@BEP

Bam, slam, boom, boing, blump, nay say, no no, never never. Hope you're happy now. Lol

That does make me feel things are back to normal  Thanks!
 

That incline when turning will move the rotor armature from left to right, right to left over the coils making the shifting field above the coils.

Incline? Armature?

Sorry, there is no incline or armature. There is a rotor that shifts an unchanging flux density from one coil to another and back for each revolution of the rotor. ‘Armature’ implies either there are windings on the rotor reacting to a field in the stator or the windings on the stator are reacting to pole switching at the rotor. Neither is happening.

Usually an energized armature will want to rub against the coil armature as close as possible and over the total exposed surface area, whereas in your design, the armature will cover maybe 20% of the surface area and slide left to right, right to left.

The rotor surface covers 100% of the left portion of the stator and about 78% of the right section. Each only when the rotor was making magnetic connection with that stator section. The sections are 180 degrees apart. It is not energized unless you wish to consider a non-rotating or changing magnetic flux as energized.

good point of your design is the way the rotor is shown, it will be able to counter a higher level of drag because the rotor is more "cutting through" and not the conventional "gliding over" any potential drag condition.

Sorry, there is no ‘cutting through’ or drag. The original generator had a third coil. This coil was on the stator section above the magnet. I kept trimming, grinding and rebuilding until the output of that coil was practically zero regardless of speed or load.

I suppose I’ll never be able to relay useful info. It seems most have lost the ability to visualize a 3D object from a 2D sketch. Sorry, I don’t mess with 3D. It is pretty enough but the machinists use my prints well enough. I work in AutoCad but convert to Paint so I can post. Too much is lost.

Think of that rotor section as a coin spinning on the tabletop. Just before it falls the spin axis tilts. At that point the spin axis of the coin is oblique to a perpendicular line from the tabletop. From the stator’s view this action is a linear motion, constantly shifting from one pole of the stator to the other.

The magnet sees NO change in flux density. Lenz is no longer part of the equation for the magnet.
Drive the shaft with a small motor. Take what you need from the stator coils until they fry.

So sorry to say but you DO have a good idea there. Lol

Thanks. If you only knew.  lol

I tried 

The incline is your angled rotor going over the coils twice per rotation.

Nope, still no incline. In the stator's view there is no incline. The same amount of flux is connected regardless of the rotor's position.

So I have two questions.
Do you think the center magnet located on the shaft has enough magnetism to then permit having eight coil pairs all around the rotor as a full stack that would give eight times more output per rotation while turning the rotor should not expend more energy. If yes, you could then add two, three or more stacks to increase even more the output.
Something like the Lutec stacks.

Thats a 'run before walk' statement. There are improvements but if you jump to the improvements you will probably find nothing works and move on to something else that has no chance of working at all.
I do that all the time 

Lutec? There is nothing like this out there.

Multiple stators ( making a three phase generator? ) will cause problems because flux will take the shortest/best path. You will still only have one set of poles working.

Enough magnetic force with this one magnet? Nah. Not enough to run your space heater but it should be enough to make you see the idea works. ("Killing the dipole" is B.S. for 'I got nuthin and want you all to think I have sumptin')

Anyways, sorry if what I posted was not clear enough.

The mistakes in clarity are mine. I know you to be high in mechanical visualization. If you aren't screaming and jumping at this sketch then no one else on this forum will see anything. Not that they wait on you. Just they don't have the ability.

I know I don't have one at this stage for photos. It was hard to make by hand. Might be easier to strip a current one....

This will require energy investment by the rotor

I don't know about the rest but the above statement is incorrect. Stick a motor on the end of the shaft. The only energy needed to rotate the shaft is friction of the rotor mechanics, provided your flux shifting is equal throughout the cycle.

There are no rotor chokes on any version. Capacitors come later. They are not required to prove the point.

Lenz does indeed play a role but ideally only at the coils. The coils can become hot 

Hysteresis of the stator arms is important. If you want to get over that, to a limited extent, use the same principals used in a magneto. Then you will dramatically increase output power and speed operating range. Again, I didn't offer those improvements because we always want the latest and greatest, don't we? Do that and your build will fail and one more person will think I'm an idiot.

