GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82446
  • *Latest: teslawiz

  • *Total Posts: 496616
  • *Total Topics: 14699
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power  (Read 138020 times)

Online hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7819
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2012, 03:39:09 AM »
Luc,
have a look at how high Aviso shoots this about 1 Kg coil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO6KlwVGOgI

Okay, he probably uses much higher cap voltages, but he surely also
has the chopping and shortcircuiting of the coil to generate more BackEMF to
help create bigger repelling forces...

Regards, Stefan.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Online hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7819
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2012, 03:43:07 AM »
Okay, once again:

lift-Energy= m x g x h= 0.3 Kg x 9.81 x 0.02 Meter= 0.05886 Wattseconds

Energy stored in the cap= 0.5 x 0.0047 Farads x (25.9 Volts)^2= 1.5764035 Wattseconds

0.05886 Wattseconds / 1.5764035 Wattseconds = about 0.037
so it is about 3.7 % efficient in the lifting mode if the cap was fully discharged,
if I did not miscalculate some units...


Online hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7819
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2012, 03:51:36 AM »
Luc,
was the bigger coil placed as a weight ontop shortcircuited or open circuit ?
This could affect very much your magnetic repulsion !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2012, 03:51:36 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2012, 04:35:46 AM »
Stefan,
It looks to me like the extra weight is just a construction of cardboard and tape loaded up with batteries (or something). I really think the easier test for OU would be to find a lower voltage DC motor to mount his flywheel onto and then simply replace the AA battery/ies he's using with the leads from the motor and see if it keeps running (which he's aware of, but is in South Africa doing volunteer work so such a motor/generator is difficult to find).  Considering he's consistently achieved higher output by simply adding more permanent magnets, this seems like one of the more promising setups I've seen here.

Cheers and good hunting,
Polln8r.

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2012, 10:02:45 AM »
Luc,
was the bigger coil placed as a weight ontop shortcircuited or open circuit ?
This could affect very much your magnetic repulsion !

The bigger coil was open. It had nothing to do with the effect, just happen to be a good weight to use.

As for the Math you show, that is beyond my capabilities. If you would say you need a 1uf cap charged at 1000v needs to lift 100 grams to be OU then I can work with that.
I do have a 1uf microwave oven cap and transformer. EDITED The coil I have weighs 115 grams, so tell me at what voltage the 1uf cap needs to be to lift 115 grams  so it is OU (no Math) if you want me to try again.

Luc

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2012, 10:02:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2012, 10:42:51 AM »
Use a schotky diode in your setup. The coil and cap are an LC tank and all kind of ringing can occur, a diode prevents this and gives one clean pulse plus some energy is stored back into the cap. I'm sure this way you'll discover that a substantial amount of voltage will remain in the cap.

Offline aaron5120

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2012, 11:36:54 AM »
Hi folks, awesome work luc, thanks for sharing again the idea.
Hi harti, 3.7% efficiency does not sound right, his coil was hanging there for a moment also.
Math aside, lucs design is somewhat like garry stanleys dual rotor air core pulse motor, in that you can use many more magnets and get ever greater shaft work for the same input, I think it's possible that the math is not correlating between units properly to account for this.
Prony brake would be a better method, no cross unit errors.
Though in lucs design, to add more magnets and keep it from becoming an air core essentially, we'd have to prevent saturation, more ferro material in center core.
peace love light
tyson
Hi Gotoluc, I tend to side with Tyson that a prony brake method to check the output of the DC generator will be a better proof. Still, this contraption is a VERY efficient piston, granted.
The latest YT clip of Luc is self evident in that while the steel laminate is not being saturated by the magnetic flux, the input power can be maintained, all the way the lifting power can be multiplied by the setup. This is proof that the magnets are contributing to the work of lift.
Obviously, there is a lot to be optimized, but the original idea of placing magnets in both ends of the laminated core bar is the real break through. The further concentration of fluxes by means of more bars around the coil( like the previous clip showed by Luc) helps to shape up much more of the efficiency. Coil shorting and BEMF utilization can be posponned because that would over complicate too much a simple but ingenious idea.
This idea by itself is a genius one, because it is simple and elegant.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2012, 11:36:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2012, 01:03:41 PM »
Hi Luc,
always a pleasure to see your work, the 64 million dollar question is can you make it self-run ?
I hope you will as it's one of the most interesting devices I have seen for a long time.

