Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: gotoluc on December 07, 2009, 11:32:38 PM

Title: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 07, 2009, 11:32:38 PM
Hi everyone,

this is a design idea I came up with that's mostly a magnet motor to which I hope will require less power input then a normal PM electric motor. The idea is to not have steel cores in the coil to which a permanent magnets will stick to and need much input energy for the coil to overcome the attraction. I my design I use the most powerful magnet available and have the magnet itself (or PM field) as cores for the coil. In this kind of arrangement we only need a very small amount of input energy for the coil to create work.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHmLgXWR1U

Please be open to post your comments.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: powercat on December 08, 2009, 12:10:29 AM
Hi Luc
Wow I've never seen anything like that before,fantastic  :o  I would like one for Christmas ;D
I found it very hypnotic, also reminded me of one of those executive gadgets.

Did you mount the coil on square box section to stop it rotating ?
I would have thought you got less friction with a round tube.

cat
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 08, 2009, 12:42:05 AM
Hi Luc
Wow I've never seen anything like that before,fantastic  :o  I would like one for Christmas ;D
I found it very hypnotic, also reminded me of one of those executive gadgets.

Did you mount the coil on square box section to stop it rotating ?
I would have thought you got less friction with a round tube.

cat

Hi Cat,

thanks for your interest and post :)

I mounted the coil on a square bar as oppose to a round mainly to get more surface area of the coils center magnetic field. I think the more surface area the coil contacts on the PM the more work for energy input there will be. However, this would needs to be tested.

Can you invite some of those wise ones in the art of magnetics to see what they think or if they can help.

Thanks buddy ;)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: powercat on December 08, 2009, 12:48:03 AM
 No problem Luc, I will see who is in  ;)
cat
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: ltseung888 on December 08, 2009, 01:43:17 AM
No problem Luc, I will see who is in  ;)
cat
Dear Cat and Luc,

Interesting.  We worked with:
1. One coil in the middle repelling two magnets to soft and hard surfaces to achieve unbalanced force in one direction.
2. Two coils with a moving magnet in the middle to achieve unbalanced force in one direction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FafYVGbgULw

Noiw you have the arrangement of:
A Moving Coil in the middle of two magnets.

We shall be working on:
A non-moving coil in the middle of two magnets with a changing magnetic flux to draw out energy.

We already have a prototype demonstrated to over 25,000 visitors in the two Open Shows in Hong Kong.   See the Lee-Tseung Lead-Out Energy theory thread in this forum.

Welcome to the team.  You will have fun and many unexpected experimental results.  Overunity and unbalanced force are two examples.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: wattsup on December 08, 2009, 02:09:52 AM
@gotoluc

First thanks to @powercat for letting me know about this thread.

I saw your video, and son of a gun, I had been looking for a suitable linear motion method for an idea I had been mulling over 2 years now. At the time I made some drawings and an animation that is now located here;

http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups%27%20stuff/linear-wheel/

The gif file is the animation.

The idea is not to use a crank type motion of the linear movement but to simply use the linear movement as a wheel balancing offset.

My only question is, can your idea work standing up. Even as a catapult, can it have enough force to push up that coil. If it can, then there may be a way for it to work, by mounting it a ring that has a center axle that is aligned to the center of your iron bar, and then controlling the pulse to the coil to always keep it on the right side then use gravity as the main force.

Also, think about it. That coil is moving. Put some other coils around it and it will become a generator. Kind of reminds me of @handyguy1's Thingamajigger. Or you can hold the coil steady and let the iron bar with the magnets slide.

Very nice work. Geez now you are on motor type devices. Good progression.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 08, 2009, 02:44:22 AM
Dear Cat and Luc,

Interesting.  We worked with:
1. One coil in the middle repelling two magnets to soft and hard surfaces to achieve unbalanced force in one direction.
2. Two coils with a moving magnet in the middle to achieve unbalanced force in one direction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FafYVGbgULw

Noiw you have the arrangement of:
A Moving Coil in the middle of two magnets.

We shall be working on:
A non-moving coil in the middle of two magnets with a changing magnetic flux to draw out energy.

We already have a prototype demonstrated to over 25,000 visitors in the two Open Shows in Hong Kong.   See the Lee-Tseung Lead-Out Energy theory thread in this forum.

Welcome to the team.  You will have fun and many unexpected experimental results.  Overunity and unbalanced force are two examples.

Hi ltseung888,

so that's what the Lee-Tseung Lead-Out Energy theory thread is. Sorry, I never really looked at it :-\

We shale see where this goes.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 08, 2009, 02:54:53 AM
@gotoluc

First thanks to @powercat for letting me know about this thread.

I saw your video, and son of a gun, I had been looking for a suitable linear motion method for an idea I had been mulling over 2 years now. At the time I made some drawings and an animation that is now located here;

http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups%27%20stuff/linear-wheel/

The gif file is the animation.

The idea is not to use a crank type motion of the linear movement but to simply use the linear movement as a wheel balancing offset.

My only question is, can your idea work standing up. Even as a catapult, can it have enough force to push up that coil. If it can, then there may be a way for it to work, by mounting it a ring that has a center axle that is aligned to the center of your iron bar, and then controlling the pulse to the coil to always keep it on the right side then use gravity as the main force.

Also, think about it. That coil is moving. Put some other coils around it and it will become a generator. Kind of reminds me of @handyguy1's Thingamajigger. Or you can hold the coil steady and let the iron bar with the magnets slide.

Very nice work. Geez now you are on motor type devices. Good progression.

Hi wattsup,

that's an interesting idea. What would need to be figured out is input power (Watts) for weight lifted. If it gives a better number (compared to what the standard establishment say) then I see no reason why we could not use your system to also capitalize on gravity force.

My interest in motors is for my needs but what ever I find will be Freely shared for the good of all.

Thanks for sharing your idea.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on December 08, 2009, 03:47:04 PM
@powercat
thanks for your PM on this thread, in the meantime I also noticed it at the energetic forum where I answered in the meantime too.

@Luc

regarding the vertical arrangement wattsup mentioned, I recall an old patent where a permanent magnet was placed under the core of an electromagnet and this extra flux helped more than double the lifting height against gravity  with the same input current to the electromagnet, see this link and the patent drawing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1621.msg16347.html#msg16347

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Paul-R on December 08, 2009, 04:57:18 PM
I wonder if I recognise your coil.

Is it the low current coil on the 8:1 mains power transformer of a microwave oven?
If so, they are available to us all for peanuts - a visit to a recycling centre, and
an amusing evening in front of the TV cutting through the transformer with an angle
grinder (hack saw will do), and soaking the result overnight in water to soften up
the paper/card packing around the coils in order to get them off.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: wattsup on December 08, 2009, 09:43:08 PM
I wonder if I recognise your coil.

Is it the low current coil on the 8:1 mains power transformer of a microwave oven?
If so, they are available to us all for peanuts - a visit to a recycling centre, and
an amusing evening in front of the TV cutting through the transformer with an angle
grinder (hack saw will do), and soaking the result overnight in water to soften up
the paper/card packing around the coils in order to get them off.

@Paul-R

Wow, that sounds like a good idea to get them coils off. I have two microwave transformers with the tops off and I never found a way to get the coils off. Hmmm. I will soak one of them tonight and try it tommorrow morning. I should be at home all day since they are announcing a good snow storm tomorrow and on those days I stay at home and work on OU. Just love them snow storms.

@gotoluc

There is a former member named @JackH who passed away several months ago and he was doing some great work with magnets and coils.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 08, 2009, 10:34:25 PM
@powercat
thanks for your PM on this thread, in the meantime I also noticed it at the energetic forum where I answered in the meantime too.

@Luc

regarding the vertical arrangement wattsup mentioned, I recall an old patent where a permanent magnet was placed under the core of an electromagnet and this extra flux helped more than double the lifting height against gravity  with the same input current to the electromagnet, see this link and the patent drawing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1621.msg16347.html#msg16347

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

yes this works! but how do you get the magnet (weight) back up once it has used gravity?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 08, 2009, 10:41:04 PM
I wonder if I recognise your coil.

Is it the low current coil on the 8:1 mains power transformer of a microwave oven?
If so, they are available to us all for peanuts - a visit to a recycling centre, and
an amusing evening in front of the TV cutting through the transformer with an angle
grinder (hack saw will do), and soaking the result overnight in water to soften up
the paper/card packing around the coils in order to get them off.

Hi Paul,

you know me :D I always try to salvage and reuse stuff but this one I winded the coil from new magnet wire since it needed to have such an exact center opening and also to be epoxied between layers during the winding so it can all hold up if I decided to drive it hard.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on December 08, 2009, 11:39:57 PM
Hi Gyula,

yes this works! but how do you get the magnet (weight) back up once it has used gravity?

Luc

Hi Luc,

Well, sorry I did not mean using it in your present horizontal setup but in wattsup wheel setup he has showed where he wishes to offset the wheel balance by pushing objects linearly up whenever the vertical course for them just passed the 12 o'clock clockwise. I thought here to help the upward linear move with that 'under'magnet, then, as the wheel rotates clockwise, these objects will return by sliding back again due to gravity. I only meant here using this trick, you get more upwards movement for the same input to the electromagnet coil.

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 09, 2009, 12:33:48 AM
Hi Luc,

Well, sorry I did not mean using it in your present horizontal setup but in wattsup wheel setup he has showed where he wishes to offset the wheel balance by pushing objects linearly up whenever the vertical course for them just passed the 12 o'clock clockwise. I thought here to help the upward linear move with that 'under'magnet, then, as the wheel rotates clockwise, these objects will return by sliding back again due to gravity. I only meant here using this trick, you get more upwards movement for the same input to the electromagnet coil.

rgds, Gyula

Okay I see,

it would work but one thing to consider in wattsup's design is maybe the quick launch (at desired time) may cause a braking of the wheel at that timing point???

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: FatChance!!! on December 09, 2009, 07:56:58 AM
I don't want to spoil your hopes but this design is nothing but a regular electric motor
being run sideways like a piston instead of circular movement.
As we all know, the force from an electric motor is determined by the the sum of the
input current x input voltage minus the losses (mostly I2R).
As your coil slides along the magnetic field an induced voltage is formed.
The faster the coil moves the higher the induced voltage. In your case the movement is
very slow and the induced voltage is small and so is the torque output.
The efficiency of an motor is determined by the difference of the induced voltage and
applied voltage and current. The loss is explained by I x I x R, namely I2R.
Your motor is running at No Load, therefor the input is small. Try loading it and you'll see
the input power increasing as the RPM drops like a rock.

But I have to admit it's a really cool design. Keep up the good work.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on December 09, 2009, 09:59:00 AM
Okay I see,

it would work but one thing to consider in wattsup's design is maybe the quick launch (at desired time) may cause a braking of the wheel at that timing point???

Luc

Yes but perhaps the braking effect (i.e. the reaction for the quick launch action) could be kept acting mainly onto the shaft in the radial direction, I mean the launch should take place just after passing the 12 o'clock position, this way the braking effect on the rotation of the wheel will be at the minimum possible.  (the later you launch from the just vertical passing position the bigger the breaking effect is if the RPM is not high I think, maybe wrongly?).

The braking effect is inherently included in wattsup's design anyway, my suggestion for some improvement in lessening input power does not change this, unfortunately.


Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: magnetman12003 on December 12, 2009, 03:38:53 AM
Hi I am working on a similar idea but the reverse of what you have illustrated.

I posted this on U tube and its not perfected yet. Right now I am making a reciprocating magnetic arrangement that uses two magnets on one shaft. I used one magnet in this video. Also will use two coils. I have reached speeds up to 1560 RPM with torque so far. Hope to better the speed to 3,000.  My design is powered by a 30 volt peak to peak square wave. I adjust the motor speed with variable low frequencys.

When I feel I have enough motor torque I will be finished working on it. That takes it into something that can be usefull rather than a curiosity which it is presently.

I love your design. We think in reciprocating directions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC-FjOQ6tlM&feature=player_embedded#

Tom

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 12, 2009, 05:58:46 AM
Nice work Tom ;)

Thanks for sharing :)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Thaelin on December 14, 2009, 05:48:24 PM
   I keep trying to see this vid and it always says
removed by author? Still there or gone. Would like
to see it.

thay
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: powercat on December 14, 2009, 05:57:33 PM
Hi thay
Here are the two videos, I hope Luc doesn't mind me posting them
Mostly Permenent Magnet Motor test 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHmLgXWR1U
Mostly Permenent Magnet Motor test 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Famr4YWBE7g

cat
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on December 14, 2009, 06:17:52 PM
Cat,

I am affraid thalin wishes to see the video user magnetman linked to in his Reply#17 here in this thread, previous page.
Now I also get 'video removed by user', two days ago or so it was still there.

Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 14, 2009, 06:21:05 PM
Here are all the links to videos I have made relating to this topic.

Mostly Permenent Magnet Motor test 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHmLgXWR1U

Mostly Permenent Magnet Motor test 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Famr4YWBE7g

Electromagnet Atraction vs Repel mode test 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYsAN5QPnA

Generator Coil test 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebybImidcFY

Generator Coil test 2b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: magnetman12003 on December 16, 2009, 05:19:41 AM
Cat,

I am affraid thalin wishes to see the video user magnetman linked to in his Reply#17 here in this thread, previous page.
Now I also get 'video removed by user', two days ago or so it was still there.

  Hi, I removed all my videos on the U tube except three of them. My last video is a summation of all my work so far and by far is the best motor device I ever constructed. It works on a reciprocating basis also.  Here is the link to my SWING  MOTOR 360. I also have this link posted on the first page of magnet motors in this forum.

I am 64298 on U tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L_UG0sezNU&feature=player_embedded

Tom   magnetman12003
Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 18, 2009, 02:03:15 AM
Hi everyone,

I just uploaded a new video to compare the difference between magnets passing in front of a coil (standard generator coil) compared to passing on the side of the coil. I decided to use the test apparatus I already had instead of investing more time and money before we know if there are any advantages. Can someone that is good in calculating AC power please write down the numbers from the video and do the calculations as I don't know how with AC.

Also, keep in mind that the sideways coil test could be double the output if we had magnet running on the other side of the coil. This needs to be considered since in the standard generator coil test they were hitting each sides of the coil.

I will make another video to test the double coil configuration to see if this gives an advantage.

Link to Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6vOqrwQw0k

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on December 18, 2009, 05:22:12 AM
Hi everyone,

here is the next video test 4 with the dual coil setup.

I don't know why I can't seem to get the results I had when I first found this effect and tested by holding the coils by hand.