The triangle shapes (feet - I call them) serve two purposes.

1. Enables smooth transition of the 'concentrated' flux from one stator pole to another.
2. In this level of design - allows the 'Lenz generated' flux a connection return path so it does not try to go through the magnet.

I'm not sure what you see with the 'averages' part. The first attempt had only one coil on the far left. Both stator arms were still there. The basic idea is to continue a path for flux connection but move that path in an alternating fashion, through one stator pole then the other and back.

Basically a magneto (none German version) but the rotor axis is rotated 90 deg. on the axis of the rotor.

Sorry Sparks

I thought you were talking about my design. I offered it as one way to avoid Lenz law problems and still use the positive aspects of Lenz's law.

While cancelling Lenz's law is ridiculous (IMHO), avoiding the problems can be done more than one way.

This idea is a more mechanical one and should be easier for most folks to understand.

The heat generated in these coils is from the common reason. - Eddy currents. A later version avoids the heat better but I haven't found a need to go that route, yet.

This is a very old project for me. While it should be one answer to the stumbling block for many my current project  uses no coils or electronics to generate torque. I'll be concentrating on that most of the time.

Hi BEP,

Thanks for the 'feet' explanation.

I'm not sure what you see with the 'averages' part. The first attempt had only one coil on the far left. Both stator arms were still there. The basic idea is to continue a path for flux connection but move that path in an alternating fashion, through one stator pole then the other and back.

Probably the 'average' for the flux is not the most fortunate but I meant the followings:

The highest flux value occurs in the stator leg on the right hand side (and at every part where the magnetic path is just closed) when the rotor is at standstill and one of its area is facing one of the stator feet.
And when the motor is started from standstill the facing areas move away for a half-turn time, so the flux in the right hand side leg should get reduced from its earlier value. 
Then comes the next facing rotor stator areas see each other so the flux increases towards its earlier (maximum) value (but cannot reach it already because the rotor-stator areas see less and less facing time due to the gradual speedup of the motor).
When the driving motor finally speeds up to a constant value, the flux in the right hand side leg (and in every other parts constituting the closed magnetic circuit)  will also be constant (provided the facing feet and oblique rotor areas are already fine tuned as you described) but this already constant value flux will be slightly less than the flux value referred to above at standstill. 
This is how I used the flux 'averages' to a certain and constant value.  At startup the flux is at the maximum and during the speeding up time it gets a little bit reduced from its maximum value (of course I mean but a small, practically not important reducement in flux strength).

Have you thought of going for the OverUnity prize money with this design? You would certainly deserve it!

Thanks,  Gyula

Many thanks for the tips, I understand them. 

The PWM control sounds especially useful for the wind generator case where the RPM can always change by the wind.

I can understand your refraining from the prize for this device. And I hope you will disclose your other project when you feel like to and when it is appropiate, I certainly look forward reading about it!

All the best,  Gyula

I became familiar with that patent about 25 years after I built the first one of mine.

About the only similarity is the rotor design. The best I can tell that patent describes just another generator basing its entire function upon the use of Lenz's law, as conventional generators should.

I can imagine problems with 'tuning' on that design. It probably had multiple speeds where it worked best but those probably changed with load and load types.

It is very likely that the patent shows a generator that could be used as a motor, albeit a poor one, or an electromagnetic brake. My design will not work as either. It will only generate, unless it isn't built correctly. Then all bets are off.

The only tuning I've used is to slowly shave/file the rotor to provide as little ripple as possible, on the stator just above the magnet. This was done with a temporary coil, not shown on the sketch.

Mine does prefer to run at certain speeds. If I remember correctly the speed preferred by the one I show in the sketch was between 450 and 500 rpm. So if you built it be prepared for it to shake itself to death until you perform some basic balancing (do not use ferrous weights!).

If you're not using good construction with 'real' bearings (nothing special just good basic construction) the thing may eat itself when you run it up to a speed that shows promise. I always try for no more than 2mm clearance between the rotor and stator. So the faces of the stator and rotor are not flat.

So other than the word 'oblique' being used there aren't many similarities, in my opinion