time. I am quietly working on a permanent magnetic piston type design. If I can't get past my slight sticky spot, I will need a small 2 X 1/2 inch hollow solenoid to pulse at TDC.
Best regards,
Jeff
-
Honk,
Do not think people is not paying attention to your nice work. Lots of people are working hard themselves and following your efforts with your projects. You are one of the best prepared among us. I check everyday your progress and wish you all the best.
Ney
-
Here's a pic on the generator I intend to use when testing the FBDISSM.
... 3 phase servo motor at 400V capable of 3.5KW.
Honk,
Is that the MITSUBISHI - HF Series - Servo Motor ?
- Schpankme
-
Yes, but it's an older model that was replaced by a new motor.
And they let me keep this one for my own projects, lol.
-
I received the heat threated Mumetal pieces yesterday and immediately tried them out in my test rig.
The higher permeability of Mumetal gave slightly higher solenoid face fields, perhaps 2-5% more flux.
But I'm sorry to report worse result (between 5-25% lesser) compared to ordinary Oriented Transformer Steel.
During the tests I noticed the magnet being less attracted to the Mumetal vs Oriented Steel.
The strength of a N45 neo is approx 1.33T and this might be the cause of the weaker results.
Mumetal saturates at 0.8T and Oriented Steel at 1.9T. This means I need to tryout another alloy at higher saturation level.
Permenorm can handle 1.55T (more than the neo) and have pretty good permeability at 120000.
The Mumetal had 250000 and Oriented steel have about 15000.
I'll get some pieces of Permenorm laser cut within a couple of days. (It's hard like spring steel)
If this material doesn't improve results I can just as well use ordinary cheap Oriented Steel.
-
I received the heat threated Mumetal pieces yesterday and immediately tried them out in my test rig.
The higher permeability of Mumetal gave slightly higher solenoid face fields, perhaps 2-5% more flux.
But I'm sorry to report worse result (between 5-25% lesser) compared to ordinary Oriented Transformer Steel.
During the tests I noticed the magnet being less attracted to the Mumetal vs Oriented Steel.
The strength of a N45 neo is approx 1.33T and this might be the cause of the weaker results.
Mumetal saturates at 0.8T and Oriented Steel at 1.9T. This means I need to tryout another alloy at higher saturation level.
Permenorm can handle 1.55T (more than the neo) and have pretty good permeability at 120000.
The Mumetal had 250000 and Oriented steel have about 15000.
I'll get some pieces of Permenorm laser cut within a couple of days. (It's hard like spring steel)
If this material doesn't improve results I can just as well use ordinary cheap Oriented Steel.
Thank you very much for giving to us, all the details. I follow this thread, and it's like being there, next to you at the lab. All this information is useful, not only for your project, but for everyone that messes around with magnets and magnetic material. Keep on, the good work!
Best wishes for success, with this project. And again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for not being secret.
Kostas
-
Honk,
Sorry to hear that mumetal did not worked as fine as you would like, but you tried and at least now you and every member know the results and the explanation.
Perhaps the next alloy...
Good work!
-
... The higher permeability of Mumetal gave slightly higher solenoid face fields ... sorry to report worse result ... compared to ordinary Oriented Transformer Steel.
Honk,
You may end up with a layered hybrid design, example: mu metal flux density is about 4 times that of ferrite, about 3 to 4 times more ferrite can be used than mu metal.
- Schpankme
-
Yes, but I cannot fit a larger core than I intend to use.
Ferrite is out of question in this application.
And the magnetic attraction properties of ferrite is really bad compared to plain steel.
I have asked my supplier on Vacoflux48. It is a high saturation cobalt alloy.
It handles 2.35T at slightly better permeability than Oriented steel.
If they can provide sample on this material it might try it out.
-
Just curiosity, but I wonder whether you worked with metallic glasses, and tested how they work as an electromagnet? Perhaps they are not as good in saturation, but very good in permeability, as I read.
Metglas and such...
http://metglas.com/products/page5_1_6.htm
Here is a page which compares the properties of some alloys:
http://www.technicome.com/SM_alliages_1crist-d.htm
And here is a Pdf about Vacoflux alloys:
http://www.vacuumschmelze.com/dynamic/docroot/medialib/documents/broschueren/htbrosch/Pht-004_e.pdf
-
I tried some metglass alloy but the material was to thin to work with.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg61540.html#msg61540
I already got the vacuumschmelze PDF. This is were I look to find the alloys I try out.
-
I tried some metglass alloy but the material was to thin to work with.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg61540.html#msg61540
Yes, I remember and read that. Just thought you may worked with metglas in another application in the past...
-
Updated test results:
I have continued the Solenoid vs Neodymium magnet test configurations.
While waiting on the heat threated Permenorm to arrive I have built an ordinary oriented steel core 43mm long
compared to the earlier 25mm short core. I winded 648 turns of 0.7mm CU wire onto the new core.
This configuration gives the same resistance as the 25mm Solenoid, e.g 4.4 ohms.
And running 6 amps through the coil equals 160W, the same as earlier tests.
I used grade N45 as backing neos, the same grade as the stator and rotor magnet.
As you can see I have added the repel results when reversing the fields of the Solenoid.
The earlier 25mm Solenoid test results is added for comparison.
Onto the results.
Test results when moving the lever from the Neo into the Solenoid area:
No power and no added backing neo = 6.5kg (25mm Solenoid = 6.5kg)
No power but added one backing neo = 5.6kg (25mm Solenoid = 5.5kg)
No power but added two backing neos = 4.9kg (25mm Solenoid = 4.5kg)
No power but added three backing neos = 4.7kg (Not tested)
160W input and no added backing neo = 1.0kg (25mm Solenoid = 3.2kg)
160W input but added one backing neo = 0.05kg (25mm Solenoid = 1.5kg)
160W input but added two backing neos = Sucked in (25mm Solenoid = 0.8kg)
160W input but added three backing neos = Sucked in (Not tested)
Test results when moving the lever out from Solenoid area at reversed Solenoid field:
160W input and no added backing neo = Thrown out (25mm Solenoid = 1.3kg)
160W input but added one backing neo = 0.05kg (25mm Solenoid = 1.4kg)
160W input but added two backing neos = 1.2kg (25mm Solenoid = 2.4kg)
160W input but added three backing neos = 1.8kg (Not tested)
The sweet spot is marked in red. This small force of 0.05kg is very easily passed by the momentum of the rotor.
Durings these tests I have noticed that any tiny change in angles or distance will affect the results approx +/- 25%.
I have been very cautious when mounting the solenoid to make sure it gets placed as accurate as possible.
In the finished motor I can balance the attract vs repel force by slapping on various numbers av backing neos.
The sweet spot is found when the attract and repel force is equal in strength, thus making the Solenoid input power
equal at both negative and positive flux fields. This simplifies the controller design a lot.
The finished motor will also have access to 800W per coil if needed. The test rig just use 160W. And I do think I'll need
some more power in the big motor that is using really big magnets compared to the small magnets I use in the test rig.