I'll try and retest in case I missed something:thinking: ... let me know if you see something I missed.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjeO28xY_o0

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 01:02:28 AM
Hi everyone,
 
 it has been over 2 years since I fist started this topic about a AC Permanent Magnet Motor Design idea I had that its motive force would mostly come from Permanent magnets.
 
 Maybe I didn't explain all the design advantages well enough when I fist introduced it :P so I decided to build a small prototype and do a better video. In this video I demonstrate the design idea I had 2 years ago of bridging over the opposite pole of the Magnet using steel lamination over the outside of the coil.  This takes advantage of the coils outside opposite field which close to doubles the motive force without using additional current..
 
 Please keep in mind that the coil I'm using in this demo model maybe far from optimum. I still need to learn about coil time constant. There are also many other details that could be optimized. So I think it would be fair to say that the motive force could be doubled without additional current input.
 
 I need to learn more about how to calculate the ideal coil resistance and turns for a particular on time, voltage and frequency. So if anyone can see obvious things from the scope shots that the coils on time power is being wasted (not making a strong field) please advise me.
 I also need to learn the proper specs for making a Pony Brake to do some load tests.
 
 
Links to video's:
Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor Part A:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs)

Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor Part B:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnAeIE_NWjU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnAeIE_NWjU)


Your input is welcomed


Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 03:28:45 PM
Here are some scope shots.

ADDED
Please note that the test below is to determined how much this mostly magnet motor is affected by the Generator effect. I am not trying to make a Generator out of it.

The first shot is with the motor working on a 1.3vdc input through a 1 Ohm shunt Resistor in series with probe 1 connected across it and probe 2 is across the coil. Both probe grounds are on the same side of the Resistor (standard current and voltage phase setup). Math function is on probe 1 x probe 2

The next shot is to test the motor as Generator, so now the mostly magnet motor coil is connected to a 10 Ohm load with probe 1 connected across the 1 Ohm series shunt and probe 2 is the voltage across the coil (same as above). I'm using the 12vdc motor (attached to flywheel) as primed mover. The input to the 12vdc motor is 380ma @ 12.63vdc = 4.8 Watts to turn it at the speed of the 2nd scope shot below. It looks to me that at that RPM (which is faster then the previous test) the Generator coil is outputting around 0.070 Watts

To me it looks like the mostly magnet motor is not a good Generator considering the amount of input energy needed to the prime mover. However, we need to keep in mind that the 12vdc motor is operating at a much lower RPM then it was designed for, so it could get better. However there seems to be quite a difference.

ADDED
Details on the Coil:
The mostly magnet motor coil has 4 Ohms DC resistance, made of about 0.8mm to 0.9mm magnet wire, wound bifilar connected in series. It has 19 milli Henry when at each ends of the core and 22.5 milli Henry when at center of core. The actual coil size (not including bobbin) opening is 14mm x 20mm and is 17mm wide

Comments please

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: aaron5120 on April 14, 2012, 03:52:26 PM
Gotoluc,
Hi my friend, I did not notice your design two years ago, but it just caught my attention today. After looking at your YT clips, my conclusion is : very interesting.
Your conception indeed does have validity in utilizing the magnet power and the flux concentrating characteristic of the steel( or ferrite) bars to multiply the force exerted by the moving coil.
I think using the motor to drive the device is a bad idea. This is because you are wasting the input power to overcome the magnets, rather, may I suggest that the flywheel be attached to a DC generator or AC alternator, using the multiplied torque to spin it. I think you will find the output be almost 4 times more than the input( as a minimum rule of thumb).
This is a very efficient piston motor, and you can stack several magnetic "pistons" to the flywheel like a  modern Internal combustion engine does, and drive a big conventional generator with the crankshaft.
The last thing needed to be optimized will be to reduce heat loss due to eddy currents in the steel laminate bars when power goes up. But if speed is maintained in low level, this issue can be ignored. Once again, congratulations, Gotoluc, for disclosing this invention publicly. Now it belongs to the whole Humanity and not to the power that be.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 05:53:25 PM
Gotoluc,
Hi my friend, I did not notice your design two years ago, but it just caught my attention today. After looking at your YT clips, my conclusion is : very interesting.
Your conception indeed does have validity in utilizing the magnet power and the flux concentrating characteristic of the steel( or ferrite) bars to multiply the force exerted by the moving coil.
I think using the motor to drive the device is a bad idea. This is because you are wasting the input power to overcome the magnets, rather, may I suggest that the flywheel be attached to a DC generator or AC alternator, using the multiplied torque to spin it. I think you will find the output be almost 4 times more than the input( as a minimum rule of thumb).
This is a very efficient piston motor, and you can stack several magnetic "pistons" to the flywheel like a  modern Internal combustion engine does, and drive a big conventional generator with the crankshaft.
The last thing needed to be optimized will be to reduce heat loss due to eddy currents in the steel laminate bars when power goes up. But if speed is maintained in low level, this issue can be ignored. Once again, congratulations, Gotoluc, for disclosing this invention publicly. Now it belongs to the whole Humanity and not to the power that be.

Hi aaron5120,

thank you for your enthusiastic post.

You have misunderstood! ... I plan to use this as a motor!

It is Stefan that asked me to do the test with the scope shot above (on youtube comments) to see how much the Generator effect will effect this motor design. Since it is failing to be a good Generator this could be a positive thing. I added a comment at the beginning of that post so this does not happen again.
.
You are also thinking that in this motor design the coil needs to overcome the magnets. This is not correct! ... in this design there is absolutely no magnet drag on the coil or any sticky spots. Generator effect and Eddy currents would be the only drag. However, I have a feeling it will work best at low frequency so Eddy currents should be minimal.

I hope you're right on your other comments

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 06:53:38 PM

Gotoluc,


I like what you are doing, I love pinch fields, that is what I call it when you have the same poles facing each other like that.


I hate crankshafts, they are not efficient and so I made for myself a mechanical rectifier that is much more efficient and works wonderful with a solenoid input.


There are bidirectional solenoids that work in a similar, but not the same fashion, they have a core and a magnet out at the end of the coil, supply the power one way and it pulls the core in, the other way and it pushes it out, similar but not the same as yours.


Tom Webb

Hi Tom,

thanks for your post.

I also hate a crankshaft!  please share how your alternative works

Thanks for sharing

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on April 14, 2012, 07:06:44 PM
Hi Luc,

Very inventive design, thanks for sharing. The weight of the coil moving back and forth at low speed would be good for a lever/pendulum setup.

This design I used a small motor with weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr0KyMqMZtc

But if you place your motor centered on top it can use the displacement of the coil instead of a spinning weight. That would eliminate some side to side frame wobble and the powered side dead zones. Then lever through lenz with a big block N52 on the bottom over some coils... :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 07:42:43 PM
3 one way needle rollers, 3 gears, 3 shafts, 2  connecting arms and one of those is also the input arm.

Thanks Tom,

I now see how your system works.

So you think all these bearings and gears are more efficient then a crankshaft!... I would not of think so but since you built it I'll take your word on it.

Very interesting and thanks for sharing

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 07:56:33 PM
Hi Luc,

Very inventive design, thanks for sharing. The weight of the coil moving back and forth at low speed would be good for a lever/pendulum setup.

This design I used a small motor with weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr0KyMqMZtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr0KyMqMZtc)

But if you place your motor centered on top it can use the displacement of the coil instead of a spinning weight. That would eliminate some side to side frame wobble and the powered side dead zones. Then lever through lenz with a big block N52 on the bottom over some coils... :)

Thanks DreamThinkBuild,

I had not seen that video. Thanks for sharing it.
You're right about there's no need to spin the weight around. Just back and forth would do it even better.
Since you have the build, pickup a 120 vac Solenoid, find a longer core rod that fits nice, add the magnets on each ends, use a DPDT relay switched by Hall effects to send the AC pulses and let us know how it works out.

This is a great idea to use this effect.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: broli on April 14, 2012, 09:24:15 PM
Slightly off topic, see you talking about an efficient way of extracting energy from reciprocating motion. Quite straight forward:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93n8sNsRpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e6j3FqefM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e6j3FqefM)

Makes you also wonder why we're still using gasoline engines that are at best 40%-50%, well makes average joe wonder not the average community member.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 14, 2012, 10:36:19 PM
Hi Luc, are you sure you explained the scope channels right ?
Isn´t in the first scopeshot the green trace not the coil voltage or is it really the coil current ?

IMHO only green can be the coil voltage, otherwise I am pretty puzzled...
Hmmm...

Also how long do you energize the coil ?
Is it about these 16 milliseconds so about 4 x DIVs ?

Also it would be nice if we would have the same RPM in both scopeshots
to compare the waveforms... So I don´t know, where the zero point crossing voltage induction is
located regarding the coil location inside the motor ?

At which location  doesn´t  the coil generate any voltage when it is moved ?
Is it at the center location of the motor ?

Well the only time I know that there is no counter induction when a magnet passes
a coil or a coil passes a magnet is in the ORBO device,
where 2 ferrite toroid coils are 180 degrees out of phase, so the induction is canceled out,
but the toroids attract a magnet and when energized the magnet can pass
all happening WITHOUT any induction inside the toroid coils... So there LENZ law is fully
violated.

But here in your case I am not sure, it seems that Lenz is there, if the green trace in the first
scopeshot is the voltage across the coil.


Maybe you can try to use a charged capacitor to pulse the coil and see, how far it lifts
up the coil.
If you put additional weight on it or addtional magnets and if you can raise the coil higher than
the stored energy in the capacitor then you have already shown overunity.

The stored energy in the cap is 0.5 x C x Voltage^2
and the raised weight energy  = mass in Kg x g( earth acceleratiion 9.81)  x height-difference in meters

So if you can show with a single shot from a charged capacitor, that you can raise the
coil weight higher than the stored cap energy you would have already shown overunity.

So lets make a calculation example:

If you use 1 Farad as the Cap and have it charged up to 10 Volts you have an energy stored
as 0.5 x 1 x 100= 50 Wattseconds.

Now, if you put additional weight onto the coil so it is about 10 Kg
you should be able to lift the 10 Kg weight:

height difference=50 / ( 10 kg x 9.81 ) = 0.509 Meters

So if you could lift it vertically against gravity higher than 0.509 Meters you have Overunity.

This would be probably work best with bigger coils with just very fine wire and many turns and
much higher cap voltages.

Okay, so please let us know the fire timing of your circuit and the colors of your scopeshot
of what is what and I can have another pondering...

Many thanks.

Best regards, Stefan
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 14, 2012, 11:15:02 PM
Hi Luc, are you sure you explained the scope channels right ?
Isn´t in the first scopeshot the green trace not the coil voltage or is it really the coil current ?

IMHO only green can be the coil voltage, otherwise I am pretty puzzled...
Hmmm...

Also how long do you energize the coil ?
Is it about these 16 milliseconds so about 4 x DIVs ?

Also it would be nice if we would have the same RPM in both scopeshots
to compare the waveforms... So I don´t know, where the zero point crossing voltage induction is
located regarding the coil location inside the motor ?

At which location  doesn´t  the coil generate any voltage when it is moved ?
Is it at the center location of the motor ?

Well the only time I know that there is no counter induction when a magnet passes
a coil or a coil passes a magnet is in the ORBO device,
where 2 ferrite toroid coils are 180 degrees out of phase, so the induction is canceled out,
but the toroids attract a magnet and when energized the magnet can pass
all happening WITHOUT any induction inside the toroid coils... So there LENZ law is fully
violated.

But here in your case I am not sure, it seems that Lenz is there, if the green trace in the first
scopeshot is the voltage across the coil.


Maybe you can try to use a charged capacitor to pulse the coil and see, how far it lifts
up the coil.
If you put additional weight on it or addtional magnets and if you can raise the coil higher than
the stored energy in the capacitor then you have already shown overunity.

The stored energy in the cap is 0.5 x C x Voltage^2
and the raised weight energy  = mass in Kg x g( earth acceleratiion 9.81)  x height-difference in meters

So if you can show with a single shot from a charged capacitor, that you can raise the
coil weight higher than the stored cap energy you would have already shown overunity.

So lets make a calculation example:

If you use 1 Farad as the Cap and have it charged up to 10 Volts you have an energy stored
as 0.5 x 1 x 100= 50 Wattseconds.

Now, if you put additional weight onto the coil so it is about 10 Kg
you should be able to lift the 10 Kg weight:

height difference=50 / ( 10 kg x 9.81 ) = 0.509 Meters

So if you could lift it vertically against gravity higher than 0.509 Meters you have Overunity.

This would be probably work best with bigger coils with just very fine wire and many turns and
much higher cap voltages.

Okay, so please let us know the fire timing of your circuit and the colors of your scopeshot
of what is what and I can have another pondering...

Many thanks.

Best regards, Stefan

Hi Stefan,

thanks for your post.

The Green trace is the current in both scope shots.

The Coil is energized 99.5% of the time. It starts at one end of the core and when it reaches the other end it has an instant polarity shift. The polarity shift (AC) is so fast that I believe the flyback is incorporated at the beginning of the next opposing on time.

I'll try to get a scope shot with same RPM.

I'm not positive at which location the coil doesn't generate any voltage when moved but I would think the zero crossing happens when the coil reaches one end of the core and the crankshaft sends it back the other direction.

I will do a capacitive discharge as you suggest but I know if I add more weight and add more PM it will lift the extra weight. Are you sure this proves OU?... seems to easy to do :-\

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: broli on April 15, 2012, 12:13:03 AM
The potential energy experiment is actually a good test, good catch Stefan. I don't think you need to use that much energy though his setup is also very small.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 15, 2012, 12:13:25 AM
Hi Luc,
okay, now I had another closer look.

As I don´t know, how your H-bridge circuit looks alike and how the resistances of the transistor
or MOSFETs change over time there, the yellow trace= coil voltage is a bit strange, but okay....

In the green trace you can see exactly that there is the LENZ law occuring, as in the motor operation you
see a quick accelerating current pulse and then the counter induction from the coil kicks in,
so the input current strongly gets reduced and as the coil gets slower again at the other turn
point the input current rises again as the counter EMF of the coil is reduced due to lower speed and
thus the input current rises again...
But the coil voltage should be different then also again, but maybe you H-Bridge is mostly powered
by cap discharges as the batteries might have a high internal resistance, so the coil voltage
behaves this strange...


Well, it surely also depends how long the coil is.
If you would have a short coil, that is only 0.5 cm long and the core would be 10 cm long
it would behave quite differently as it is now, where the core is maybe 10 cm long and the coil
is at least about 4 cm long ?

