Author Topic: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power (Read 254262 times)

Magluvin · « **Reply #225 on:** August 27, 2014, 05:12:26 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on August 27, 2014, 05:04:22 AM

..... The CA is just like resin, its not real strong unless its with fiber, what ever it may be.

Mags

Glass fiber, carbon fiber, 16awg wire.

lol All that wire glued solid, would be a copper brick.

No glass needed.

Mags

gotoluc · « **Reply #226 on:** August 27, 2014, 05:39:46 AM »

Thanks guys

I'll look into it Mags but epoxy and cloth is not a big deal for me as I'm building a houseboat, so I've got lots.

Yep, a real monster of a coil!... first one this big and heavy I've ever built. Must be over 5 pounds. If this design has any value it would be worth making the coils with copper clad aluminum wire to save on weight.

Luc

wattsup · « **Reply #227 on:** August 27, 2014, 06:06:35 AM »

@gotoluc

Great job - why no center taps?

wattsup

Khwartz · « **Reply #228 on:** August 27, 2014, 08:03:47 AM »

Quote from: tinman on August 24, 2014, 11:46:22 AM

The torque of an electric motor is measured exactly as i did it.We are measuring static rotor torque.Torque is a measure of rotational or "twisting" force. I can dig up my torque dial if you like,and show you that the results will be exactly the same for the P/in we used.

Dear Brad, there are 3 distincts concepts here:

1. "Shaft torque",

2. "Rotor torque",

3. "Moment", or just "torque",

and as more we differenciate the concepts more we allow us to be accurate and so not leading to misinterpretations, so wastes of time, good to clear up the differences in between. So,

• "Shaft torque" is about twisting the axis,

• "Rotor torque" is about the reaction of the fluid against the rotation of the rotor (like for helicopters rotors),

• "Moment" is "the rotational force times meter" reduced to the center of rotation when there is rotation of course (which is on the axis necessarily). This moment corresponds to "torque" when nothing is specified.

So yes, indeed, your way to measure the "torque" (definition 3) is absolutely correct but not your way to interpret it. YOU DO NOT MEASURE "TORQUE" BY YOUR READING ON YOUR PONY-BRAKE, YOU ONLY MEASURE THE "ROTATIONAL FORCE" (or "TANGENTIAL FORCE") AT A SPECIFIC RADIUS.

To get the "torque", or "moment", YOU DO NEED THEN TO MULTIPLY IT BY THE LENGH IN METERS. (To have directly the reading on the pony-brake you would need to set a 1 meter radius disk, not just been 1:1 with the radius of the rotor ^_^).

For more details about these concepts see for example:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=FiEapaNgjLcC&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=%22rotor+torque%22+definition&source=bl&ots=NIXpY_U_yw&sig=JH7FFM3jvQLjFDj6Z2aMOnjEfjY&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wmj9U5z5LoHtaL7fgtAO&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBzgK

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=571073

Otherwise, still your idea of torque measurements and comparisons looks to me most relevant in the case of the Luc's MMM

Regards,
Didier.

Khwartz · « **Reply #229 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:16:24 AM »

Quote from: telecom on August 24, 2014, 03:45:57 PM

How can be they so great if voltage varies and there is always a small charge remaining?

Hi telecom, needn't we just the difference of voltage between the start of the experiment and the end? as per:

W [Joule] = 0.5 × C [F] × (E1[Volts] - E2 [Volts])^2

Isn't the variations in between not relevant?

Khwartz · « **Reply #230 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:17:59 AM »

Quote from: tinman on August 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM

A cap with a set value(uf) and set voltage,will have X amount of energy(joules).After running the test,IF there is any voltage left in the cap,you simply calculate the joules of energy left in the cap,and subtract that from the amount you started with in the cap befor running the experiment.This is a very accurate way of seeing how much energy you used in the test.