But the motor Solenoid will be a lot bigger as well and this evens out the power required. Hopefully more than I hope for.
-
Some calculations and observation notes:
I'd like to add that the rotor magnet have a totaly free pass at 165W input per Solenoid in the latest set of tests.
The activated Solenoid on-time is approx 0.25% of each full rotor turn and this equals 82.5 watts going into the motor.
The on-time is not dependent on the speed, e.g it will remain 0.25% regardless of the RPM while running, with or without load.
But the calculated torque/rpm output from a motor using this size of magnets is most probably higher than the input.
The average torque under load is calculated to 3,13 ft-lbs
At 100 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*100)/33000 = 0,059 Hp = 44 watt output from the shaft.
At 200 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*200)/33000 = 0,119 Hp = 88 watt output from the shaft.
At 300 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*300)/33000 = 0,178 Hp = 132 watt output from the shaft.
At 400 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*400)/33000 = 0,238 Hp = 177 watt output from the shaft.
At 500 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*500)/33000 = 0,297 Hp = 222 watt output from the shaft.
You can see for yourselves. Already at 200 RPM I've got more out than in.
Don't forget how torque behaves in an electrical motor.
At No Load I get Maximum RPM at Zero Torque and I'll get Maximum Torque when stalled at Zero RPM.
And there is a linear relationship between these two points.
Meaning that I'll get Half the Torque when the Maximum Free Spinning RPM is loaded to Half the RPM by a generator connected to the shaft.
And I do expect to hit a lot more than 400 RPM at no load when the Sticky Spot is passed without loosing any momentum at all.
If I'll hit 1000 RPM at free spinning I'll get 222 watt output on the shaft when loaded down to 500 RPM.
But this is just some calculations on a small motor.
The big one I'm building is calculated to deliver approx 4500W output at 200W input.
-
Honk,
It sure looks very promising. I never saw a so technical project like yours.
I can't wait for the news.
Ney
-
Yes, you are right
Perhaps I'm to technical in my reports and this is confusing people believing in motors like the mysterious OC MPMM.
The average member reading this thread don't seem to care or understand the importance of the progress.
I've been thinking about taking a rest in my reports and focus on finishing the motor before telling anything more.
The rest of you that really understand and follow the development of this technology can email me and I'll give you an update.
/Honk
-
Honk,
I think you should keep your reports the way they are. People who don't like it this way just skip it. I am sure lots of people like it and learn with you. But I understand you are busy and need time to work on the motor. If you don't show up I will e-mail you to get the news.
Ney
-
Honk, please keep up the reports.
Your tests sound very promising.
-
The reports are very useful, but I think Honk, doesn't have time available, to send them here. He wants to concentrate on building the motor. This is OK, but leaves us with no info about the progress. I will not ask for a report, with personal e-mail. It's the same fuss for him to answer the e-mails, just as sending the info here. So I'll be patient, waiting for him to send, when he has time.
Honk, keep up the wonderful work you are doing.
-
OK, thanks for your positive words, the few readers I seem to have. :-\
I'll post an update on the result from the solenoid Permenorm alloy core during this week.
The heat threated samples will arrive on wednesday. / Honk
-
Hi Honk:
This "is" extremely good news. As for your reports, they should be done in the style and language that you are used to writing in. If you try and soften that, you may lose something in the translation. Those that have trouble with the terminology can very easy go to the tech books to find the answers.
I had planned to ask if you knew how to calculate what the force of the coil would need to be for said magnet to pass but now I have the answer. Many thanks for your hard work and yes, there are many following you just may be lurking in the background is all. Be well and prosper.
thaelin
-
Honk,
I follow your posts with great interest and appreciate the way you share your findings. I was just wondering if you have considered hollow steel cores. The attraction is not as great as solid steel but the results may be even better. I plod along with my pulse motor variations and I'm just waiting for my next spool of wire to try various hollow cores. Been told they work great for pickup but then until I try myself I can't confirm but try I will.
Again, thanks for your open display and sharing of info.
Carl
-
No, I haven't thought of hollow cores.
Wouldn't the attraction force be lesser due to the lesser permeability of the core?!
Anyway, thank you for the tip. If I need to change the present design I'll have it in mind.
-
Honk,
Noticed you are using a rather standard style electromagnet and it occurs to me that the attraction force needed to overcome the dreaded sticky spot can be done with the apprpriate pulse to your EM using a low permeability core and possibly even an air core. Have not tried attraction on such cores yet but it's a thought. Takes me a couple of days to wind my Adams style coil and I'm close to getting my first hollow core unit complete. Will test in the attractyion mode for you and let you know the results as it appears you are using the same 2 X 1 X 1/2 NEOS.
Plodding along,
Carl
-
I have tested an air core solenoid with very bad result.
The affect on the sticky spot was almost zero.
-
Honk,
Thanks, that's one mistake I won't have to make....
Carl
-
OK, thanks for your positive words, the few readers I seem to have. :-\
I'll post an update on the result from the solenoid Permenorm alloy core during this week.
The heat threated samples will arrive on wednesday. / Honk
Honk
You have more readers as you meight think.So am i very interestet in your work.
And i do not want to post useless comments on your forum.
But i enjoy reading about your progress.
So please keep it up and have succses.
helmut
-
Use a layer of stacked silicon grain oriented steel (0.35mm thick or less-good transformer steel for high frequency wide band audio transformers) to 'pop' the field flip between the two in the photo. It also provides a polarized shear which cuts and intensifies the interactive area, with regards to the 'flip' of the shear area..
turn induction into capacitance.
remember, a field must march up the lenght of the coil wire and polarize..thenthe circuit completes..then a current can flow, in a conductor..this propagates at light speed, or at the given rate of conduction in the given material.
This means an inductor is a 'near lightspeed' capacitor for that short interval before the 'poalrized' alignment is complete, and current flows. Laminates and the coils in use here will behave the same way.
Which is why tuning and timing must be so precise. Utilize the collapse of the organized field. This is how Joseph Newman's device works. Aetheric fields. or, background noise and random organization. The voltage field runs up the wire at near light speed, organizing the electron orbits along the way and when it completes the circuit at the other end.. conduction of the organized field occurs..and we have inductance/currrent considerations. JUST before that..we have a length of wire with an organized field which desires to collapse, if the circuit is not completed. He strengthens the field intensity via magnets and rotation..and away we go. Long wires, huge fields, rotating magnets...great timing..and boomsey!..we have horsepower out---with no draw. Just collapsing fields.
The same considerations need to apply to all magnet motor attempts that use laminates, rotation, coils, electricity, etc.
The thing to understand is that capacitance, inductance, voltage, and current are all actually the same thing, with different applications and existent reciprocals.
It's all application of a polarized differential, one with static and or elastic tendencies.
-
I also look forward to see the result. I however expect to see an amount of output that is at most equal to the input power, as the only thing that keeps the motor to run is the presence of a solinoid... This far I still don't understand how the magnets will add energy to the system. I would strongly advice to remove the magnets, and then measure the results. I would expect the output is greater. The question is when you have spent this amount of time with your project, it is for sure a risk to try something that might prove you wrong...