Also it could help to place in the center of the outer core some additional
iron core pieces so the return flux is concentrated in the center....then the counter EMF
would be also different and it could help to reduze Lenz law effect...

P.S. Yes, a device that can show more vertical lift height in ONE shot , that
does not comply to the energy conservation formular:

m x g x h = 0.5 x C x Voltage^2

will show overunity.

So if you can lift a weight vertically up into the air higher than the stored cap
voltage will tell you, you have a winner....!

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 15, 2012, 02:09:16 AM
Maybe you can try to use a charged capacitor to pulse the coil and see, how far it lifts
up the coil.
If you put additional weight on it or addtional magnets and if you can raise the coil higher than
the stored energy in the capacitor then you have already shown overunity.

The stored energy in the cap is 0.5 x C x Voltage^2
and the raised weight energy  = mass in Kg x g( earth acceleratiion 9.81)  x height-difference in meters

So if you can show with a single shot from a charged capacitor, that you can raise the
coil weight higher than the stored cap energy you would have already shown overunity.

So lets make a calculation example:

If you use 1 Farad as the Cap and have it charged up to 10 Volts you have an energy stored
as 0.5 x 1 x 100= 50 Wattseconds.

Now, if you put additional weight onto the coil so it is about 10 Kg
you should be able to lift the 10 Kg weight:

height difference=50 / ( 10 kg x 9.81 ) = 0.509 Meters

So if you could lift it vertically against gravity higher than 0.509 Meters you have Overunity.

This would be probably work best with bigger coils with just very fine wire and many turns and
much higher cap voltages.

Many thanks.

Best regards, Stefan

Hi Stefan

As per your request I have made a video demo to prove Overunity. Does this mean I can apply for the OU prize ;D

Link to video: http://youtu.be/OxuotFUWVGQ (http://youtu.be/OxuotFUWVGQ)

Let me know what you think

Luc

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 15, 2012, 02:38:34 AM
Hi Luc,
okay, now I had another closer look.

As I don´t know, how your H-bridge circuit looks alike and how the resistances of the transistor
or MOSFETs change over time there, the yellow trace= coil voltage is a bit strange, but okay....

In the green trace you can see exactly that there is the LENZ law occuring, as in the motor operation you
see a quick accelerating current pulse and then the counter induction from the coil kicks in,
so the input current strongly gets reduced and as the coil gets slower again at the other turn
point the input current rises again as the counter EMF of the coil is reduced due to lower speed and
thus the input current rises again...
But the coil voltage should be different then also again, but maybe you H-Bridge is mostly powered
by cap discharges as the batteries might have a high internal resistance, so the coil voltage
behaves this strange...


Well, it surely also depends how long the coil is.
If you would have a short coil, that is only 0.5 cm long and the core would be 10 cm long
it would behave quite differently as it is now, where the core is maybe 10 cm long and the coil
is at least about 4 cm long ?

Also it could help to place in the center of the outer core some additional
iron core pieces so the return flux is concentrated in the center....then the counter EMF
would be also different and it could help to reduze Lenz law effect...

P.S. Yes, a device that can show more vertical lift height in ONE shot , that
does not comply to the energy conservation formular:

m x g x h = 0.5 x C x Voltage^2

will show overunity.

So if you can lift a weight vertically up into the air higher than the stored cap
voltage will tell you, you have a winner....!

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

my H-Bridge has no capacitor. It's connected directly to the battery which was a 1.5vdc AA battery used in the first scope shot. The voltage was around 1.3vdc while in operation. The H-Bridge uses 4 x 60 volt rated MOSFET's that have a ultra low Resistance of 0.018 Ohm (model FP50N06). So noting should be wasted at the switches. I attached the pdf in case someone wants to look over the MOSFET specs.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 15, 2012, 03:16:54 AM
Hi Stefan

As per your request I have made a video demo to prove Overunity. Does this mean I can apply for the OU prize ;D

Link to video: http://youtu.be/OxuotFUWVGQ (http://youtu.be/OxuotFUWVGQ)

Let me know what you think

Luc


Hi Luc,
unfortunately not as you have to calculate the numbers:

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

So the efficiency is only

3.7 % only, if I did not miscalculate anything...
It is already very late over here in Berlin. time to go to bed...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 15, 2012, 03:25:47 AM
P.S. But the lift height could be scaled up by using a higher turn coil
with many more fine windings and higher weight.
Also it is better then to to use higher voltages on the cap.

Also with more and powerful magnets you can scale this up.
Also you have to measure if you discharged the cap completely or
not, that goes also into the calculation.

If you do it like in the AVISO repelleing coil demo, you might benefit from
chopping and shortcircuiting the coil during the launch, so the coil gets and produces its own BackEMF during
the chopped and shorted out energizing, so it will generate more repelling energy to propell
the coil much higher...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 15, 2012, 03:27:47 AM
Okay Stefan, I knew it was not as easy as you said :P

It's also late here 3:25am in Johannesburg

You do the math then let me know in writing what is needed to do the demo right.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on April 15, 2012, 03:36:04 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin 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 (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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin 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...

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin 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 !
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: polln8r 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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: aaron5120 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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: powercat 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

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala 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 !
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc 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 (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

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Lakes on April 15, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
Interesting Stuff Luc, did you make those laminations yourself?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DeepCut 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.



Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: wings on April 15, 2012, 09:01:57 PM
related to this effect:


http://science.net84.net/magnetic-generators/generatorY.html






Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on April 15, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Here is a closeup cutaway view. I made all this in Cinema 4D. Coil is shown in red, and the magnets is yellow. The magnets N pole is facing inward toward the coil.
 
 Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 09:31:14 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

You're welcome, and you know I'm not knocking your efforts.

Here's what I get, running the energy in the cap against the potential energy of the lift.

You've lifted 120 grams by 1 millimeter, using a cap of 0.272 microFarad charged to 325 Volts.

Putting everything in mks units we have
0.120 kg lifted 0.001 meter using a cap of 0.000000272 Farad at 325 Volts.

The energy on the cap is
(CV^2)/2 ==  (1/2) x (0.000000272) x (325) x (325) == just under 0.015 Joule.

The energy of the lifted mass (gravitational potential energy, the energy it takes to lift the mass against gravity) is
(mgh) == (0.120) x (9. 8) x (0.001) == just under 0.0012 Joule.

(I usually just use 10 m/s^2 for g, the local acceleration due to gravity, but 9.8 is more correct if more difficult to calculate with. I've always believed that Earth's gravity was a bit light, anyway.... it should be one Standard G of 10 meters per second per second exactly.)

Now, you are almost certainly also fighting against friction and other drag forces like eddy current drag so it will actually take somewhat more energy to lift your mass a given height, but unfortunately these will also work against you in the other direction as well and so represent (probably unrecoverable) losses to the system. So you can say that it takes  _at least_  0.0012 Joule for your system to raise your mass, possibly much more. Ten times more, due to losses? So if your system actually expends ten times the GPE, or 0.012 Joule, to lift the mass .... that is still less than the 0.015 Joule that you started with in the capacitor.

I'm bad about decimal points, though. I've checked this a couple times and I still wind up with a dismal efficiency of around 8 percent, from cap energy to mass lift.

(ETA: I think the first way I'd try, to improve the energy transfer, would be to tune for  the "critically damped" condition. )
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 10:40:31 PM
You might also find this (long) document interesting.

http://www.coilgun.info/plim/braam_daniels_pulsed_linear_induction_motor.pdf (http://www.coilgun.info/plim/braam_daniels_pulsed_linear_induction_motor.pdf)

Apparently an efficiency of  8 percent is actually rather good for a coilgun/linear induction motor, which I think this basically is, only "inside out" .

Actually, I think the loudspeaker design's magnetic circuit is doing what I was trying to describe.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on April 16, 2012, 12:14:22 AM
Here is a lil site that explains it also

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/spk.html

It also shows how the coil can move in and out of the flux gap, and why I designed my speaker to always be in the gap, long strong(neo) gap

I have been searching for a while now. Only found a couple things so far on speaker motor design.  Makes me wonder what the big secret is. lol  Still looking.

I went through this back then also.

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: conradelektro on April 16, 2012, 01:46:13 PM
@microcontroller:

Your transformer-linear-motor is a clever idea. I like how you transformed a common component (a transformer and its coil) into a interesting experiment.

What were the results of your experiments and how far did you push your design?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on April 16, 2012, 05:46:40 PM
Thanks Tom,

I now see how your system works.

So you think all these bearings and gears are more efficient then a crankshaft!... I would not of think so but since you built it I'll take your word on it.

Very interesting and thanks for sharing

Luc


Hi Luc,


Here is another clever crankshaftless design


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Xo9vAZGnrmM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Xo9vAZGnrmM)


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 17, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
Hi Luc,
well done new video.

In your video 5 about it,
you would need to lift this coil up 1.2 cm to get to 100 % efficiency.
All over 1.2 cm lift would be overunity at this cap size and charged voltage.

But you only lifted it maybe 1 mm ? So you need to get it lifted 10 times better,
which could be probably done by just using many more and much stronger magnets...

Magnet motors and things have to be build at least 10 times more bigger than this to get into the
overunity mode. If you build it too small, you will never have the chance to get it to overunity !

Here always the truth it: Size matters and bigger is better !

Regards, Stefan,
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on April 17, 2012, 01:03:58 AM

Hi Luc,


Here is another clever crankshaftless design



Ron



Luc,


I had to do a quick test on your neat idea. 


The coil is 27mm wide with about 730 turns of #25 wire for 12 ohms. Running on 12 volts is about 12 watts.


The magnets are 1/2 x 1 1/2 inches (12 x 38mm) the rod is 3 inches of 1 1/2 inch CR steel (76 x 35mm)


For the pull test I am starting with the coil to the left and pulling to the right.


With single magnets the initial pull is .75 KG's finishing at 1.02 kG's


With two magnets each end the pull is 1.2 kG's and 1.4 kG's


This is quite a contrast with a solenoid where the pull is very slight at the start and ramps up to maximum only at the end of the pull in.


On the use of a crankshaft: I would suggest timing the pulse to only cover say 80% of the stroke and so when the crank pin is immediately in front of or 180 at the other end of the stroke there is no pulse input. A small flywheel would carry the machine through the dead band.


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 17, 2012, 01:15:38 AM
Hello Luc i did some experiments along these lines in the late 2005.
It can be as easy as sticking magnets to a modified transformer see below.
These are used is SMPS for noise suppression.

The coil form usually has 4 segments so i cut it into half leaving two segments only, and then it can move over the core due to the created free space.

The coil form you see in the picture is specifically wound the first segment is wound clockwise while the second segment is wound counter clockwise, and i think you can guess what the field looks like when it is energized on a DC current  :)

Hi microcontroller,
interesting coil modification, so you have the coil built like a bucking coil ?

So how are your permanent magnets then polarized outside of the core ?
Just north to south ?
Would be interesting to see your coil current on a scope, if it will kill
out all the induction from the movement as the 2 coil parts are 180 degrees out of phase
so the induction from the movement will cancel all out ?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Peanutbutter29 on April 17, 2012, 05:04:05 AM
@ gotoluc

I just recently got to watch a good chunk of your videos.  I'm incredibly late, having avoided research for a few years; but Great job with all the work and videos!
That's pretty much it ATM, lol.  Just wanted to say good work!

Thanks
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hallo on April 17, 2012, 06:06:49 PM
microcontroller (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../profile/microcontroller.26898/),
your crankshaft design looks great !
Please post also any updates when you get it to run with all the electronics connected.

many thanks !

P.S: Please explain more your recent 2 videos with the coils.
As I am not at home and am currently in a public library I could only see it without audio.

But more explanations how the coil configurations are killing the induction would be great !

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hallo on April 17, 2012, 06:27:37 PM
Here is the formular for the height to be 100 % efficient.

For overunity you must just have a higher height than this value.


height in meters = 0.5 x C in Farads x voltage^2   /   (mass in kg x 9.81 )

For our US based users they are probably more use to inches,
so we can convert this formular to height in inches and the capacity in uF :

height in inches = 0.5 x C in uF x voltage^2  x 39.06 x 0.000001 /  ( mass in kg x 9.81 )

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hallo on April 17, 2012, 06:32:45 PM
Okay, here the formular for also the mass in Gramms, the capacitance in MikroFarads (uF) and the height in Millimeters or in inches:


height in inches = 0.5 x C in uF x voltage^2  x 39.06 x 0.000001 /  ( mass in Gramms x 9.81 x 0.001 )

height in Millimeters = 0.5 x C in uF x voltage^2  x 100 x 0.000001 /  ( mass in Gramms x 9.81 x 0.001 )
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on April 17, 2012, 07:40:38 PM




Stefan,


I have mounted my experiment vertically and added some weight to the coil.


Can you do the math on this please?


Steady state the coil is 12 volts at 1 amp


The weight of the coil and added weight is 358 grams


The height traveled is 47.5mm


The time is 98.75 mS


I have a N.O. micro switch which shuts the power off at the top of the travel


A couple of extra pulses here until the main switch is turned off


The time is in between the T1 and T2 markers


Thanks


Ron





Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: broli on April 17, 2012, 07:46:51 PM
According to my calculation you gained 0.17J in potential energy and used 1.185J electrically so 6.9% efficiency in that case. But this test alone is not really good on its own due to joule heating and wasted inductive energy.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on April 17, 2012, 08:25:09 PM
According to my calculation you gained 0.17J in potential energy and used 1.185J electrically so 6.9% efficiency in that case. But this test alone is not really good on its own due to joule heating and wasted inductive energy.


Thanks broli ! still that is better than 3%, lol


I didn't mention, that test was with steel end plates.


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 17, 2012, 08:44:41 PM
Hi everyone,

sorry for not getting back sooner but I have very limited internet access.
Thank you for all your input. I will try to reply to most and then will be back in another 2 days.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 17, 2012, 08:52:06 PM
Interesting Stuff Luc, did you make those laminations yourself?

Yes, I took apart some UPS transformers, used the wire to make coils and the Laminations to make all this stuff you see.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 17, 2012, 08:54:13 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 (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 (http://internut.webspace.virginmedia.com/Lucmotor%20Efficiency%20Test%20-%20Capacitor%20Version.ods)


All the best,

DC.

Thanks DC for taking the time to make this

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 17, 2012, 09:02:07 PM

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

Very interesting Mags

I'll let it soak in for a while.

Nice speaker design man 8)

Thanks for sharing your work and experience

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 17, 2012, 09:10:31 PM
You're welcome, and you know I'm not knocking your efforts.

Here's what I get, running the energy in the cap against the potential energy of the lift.