Good luck and all the best


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2012, 01:32:38 PM »
Just some casual thoughts from an innocent bystander.....

I'd probably try this: a ferromagnetic or soft ferrite coil core that is a hollow cylinder, and a non-magnetic axis for the core to slide on, like an aluminum or plastic rod. I think a lot of flux is being wasted or channelled into parts where it's not doing useful work.

Also.....I think I'd like to achieve "critical damping" in the discharge waveform. That is, one doesn't want ringing, one wants all the cap's energy dissipated into the coil in the first cycle of the "ring". This requires tuning inductance and capacitance together. Diodes will stop ringing but at the cost of dissipating energy where it can't do useful work. You get the most "bang" for your buck if you can dump all the cap energy into the load in the first cycle without any coming back or voltage reversal: the critically damped waveform.

Stefan's math up above looks more complicated than it is. Don't forget "significant digits".... you can safely ignore all but the three leftmost digits in all of those numerical results, because they represent false precision and are certainly wrong,  anywhere except inside the calculator. If you measure 28.7 volts on a 0.3 microFarad capacitor.... which probably has a 20 percent tolerance in its value anyway...... your answer is NOT going to have six or seven meaningful digits, so there is really no point at all in regurgitating them from a calculator display... because they are just wrong (remembering the tolerance in the component's value).
So the energy on a capacitor in Joules is one-half of the Capacitance in Farads, times the square of the Voltage in Volts (this is why higher voltages are better than higher capacitances, usually).  The energy in Joules required to lift a mass (in kilograms) to a certain height (in meters) is just the mass times the height times the local gravity acceleration. If you avoid false precision and just use the digits you are sure of, it is easy to compare the results of the two calculations.

Ok, I'll go back to lurking quietly now.
Go for it, Gotoluc !

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2012, 02:29:41 PM »
Thanks for your post TinselKoala.

Math is not my thing!... I have other talents.

I have a new test video uploading now but I can give you the results. So please help me and calculate how this test scores.

The Inductor weighs 115 to 120 grams. I can now lift it 1mm or more using a 0.272uf capacitor charged at 325vdc

How does this now score?

It could get better with stronger magnets but at this time this is all I have

I will post the new video demo as soon as it is ready for viewing

Thanks for your time and help

Luc

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3007
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2012, 02:41:52 PM »
Here is the link to the best result I can do with the supplies I have available. To do any better I would need stronger magnets. If that is the case then it will have to wait on my return to Canada.

Link to new video: http://youtu.be/qaNYSroHuak

Please note that you may not be able to see the 1mm+ lift of the coil on the video after its been compressed and all. However, I'm sure my word should stand good that it is indeed lifting 115+ grams

Luc


Offline Lakes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2012, 04:10:38 PM »
Interesting Stuff Luc, did you make those laminations yourself?

Offline DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2012, 06:29:21 PM »
Hi Luc.

I've stuck the maths in a spreadsheet for you.

Here is the Microsoft Excel version :

http://internut.webspace.virginmedia.com/Lucmotor%20Efficiency%20Test%20-%20Capacitor%20Version.xls

Here is the Open Office version :

http://internut.webspace.virginmedia.com/Lucmotor%20Efficiency%20Test%20-%20Capacitor%20Version.ods


All the best,

DC.




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5738
Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2012, 08:54:14 PM »
Just some casual thoughts from an innocent bystander.....

I'd probably try this: a ferromagnetic or soft ferrite coil core that is a hollow cylinder, and a non-magnetic axis for the core to slide on, like an aluminum or plastic rod. I think a lot of flux is being wasted or channelled into parts where it's not doing useful work.