Never mind my scepticism. Good luck with your project, and keep up the good work :)
br.
Vidar
-
Any News?
@ Honk
It has been while without any news about your interesting project. I hope you have not given up and that the project is still going ahead.
ecc
-
Hi There Honk,
This has been like reading a true life detective story. Tremendous and congratulations with your perseverance and technical adaptations.
Regards
-
Hi all, long time, no update.
I can tell you that much have happened during my silence.
But I'm not ready to tell yet but it has to do with my design.
Be patient and stay tuned, there will come a full update eventually.
/Honk
-
Hi Honk
Very interested in your work and need to know the update
I love the technical info you give and wanna learn more
There are some place i don't understand
-
Hi and welcome to this forum.
I'm not ready yet to give a full update on my progress.
But I can tell you that it is a big motor, a lot bigger than previously discussed.
I everything goes like planned I'll give you all a full update with plenty of pictures and explanations.
Meanwhile you can all enjoy the picture on the powerful Flip Field Controller v2.0 capable of running
dual solenoids at peak pulses of 775V and 50 amps. It is also self-runner prepared, meaning that it
will run on closed loop entirely by the power feedback from the generator connected to the motor.
But I do wonder about the "places" you don't seem to understand. :-) hehehe.
-
Hi again Honk
Thanks for a nice picture. It's very interesting :o
First, Let me introduce myself i am one who interested with Electro Magnet Motor and
want to build my own generator to save my poor family.
Still i'm not sure which one is possible so i won't waste my money in my thin pocket and time.
Then I was suggested to your thread and think it's cool and promising but with my little knowledge
i cannot figure out the concept and plan of your Electro Magnet Motor.
If it won't bother you much, i really want explanation step by step about its concept, how to build your motor version
via mail or else that convenient you.
Regards
S.Kom
-
Hi.
Let me help you with some misconceptions.
It's not an Electro Magnet Motor, it's called a Magnetic Wankel Motor.
In my case the proper technical name would be Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor.
You should know that building one of these motors take a lot of money, and then you need
to be very skilled in both mechanics and electronics. There is no shortcut in these matters.
If you want a lot of power output, enough for the average villa, you need to build it really big.
Once I'm ready I will tell about my findings. Until then you will have to wait. Stay tuned. ;D
-
Hi.
Let me help you with some misconceptions.
It's not an Electro Magnet Motor, it's called a Magnetic Wankel Motor.
In my case the proper technical name would be Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor.
You should know that building one of these motors take a lot of money, and then you need
to be very skilled in both mechanics and electronics. There is no shortcut in these matters.
If you want a lot of power output, enough for the average villa, you need to build it really big.
Once I'm ready I will tell about my findings. Until then you will have to wait. Stay tuned. ;D
Hi Honk
Thumbs Up!
helmut
-
Hi Honk:
I will agree with the big part. If you build it small, then it will be a toy to play with.
If you want any kind of real output, it will have to be sized to handle the load you
anticipate with a little room on top.
Great controller as usual, looking forward.
thaelin
Hi.
Let me help you with some misconceptions.
It's not an Electro Magnet Motor, it's called a Magnetic Wankel Motor.
In my case the proper technical name would be Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor.
You should know that building one of these motors take a lot of money, and then you need
to be very skilled in both mechanics and electronics. There is no shortcut in these matters.
If you want a lot of power output, enough for the average villa, you need to build it really big.
Once I'm ready I will tell about my findings. Until then you will have to wait. Stay tuned. ;D
-
Keep up the good work Honk. While many of us arm-chair mechanics would love to post and offer help, my 2 degrees in Mathematics shows myself quite clearly to sit back and watch all the cool work of those on this forum. heck this might be my first post.....you seemed fluster a few pages back. Just wanted to show support.
;D
Keep on rolling!!!
-
@Locnar
Welcome to the forum!
@Honk
I also follow this thread... keep up the great work!
Jason
-
what happend if think in 3D, adding Z axis to the ramp system?
think in that please, left the 2D systems
-
Hi
Thanks all for great works and invention
I have little trouble open .femm, .fem file
could someone please tell me what software used to open it?
-
Install and use this program.
http://femm.foster-miller.net/Archives/bin/femm42bin.exe
-
Thanks a lot Honk for your very kindly help...I really appreciate your works alot
Hope you succeed your project soon and share us here the result.
Br.
-
This reminds me very much of the Adams Pulse Motor. There the stator was made of a steel rod. The magnets on the rotor were attracted by those rods. When they reached a parallel position, the copper coils that were wrapped around the steel rods were pulsed for a milisecond by a reed contact, resulting in repelling the magnets, passing by the sticky spots.
The E-Magnet was powered by a 1.5 V recharchable battery (at least in one test run). I think the BEMF then refilled the battery frequrently. Nonetheless it used to run only for a couple of hours.
I even found some pics of the mentioned experiment: http://www.melog.ch/adams/
-
You cannot refill anything from BEMF because there is always hysteresis, eddy currents and copper loss within a coil.
Every bit of loss is responsible for getting less power back than is put in. Thus no OU by returning BEMF.
I guess the Adams Pulse Motor just run for as long as it took for the battery to get drained.
What I don't really understand is why almost every inventer of free energy believe in BEMF being the key.
Almost none that I have read about actually connected a generator the shaft of their motors and then tried to
make it run in closed loop by rectifying and returning the generator output to the drive circuit.
The Bedini motor is propably the best example of not being tested in a motor to generator closed loop.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg25711.html
In this link they talk about measuring the Bedini motor shaft output. It is the same as using a generator.
I can tell you all that using regular soild iron as a coil core will only release half the input power back in the inductive kickback.
Using more advanced materials like MPP powder cores you will get a lot more back but never more than you put in. Never!!!
So far, the only viable free energy devices possible is the ones that use a magnetic gradient to accomplish torque.
But you have build it correctly and big enough, use good materials, and the real key is the timing of the pulse (when overcoming
the sticky spot) to not loose to much energy by unnecessary long pulses. And don't forget the generator...... ;D
This guy is getting close but his main problem is that he doesn't really know much about electronics. But his motor is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=mcorrade
-
Out of curiosity, why is it required in the design to use a pulley driven generator, why not design your own generator to operate off the same shaft? Are you using a ration with the pulleys? They cost you a lot of friction. If you do use pulleys, I suggest a timing pulley with timing belt instead of v belt. The timing belt can operate with less tension(belt friction).
I suggest that you incorporate a round plate attached to the shaft in the same diameter of the inner section diameter of the 2 rows magnets. On the plate mount one tiny magnet, then mount 8 hall sensors onto a fixed plate at 45 degrees exactly, whereas the rotating plate causes the tiny magnet to pass by the hall sensors.
The hall sensor outputs a pulse to a microprocessor which then calculates and displays on TV or LCD the average speed, acceleration, any sticky points along the 8 separate measurements it takes. The processor controls precision timing of the pulses to the electromagnets, with compensation for acceleration and decel.