Khwartz · « **Reply #231 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:48:23 AM »

Quote from: telecom on August 25, 2014, 01:27:33 AM

Where will you get a cap with an exact value - they all within at least 10 %

I understand you now: as you had the false datum that caps can be only 10 % maximum of precision, sure if the overunity gain is below 1.1 we won't see it. But what if the COP is already > 1.1 ? If you obtain 1.3 for example, haven't you proved your o.u.?

Then, the truth it is that you can get caps or make them up to 0.5 % (mica) and 1 % (glass)

Regards,
Didier

Khwartz · « **Reply #232 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:59:15 AM »

Quote from: gotoluc on August 25, 2014, 05:06:57 AM

Hi everyone,

I'm working on building a Super Tandem version of the Mostly Magnet Motor

Here is a video update of the building process

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhDnqw_le88

Luc

Very Clear explanations, Luc, thanks for the video

Khwartz · « **Reply #233 on:** August 27, 2014, 11:16:34 AM »

Quote from: gotoluc on August 26, 2014, 11:44:50 PM

Here is the video on winding the first coil and what it looks like when finished.

I checked the DC resistance of each bifilar stands and they are 1.3 Ohm each. The coil winding program had calculated 2.7 Ohms as a single coil, so we are right on track. I don't have my Inductance meter with me but will have it on Thursday.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULds78-fDoQ

Luc

Agree with telecom: Great craftsmanship! Luc

tinman · « **Reply #234 on:** August 27, 2014, 05:20:42 PM »

Quote from: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 08:03:47 AM

Dear Brad, there are 3 distincts concepts here:

1. "Shaft torque",

2. "Rotor torque",

3. "Moment", or just "torque",

and as more we differenciate the concepts more we allow us to be accurate and so not leading to misinterpretations, so wastes of time, good to clear up the differences in between. So,

• "Shaft torque" is about twisting the axis,

• "Rotor torque" is about the reaction of the fluid against the rotation of the rotor (like for helicopters rotors),

• "Moment" is "the rotational force times meter" reduced to the center of rotation when there is rotation of course (which is on the axis necessarily). This moment corresponds to "torque" when nothing is specified.

So yes, indeed, your way to measure the "torque" (definition 3) is absolutely correct but not your way to interpret it. YOU DO NOT MEASURE "TORQUE" BY YOUR READING ON YOUR PONY-BRAKE, YOU ONLY MEASURE THE "ROTATIONAL FORCE" (or "TANGENTIAL FORCE") AT A SPECIFIC RADIUS.

To get the "torque", or "moment", YOU DO NEED THEN TO MULTIPLY IT BY THE LENGH IN METERS. (To have directly the reading on the pony-brake you would need to set a 1 meter radius disk, not just been 1:1 with the radius of the rotor ^_^).

For more details about these concepts see for example:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=FiEapaNgjLcC&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=%22rotor+torque%22+definition&source=bl&ots=NIXpY_U_yw&sig=JH7FFM3jvQLjFDj6Z2aMOnjEfjY&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wmj9U5z5LoHtaL7fgtAO&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBzgK

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=571073

Otherwise, still your idea of torque measurements and comparisons looks to me most relevant in the case of the Luc's MMM

Regards,
Didier.

Didier
It's a prony brake(dynamometer),not pony brake,and i never used one in my video. A prony brake is used to messure power and torque to get the horse power. Like i said,i was getting the static torque force of the rotor in the motor,as Luc was getting from his MMM.

tinman · « **Reply #235 on:** August 27, 2014, 05:27:54 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on August 26, 2014, 11:44:50 PM

Here is the video on winding the first coil and what it looks like when finished.

I checked the DC resistance of each bifilar stands and they are 1.3 Ohm each. The coil winding program had calculated 2.7 Ohms as a single coil, so we are right on track. I don't have my Inductance meter with me but will have it on Thursday.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULds78-fDoQ

Luc

Fantastic job on the coil Luc,and i can wait to see what kind of pull force this will give. Those are some nice magnets you have there as well.

gotoluc · « **Reply #236 on:** August 28, 2014, 02:13:04 AM »

Quote from: wattsup on August 27, 2014, 06:06:35 AM

@gotoluc

Great job - why no center taps?

wattsup

I think the combinations of 2 bifilar coils will be enough to test.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #237 on:** August 28, 2014, 02:27:24 AM »

Thanks for the positive comments guys

I also can't wait to see what kind of pulling force an 8 times wider coil will do.
Even more, what will the extra tandem coil do?... could it come to 16 times the pull force of my single 1" coil (500g @ 0.4 watt)?
Could be a world record for most pull force per watt? if there is such a thing!