You've lifted 120 grams by 1 millimeter, using a cap of 0.272 microFarad charged to 325 Volts.

Putting everything in mks units we have
0.120 kg lifted 0.001 meter using a cap of 0.000000272 Farad at 325 Volts.

The energy on the cap is
(CV^2)/2 ==  (1/2) x (0.000000272) x (325) x (325) == just under 0.015 Joule.

The energy of the lifted mass (gravitational potential energy, the energy it takes to lift the mass against gravity) is
(mgh) == (0.120) x (9. 8) x (0.001) == just under 0.0012 Joule.

(I usually just use 10 m/s^2 for g, the local acceleration due to gravity, but 9.8 is more correct if more difficult to calculate with. I've always believed that Earth's gravity was a bit light, anyway.... it should be one Standard G of 10 meters per second per second exactly.)

Now, you are almost certainly also fighting against friction and other drag forces like eddy current drag so it will actually take somewhat more energy to lift your mass a given height, but unfortunately these will also work against you in the other direction as well and so represent (probably unrecoverable) losses to the system. So you can say that it takes  _at least_  0.0012 Joule for your system to raise your mass, possibly much more. Ten times more, due to losses? So if your system actually expends ten times the GPE, or 0.012 Joule, to lift the mass .... that is still less than the 0.015 Joule that you started with in the capacitor.

I'm bad about decimal points, though. I've checked this a couple times and I still wind up with a dismal efficiency of around 8 percent, from cap energy to mass lift.

(ETA: I think the first way I'd try, to improve the energy transfer, would be to tune for  the "critically damped" condition. )

Thanks for making the calculations TK

So 8% only :o ::) :P ... I quickly read the posts below and it seems Stefan saying I'm close to unity!.... any idea how that could be?

Thanks my friend

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 17, 2012, 11:38:20 PM
Oh and i can already hear your next question:

What if we change the magnets to North-South-South-North?

Well here it is see the vid.

Hi  microcontroller,

what was the exact configuration when you DID NOT get induction and what was the case, when you DID GET

induction ?

Many thanks.-

Regards, Stefan.


What was the coil and magnet orientation then ?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 17, 2012, 11:41:06 PM
Hi Luc,
you need at least to get 10 times better with your lift to get into the
unity range.
To get conclusive overunity you need to get about15 to 20 times better so you could also close the loop.

So you really need to get much bigger magnets and setups and also much bigger cores.

Size really matters here and this is the case with ALL magnetic setups to get good efficiency and
reduce losses...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 08:45:17 AM


Luc,


I had to do a quick test on your neat idea. 


The coil is 27mm wide with about 730 turns of #25 wire for 12 ohms. Running on 12 volts is about 12 watts.


The magnets are 1/2 x 1 1/2 inches (12 x 38mm) the rod is 3 inches of 1 1/2 inch CR steel (76 x 35mm)


For the pull test I am starting with the coil to the left and pulling to the right.


With single magnets the initial pull is .75 KG's finishing at 1.02 kG's


With two magnets each end the pull is 1.2 kG's and 1.4 kG's


This is quite a contrast with a solenoid where the pull is very slight at the start and ramps up to maximum only at the end of the pull in.


On the use of a crankshaft: I would suggest timing the pulse to only cover say 80% of the stroke and so when the crank pin is immediately in front of or 180 at the other end of the stroke there is no pulse input. A small flywheel would carry the machine through the dead band.


Ron

Hi Ron,

great test!... thanks for trying it out.

Regarding the coil stroke time. I think the motor should be a 2 cylinder minimum so you reduce the power stroke of each coil but each coil covers the other coils off time so we have zero dead spot. The motor would have 100% torque at 360 degrees rotation.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
Hi Luc,
well done new video.

In your video 5 about it,
you would need to lift this coil up 1.2 cm to get to 100 % efficiency.
All over 1.2 cm lift would be overunity at this cap size and charged voltage.

But you only lifted it maybe 1 mm ? So you need to get it lifted 10 times better,
which could be probably done by just using many more and much stronger magnets...

Magnet motors and things have to be build at least 10 times more bigger than this to get into the
overunity mode. If you build it too small, you will never have the chance to get it to overunity !

Here always the truth it: Size matters and bigger is better !

Regards, Stefan,

Hi Stefan,

that's good if we are close!... I'll see if I can make some lamination sides for the outside of the test coil. That should give it an extra boost.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 08:57:06 AM
Hello Luc i did some experiments along these lines in the late 2005.
It can be as easy as sticking magnets to a modified transformer see below.
These are used is SMPS for noise suppression.

The coil form usually has 4 segments so i cut it into half leaving two segments only, and then it can move over the core due to the created free space.

The coil form you see in the picture is specifically wound the first segment is wound clockwise while the second segment is wound counter clockwise, and i think you can guess what the field looks like when it is energized on a DC current  :)

Hi microcontroller,

thanks for posting your ideas.

I have also tested transformer E cores assembled together and it did not work for me. The problem was there was no movement of the coil.  I have also tested bucking coils and that is the same problem (no movement)

If you are getting it to move please do a short video of it please

Thanks for sharing

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 09:01:22 AM
@ gotoluc

I just recently got to watch a good chunk of your videos.  I'm incredibly late, having avoided research for a few years; but Great job with all the work and videos!
That's pretty much it ATM, lol.  Just wanted to say good work!

Thanks

Thanks Peanutbutter29 for your positive words

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 09:06:59 AM
Hi Luc,
you need at least to get 10 times better with your lift to get into the
unity range.
To get conclusive overunity you need to get about15 to 20 times better so you could also close the loop.

So you really need to get much bigger magnets and setups and also much bigger cores.

Size really matters here and this is the case with ALL magnetic setups to get good efficiency and
reduce losses...

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

I thought you said if I get the coil to go up to 1.2mm then we are at 100%... but now you say 10 times more which is over 12mm. Which one is it?

Luc

EDIT Okay, I see my error Stefan wrote 1.2cm and thought it was 1.2mm.  We are far off and I don't think I could get it to that using the current build.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DeepCut on April 18, 2012, 11:44:39 AM
Luc asked me to update the spreadsheets to use grammes instead of kg, millimetres instead of metres etc.

New versions are same names so same download links used.

Here is the Microsoft Excel version :

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


*** edit add ***

I think they may have downloaded as read-only before but this should be fixed now.

Stupid UNIX file permissions ;+}

*************



All the best,

DC.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Jimboot on April 18, 2012, 02:31:04 PM
@gotoluc thanks mate luvyawork. Just had a play with a Rodin coil and your idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Q_1c11wRQ
Edit: link fixed
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Luc asked me to update the spreadsheets to use grammes instead of kg, millimetres instead of metres etc.

New versions are same names so same download links used.

Here is the Microsoft Excel version :

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


*** edit add ***

I think they may have downloaded as read-only before but this should be fixed now.

Stupid UNIX file permissions ;+}

*************



All the best,

DC.

Thanks DC for this new version. It makes it much easier for me then to try and figure out the decimals.
I tried the Open Office version but it says read only version

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DeepCut on April 18, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
Hi Luc,

glad to help.

Sorry about the read-only, i set it to read/write access but i just downloaded it myself and it comes through as read-only so i'm not sure what's happening there.

I've sent you a youtube message with my email address, email me and i'll send the editable version.


Cheers,

DC.


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 18, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
@gotoluc thanks mate luvyawork. Just had a play with a Rodin coil and your idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Q_1c11wRQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Q_1c11wRQ)
Edit: link fixed

Thanks for your interest and trying it out on your Rodin Coil mate ;)

She's flying high now

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Jimboot on April 19, 2012, 11:29:06 AM
Thanks for your interest and trying it out on your Rodin Coil mate ;)

She's flying high now

Luc
No worries mate here's the latest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2yhfyjLqBs wondering if the way it sails past the middle mags is significant
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 03:52:00 PM
No worries mate here's the latest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2yhfyjLqBs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2yhfyjLqBs) wondering if the way it sails past the middle mags is significant

Hi Jimboot,
well done.

What is the weight of your coil and the power input ( voltage x current)

Many thanks.

P.S. Maybe you can also try it on a charged capacitor ?

Do you still have more magnets that you can use to put on the stator side ?


@gotoluc:

Yes, I meant 12 mm = 1.2 cm
so you need to do at least 10 times better than now.
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Jimboot on April 19, 2012, 11:25:59 PM
Hi Jimboot,
well done.

What is the weight of your coil and the power input ( voltage x current)

Many thanks.

P.S. Maybe you can also try it on a charged capacitor ?

Do you still have more magnets that you can use to put on the stator side ?


@gotoluc:

Yes, I meat 12 mm = 1.2 cm
so you need to do at least 10 times better than now.
Regards, Stefan.


Hi Stefan I haven't weighed the coil yet but height is 9" 225mm. I've tried a couple of fishing sinkers on it as well. I'll weigh it all tonight.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 12:19:32 AM
I just told you in my previous post even showed it in two video's so which part did you not get?

When the magnets are placed NORTH-SOUTH NORTH SOUTH there is no induction because the core is exactly in the middle which is the DEAD ZONE.
This translates into NORTH-CORE-SOUTH where core is in the dead zone.

When the magnets are placed NORTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH there is induction because there are many field lines cutting the coil and that's what it is all about here the number of field lines cutting the coil.

Yes, but you had a bucking coil, which normaly should not induce any current, cause it is canceling out the induction voltage due to the 180 degrees out of phase series circuit.
But it surely depends how big these bucking coils are and which part of the coil gets how many field lines to cut. so it depends on the location inside the core and where all the fieldlines
are located and what part of the bucking coil gets how many fieldlines to cut , so the difference voltage of each part can be different.

Just then please show the movement of your bucking coil inside the core being powered by a cap
when it generates no induction voltage due to the movement.
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 03:01:51 AM
@microcontroller

I thought you were working on it right now,
so I did not realize, that these tests were from 2005.....

The forum will soon be updated with the new PortaMX version
that will fix a few bugs and I also need to move to a new hoster,
but in this moment I have a lot of other work to do, so
I need to prepare this when I have again enough time
to work on this fully for a few days in a row as this is not an  easy
move with all the huge database and huge file archive.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 20, 2012, 07:51:57 PM
Hi everyone,

I have internet access again.

I was thinking that maybe we are going in the wrong direction on trying to find the efficiency of this effect by short burst of energy to the coil to move a weight at a certain height.

How about instead we calculate Watts used to hold a weight continuously at a certain height.

Since Induction is present the coil may not be able to lift fast enough to reach its true potential, that maybe why it's staying around 8% efficiency. So lets explore how many Watts it takes to push a weight to a certain distance and hold it there.

If we look at Jimboot new idea and video demo we will realize that a weight could be potentially pushed up very high without adding any extra energy.

Can someone please post the formula so we can calculate its efficiency this way instead.

Thanks for all sharing and great job Jinboot ;)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on April 20, 2012, 08:00:43 PM
No worries mate here's the latest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2yhfyjLqBs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2yhfyjLqBs) wondering if the way it sails past the middle mags is significant

Great idea mate.

Before seeing your new video I was going to post that I feel we are probably calculating the efficiency the wrong way but after seeing what you have now figured out I really feel we need to come up with a new efficiency calculation formula.

Thanks for sharing your improvements

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Jimboot on April 22, 2012, 06:37:33 AM
Ok my coil weighs 74 grams which is the one I can lift to 225mm.
With weights added I can get it to 112mm total weight including coil of 175grams. @Stefan what cap rating do you want me to use to measure power?
Thanks
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Kator01 on August 22, 2012, 12:33:54 AM
Jimboot,

potential energy of your mass : E = m x g x h = 0.175 kg x 9.81 m/sec exp2 x 0.112 m = 0.1923 Joule ( Watt second ). What was your electrical power-input ?

Regards

Kator01


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on February 17, 2013, 07:34:30 PM
Luc asked me to update the spreadsheets to use grammes instead of kg, millimetres instead of metres etc.

New versions are same names so same download links used.

Here is the Microsoft Excel version :

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


*** edit add ***

I think they may have downloaded as read-only before but this should be fixed now.

Stupid UNIX file permissions ;+}

*************



All the best,

DC.

Excuse me but looks to me that to know the energy consumed need to have 2 voltage while a capacitor: the one before the test and the one after; am I right?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on February 18, 2013, 07:18:14 AM
Excuse me but looks to me that to know the energy consumed need to have 2 voltage while a capacitor: the one before the test and the one after; am I right?

Yes, you are correct!  but in this test the capacitor was connected long enough to discharge completely.

Thanks for your interest

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Neo-X on February 18, 2013, 11:37:08 AM
Hi guys.. I have another idea based on tito's ping pong circuit... My idea is to confirm what Richard Willis said that a coil in a ferrite core with magnet in both side when supplied with a pulse of voltage, its collapsing magnetic field produces more power than in. If it was true, the current will never degrade and instead it will goes bigger. In figure A, the capacitor was pre-charged by a battery.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Neo-X on February 18, 2013, 11:55:20 AM
Opps wrong thread lol...  ;D
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on February 21, 2013, 10:48:10 PM
Yes, you are correct!  but in this test the capacitor was connected long enough to discharge completely.

Thanks for your interest

Luc
lol, ok V2 = 0 Thanks for having confirmed. Cheer. :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 20, 2013, 06:42:44 AM
Hi everyone,
 
I have been working on improving this motor design which I came up with some years back.
The idea of this motor design was to mostly use the flux of powerful Neodymium Magnets we now have, since in a standard magnet motor we would not get a power gain just by upgrading the old ceramic magnets to Neodymium Magnets, as we would also have to add more power to the motor coils to overcome the extra attraction force the Neo Magnets have.
However, in my motor design there is no sticky spot, so the more flux the magnets have the more mechanical power the motor has without changing the input power.
 
I have made a new video which demonstrates this and also demonstrates a better magnet and cores position which takes full advantage of both Permanent Magnet Poles and of the Electromagnet Poles.

This improvement basically double the mechanical output power of my first design without any increase to the input power.

The video should be self explanatory

http://youtu.be/-eTQ49RcFKM (http://youtu.be/-eTQ49RcFKM)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on July 20, 2013, 10:19:05 PM
Hi Luc,

Very good progress in getting higher and higher pulling force. Would like to suggest a "tuning method" unless you are also aware of it: just monitoring the coil's inductance on your L meter, you could easily see the effects of any changes in your setup, always aiming for higher and higher self inductance. For instance if you used two cube magnets on top of each other to double their length (I attached an edited picture from video to show it at one side) and this way you would also achieve a double distance between the coil and the side bars. Maybe you do not have enough cube magnets to do this for all the four directions at both main core ends but doing it with two bars, say, at the front and rear sides may show the effect if any.