With the processor, any control needed for PWM, pulse duration, phase control of electromagnets, etc is managed easily.
I use the processor called the Propeller by Parallax. 80mhz, 32 i/o, with 8 processors on board, more than enough power and speed to manage the motor with minimal power consumption. An optical encoder on a shaft could make for more even more tighter precision of timing.
If I were developing a motor from scratch, microprocessor controls and monitoring of feedback would be of utmost importance.
I have also considered whether the 2 magnet rows should not be capable of swivel, if not even motorized swivel for fine tuning and testing.
-
Out of curiosity, why is it required in the design to use a pulley driven generator, why not design your own generator to operate off the same shaft?
No, it's not required. Where did you get that idea?. You should know that I have more than enough labor in my motor alone.
Designing and building a generator as well will just take even more time. And the genererator is not the important key factor of the motor.
In later versions the incorporated generator is probably a good idea. But there could be other scenarios where a pulley driven generator is better.
-
You cannot refill anything from BEMF because there is always hysteresis, eddy currents and copper loss within a coil.
Every bit of loss is responsible for getting less power back than is put in. Thus no OU by returning BEMF.
I guess the Adams Pulse Motor just run for as long as it took for the battery to get drained.
Adams motors have achieved COP=8, but much depends on understanding that the pulse in the coil
is not to attract or repel, but merely to cancel out the effect of the rod once it has done its work
by attracting the magnet. The current in the coil makes the rod go away, if you follow me. The capture of
BEMF with capacitors and returning, often to a battery is important top teh COP outcome.
Paul.
-
Hi Paul.
COP8, this seems just to good to be true and yet it's forgotten by the world.
The energy community ought to scream of delightment and start replicating at once.
Do you have a direct link to the performance and accurate output measurements.
Having COP 8 would easily let it run in self runner mode without any doupts about the verification.
In the setups of the Adams motor I've seen there are large areas of just air without having the rods
close enough to be attracted efficiently. Seems like a lot of torque waste.
But perhaps I just saw the bad version!
Adams motors have achieved COP=8, but much depends on understanding that the pulse in the coil
is not to attract or repel, but merely to cancel out the effect of the rod once it has done its work
by attracting the magnet. The current in the coil makes the rod go away, if you follow me. The capture of
BEMF with capacitors and returning, often to a battery is important top teh COP outcome.
Paul.
-
Honk, your motor sounds fascinating. Thank you for posting your progress as you went. I went through the pages and was able to bring myself up to speed, though there are still things I don't understand about it; not that your posts are at fault for my ignorance. But I've got the main gist.
I sent you a PM about eliminating the sticking point in an attraction motor setup. Not sure it will help you at all, but it's something to consider.
You're helping a lot of people and I just wanted to say I appreciate it. Thanks again.
-
There are many people out there who are focussed only on devices which will power their home.
It is hard to see the Adams doing this. Also, there is a great deal of incorrect info on this motor,
possibly because it was an early one. The principle outlined above is vital to its success.
Here is a report of OU:
http://wmsn.net/Adams%20motor%20replication.htm
-
I'm dissapointed. :(
It's just some text saying it could be OU if properly designed. It's not a report on acctual success.
And the site is old, from back in 2002. If successful there should be more info available due to this long time period.
It seems like the regular OU motor report telling WOOW! here it is, but then there is silence and no follow up.
The reasons to this can be many but mostly it's is due to the motor not being OU when proper measurements are made.
-
Hey Honk any update? ;D
-
Hi all.
Here comes the update.....long time overdue....as I was finished this spring but
haven't had any time updating the forum with my findings until now, sorry for that.
It has been an extensive build, taking lot's of time and effort.
At first some pictures, and the story saved for last. Happy reading.
-
More pics....
-
More pics....
-
Last pics...
-
Here's a link to a selection of movies that OU forum couldn't hold.
Perhaps Stefan Hartman can download the zip and make it permanent
in this thread before it is deleted by Rapidshare after 30 days.
http://rapidshare.com/files/437158018/FBDISSM_Movies.zip
-
The story of FBDISSM development:
All stuff was lasercut for precision and speeding up development.
The motor was built like a pancake in layers. Pretty fun actually.
I tried several types of electromagnets, from narrow to wide with
heavy duty winding to slash copper losses to a minimum.
Each electromagnet was calculated to achieve maximum performance.
But the main problem is the induced voltage in the windings of the
electromagnet when the rotormagnet passes by.
This increases the input power by a least 4-6 times higher, perhaps
a lot more, just to be able to overcome the sticky spot.
I built 3 different controllers that recycled BEMF for max efficiency.
It made no difference with the BEMF recycling, it was still no good.
I even tried adding large N45SH magnets to the back of the solenoid
electromagnets but it had no effect what so ever on motor performance.
The videos show two of the many test runs I made during development.
The last test run with Solenoid v3.0 I achieved a puny 150 RPM.
Input power was approx 1700-1900W while the motor could deliver
approx 400-500W from a shaft load, meaning a 25% efficient motor.
My findings reveal the Magnetic Wankel being far from overunity.
I don't regret taking this journey as I have learnt a lot about magnetism.
I feel the magnetic cycle is 100% conservative as long as there is no magic
"pulse generators" coming along that can match the force field from NdFeb's
at low input while it doesn't get affected by the moving magnetic fields.
Regards / Honk
Btw, Paul Sprain has failed in his research as well.
See these links, they direct you to some statements from Terry Blanton.
His was one of Sprains engineers during development.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37212.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37213.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37251.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39527.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg36955.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg40636.html
-
Hi Honk,
Absolutly amazing job! Thanks for all your hard efforts during the years and unfortunately you have not got excess energy.
I wonder what your next build is going to be, for I hope you do not give up?
Merry Xmas!
Gyula
-
The story of FBDISSM development:
All stuff was lasercut for precision and speeding up development.
The motor was built like a pancake in layers. Pretty fun actually.
I tried several types of electromagnets, from narrow to wide with
heavy duty winding to slash copper losses to a minimum.
Each electromagnet was calculated to achieve maximum performance.
But the main problem is the induced voltage in the windings of the
electromagnet when the rotormagnet passes by.
This increases the input power by a least 4-6 times higher, perhaps
a lot more, just to be able to overcome the sticky spot.
I built 3 different controllers that recycled BEMF for max efficiency.
It made no difference with the BEMF recycling, it was still no good.
I even tried adding large N45SH magnets to the back of the solenoid
electromagnets but it had no effect what so ever on motor performance.
The videos show two of the many test runs I made during development.
The last test run with Solenoid v3.0 I achieved a puny 150 RPM.
Input power was approx 1700-1900W while the motor could deliver
approx 400-500W from a shaft load, meaning a 25% efficient motor.
My findings reveal the Magnetic Wankel being far from overunity.
I don't regret taking this journey as I have learnt a lot about magnetism.