Also.....I think I'd like to achieve "critical damping" in the discharge waveform. That is, one doesn't want ringing, one wants all the cap's energy dissipated into the coil in the first cycle of the "ring". This requires tuning inductance and capacitance together. Diodes will stop ringing but at the cost of dissipating energy where it can't do useful work. You get the most "bang" for your buck if you can dump all the cap energy into the load in the first cycle without any coming back or voltage reversal: the critically damped waveform.

Stefan's math up above looks more complicated than it is. Don't forget "significant digits".... you can safely ignore all but the three leftmost digits in all of those numerical results, because they represent false precision and are certainly wrong,  anywhere except inside the calculator. If you measure 28.7 volts on a 0.3 microFarad capacitor.... which probably has a 20 percent tolerance in its value anyway...... your answer is NOT going to have six or seven meaningful digits, so there is really no point at all in regurgitating them from a calculator display... because they are just wrong (remembering the tolerance in the component's value).
So the energy on a capacitor in Joules is one-half of the Capacitance in Farads, times the square of the Voltage in Volts (this is why higher voltages are better than higher capacitances, usually).  The energy in Joules required to lift a mass (in kilograms) to a certain height (in meters) is just the mass times the height times the local gravity acceleration. If you avoid false precision and just use the digits you are sure of, it is easy to compare the results of the two calculations.

Ok, I'll go back to lurking quietly now.
Go for it, Gotoluc !


Im not sure I agree with the first statement above.  The magnets applied to the top and bottom of the core are same poles facing the core. If you know how typical speaker technology, the magnets fields are not inline with the voice coil. They are "directed" to be from the inner side of the coil to the outer of the coils circumference.

So Lucs inner core with N facing in on top and on the bottom, those are repelling fields.
Those fields N will be directed outward from the central core. All along that center core are north fields outward, perpendicular to the core, looping back around to the south poles at the top and bottom.

Then you add the outer cores amd the path for thos outward N fields become more concentrated because the loop cannot expand outwards to get to the south. The outer cores help contain and direct the fields, very similar to a speaker voice coil and magnet structure.

So basically Luc, If you want to enhance your knowledge greatly with your project, study speaker design. Or more to the point, high power sub woofer design.

There are special speaker designs that will interest you also is a planar speaker design with a spiral coil on a diaphragm between 2 flat disc magnets with lots of tiny holes for the air pressure(sound wave) to pass through the front and the rear. Pioneer made a very nice set of headphones using the planar method years ago. And the disk magnets were same pole facing in, like your setup. The bass reproduction from those headphones was UnReal.

So dont think about the coil being attracted and repelled by the magnets at the top and bottom, but how the coil reacts to the fields escaping outward all along the central core.
The coils powered interaction to those fields lines perpendicular to the core is what is really going on. If you remove the core, or replace it with a non magnetic one, your output will not be better. It will be an inefficient speaker in comparison.

And, I dont believe there is any ring happening when Luc discharges the cap into the coil. It actually is taking a good amount of time for it to totally discharge from high to low then nadda.  Electrolytic caps dont provide a good oscillating environment anyways.
Try it, its not very good at all.

Luc,  look into the speaker and high power subwoofer design that can be found. There is not as much as you might think. Not for people like us anyways. There is a program out there that allows you to design speakers in a cad environment. You can design the cores, magnets and the rest any way you want. I have to look the name up as it was years ago that I have looked into the subject.   Google books has some good old stuff also. ;]

here is a sub woofer design I had made near 15 years ago. The key features were shallow depth with longer throw, elimination of the lower spider suspension by utilizing a second inverse rubber surround of which helps to keep the cone and coil on axis.

Earthquake audio company got it out before I did with the dual rubber surround suspension eliminating the spider and reducing depth. 

The magnets in the magnet housing are N facing inwards to the center and S outward to the outer core. Alumapro conquered that part of it soon after.

I just couldnt get the funding to break it out at the time. too little too late

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758

 

OneLink