I assume that the improvement in coil inductance (when you use a side bar to bridge the outer like poles, say South poles) comes from removing the "fringe" South pole flux from the coil area and direct them into the outside bar. I say this because seemingly you indeed close the magnetic circuit by using an iron side-bar but the magnets to be bridged being like poles they cannot close to any other pole in the bar because at the other end of the bar the same like pole enters the bar from the other end magnet.

So I assume that the increase in pulling force does come from the increased coil inductance and this inductance increase comes about by applying more flux from the permanent magnets, shifting the core's working point towards a higher permeability area of the B/H curve. Of course as you also mentioned in the video, there is an upper limit in increasing the flux by using stronger and stronger magnets: this upper limit is set by core saturation.

The possible ultimate core and magnet shape for your setup would be to use a cylinder  core (say a ferrit rod) in the middle (on which also a cylinder coil would slide) and use a ring magnet at both core ends with its ID matched to core's OD and then use a soft iron tube (with certain wall thickness) outside instead of the bars to connect the ring magnets' outer like poles. No stray flux would escape from such setup.  8)

Thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on July 21, 2013, 12:57:38 AM
Hi gotoluc!

Thanks for sharing your very valuable experiments.

I see very brillant your use of bacefm as an alternative drive synchronized with the moving of the coil.

You can use imho this as a very interesting piston motor; a "motor" indeed. But true you can drive a generator and try to find the limit of efficiency of the system.

But before to do so, could you scientifically and rigorously measuring the power output of it? Could you add a pouly with a baril, a wire, a mass, and measure the time your motor will pull the mass up to 1 meter? This giving us the effective mechanical output power to compare to the electrical power. A graphic of the evolution of the mechanical power in function of the electrical power input would be a very must; imho.

Cheer, Khwartz.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 21, 2013, 06:11:51 AM
if you used two cube magnets on top of each other to double their length this way you would also achieve a double distance between the coil and the side bars may show the effect if any.

If you increase the air gap (distance) between the outer surface of the coil and outer core, the result will be a drop in pull force, even though you double the magnets. As the outer cores and coil can do as much work as the inner core and coil. So the closer to zero air gap will give the best results.

I assume that the improvement in coil inductance (when you use a side bar to bridge the outer like poles, say South poles) comes from removing the "fringe" South pole flux from the coil area and direct them into the outside bar. I say this because seemingly you indeed close the magnetic circuit by using an iron side-bar but the magnets to be bridged being like poles they cannot close to any other pole in the bar because at the other end of the bar the same like pole enters the bar from the other end magnet.

The increase in the coils inductance comes from adding iron core close the the surface area of the coil. As you should know, the closer the copper wire to the iron the more the inductance gain.
I cannot close the loop between the inner and outer core (like a transformer) as this would short out the north and south flux and the coil would barely move. I know this because I tried it. I thought it would boost the inductance big time, and it did but the coil also barely moved.

So I assume that the increase in pulling force does come from the increased coil inductance and this inductance increase comes about by applying more flux from the permanent magnets, shifting the core's working point towards a higher permeability area of the B/H curve. Of course as you also mentioned in the video, there is an upper limit in increasing the flux by using stronger and stronger magnets: this upper limit is set by core saturation.

You may think that the extra pull force is from an increase in Inductance but that is not correct. I'm sure there is a small increase caused by the inductance boost but the most of the extra pull force is from the outer coils opposite pole working on the outer core and magnet pole just like the inner coils pole working on the inner core and magnet pole. I can prove this by making the coil move the same just using outer cores and magnets with no inner core and magnets. The only thing it's just the opposite pole.
I don't know if you follow me. I've been trying to tell about this before but people are not picking up on it.
A coil produces the opposite pole half way through its thickness. Just like a one inch thick magnet will have 1/2 inch of North and 1/2 inch of South.  Well, a coil that's wound one inch thick will also do the same.
I have experimented with this some years back and I though this was known.  Is it not known this way?
Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?


The possible ultimate core and magnet shape for your setup would be to use a cylinder  core (say a ferrit rod) in the middle (on which also a cylinder coil would slide) and use a ring magnet at both core ends with its ID matched to core's OD and then use a soft iron tube (with certain wall thickness) outside instead of the bars to connect the ring magnets' outer like poles. No stray flux would escape from such setup.

I don't know about that. How can a cylinder work better the what I just demonstrated?... also, doesn't a ferrite loose inductance when you apply magnet flux?

Thank you Gyula for always asking important questions and sharing your knowledge.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 21, 2013, 06:33:42 AM
Hi gotoluc!

Thanks for sharing your very valuable experiments.

I see very brillant your use of bacefm as an alternative drive synchronized with the moving of the coil.

You can use imho this as a very interesting piston motor; a "motor" indeed. But true you can drive a generator and try to find the limit of efficiency of the system.

But before to do so, could you scientifically and rigorously measuring the power output of it? Could you add a pouly with a baril, a wire, a mass, and measure the time your motor will pull the mass up to 1 meter? This giving us the effective mechanical output power to compare to the electrical power. A graphic of the evolution of the mechanical power in function of the electrical power input would be a very must; imho.

Cheer, Khwartz.

Thanks for your positive comment.

The coil weight is 100 grams. I can place it vertically (against gravity), power it and calculate the amount of mm it moved up in x amount of time using x amount of watt.

Would that work?

Or much easier for me is a capacitive (joule) discharge and tell you how many mm it moved up.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on July 21, 2013, 01:05:58 PM
Hi Luc,

Quote
If you increase the air gap (distance) between the outer surface of the coil and outer core, the result will be a drop in pull force, even though you double the magnets. As the outer cores and coil can do as much work as the inner core and coil. So the closer to zero air gap will give the best results. 

Okay, I accept that and although it is irrevelant now, I think you have tested how the coil inductance changes when you increase the air gap and found the inductance increases in a lesser extent compared to a previously smaller air gap? I mean you measure 867 mH for the coil with the single magnets at the ends (when there is no bridging bar between the outer like poles) and then you apply the bridge and get 942 mH.
Then you double the air gap for the bridge by using double magnets (i.e. doubling their thickness) and you measure also an increase in inductance with respect to the no bridge 867 mH value but now this measured value would not reach the 942 mH value received for the previous smaller air gap case, so this is what I figured.
Because you measured the pulling forces for the different cases, obviously the size of the air gap has a much stronger influence on the force than the increase in inductance does.

Quote
I don't know if you follow me. I've been trying to tell about this before but people are not picking up on it.

Well I follow you but this time I did not revise your years ago tests on this setup, sorry. Yes, a coil will also have a Bloch wall in its middle part just like a permanent magnet does, no doubt on that.

Quote
I don't know about that. How can a cylinder work better the what I just demonstrated?... also, doesn't a ferrite loose inductance when you apply magnet flux?

Well, a cylinder coil in itself would not work better than your rectangular coil (assuming equal inductance and number of turns) but I meant also using ring magnets instead of the cube magnets. I simply thought of occupying all the space around a cylinder coil by having covered it all around by a ferromagnetic tube to replace the bars (in fact you would have an infinite number of "bars" from the generatrix of the cylinder tube), this way the opposite poles could be utilized the most from the coil.
Now I looked for radially magnetized ring magnets (i.e. their ID is say North all inside and their OD is South all around outside) which would be needed for my suggestion but unfortunately such is not manufactured...  can only assembled from arc magnets like is shown here: http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?products_id=380  or also could be assembled from say smaller cube magnets also wrapped up in an enclosure. Understand now what "cylinder" setup I mean? Of course such setup would cost more to assemble than your present one and I also prefer initial testings with a cheap solution, I just indicated an 'ultimate' setup in this respect.
Regarding a ferrite loosing inductance when influenced by (strong) outside magnets, yes it normally does, mainly when cross section area is small versus the flux strength, I mentioned ferrite as a first straigthforward thought for cylinder shaped cores...

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 21, 2013, 03:24:39 PM
Hi Luc,

Okay, I accept that and although it is irrevelant now, I think you have tested how the coil inductance changes when you increase the air gap and found the inductance increases in a lesser extent compared to a previously smaller air gap? I mean you measure 867 mH for the coil with the single magnets at the ends (when there is no bridging bar between the outer like poles) and then you apply the bridge and get 942 mH.
Then you double the air gap for the bridge by using double magnets (i.e. doubling their thickness) and you measure also an increase in inductance with respect to the no bridge 867 mH value but now this measured value would not reach the 942 mH value received for the previous smaller air gap case, so this is what I figured.
Because you measured the pulling forces for the different cases, obviously the size of the air gap has a much stronger influence on the force than the increase in inductance does.

Well I follow you but this time I did not revise your years ago tests on this setup, sorry. Yes, a coil will also have a Bloch wall in its middle part just like a permanent magnet does, no doubt on that.

Well, a cylinder coil in itself would not work better than your rectangular coil (assuming equal inductance and number of turns) but I meant also using ring magnets instead of the cube magnets. I simply thought of occupying all the space around a cylinder coil by having covered it all around by a ferromagnetic tube to replace the bars (in fact you would have an infinite number of "bars" from the generatrix of the cylinder tube), this way the opposite poles could be utilized the most from the coil.
Now I looked for radially magnetized ring magnets (i.e. their ID is say North all inside and their OD is South all around outside) which would be needed for my suggestion but unfortunately such is not manufactured...  can only assembled from arc magnets like is shown here: http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?products_id=380 (http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?products_id=380)  or also could be assembled from say smaller cube magnets also wrapped up in an enclosure. Understand now what "cylinder" setup I mean? Of course such setup would cost more to assemble than your present one and I also prefer initial testings with a cheap solution, I just indicated an 'ultimate' setup in this respect.
Regarding a ferrite loosing inductance when influenced by (strong) outside magnets, yes it normally does, mainly when cross section area is small versus the flux strength, I mentioned ferrite as a first straigthforward thought for cylinder shaped cores...

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

from what I read above you're understanding everything perfectly well.

I also now agree that if you could find a radially magnetized ring magnet then the cylinder setup would probably work best. However, we also need to keep in mind that the coil would need to be held by guides if one wants to use the mechanical movement of it. So the outside cylinder would need to be two halves with a slit of the thickness of the material holding on to the coil.

To improve on outer surface area loses what I was thinking of doing for my next super build is making the center core 1/2" to 3/4" thick but 6 inches wide. That way 90% of the outside coil surface can be covered and converted to power.

The only thing I don't know about is the ideal coil wire size, length, amount of turns and resistance (combination of all) to obtain the most pull per watts.
If you know of a way to calculate that would be of great help.

Thanks for sharing.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on July 23, 2013, 03:19:31 AM
Thanks for your positive comment.

The coil weight is 100 grams. I can place it vertically (against gravity), power it and calculate the amount of mm it moved up in x amount of time using x amount of watt.

Would that work?

Or much easier for me is a capacitive (joule) discharge and tell you how many mm it moved up.

Luc
You're wellcome! Luc.

I have thought this possibility to put vertical the axis and work against grativity but if it very easy to realize, it is not so easy to have an enough accurate time measurement on so short period of time.

The formula any way is: P[W] = M[kg] * g[m/s2] * L[m] / T.

Cheer.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 23, 2013, 05:22:07 AM
You're wellcome! Luc.

I have thought this possibility to put vertical the axis and work against grativity but if it very easy to realize, it is not so easy to have an enough accurate time measurement on so short period of time.

The formula any way is: P[W] = M[kg] * g[m/s2] * L[m] / T.

Cheer.

So then, how about a capacitive discharge against gravity and just measure how many mm the 100 grams traveled up.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 24, 2013, 02:11:29 PM
Hi Luc,
  I've been working on a very similar design to yours, and I've written some PHP code to do all the calculations. I'd be happy to discuss / share it with you - send me a PM...

hartiberlin is correct - you have to go bigger to get OU... But once you do get over a certain size - then this design does go overunity...

You need a much bigger coil, with fatter wire. To optimise the coil you need the most amp turns per ohm of resistance possible - and that is limited a) by coil physical size, and b) the resistivity of the conductor material.

Magnetic Field Strength (H) = Number of Turns * Amps / Coil Length

BField (In Tesla) = H * Permeability (of iron / vacuum whatever)

You also need a bigger face-area (Area) for the core...

Magnetic Pull (newtons) = (BField * Bfield) * Area / 2 * u0

Even though it should be OU, there are still 2 main flaws with this design, as far as I can tell:

 1) You're limited by the strength of the PMags. The best neodymium is less than half as strong as saturated electric steel (.5T vs 1.6T). It looks like an optimised plain steel solenoid would outperform your design, when running at full power. (Whereas your design is better at low power - below saturation). Also, I think I'm right in saying that you can't saturate iron with any permanent magnet - none are strong enough.

 2) Your piston is effectively 'pushing' against the H-field of the core - which is extremely weak compared to the B-field of iron. There are ways round this - but you'd have to change the basic design.

Hope this helps.
Tim

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on July 25, 2013, 11:17:08 PM
So then, how about a capacitive discharge against gravity and just measure how many mm the 100 grams traveled up.

Luc
So far, at least mathematically it is in both cases energy measurement. So it could worth the try in a first stage; i.m.o.

Cheer, Khwartz.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on July 26, 2013, 12:40:57 AM
...
 1) You're limited by the strength of the PMags. The best neodymium is less than half as strong as saturated electric steel (.5T vs 1.6T). It looks like an optimised plain steel solenoid would outperform your design, when running at full power. (Whereas your design is better at low power - below saturation). Also, I think I'm right in saying that you can't saturate iron with any permanent magnet - none are strong enough.

 2) Your piston is effectively 'pushing' against the H-field of the core - which is extremely weak compared to the B-field of iron. There are ways round this - but you'd have to change the basic design.
...

Hi Tim,

Welcome to this forum. 

Would like to understand your points above. 

1) You mean the core for the coil should be made from electric steel?  If yes, have you considered possible eddy current losses in it (even though the pulsing frequency would be less than 10-15 Hz or so, I assume)  or this possible loss could be minimized by using laminated electric steel plates? 
I read on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet#Description)  that  I quote: "the tetragonal Nd2Fe14B crystal structure ... has  a high saturation magnetization  (Js ~1.6 T or 16 kG) and typically 1.3 Teslas." 
Does this mean that now there are Neo magnets with > 1Tesla saturation?

2) Could you elaborate some more how to change the basic design to get more B filed involved if I got it correctly.

Thanks,
Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 26, 2013, 05:25:03 AM
Your piston is effectively 'pushing' against the H-field of the core - which is extremely weak compared to the B-field of iron. There are ways round this - but you'd have to change the basic design.