I feel the magnetic cycle is 100% conservative as long as there is no magic
"pulse generators" coming along that can match the force field from NdFeb's
at low input while it doesn't get affected by the moving magnetic fields.
Regards / Honk
Btw, Paul Sprain has failed in his research as well.
See these links, they direct you to some statements from Terry Blanton.
His was one of Sprains engineers during development.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37212.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37213.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37251.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39527.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg36955.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg40636.html
Honk,
Wow! I am impressed with the build of your motor. I wanted to complement you on a very nice job! Even if the results were not what you hoped for, the pictures show the level of time and expertise you have put into this device. Great job.
Liberty
-
The story of FBDISSM development:
All stuff was lasercut for precision and speeding up development.
The motor was built like a pancake in layers. Pretty fun actually.
Just like Jack's motors, your motor is a work of art. I'm sad that it didn't work out.
-
This is great work, Honk,
Very seldom seen in OU something like that,
I cordially appreciate!
Like modest specialist by electric motors I do not want to fustigate about principles and design,
besides there are sevaral dubitable things for me :o
but one thing hits promptly in to my eye ... you use incredible thick laminations for cores of electromagnets (as stator).
Today even 0.5mm laminations are too thick when speaking about motors where efficiency is over 90% because eddy losses,
Perhaps when similar devices for an ´overunity´ then laminations need to be even much more thinner ::)
And ... shaft is too narrow for this large powerhouse, even ´pro rata´, not only mechanically.
But anyway - very nice work!
Took a lot of time and money I think,
Have a nice time,
Regards,
khabe
-
I have to chime in here and congratulate you too, Honk. Even though it didn't work as planned, that is really impressive workmanship. And, it still looks like it may be reconfigurable enough to try other experiments with without too much effort.
Best,
Z
-
I've posted a feature page about Honk's work at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Flux_Boosted_Dual_Induction_Split_Spiral_Motor_%28F.B.D.I.S.S.M.%29
Amazing workmanship.
-
Thank you for all your positive feedback and the Peswiki page. ;D :D
I'd like to clarify some issues regarding the functionality of the motor.
1) Yes I used rather thick lamination's for the electromagnet but it
didn't really matter in this case. Using thinner lamination's with somewhat
less eddy currents would only have made a minor difference, not huge at all.
It wouldn't have given stronger flux fields as the fields are limited by the large airgap
(distance between Em poles) of the solenoid style electromagnet. This applies to all
other core alloys as well, high permeability won't increase the flux due to the airgap.
The really big problem was the induced voltage from the passing by rotor magnets.
This caused the Em's to consume many times more compare to static mode.
If it had only been up to thinner lamination's or other alloys then it would be a piece of cake.
2) There was really no saturation to speak of. If so, then the motor would heat up quickly.
The only things getting heated was the electromagnets on prolonged run times.
The stator was cool, the rotor was cool and all iron and aluminum parts was cool.
I agree it could have been an open frame motor with minimal losses but it still wouldn't have
made any huge difference as long as the input energy is determined by the induced EM voltage.
If static mode takes 10 amps at 30V (300W) to push the rotor into next loop then dynamic mode
requires a lot more. E'g if there is 300V induced then it comes to 330V x 10A = 3300W pulse just
to escape the sticky spot. It might need a lot more than this, as the induced voltage increases
with speed and I never measured the EM voltage on each test run.
The thing is, no small optimisations would make a difference in overunity performance.
Yes, it would run a bit faster at the expense of higher induced electromagnet voltage and
this determines how much input power is consumed. The faster the RPM, the higher the input.
Swapping the EM core will not have any dramatic effect, it's still affected by the rotor magnet.
As long as there is no magnetic pulse device that can match the fields of the stator magnets while
not being affected by the rotor magnets.....then I fear the Magnetic Wankel will stay a dream. :'(
-
Hi Honk,
I have seen an interesting setup shown by allcanadian at energeticforum.com. He used a H shaped core for his stator cores and oriented one of the sides of the H to face the rotor magnets when it passed by.
See this link for the text and I uploaded the drawing here because it can only be seen over that forum if you log in:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2790-no-bemf-motor.html
This way the induced voltage by the passing rotor magnets could significantly be reduced in the electromagnets because most of the flux would go through the side part of the stator core where there is no coil winding. Maybe you could build such H core for the two electromagnets? Even a T shape would work I think if you position the head part of the T to face the rotor magnets.
rgds, Gyula
-
Sorry to say this but a Magnetic Wankel with tilted rotor magnets as shown in the picture
will not make use and develop torque from the attraction between stator and rotormagnets.
There will still be quite a lot of induced voltage, yet it will have another shape and level, but the
absence of heavy duty torque (for shaft connected energy production) will deteriorate any gain.
I've seen this configuration of core attraction in other attempts but induced voltage always wins....
You see, a tilted magnet facing an Electromagnet core is actually having a serious problem.
It will be brake in very hard due to both poles of the rotor magnet being attracted to the EM core with minimal airgap.
There is yet another problem, how will you pulse it....a negative pulse will both attract and repel the rotor magnet,
and the same goes for a positive pulse, both attraction and repulsion will occur. Gain zero.
If you delay the pulse until the rotor magnet has bounced a bit past the EM core, then all gain is lost due to the
heavy braking effect, all torque & power seen is being developed from the pulsed EM spot minus the losses. Gain zero.
-
Sorry to say this but a Magnetic Wankel with tilted rotor magnets as shown in the picture
will not make use and develop torque from the attraction between stator and rotormagnets.
There will still be quite a lot of induced voltage, yet it will have another shape and level, but the
absence of heavy duty torque (for shaft connected energy production) will deteriorate any gain.
I've seen this configuration of core attraction in other attempts but induced voltage always wins....
You see, a tilted magnet facing an Electromagnet core is actually having a serious problem.
It will be brake in very hard due to both poles of the rotor magnet being attracted to the EM core with minimal airgap.
There is yet another problem, how will you pulse it....a negative pulse will both attract and repel the rotor magnet,
and the same goes for a positive pulse, both attraction and repulsion will occur. Gain zero.
If you delay the pulse until the rotor magnet has bounced a bit past the EM core, then all gain is lost due to the
heavy braking effect, all torque & power seen is being developed from the pulsed EM spot minus the losses. Gain zero.
Honk,
In my experience, I have found that as long as you use a coil directly in a motor (with magnets swinging by), the coil will act as a decent power generator and fight the power that you are trying to feed into the motor to drive it, just as you have well said in your post.
If you can use a coil indirectly in the motor, (such as an actuator moving a magnet) I think you will overcome your electrical efficiency issue.
A working example of this can be found at http://www.dynamaticmotors.com (http://www.dynamaticmotors.com) in the motor movie section. It uses a speaker coil for an actuator, but is capable of well over 1500 rpm using a couple of 12" speakers. The dual rotor version utilizes an actuator circuit that is powering the 12 " speakers continuously, and still achieves about 70% efficiency. (But could run in pulse mode with a different actuator [pulse with magnet hold] and would most likely exceed 100% electrical efficiency, using an estimated 25% of the amount of input power as before) . Neo Magnets are in the rotor and stator on this style motor and provide most of the rotary force.