We shall see

Luc

Khwartz · « **Reply #238 on:** August 28, 2014, 01:47:09 PM »

Quote from: tinman on August 27, 2014, 05:20:42 PM

Didier
It's a prony brake(dynamometer),not pony brake,and i never used one in my video. A prony brake is used to messure power and torque to get the horse power. Like i said,i was getting the static torque force of the rotor in the motor,as Luc was getting from his MMM.

Yes, sorry, I am not English tongue, it is indeed of DYNAMOMETER meter I was talking about, and DYNAMOMETER is all about your PRONY BRAKE!

Your PRONY BRAKE is indeed a DYNAMOMETER which measures the TANGENTIAL FORCE at the SPECIFIC RADIUS you set the hook and screw on the disc.

Then, all what I have noticed remains: YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE RADIUS LENGH, to multiply the TANGENTIAL FORCE you read by it.

Torque [N.m] = F [N] × L [m].

I indeed didn't know about the prony brake system (even if it was a French citizen mate who invented it ^_^) but I pretty know now about this physics. Just go in the article of Wikipedia about prony brake and you will read this, brad:

"The difference between the two readings multiplied by the radius of the driven drum is equal to the torque."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake

So, unless you have a system in your electronic PRONY BRAKE which permits to enterTHE VALUE OF THE RADIUS you set, it won't give you any TORQUE, even "STATIC", but only the FORCE [N]. But yes, if you care about the RADIUS LENGH and multiply it by the FORCE, you'll get indeed the "STATIC TORQUE".

As for the 1:1 comparison, would only work if you were taking the exact same radius than luc had used while testing on rotor disc, but surly not for example in his test of lienar force (without rotor system); but you probably know this already.

Regards.

tinman · « **Reply #239 on:** August 28, 2014, 02:58:22 PM »

Quote from: Khwartz on August 28, 2014, 01:47:09 PM

Yes, sorry, I am not English tongue, it is indeed of DYNAMOMETER meter I was talking about, and DYNAMOMETER is all about your PRONY BRAKE!

Your PRONY BRAKE is indeed a DYNAMOMETER which measures the TANGENTIAL FORCE at the SPECIFIC RADIUS you set the hook and screw on the disc.

Then, all what I have noticed remains: YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE RADIUS LENGH, to multiply the TANGENTIAL FORCE you read by it.

Torque [N.m] = F [N] × L [m].

I indeed didn't know about the prony brake system (even if it was a French citizen mate who invented it ^_^) but I pretty know now about this physics. Just go in the article of Wikipedia about prony brake and you will read this, brad:

"The difference between the two readings multiplied by the radius of the driven drum is equal to the torque."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake

So, unless you have a system in your electronic PRONY BRAKE which permits to enterTHE VALUE OF THE RADIUS you set, it won't give you any TORQUE, even "STATIC", but only the FORCE [N]. But yes, if you care about the RADIUS LENGH and multiply it by the FORCE, you'll get indeed the "STATIC TORQUE".

As for the 1:1 comparison, would only work if you were taking the exact same radius than luc had used while testing on rotor disc, but surly not for example in his test of lienar force (without rotor system); but you probably know this already.

Regards.

Hi Didier

Here is an efficiency test i carried out when UFO polotics decided he had an OU motor.This is an old school prony brake test. You are correct with the statements you made-no argument there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkwRA28Y0dM&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power (Read 254262 times)

Magluvin

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

gotoluc

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

wattsup

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

tinman

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

tinman

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

gotoluc

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

gotoluc

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

Khwartz

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

tinman

Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power