Hope this helps.
Tim

Hi Tim, thanks for your post and details.

Like Gyula I would also like know more on a design like you mention above.

Please share you ideas

Also, not sure I understand the term "electric steel"

Thank you

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 26, 2013, 11:19:34 AM
Hi gyulasun - you're right, neos are according to Wikipedia >1 Tesla. I've been using the magnet calculator here: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp - which says an N52 has a field of 6619 Gauss - i.e. about .66T. I'm not sure how to reconcile that difference TBH so I was working on the assumption that the folks who were making the magnets were probably right - and to assume the lower field.

Electric Steel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_steel

Assuming the neos were 1.5T - it's still no more than electric steel - and the cost of the big magnets you'd need would be high. Agreed that eddy currents are a problem in steel - and laminations are always desirable - but maybe not necessary if the design is OU enough.

I have been looking at the following arrangements for a 'Magnet Piston' type engine - where the coil is the stator - i.e. fixed, and the magnets / core moves. Input is pulsed DC.

 Case 1) A single plain steel armature - as in a typical solenoid.

 Case 2) 2 opposing magnets on a non-magnetic shaft - both situated within the core of the coil (at the extremes of stroke the opposing magnet would just appear out of the end of the 'cylinder', while the attacting magnet is pulled to the center, of course)
In this case - there's no steel at all - just the magnets. It's a good arrangement.

 Case 3) As 2, but with a fixed central steel core, perhaps 1/5th the total length of the coil - to provide a fixed central magnet for both the moving magnets to act upon. (The stroke length is reduced...). This is an excellent arrangement - as the magnets act on the B-field of the central core, and the H-field of the coil too. My design uses no permanent magnets, so is a 2-stroke.

I've calculated power at 1000RPM for each of the above. Obviously my calcs could be totally wrong, but I'd be happy to go thru them with you guys... One problem is that I don't believe how little power it takes to fully saturate steel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(magnetic)
...says 100 Amp Turns per inch is more than enough (and diameter doesnt seem to matter!). So for my 8" coil below - I should only need 800 Amp Turns, not 8,000. In which case the coil can be made much thinner... I've been trying to err on the side of caution.

Given 50w input into coil: Length 200mm, InsideDiam 100mm, OutsideDiam 300mm, 3mm copper, 2178 Turns, 3.23 Ohms (3.9A, 12.7V) -> 8500 Amp Turns, 42830 AmpTurns/meter (Total mass of coil is 85Kg!)

 Case 1: Solenoid) Output power = 1,300 Watts
 Case 2: 2 Magnets = not calculated, as i've recoded and dropped this calc... Tended to be about 2-3 x case 1 with 1.5T magnets
 Case 3: 10,800 Watts (14.6Hp)

I've been looking at using aluminium for the coil - to cut weight. The 'attacting' magnet / armature would be a steel cylinder. The 'repelling' armature would be a smaller steel cylinder wrapped with a coil. Connected via a non-magnetic shaft through a hole in the central core, and to an external crank.

So, if I could get case 3 running at 5,000 rpm it should give 70Hp approx, which is enough to run a motorbike - off a standard 12v battery...
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 26, 2013, 11:56:41 AM
Actually, the design I have for Case 3 did include the possibility of having permanent magnets attached to the 2 halves of the piston, on the face outside of the coil - to provide better response at low power by pre-magnetising the steel. They wouldn't be the main source of field though - that would be the steel itself... Cost of manufacture, and availability of materials is a major concern. You can make big steel pistons almost any size, but the biggest neos I can buy are just 3" diameter - and expensive too.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 26, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
I've started a new thread about my 'Case 3' magnet piston engine design. It's here:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 26, 2013, 02:32:50 PM
I've started another thread called 'Magnetic Field Equations Predict Overunity...' here:
http://www.overunity.com/13674/magnetic-field-equations-predict-overunity/

Which should explain the calcs a bit better...
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on July 26, 2013, 07:10:15 PM
Hi gyulasun - you're right, neos are according to Wikipedia >1 Tesla. I've been using the magnet calculator here: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp) - which says an N52 has a field of 6619 Gauss - i.e. about .66T. I'm not sure how to reconcile that difference TBH so I was working on the assumption that the folks who were making the magnets were probably right - and to assume the lower field.

Hi Tim,

Yes, I accept that info on Wikipedia may be questionable in some cases, albeit what I quoted was saturation magnetization which goes together with residual flux density, Br  while your example sounds like surface field strength data. If yes then surface field is magnet shape and configuration dependent. For instance in case of magnet type DX08 N52, in free space, the field in the surface center is 5237 G and  at any one of the 4 outer 90° corner edges it is 9417 G.  And I agree, even with 1.5T values it would be in pair with electric steel.  (If inserting this magnet into a closed magnetic circuit, the field can be higher inside the circuit versus that of the free space surface data but you surely know this)

Quote
Electric Steel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_steel)

I think Luc has used laminated core scavenged from microwave owen transformers and the Wiki description sounds like transformer cores are made from electrical steel, so no problem here, just the term electric steel what may have caused some confusion, not mentioning extensively for transformer cores.


Quote
I've calculated power at 1000RPM for each of the above. Obviously my calcs could be totally wrong, but I'd be happy to go thru them with you guys... One problem is that I don't believe how little power it takes to fully saturate steel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(magnetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(magnetic))
...says 100 Amp Turns per inch is more than enough (and diameter doesnt seem to matter!). So for my 8" coil below - I should only need 800 Amp Turns, not 8,000. In which case the coil can be made much thinner... I've been trying to err on the side of caution.

Your Case 3 setup looks interesting indeed and later I will try to go through the calculations in your other thread.  Regarding the curves in the Figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magnetization_curves.svg which suggest a low power is needed for saturating steel material: I think such data always refers to toroidal shape cores (i.e. in closed magnetic circuits) made from the different materials to compare or characterize them. In case of an open core like a piston setup I think higher power is needed for bringing the steel into saturation.

rgds, Gyula

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tim123 on July 27, 2013, 10:04:01 AM
Hi Luc, I've been trying to figure out what's buildable, and I've added a spec for a prototype here:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/msg366365/#msg366365

It's not too big. It's a bit of a hybrid between yours and my ideas - in that it could use 2 permanent magnets, but it has the fixed central core for added push. It should still be OU enough to prove the concept (about 50-100x ?).

I was also thinking - if the shaft in my design was magnetic - as in yours - it should contribute to the force - as it does in your design. I was thinking it would just interfere with the bearings, but PTFE sliding bearings would be ok.

:-)
Tim
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on July 27, 2013, 02:46:32 PM
Thank you Tim, I'll have a look

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 16, 2013, 04:55:58 PM
Hi Luc,
was very excited looking at your videos - great work!
Just want to point out that in order to generate 1 w of energy you should be able to lift weight of 10 kg by 1 centimeter at 1 second,
or 1 kg by 1 cm 10 times per second, or 250 grams at 1 cm 40 times per second!
 But generally speaking, in order to achieve this you need a) - much bigger magnets, b) - much smaller travel of the coil.
According to my calculations the magnet ( the source of the energy) should have the pull of about 400 kg, and the travel about
.5 cm. With your setup this doesn't appear to be practical since magnets will be fighting each other (IMHO).


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 17, 2013, 12:46:52 AM
Hi telecom! Nice to see I am not alone to advise for outpower measurement by weight lifting: kg/s against the gravity; it is for me most undisputable way to demonstrate any O.U. What do you think?
Cheer.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 17, 2013, 02:03:34 AM
Yes, this appears to be the simplest way. After all, this is what Watt was using
to determine 1HP - 75kg x M/sec.
In our case, we want the mechanical work of magnet attraction (repulsion) to exceed
wattage of the solenoid. The OU can come from the pumping action by engaging
magnets at certain frequency - the higher, the bigger mechanical output per second.. But still, the magnet should be quite big - 400 kg pull +. Also, the travel should be
quite small, within 1/4 of an inch to optimize the magnetic force, which drops
parabolically with the distance.
What do you think, guys?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 17, 2013, 07:36:14 AM
Not sure to very inderstand the principle and the calculations for this kind of device; just be about giving true ideas onhow to demonstrate O.U. so that nobody could contest it.
Good luck for the rest of the quest :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 17, 2013, 04:52:33 PM
This an idea of a test set up for determining if any extra power can be achieved.
The leverage between input and output stages is 1:10.
Solenoid is in blue, and PM in red.
The stroke between the PM and solenoid ~1/4", which makes travel of the output ~2.5. This is where to attach the weight to lift.
If the magnet is not strong enough, to add another one, for a start 3" dia x 2" high.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 17, 2013, 10:51:54 PM
Hi Luc,
was very excited looking at your videos - great work!
Just want to point out that in order to generate 1 w of energy you should be able to lift weight of 10 kg by 1 centimeter at 1 second,
or 1 kg by 1 cm 10 times per second, or 250 grams at 1 cm 40 times per second!
 But generally speaking, in order to achieve this you need a) - much bigger magnets, b) - much smaller travel of the coil.
According to my calculations the magnet ( the source of the energy) should have the pull of about 400 kg, and the travel about
.5 cm. With your setup this doesn't appear to be practical since magnets will be fighting each other (IMHO).

Hi telcom,

thanks for your interest and test information.

I have a new (stronger magnet) model that I have tested. I noticed that as I drop the current the pull grams per watts is not linear.

Example:

My new model pulls 520g for 1.2 watts input.  However, if I drop the current it can pull 200g with .3 watts input.

Luc

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 18, 2013, 12:01:16 AM
Hello gotoluc, thanks for continuing your experiments  :D

Very interesting to know it is not linear :)

When you say: "pulls 520g for 1.2 watts input.  However, if I drop the current it can pull 200g with .3 watts input", it is just ratio of force against electrical power; could tel us in how many th of second it lifts them in each case?

Cheer.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 18, 2013, 12:34:29 AM
Hi Luc,
this is a big step in the right direction.
If it takes 1 second, than the mechanical equivalent of .3 w X sec (.3 joyles) equals
3 kG x cm, and the efficiency is still below 10 %.
Perhaps you may add few more magnets, or increase number of strokes per second or both?

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 18, 2013, 12:35:45 AM
Hello gotoluc, thanks for continuing your experiments  :D

Very interesting to know it is not linear :)

When you say: "pulls 520g for 1.2 watts input.  However, if I drop the current it can pull 200g with .3 watts input", it is just ratio of force against electrical power; could tel us in how many th of second it lifts them in each case?

Cheer.

That's the problem!  I don't  have an accurate way of calculating such a fast and small amount of time for a movement.

All I can do is do that ca be accurate is a test of Joule energy (capacitive discharge) and measure how high it travels.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 18, 2013, 12:51:32 AM
Hi Luc,
this is a big step in the right direction.
If it takes 1 second, than the mechanical equivalent of .3 w X sec (.3 joyles) equals
3 kG x cm, and the efficiency is still below 10 %.
Perhaps you may add few more magnets, or increase number of strokes per second or both?

Hi telecom,

I think it would be more like 1/4 of a second to travel 1 cm in the modified version.

All I did to double the pull force (from last video) is, if you look towards the end of my video I added 2 small pieces of magnets on the ends of the center core and it helped a little, so basically I used this same model but added 1 inch N52 cube magnets on those ends and got 520g of pull instead of the 250g. So as you can see it's all about the strength of the magnets that will make a stronger pull force. I'm sure a design with more coil and core surface area will also boost things.

However, one important thing is the generator effect. The stronger the magnets the stronger the fight with the generator effect is (Lenz Law) This is what I'm more interested in finding, is a way we can use the Lenz effect to our advantage.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 18, 2013, 01:47:37 AM
Hi telecom,

I think it would be more like 1/4 of a second to travel 1 cm in the modified version.

All I did to double the pull force (from last video) is, if you look towards the end of my video I added 2 small pieces of magnets on the ends of the center core and it helped a little, so basically I used this same model but added 1 inch N52 cube magnets on those ends and got 520g of pull instead of the 250g. So as you can see it's all about the strength of the magnets that will make a stronger pull force. I'm sure a design with more coil and core surface area will also boost things.

However, one important thing is the generator effect. The stronger the magnets the stronger the fight with the generator effect is (Lenz Law) This is what I'm more interested in finding, is a way we can use the Lenz effect to our advantage.

Luc
Great,
in this case the equivalent is 750 G.
You are getting closer!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 20, 2013, 12:42:53 AM
That's the problem!  I don't  have an accurate way of calculating such a fast and small amount of time for a movement.

All I can do is do that ca be accurate is a test of Joule energy (capacitive discharge) and measure how high it travels.

Luc
What about a gearing counter or what ever kind, and you let it run for 1 minute? then you could make the ratio and have the average duration with more precision; what do you think?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 20, 2013, 04:49:09 AM
Just thought of this ::) ... if I video tape the movement, we know NTSC video has 29.97 frames per second, so I think that should be accurate enough.

However, to get an accurate coil movement I would have to build a sliding guide system so the core doesn't loose power rubbing on the center core like it is now.

Unfortunately I'll have to put this on the back burner as the weather is great at this time for my houseboat building project: http://www.overunity.com/13496/building-a-solar-electric-houseboat/msg360011/#msg360011 (http://www.overunity.com/13496/building-a-solar-electric-houseboat/msg360011/#msg360011)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 20, 2013, 09:28:08 AM
Looks good ideas, Luc :) and nice project, your home boat all seasons ;) you just have made a little confusion in your initial post, but significant while been an electrician mysel: it suppose it was not "48 volts 100 amp/hours lithium ion battery" but "100 amp*hours" ;)

Cheer..
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 20, 2013, 04:19:56 PM
Looks good ideas, Luc :) and nice project, your home boat all seasons ;) you just have made a little confusion in your initial post, but significant while been an electrician mysel: it suppose it was not "48 volts 100 amp/hours lithium ion battery" but "100 amp*hours" ;)

Cheer..

I'm not sure I understand what confusion you see in my post?

The house battery needs to be 48vdc for the 5kw electric drive motor that is 48vdc. The battery bank will have maximum 100ah @ 48vdc
Where is the confusion?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 21, 2013, 12:30:57 AM
You typed: "amp/hours" while it is "amps*hours" or "amp.hours" where the former are energy.

You were dividing while it is a multiplication: the battery can sustain 1 amp during 100 hours or 10 amps during 10 hours and theoritically 100 amp during 1 hour; it is each time the current intensity multiply by the duration, not the intensity of current divided by the duration, which gives something very different (electrical power for 1V).
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 22, 2013, 04:39:04 AM
Humm :-\ ... to me when I say a battery bank is 100 amp/hour it would mean it delivers 100 amps for 1 hour at the rated voltage.