I have really enjoyed reading your posts and progress on your motor.
Wishing you all the best,
Liberty
-
@Honk
I am flabbergasted at the level of workmanship you have displayed in those photos. Just an incredible build.
Now I have only one question to start with.
Do you think those two coils can be pulsed enough to make the rotor turn?
wattsup
-
Honk ... what a great build, lovely workmanship.
Good luck in the future.
Gary.
-
Very nice build looks VERY expensive in time and materials. All you needed to do was use off the shelf 5hp induction motor for 150 bucks and it runs on just 15 watts in RV mode! Under tuned loading the efficiency is measured at 90-97.4%.
If you add neo magnets to induction motor rotor its an OU device its simple. Becomes Synchronous Magnetic Resonance amplifier but don't over saturate the cores! Will give leading edge power factor correction back into house mains where excess energy actually offsets meter usage and provides REAL power savings around 2-5Kw. Its loopable when driven by RV motor setup (extreme high efficiency) and use the SMRA as generator. (OU generator)
Why do you think RC model motors can be 5HP using 3 phase with neos at 90%+ efficient, 30,000 rpm and only the size of your hand??? People need to WAKE UP and not make the same mistakes and produce expensive boat anchors LOL
-
@bolt
Sorry but I do not agree with you about using off-the-shelf motor.
What @honk has in hand is not a boat anchor and i do not know why you guys are saying this.
The main problem is turning the rotor with the magnets and trying to pick-off energy output from those two coils. Since the magnets and the coil are at the same radius there is no advantage of leverage.
If you can make the rotor turn by pulsing the two coils as drive coils, then remove the outer magnets and remove some of the rotor magnets to tune the best rotation speed and strength, then you can make a second level where the rotor second level would have more magnets but in a smaller diameter where you can place more pick-up coils on the outer rim. If the pick-up coils are in a smaller diameter compared to the drive radius, then you can start working with a leverage advantage and work on the speed of rotation to maximize the output.
Sorry if this sounds complicated but the point I am trying to make is that if the design uses drive magnets and pick-up coils that are on the same radius, then chances are great that you will never see any major advantage.
I had posted something along those lines that will better explain it here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg261177#msg261177
Extending the idea further, now imagine if your rotor was shaped like a cone that starts 15" diameter at the base a goes upwards a good 15" high that you mark off into 5 levels of 3" each. As you go higher, you eventually get to the tip of the cone. So imagine putting the drive magnets on the rotor at 15" diameter level 1 that has corresponding drive coils on the outside of the rotor radius. Then you go to level two and put more magnets and this time you put pick-up coils (instead of drive coils) around the outer radius, same with level three, two and one.
All the pick-up coils in levels 2-5 would produce energy output and the drive coils being on the 15" diameter level 1 would have the greatest leverage potential to keep the rotor turning while the pick-up coils generate some drag but never enough to stop the driving of the rotor. Yes, each level would produce a different output level but being DC, not of it would be lost.
Anyways, I still say great work and don't give up. I am sure @JackH would be proud to see your works. Hmmmmmm. Speaking about @JackH, I never was able to reach his wife or his brother. I tried many times but there was no answer and I am always wondering where his motors have wound up. What a darn pity if his works are lost.
wattsup
-
Does it matter what the theory you have and hold on to so dearly has been a very expensive mistake. OU devices start with power savings and good efficiency with +90% efficient off the shelf devices are cheap and only need to find that <10% losses to make a looped system. Before others say this is not possible I tell you it is and has been done lots of times in fact there are more public signs "leaking" out on youtube. For every public disclosure there are 100 private ones. This public disclosures are a good thing! Of course some still believe these loopers are not possible but the water pump man driving a generator and lighting a 60 watt bulb is a good example of simplicity and ingenuity = looped system. Not forgetting the HHO German looper genset is another fine example. There are many others where the COP is not so self evident but have OU. If you are going to make a motor/generator then least do some homework on PROVEN designs and not on failed theories.
IMO mechanical devices are NOT the way to go although everyone starts with Bedini motors and learns to go solid state along the way. Whatever a magnet and motor can do the same thing can be done static there is NO difference whatsoever. Ask Magnacoaster and Kapandaze about this they both made motors/generators and gone solid state.
-
Sorry but your full of crap, Bolt.
If it was as easy as your claims (by imagined theories) then OU would be reality by now.
Of course there is no way getting OU by lowering the losses of a device.
When all losses are down to zero, all you have is a 100% efficient device, not overunity.
Making a self looped system would require at least COP 2 before it could work.
And what do I read :o :o :o :o :o
Do you actually believe that Magnacoaster have made anything but lies, talk and promises.
He's got nothing going. It's all a scam from a very lousy guy only being able to fool the ignorants.
When you actually bring up such theories and use MagnaCrook as example, then I actually believe
your the perfect example of an extreme free energy fanatic or just a simple hillbilly ignorant.
-
"If it was as easy as your claims (by imagined theories) then OU would be reality by now."
Of course its a reality has been for 100 years only greed and corruption prevent an open public solution. Its starts with energy savings you cant loop something thats waste 50% of the energy put into it. As COP > 2 i agree but it also means high efficiency device only requires a few watts to make up the systems losses. See water pump man he had to "tweak" the generator to make it very efficient by cleaning bearings of thick grease so it free wheels and tune to resonance using run caps so that it will run with enough OU to run a 60 watt lamp.
The HHO generator looped required tuning and matching of the generator load using a variac as tuning inductor into resonance allows excess of HHO enough to run the genset. Together with timing tweaks its enough to loop with excess power to run a flood lamp.
RV looped 5HP motors yield about 100 watt OU this has been done several times in fact to my personal knowledge and I am sure a lot more in private. Its only in the last few years people have started approaching resonance seriously as a means to looping and OU stuff. Prior to that still looking for swamp gas and "ether" charge as bedinni style BS to make something simple sound amazing and out of reach of the masses unless you were a member of the magic circle.
Magnacoaster principal works although stability still a problem. His is now a serious political problem as he ventures into commercial world he can not sell ANYTHING without FCC approvals and a ton of other red tape permits. The day he sells anything is the day he will be shut down by a SWAT team they are on standby. This is the price you pay for seeing $$$$$'s and the patent route instead of open source.
-
@bolt
I agree with your position but the main point here is how to help @honk with some more constructive ideas instead of just leaning back on a comfy sofa saying "it can't be done". There are always other angles to consider.
My attempt to explain the importance of leverage in these types of builds is only to show that there is another step that can be tried with what is already in hand. Trying to join constructive help with what is already practical and in hand.
Going off on this OU is this and that bit is simply just repeating what we already know. @honk already knows the cards are already stacked against him like we all already know this 1 million times over in whatever we do. So what is the point in rubbing his face into it is my question.
I think @honks build has the perfect size and weights that can enjoy some advantage with leverage, momentum, inertia, etc. He has one hell of a toy in his hands and the ways to play with it are many. And, the more you play, the more you learn. It's all part of the process.
What would happen if you had a three foot wheel that turns from the outer edge forces and you have a 4" center shaft that extends from each side outwards 10 feet. On that shaft you put magnets and around that shaft you put pick up coils. The rpm at the shaft will be lower because of the lower speed per degree of spin but if those coils are put into series then in parallel it should produce some interesting output while the big wheel provides tremendous leverage to counter any drag. @honks build should be able to take advantage of this with very minor changes.
wattsup
-
Hi Honk,
well done and many thanks, that you published also the first non working prototype,
so we all can learn from it.
Maybe you can just modify the electromagnets now and try
toroidal electromagnets like in an ORBO device ?
This will have NO induction from the
rotor magnets if you put 2 toroids in series out of phase but will
do the trick to bring the rotor magnets over their sticky spot.
Would really love to see this implemented at this diameter size.
Good luck !
Regards, Stefan.
-
Beautiful build, those magnets alone must have cost a small fortune.
Nevertheless, one look at those coils told me all I needed to know about your low COP. Winding coils with a very small number of turns and relatively large wire guage, guaranteed a low efficiency. It's not a large B field you need.
Using much smaller wire and a hundred times more turns you could have used 1/10th the power and generated a large H field instead. Even driving the coils with 200 watts you could recapture most of it back with the right kind of recovery circuit.
All you did was spend a lot of time and money to prove the coils you designed didn't work efficiently. Why stop there? Why not try a pair of high H field coils. Use a much smaller diameter core with a large steel cap on the end facing the rotor. Then pack the space the coil fits in with as many turns as you can. Use 26 or 28 awg, and wire the two coils in series. Start with a high voltage pulse, around 200 VDC, and work up from there. Your COP should improve dramatically.
But then again, maybe you really didn't want it to work in the first place...
Ted
-
@ all.
I'm sorry to say this but I'm finished working on the magnetic wankel idea.
It won't work, no matter what is tried, simply due to the magnetic cycle being 100% conservative.
Perhaps you never read the statements from Terry that I posted, (Paul Sprains engineer)
They also found it being conservative. In every case...and they had enormous financial and intellectual resources to spend.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg40636.html
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3456.msg267144#msg267144
Quote:
I can tell you that, at the end of M International, LLC, I was given free
reign to instruct the lab to perform many experiments. We did Bedini,
shields, pivoting mags while rotating, static push-pulls, ("And then" from
"Dude, Where's My Car?") and found the magnetic field was conservative.
In every case.
I assure you that the magnetic cycle is conservative. No pulse motor,
no pure magnet motor nor any combination will save us from the oilies.
Terry
End Quote:
So there will be no more Wankel re-builds due to these facts.
It would only spend my time and money and not give anything back but grey hairs.
The only thing that could awake my interest is if there came along a magnetic pulse
device that only consumed a fraction of an ordinary electromagnet while not being
affected by any induced magnetic field. But I don't think there will ever be such a thing.
And please don't tell me to try a piston with a magnet for the pulsing. It simply won't work.
All types of magnetic fields, pulsed, static or moving, is 100% conservative.
Physics is right and there simply is no conspiracy.
It makes me sad as I really wanted overunity come true. :'( :'( :'(
-
@ all.
I'm sorry to say this but I'm finished working on the magnetic wankel idea.
It won't work, no matter what is tried, simply due to the magnetic cycle being 100% conservative.
Perhaps you never read the statements from Terry that I posted, (Paul Sprains engineer)
They also found it being conservative. In every case...and they had enormous financial and intellectual resources to spend.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg40636.html
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3456.msg267144#msg267144
Quote:
I can tell you that, at the end of M International, LLC, I was given free
reign to instruct the lab to perform many experiments. We did Bedini,
shields, pivoting mags while rotating, static push-pulls, ("And then" from
"Dude, Where's My Car?") and found the magnetic field was conservative.
In every case.
I assure you that the magnetic cycle is conservative. No pulse motor,
no pure magnet motor nor any combination will save us from the oilies.
Terry
End Quote:
So there will be no more Wankel re-builds due to these facts.
It would only spend my time and money and not give anything back but grey hairs.
The only thing that could awake my interest is if there came along a magnetic pulse
device that only consumed a fraction of an ordinary electromagnet while not being
affected by any induced magnetic field. But I don't think there will ever be such a thing.
And please don't tell me to try a piston with a magnet for the pulsing. It simply won't work.
All types of magnetic fields, pulsed, static or moving, is 100% conservative.
Physics is right and there simply is no conspiracy.
It makes me sad as I really wanted overunity come true. :'( :'( :'(
I agree; as long as one tries things the way physics expects it to be tried, the above quote is true.
-
I assure you that the magnetic cycle is conservative. No pulse motor,
no pure magnet motor nor any combination will save us from the oilies.
Terry
What about the Jim Watson/ John Bedini motor?
-
Honk,
Paul Sprain asked me privately how to suppress the BackEMF of his huge coils.
It seemed to me that he had not heard of a freewheel diode before, so I wonder
how good his electronic control circuits were...and why he did not use
toroidal coils in series out of phase like in the Orbo ?
Why don´t you try 2 toroidal coils in series and 180 degrees out of phase as in the Orbo ?
This will definately NOT induce any current inside the electromagnets,
so you can switch with very low energy input pulses .
Surely you will have then to match the magnet track to the toroidal
electromagnet coils release forces, so the airgaps have to be adjusted,
so the electrical pulse
for the toroids will be enough to overcome the sticky spot.
Use lots of fine wire diameter and high drive voltage,
think Newman coil principle.
ALso you did not use any heavy flywheel, which I guess is a must in
such devices to help you get over the sticky spot via the help of inertia.
Regards, Stefan.
-
The problem lies in the applied magnetic field from the electromagnets.
In order to bring the motor into overunity the EM's, Toroid's or not, must equalise
the sticky spot by applying a nearly as strong field as the NdFebs and this is
of course impossible. The gain from the gradient slope is therefore lost at exit.
I can say by 100% certainty that the super puny field from a closed loop toroid
cannot bridge the gap in a magnetic Wankel. I don't need to spend time on this.
The toroidal solution in Steorn cannot in any way be compared to the needs of a Wankel.
Steorn has no permanent magnets next to their toroid's that has to be fought against.
A toroidal core has all of its field within the core and it's extremely weak outside.
This is the benefits of toroidal designs. Simply no magnetic EMI or losses due to airgaps.
-
The problem lies in the applied magnetic field from the electromagnets.
In order to bring the motor into overunity the EM's, Toroid's or not, must equalise
the sticky spot by applying a nearly as strong field as the NdFebs and this is
of course impossible. The gain from the gradient slope is therefore lost at exit.
I can say by 100% certainty that the super puny field from a closed loop toroid
cannot bridge the gap in a magnetic Wankel. I don't need to spend time on this.
The toroidal solution in Steorn cannot in any way be compared to the needs of a Wankel.