I thought all battery A/H ratings are based on 1 hour?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Poit on September 22, 2013, 05:54:24 AM
It doesn't matter if you multiple or divide. 100 amp hour is 100 amps (at the designated voltage) for 1 hour... 100 divide by 1 = 1. 100 multiplied by 1 = 1

so, to say 100amp/hour or 100amp*hour is effectively saying the same thing. 100 amps, for 1 hour. and the math can be worked out from this for other draws.. so 50 amp draw would last for 2 hours etc

all that said.. this only works when talking about the battery in a manner of fact way.. i.e you KNOW the battery is 100amp hour....

if you were trying to figure out how large a battery is with only measurements. then its multiply.. for instance.. say, you know there is 50amp draw and it lasts for two hours....... to figure out the battery size its 50 x 2 = 100 = 100amp/hour battery...

and any ways... i always thought the slash (/) wasn't a divide sign, but more so, stood for a "for" sign... in my mind I read 100amp/hour as 100amp  FOR an hour
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 22, 2013, 06:46:45 AM
Oh... now I get what Khwartz was talking about!... I could not get why he was talking about dividing :-\

I was not using / to divide but to separate amps and hours. Is it not an abbreviation for per

Thanks Poit for pointing this out

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 22, 2013, 09:20:55 AM
Yeh, the correct typing would be mathematically "amps.hours" (abreged amps * hours, or amps times hours) because as you noticed yourself we obtain it by multiplying the duration by the current draw. This gives the "charge" equivalent through a ratio to coulombs. And multiply again by the voltage, we get the energy.

But in english it used to be written "amps-hours".

That why I said there was a confusion while using "/" which indeed means dividing as is maths than in physics ;)

But, contrarely I said at my last post: A/h means nothing at all of special in physics.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 22, 2013, 06:59:14 PM
Okay, from now on I'll write A/h and not amps/hour to describe a battery bank Amps capacity for one hour.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 23, 2013, 01:34:46 AM
Well, looks for example at Wiki: it is "Ah" (or A.h if you want); for the very same reasons ;) but you'te welcome Luc :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on August 12, 2014, 12:52:59 AM
Hi Gotoluc and all,

I think that this same idea is what Clemente Figuera used in his overunity generator according to his patent http://www.alpoma.com/figuera/patente_1908.pdf (http://www.alpoma.com/figuera/patente_1908.pdf) .

Instead of a motor he built a generator with two lateral electromagnets. He fed them with two unphased waves (!!): when the first signal was at maximun the other was at minimun, and then  steadily he moved the fields until reaching minimun in the first and maximun intensity in the second. Figuera never stated clearly the pole orientation, but after watching your device I am quite sure that he used like poles facing each other. Figuera called the magnets as N rectangle and S rectangle, but maybe he was hidding the real pole orientation.

I hope this helps to share some ideas between both concepts
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on August 12, 2014, 04:50:47 AM
NO! You must not write
A/h
for Amp-hours!

The slash is used, in English, to indicate division. Like 1 Watt = 1 Joule/second. It can even be assigned a word: "per", as in km/hr, kilometers per hour.  It is the number of kilometers divided by the number of hours. The English (Latin) word "per" indicates a division operation.

One amp-hour is not one amp per hour! So you cannot write A/h for amp-hour.

The - sign is also ambiguous, usually indicating subtraction. But since the quantity "amps - hours" is nonphysical and nonsensical we know that the dash does not indicate subtraction in the "amp-hour" expression.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 12, 2014, 05:28:39 AM
Thanks TK for making it clear!... even though it took a year

Better late then never ;)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 12, 2014, 12:42:53 PM

One amp-hour is not one amp per hour! So you cannot write A/h for amp-hour.

???
One amp hour is  a steady current of one ampere flowing for one hour,-is it not?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on August 12, 2014, 01:48:35 PM
???
One amp hour is  a steady current of one ampere flowing for one hour,-is it not?
Yes, but that is not a "rate". It is a quantity. The Ampere is a rate, so if you go at a rate for a time, you have what? A quantity. Go 1 km per hour for one hour. How far have you gone? One km. 1 km/hr x 1 hr = 1 km.
  Just as "per" denotes division, "for" denotes multiplication.

Consider what we mean by "three amps per hour".  This is written 3A/H. How I got that number is I started with zero amps and I turned my variac up slowly and at the end of an hour I was up to three amps, and at the end of two hours I was up to six amps, and at the end of three hours I was up to nine amps. I turned the current up at a RATE of 3 A/H, or three amps per hour.  If you want to know my current at, say, 90 minutes, you multiply the rate by the time: 3 a/h x 1.5 h = 4.5 A. This use is in effect the "rate of change of the rate" or the first derivative, the slope, of the graph of the current vs. time.

One Amp-Hour is a _quantity_.  To get there mathematically you _multiply_ the number of amps by the number of hours. So if I have a system that produces one amp-hour at 12 volts and I run it for one hour, I have sent (one amp-hour) x (12 volts) or 12 Watt-hours past my measuring point, for that hour. A quantity, distributed over the hour time. And for that one hour, then, I am dissipating the energy at a _rate_ of 12 Watt-hours per hour.  12 W-h / 1 h = 12 Watts... a _rate_, the power dissipation, the rate of energy dissipation. Power in Watts = Joules of energy per second -- a rate.

Now are we completely confused?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 12, 2014, 02:35:30 PM



Now are we completely confused?
No-all clear

1A/h=raising the current flow to 1 amp over 1 hour.
1Ah=is a stedy current flow of 1 amp for 1 hour.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 12, 2014, 05:36:22 PM
To everyone,

since this topic has been re-opened I may as well share a better performing version of my Mostly Magnet Motor which I compared its pulling force to an off the shelf speaker.

So here is the link to the unlisted video if anyone is interested to see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1dO8qWPQU

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 12, 2014, 05:55:22 PM
Here is the second part of the demo video with the Signal Generator attached to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDXq8wkhV2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDXq8wkhV2c)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: woopy on August 13, 2014, 12:04:47 AM
Here is the second part of the demo video with the Signal Generator attached to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDXq8wkhV2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDXq8wkhV2c)

Luc

Hi Luc

thank's for that

i made a replication and it works very well

it is amazing that as the magnetic fields are totally opposing, the coil should behave as per along a single steel non magnetic bar, i mean very weakly, but it seems not to be the case , the coil is very powerfull.
 
Youp i will follow your work as usual

thank's very much for sharing and bravo !!

Laurent
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 13, 2014, 01:09:12 AM
Bonjour Laurent,

thank you for posting your replication and results.

What is happening in this design is once the coil is energized it produces a north and south in the core (steel laminations). Now if all 4 magnets are all facing north in the center core the energized coils south side will attract to the PM north and the north side of the coil will repel from the other PM north side. So here we have both poles of the coil performing work and zero cogging from the PM because they don't leave the cores.
However, it doesn't stop there. Some may not know this but half way through the thickness of a coils windings the polarities start to flip. Meaning, if you put core material on the outside of a coil windings and energize the coil the poles in the cores will be opposite from the coils center core. So here we are also taking advantage of the coils opposite outside magnetic field to do as much work as the coils inner magnetic field.
This basically doubles the work output.

Here is an older video that demonstrates the benefits

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM)


Your test setup would be much more powerful if your coil winding would fill the bobbin so that the windings would be as close to the outside cores as possible. Also, if you add 4 more magnets and 2 more core laminations to cover most of the outside area like in the video I posted in this reply it will do even more work.

The more the permanent magnet force the more the pulling or pushing force is without any increase in power to the coil.
Surface area is important, so again the more surface area the more the force it has.

Glad you enjoyed this old idea

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 13, 2014, 06:19:48 AM
Yes, but that is not a "rate". It is a quantity. The Ampere is a rate, so if you go at a rate for a time, you have what? A quantity. Go 1 km per hour for one hour. How far have you gone? One km. 1 km/hr x 1 hr = 1 km.
  Just as "per" denotes division, "for" denotes multiplication.

Consider what we mean by "three amps per hour".  This is written 3A/H. How I got that number is I started with zero amps and I turned my variac up slowly and at the end of an hour I was up to three amps, and at the end of two hours I was up to six amps, and at the end of three hours I was up to nine amps. I turned the current up at a RATE of 3 A/H, or three amps per hour.  If you want to know my current at, say, 90 minutes, you multiply the rate by the time: 3 a/h x 1.5 h = 4.5 A. This use is in effect the "rate of change of the rate" or the first derivative, the slope, of the graph of the current vs. time.

One Amp-Hour is a _quantity_.  To get there mathematically you _multiply_ the number of amps by the number of hours. So if I have a system that produces one amp-hour at 12 volts and I run it for one hour, I have sent (one amp-hour) x (12 volts) or 12 Watt-hours past my measuring point, for that hour. A quantity, distributed over the hour time. And for that one hour, then, I am dissipating the energy at a _rate_ of 12 Watt-hours per hour.  12 W-h / 1 h = 12 Watts... a _rate_, the power dissipation, the rate of energy dissipation. Power in Watts = Joules of energy per second -- a rate.

Now are we completely confused?
So we agree :) just Luc was speaking of the quantity of electrical charges provided by the battery then I only correct him on this point; great you went further :)

Q : quantity of electrical charges in Coulombs (C)

T: duration in second or hour

I: flow of current in Amps (A)

E: voltage in Volts (V)

W: energy in Joules (J)

P: power in Watts (W)

Amps × duration = Q (not//// energy) (Coulombs or Ah, depending of the time unit).

But as the voltage is near steady 12 V, it makes an equivalence for energy consumption as per:

E × Q = W

while A/h makes an indirect equivalence with power by:

E × (I/T) = P

BUT! "A/h" would mean an acceleration of flow of charges, as mathematical dimensions:

I / T = (Q / T) / T = Q / T^2,

which has usually no use for a battery.

Cheers!  ;)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 13, 2014, 06:21:27 AM
Hi Luc! :) How is going your reactive genertor ? :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 13, 2014, 07:14:03 AM
Hi Luc! :) How is going your reactive genertor ? :)

It ended when TinMan replicated it to see if the power was coming from the exciter field of the alternator. Looks like I was tapping into it without affecting the prime mover. So it was not really a free gain, more like a transfer of energy.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 13, 2014, 08:08:54 AM
Understand!  VAR are all about pure movement of energy stored ;) But could be it is not "all the scene" as the present academic models of electricity look not enbounding all the stuff. Didi you read Eric P. Dollards writing?

Anyway, regarding your mostly permanent magnets motor, did you make progress compaire to you nice vid where you started from 0.3 N to 25 N? (If my calculations are correct).

BTW, please remember Luc that  P = W T^-1 = (M L^2 T^-2)T^-1 = (M L T^-2)  (L T^-1) = F V, "F" for "force" and "V" for "velocity"? Then measurements of the pulling force is very good to see your progress but not to get the efficiency (would be overunity or not). In your vid you did not compare power against power, right? Only force against power, as we discussed already last year of I remember well ;)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 13, 2014, 05:01:58 PM
Hi Khwartz,

I have next to no schooling. The things I can do are mostly self taught. The experiments I do are my way of trying to learn more in hopes that one day I'll know enough to build a device to be energy independent.

I don't know why but learning all those math equations does not interest me.

I've always been hands on and not into reading patents and theorizing about this or that.

If I find something interesting from the stuff I build that's not commonly done, I share it and hopefully the more knowledgeable ones will find a use for it, suggest different tests or explain in a laymen way why it's not useful.
Anything thrown at me from an academic level is like water on a ducks back.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: woopy on August 13, 2014, 05:05:01 PM
Hi Luc

thank's for your very clear explanation.

I tried to use the setup as an alternator, and connected 2 opposite LED, so they light alternatively, and it works very well. I am amazed how bright the LED are shining with very slow movement of the coil.

And yes , i think it can be very much improved by adding magnets and cores all arround the coil.

Thank's for sharing

Laurent

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on August 14, 2014, 12:56:06 AM
Hi gotoluc,

Your last videos outperforming a speaker  by almost 10 times is great!!

In this other video at instant 14:19 sec. you state that the current generated while moving (concentrating in its generator mode) has the same polarity as the current that you send to excite the coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs#t=14m19s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs#t=14m19s)

In case so, this motor would not have back emf, and the generator mode of this device will create a current which will reinforce you input current. Could you elaborate a bit deeperow you tested this feature? I am really interested because of the big consecuences of this fact !!!

I  think that the simplest way is to testing it adding a second small coil outside the first coil. Then with a scope you can compare the applied voltage in the first coil and the generated voltage in the second coil. How did you test it? 

Thanks and congratulation for your great work!!!

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 14, 2014, 10:10:35 AM
Hi Khwartz,

I have next to no schooling. The things I can do are mostly self taught. The experiments I do are my way of trying to learn more in hopes that one day I'll know enough to build a device to be energy independent.

I don't know why but learning all those math equations does not interest me.

I've always been hands on and not into reading patents and theorizing about this or that.

If I find something interesting from the stuff I build that's not commonly done, I share it and hopefully the more knowledgeable ones will find a use for it, suggest different tests or explain in a laymen way why it's not useful.
Anything thrown at me from an academic level is like water on a ducks back.

Luc
Lol, no problem Luc,  just do like you feel better to do :) and sorry if you perceived me too much academic ^_^

Anyway, it was not only for you I was writing, other readers may be interested one or an other day.

Just: one interest of a equations and methodology, is to help to know if we are on the right path or not.

All I wanted to say is that "power" must not be confused with "force", even if it is related with. But I won't bother you again with any "theoretical development"; you did very well until now, so I think to that is good you still continue to do your very own way :)

Best regards,
Khwartz.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 14, 2014, 05:12:01 PM
Hi gotoluc,

Your last videos outperforming a speaker  by almost 10 times is great!!

In this other video at instant 14:19 sec. you state that the current generated while moving (concentrating in its generator mode) has the same polarity as the current that you send to excite the coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs#t=14m19s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoXmDvFqQs#t=14m19s)

In case so, this motor would not have back emf, and the generator mode of this device will create a current which will reinforce you input current. Could you elaborate a bit deeperow you tested this feature? I am really interested because of the big consecuences of this fact !!!

I  think that the simplest way is to testing it adding a second small coil outside the first coil. Then with a scope you can compare the applied voltage in the first coil and the generated voltage in the second coil. How did you test it? 

Thanks and congratulation for your great work!!!