Steorn has no permanent magnets next to their toroid's that has to be fought against.
A toroidal core has all of its field within the core and it's extremely weak outside.
This is the benefits of toroidal designs. Simply no magnetic EMI or losses due to airgaps.
Agree with Honk on this.
The toroid core of the toroid/coil assy. would have to attract the rotor magnet away from the strongest magnet on the stator at the end of the spiral. This would not be very likely to work.
A moving/switching magnet (on the stator or rotor) in my experience would be the most electrically efficient way to get past the magnetic lock at the end of magnetic travel, with the least input power required. Unfortunately the spiral motor is a design that is not well suited or structured for using this method of switching.
Liberty
-
Honk, just to tell you I sent a PM.
Ney
-
@Honk: Don't give up!
Probably here you will find the clue?
http://www.syscoil.org/medias/storages/user_3/wankel.pps
regards,
uu
-
Question: Why only one magnet on the rotor?
The more magnets are pulled/pushed by the spiral magnets, the bigger the force to overcome the sticky point.
You just have to make sure, that the distance between the magnets on the rotor is bigger than the distance between the first magnet and the sticky point magnet- to have only one magnet over the sticky point, while all the others are trying to push/pull...
Maybe the only reason why there is no OU rebuild is because no one tries it on a bigger scale- d>1m or even greater, to have as many rotor magnets as possible.
Or am i wrong?
-
Question: Why only one magnet on the rotor?
The more magnets are pulled/pushed by the spiral magnets, the bigger the force to overcome the sticky point.
You just have to make sure, that the distance between the magnets on the rotor is bigger than the distance between the first magnet and the sticky point magnet- to have only one magnet over the sticky point, while all the others are trying to push/pull...
Maybe the only reason why there is no OU rebuild is because no one tries it on a bigger scale- d>1m or even greater, to have as many rotor magnets as possible.
Or am i wrong?
By multiply the magnets, you just multiply the impossibilities. I have said this befor, but I'll say it again: If one magnet doesn't work, several magnets doesn't work.
The conservatism in magnets is the main and only problem. But that doesn't mean we shall stop trying and experimenting with them.
Vidar
-
Question: Why only one magnet on the rotor?
You are wrong. I used 6 rotor magnets. Look closer at the pictures again.
And it did nothing more than consume even more power by the electromagnets.
Maybe the only reason why there is no OU rebuild is because no one tries it on a bigger
scale, d>1m or even greater, to have as many rotor magnets as possible.
Or am i wrong?
Yes, you are wrong again.
Size doesn't matter. It has been tried by the famous Paul Sprain. But it did not help him at all.
Magnetism is 100% conservative and physicists have been teaching us this lesson for 100 years.
It's time for us to start listening better as they are absolutely right about this.
-
Probably here you will find the clue?
http://www.syscoil.org/medias/storages/user_3/wankel.pps
Some people might not have, or want to install Micro$haft's "Office" to see that.
it can be viewed online here:
http://www.viewdocsonline.com/
and exported as a PDF as well.
Hope that helps.
-
I have already read this document ages ago. ;) :D
And neither of the guys behind the info have ever built any working Magnetic Wankel.
I have read several other releases from this Ted Loder and Thomas Valone where they discuss
certain aspects and possibilities but so far that their theories are based an faulty perceptions.
The same goes for Mr Bearden and his Wankel attempts. It simply won't work. :'(
Btw, Terry Blanton has released some new and more detailed info on Paul Sprains Wankel story.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46786.html
-
@Honk:
The problem is that we all know the trouth, but refuse to accept it, so we keep trying the impossible. However, even if the primary goal isn't met by all trials and errors, we do learn much about magnetism (and other stuff), and that experience will guide us to great ideas in other fields.
What you have learned with your project I'll bet is useful in other fields within the alternative energy category.
So you have achieved much more than many others have. You had a plan, you did that plan, and learned from it. While other people have their theories and claims about true working OU machines - but no working hardware - and those men will never experience progress. What you have done is great, even if it did not work. So 10 points to you ;)
Vidar
-
Thank you very much for those warm words, Low-Q.
Yes, I have learnt a lot from this and it's useful both at work and for my hobbies.
I'm now able to see the deeper into the obscure but true nature of physics.
-
By multiply the magnets, you just multiply the impossibilities. I have said this befor, but I'll say it again: If one magnet doesn't work, several magnets doesn't work.
How come? I can't follow you on that one.
If i have one magnet at the sticky point and (let's assume) ten pushing/pulling the wheel forward, then this must make a difference.
Analogy: if i alone can not pull a truck, then my power multiplied (me with nine friends pulling) just multiplies the impossibility?
@Honk:
sorry, i did not clearly state, that i was not referring to your replication, but to the pics in the presentation.
-
The force from more rotor magnets will never add up to the force needed to escape the sticky spot.
It doesn't matter how you align them or what shape and size they have.
The force from each magnet, attracted or repelled, is very small compared to the total force at the end.
This means that adding more magnets will never let it reach the force needed to push the last magnet
across the gap into next revolution. And none electromagnet can be used to bridge the gap into overunity.
All an electromagnet does is converting external energy into the extra force needed to run a Magnetic Wankel.
Well, here you have it again mr.uu. The sincere truth, take it like an educated man.
-
Honk,
did you ever try the Steorn principle with 2 toroid coils in 180 degrees out of phase ?
Okay, if you have the last magnet pretty much next to it then the flux of this magnet will also
go into the toroids, when they are not energized and could maybe saturate them.
Depends on how big you buiild these toroids. These would probably need to be build
quite big then to not getting saturated by the last stator permanent magnet flux.
But if you energize then the 2 toroids coils, then the 2 toroid´s core will get totally saturated,
so they behave as aircore coils and are no longer magnetic, so the rotor can freely move on...
That should work, if you build it right.
Maybe one needs to build more elliptical toroidal cores and coils around them
to fit the Stator permanent magnet track at the end...
Would be interesting to see an experiment like this...
Regards, Stefan.
-
Just dropped in to and to find out that this is a very old thread and now some good news the Russians have made a motor generator that is what you are after
there is No back EMF as they switch the stater field in their motor and have an armature that is also feed through two slip rings..
All of this project is in Russian and there is allot of videos and NONE have made it to the West ... Wow what a shocker as Jim Murrey and Paul Babcock have spent
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhaAxQjyeC0 ) years trying to get rid of back EMF from motors, and it looks like the Russians have done it !!!
links below .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11UKJ0z8lqg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11UKJ0z8lqg)
http://vk.com/globalwave2012 (http://vk.com/globalwave2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYynctrQog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYynctrQog)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k53zY3z1yI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k53zY3z1yI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0rWCNDWBjA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0rWCNDWBjA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QveoN9Jjb6A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QveoN9Jjb6A)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Nk1zrEyLE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Nk1zrEyLE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gJmHxVcyCQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gJmHxVcyCQ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EQg3G36MA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2EQg3G36MA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=578G5CtLsVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=578G5CtLsVk)
Acca.. [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]