Hi hanon,

back emf could become quite a topic of conversation.
I can confirm the current created by the coils generator effect goes in the same direction as the input current used to move the coil.
How I tested this is simply connect a DC volt meter the the coil and move it by hand in one direction and note the coils polarities. Then, connect the coil to a DC voltage source with the same polarities to see if the coil moves in the same direction as moving it by hand.
It does go in the same direction.
Somehow I don't think this means it has no back emf since I did the same test with a DC permanent magnet motor and the results were the same.

Where this design may have an advantage compared to a standard motor is when the coil reaches the end of the stroke and is switched off.  The coils Flyback goes in the same direction as the next input pulse would needs to go to move the coil in the opposite direction. So it seems the  flyback is working in a complementary way compared to what may be happening in a DC motor.

This is my own observation and would need to be confirmed by the more qualified individuals.

Hope this helps to answer your questions.
If anyone else would like to add or correct anything please feel free to do so, as this would only help many to better understand the working of a motor or an Inductor in motion.

Thanks for your interest and participation

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 16, 2014, 03:41:56 AM
To everyone,

since this topic has been re-opened I may as well share a better performing version of my Mostly Magnet Motor which I compared its pulling force to an off the shelf speaker.

So here is the link to the unlisted video if anyone is interested to see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1dO8qWPQU

Luc
Hi Luc
very excited at your progress.
Perhaps you can make a jig where you can lift up a certain weight so many times per second
= you may be are getting very close to OU, if not there already!
For example, 1 W = .1 kg X m/sec
In your case, for 0.4 W, you will need to lift 500 g by .08 m (8 cm) once a second,
or 500g by 2 cm 4 times per second...
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 16, 2014, 07:04:39 AM
Hi Luc
very excited at your progress.
Perhaps you can make a jig where you can lift up a certain weight so many times per second
= you may be are getting very close to OU, if not there already!
For example, 1 W = .1 kg X m/sec
In your case, for 0.4 W, you will need to lift 500 g by .08 m (8 cm) once a second,
or 500g by 2 cm 4 times per second...

Hi telecom,

last night I was actually thinking that maybe there could be a possibility of OU since I have a newer tandem design that should double what I already have done. So 1 Kg pull with less then 0.5 W should be possible.
I just have to build the thing. However, the main problem is I don't have enough steel lamination core material to build it. So I was thinking to use solid steel just for testing and proof of concepts and wondering if the eddy currents using solid steel would make such a big difference if the coil is only on for a second and traveling less the 10 cm?
Anybody care to comment on that?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on August 16, 2014, 02:55:08 PM
...
I can confirm the current created by the coils generator effect goes in the same direction as the input current used to move the coil.   How I tested this is simply connect a DC volt meter the the coil and move it by hand in one direction and note the coils polarities. Then, connect the coil to a DC voltage source with the same polarities to see if the coil moves in the same direction as moving it by hand.
It does go in the same direction.
Somehow I don't think this means it has no back emf since I did the same test with a DC permanent magnet motor and the results were the same.

Hi Luc,

I also think that your setup has back emf (I would prefer calling it counter emf), your tests clearly show it: the induced voltage in the coil (due to the normal generator effect) has the same polarity as the input voltage polarity i.e. two voltage sources are connected to each other in any moment, positive to positive, negative to negative and only the instantaneous voltage difference can drive current in the coil in any moment. This is indeed just the case of a normal DC permanent magnet motor behaviour.

I hope member hanon still reads this thread too.

Quote
Where this design may have an advantage compared to a standard motor is when the coil reaches the end of the stroke and is switched off.  The coils Flyback goes in the same direction as the next input pulse would needs to go to move the coil in the opposite direction. So it seems the  flyback is working in a complementary way compared to what may be happening in a DC motor. 


Yes it sounds correct and a suitable circuit would be needed to utilize the flyback pulse, it could be added to the supply voltage, preferably in series with it, to increase its amplitude. 

....
I just have to build the thing. However, the main problem is I don't have enough steel lamination core material to build it. So I was thinking to use solid steel just for testing and proof of concepts and wondering if the eddy currents using solid steel would make such a big difference if the coil is only on for a second and traveling less the 10 cm?
....


I think that you could use steel for test purposes up to a few Hz without noticable loss (there will be loss of course), and going up higher, say 5-10 Hz, eddy current losses will increase gradually.
If you could spare laminated core just for the center bar on which the coil would move and use solid steel for the additional cores around the coil, then eddy losses would remain low I think up to 15-20 Hz or so (just a guess).

Regards,  Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Liberty on August 16, 2014, 04:12:46 PM
Hi telecom,

last night I was actually thinking that maybe there could be a possibility of OU since I have a newer tandem design that should double what I already have done. So 1 Kg pull with less then 0.5 W should be possible.
I just have to build the thing. However, the main problem is I don't have enough steel lamination core material to build it. So I was thinking to use solid steel just for testing and proof of concepts and wondering if the eddy currents using solid steel would make such a big difference if the coil is only on for a second and traveling less the 10 cm?
Anybody care to comment on that?

Luc

I think you will find that if you use a coil directly in the device, it will react with the "generator effect" from the magnetic field and limit your device from performing OU.  The closer the magnetic coupling (between magnetic field and coil), the more efficient the device, but also the generator effect in the coil also increases proportionally, assuring a limit of less than 100% efficiency. 

Liberty
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 16, 2014, 09:48:31 PM
Luc, obviously, if you succeed to have o.u. with plain steel bars, you will have with too and even better, so it always worth a try :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 17, 2014, 05:05:03 AM
Hi hanon,

back emf could become quite a topic of conversation.
I can confirm the current created by the coils generator effect goes in the same direction as the input current used to move the coil.
How I tested this is simply connect a DC volt meter the the coil and move it by hand in one direction and note the coils polarities. Then, connect the coil to a DC voltage source with the same polarities to see if the coil moves in the same direction as moving it by hand.
It does go in the same direction.
Somehow I don't think this means it has no back emf since I did the same test with a DC permanent magnet motor and the results were the same.

Where this design may have an advantage compared to a standard motor is when the coil reaches the end of the stroke and is switched off.  The coils Flyback goes in the same direction as the next input pulse would needs to go to move the coil in the opposite direction. So it seems the  flyback is working in a complementary way compared to what may be happening in a DC motor.

This is my own observation and would need to be confirmed by the more qualified individuals.

Hope this helps to answer your questions.
If anyone else would like to add or correct anything please feel free to do so, as this would only help many to better understand the working of a motor or an Inductor in motion.

Thanks for your interest and participation

Luc
Luc
The current flow from the flyback from an inductor(coil) remains in the same direction,but the voltage polarity invert's. The answer as to how to capture the flyback and use it again is right there in Bendini's SSG pulse motor circuit.Just swap the charge battery out for a good size cap,and you have your power for your reverse pulse right there in the charge cap.You could actually use a double acting relay to achieve the switching-infact i have the perfect device to achieve this switching and collecting of power for your setup.I used it in the little moter bellow.You will also notice i use the term backEMF where i should have said flyback collection-the days befor i knew the difference between the two. So insted of using the flyback to run the LED,you can collect that in a cap,and use it to pulse your reversing coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQ&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 17, 2014, 05:07:43 AM
@ Luc
If you dont mind,i might build myself a setup,and follow along in your work.
Maybe we can help each other out on this one?.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on August 17, 2014, 12:14:28 PM
Luc
The current flow from the flyback from an inductor(coil) remains in the same direction,but the voltage polarity invert's. The answer as to how to capture the flyback and use it again is right there in Bendini's SSG pulse motor circuit.Just swap the charge battery out for a good size cap,and you have your power for your reverse pulse right there in the charge cap.You could actually use a double acting relay to achieve the switching-infact i have the perfect device to achieve this switching and collecting of power for your setup.I used it in the little moter bellow.You will also notice i use the term backEMF where i should have said flyback collection-the days befor i knew the difference between the two. So insted of using the flyback to run the LED,you can collect that in a cap,and use it to pulse your reversing coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQ&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQ&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w)

Hi Brad,

If I got it right, Luc drives his moving coil from the output of a full H bridge (to have current hence pole polarity change in the right moments as the coil reaches the ends of its course) so this involves ground independent coil ends in his present setup. So to catch the flyback pulse across such coil you have to use a circuit to handle that ground-independently.
To solve this, perhaps the simplest thing would be to use a bifilar coil to get the exact "image" of the spike in the coupled coil. I mean one coil in the bifilar is the normal working coil and the other (identical) coil in the bifilar will be a ground independent output for the flyback pulse. This solution may also help to add this captured energy to the input voltage source perhaps more easily than with other circuit variants where there is no such output coupling coil.

Gyula

PS  Sorry I have had no time to watch your above video so if you have a double coil in it, then ... I  :'(   
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 17, 2014, 02:55:01 PM
Hi Luc,
these magnets should do the job:
http://www.supermagnete.de/eng/block-magnets-neodymium-large/block-magnet-50.8mm-x-50.8mm-x-25.4mm-neodymium-n40-nickel-plated_Q-51-51-25-N
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 17, 2014, 04:07:43 PM
Hi Brad,

If I got it right, Luc drives his moving coil from the output of a full H bridge (to have current hence pole polarity change in the right moments as the coil reaches the ends of its course) so this involves ground independent coil ends in his present setup. So to catch the flyback pulse across such coil you have to use a circuit to handle that ground-independently.
To solve this, perhaps the simplest thing would be to use a bifilar coil to get the exact "image" of the spike in the coupled coil. I mean one coil in the bifilar is the normal working coil and the other (identical) coil in the bifilar will be a ground independent output for the flyback pulse. This solution may also help to add this captured energy to the input voltage source perhaps more easily than with other circuit variants where there is no such output coupling coil.

Gyula

PS  Sorry I have had no time to watch your above video so if you have a double coil in it, then ... I  :'(
Hi Gyulasun

That is why i suggested using a double acting relay-to isolate the ground between the two stages.But the double wound coil sounds like a good idea aswell-dont really like calling them bifilar,as thats not quite the  right term.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 17, 2014, 11:53:13 PM
Hello fellow researchers

sorry for the delay in reply. I was away at a weekend retreat.

I do agree there should be no OU in this setup but you have to agree that it's a different design then the classical stuff, with no cogging,  the coil between opposing magnets and a stable Inductance throughout the coils movement. So maybe it's worth a try. We'll never know till we try!

@ TinMan very glad to have caught your interest and couldn't be happier to work with you and see your replication a la TinMan.

@ Gyula I have thought about a double wound (bifilar) coil to Isolate the flyback. My latest test video the coil is bifilar to test these kinds of things but it was connected in parallel to have less wire resistance. A possible downfall could be the double weight of the coil. It all needs to be tested but glad it has some hopes up.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 18, 2014, 12:38:14 AM
Hi Luc
Is there a schematic for your setup here some where?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 18, 2014, 12:56:55 AM
I would guess you would be referring to the one I connected to my H-Bridge?... if so, sorry but no.

How about just testing the basic design to see if you feel it's worth more investment of time. I'm sure when the time comes Gyula can help with the schematics for more advanced switching.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 18, 2014, 02:54:16 AM
Hi Luc,
what is the nominal strength of the magnets you are using?
(The amount of force to pull from the steel plate)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 18, 2014, 03:01:26 AM
You'll have to look it up. My most recent one is made with 1" cubes N52

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 18, 2014, 03:26:56 AM
Found
95 lbs
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX0X0X0-N52
It would be interesting to see what happens when you double it,
may be with another set?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 18, 2014, 06:43:50 AM
I would guess you would be referring to the one I connected to my H-Bridge?... if so, sorry but no.

How about just testing the basic design to see if you feel it's worth more investment of time. I'm sure when the time comes Gyula can help with the schematics for more advanced switching.

Luc
What i will do first Luc,is make a standard solenoid setup,using a PM insted of a steel plunger(pistion). We can then compare results of lift/distance,and power consumption between the two setup's.This will let us know if your on the right track,and how much better your setup is than a standard setup.
Should have the first video results up tonight.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 18, 2014, 08:06:18 AM
Well not even worth a video on the solenoid setup. I had to use 5 times as much power to achieve the 500 gram pull force.

Your on to something great here Luc-time to make the same type of setup i think-but one more thing to try first. So the idea is to achieve 500 gram's of pull force,using only .432 watts.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 18, 2014, 09:17:29 AM
Here is the pull force(or torque) from a standard small dc motor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDLLphaRC-k&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 18, 2014, 03:21:15 PM
Hi Luc,
 I keep thinking about this aspect of the testing:
For example, if you do the lifting test once per second,it
 consists of on/of duty cycle, which means that you apply  power only
half of the time of the cycle, which will be 0.2 W, instead of .4 W per second, to perform the same work.
Which means that for the present setup of 500g pull, you only need to lift
it twice per second by 2 cm to reach OU. If you do it more often - you are in a surplus territory.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 18, 2014, 03:31:24 PM
Hi Luc,
 I keep thinking about this aspect of the testing:
For example, if you do the lifting test once per second,it
 consists of on/of duty cycle, which means that you apply  power only
half of the time of the cycle, which will be 0.2 W, instead of .4 W per second, to perform the same work.
Which means that for the present setup of 500g pull, you only need to lift
it twice per second by 2 cm to reach OU. If you do it more often - you are in a surplus territory.
This is an interesting test,but what are the ruel's based around the test.?
Would this be allowed-we have a spring sitting under the 500g weight.If Luc can get the weight with spring into resonance,and the 500g weight is lifted that 2cm's twice a minute,dose that still count?-are we aloud to use the spring. If a spring is not an energy source,then i dont see why not. this would then become like a kid on a trampoline.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 18, 2014, 04:54:37 PM
Thanks TinMan for making this excellent test setup using a standard motor.
Your 1 to 1 pulley is the right way to go to compere a standard motor pull force to my design.
You spring idea also sounds good.

@ telecom, when I came up with this design 5 years ago I ordered many large 2" square by 1" thick N52 magnets to build a super powerful version of it.
I never did build it because most said it wouldn't give OU and then the topic died.
I still have at least 10 or more of these super magnets in the original delivery box in storage . Today they are worth a fortune compared to when I purchased them.
I guess it's time to open the box and build the thing to see the real results!

I was thinking to build one that's at least 8 inches wide by using 4 of these 2" wide by 1 " thick magnets next to each other. That way most of the coils outer magnetic field is used. Only 1" on each sides where I attache the guides would be lost compared to my latest design where only half of the outer field is used.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 18, 2014, 06:47:27 PM
This is an interesting test,but what are the ruel's based around the test.?
Would this be allowed-we have a spring sitting under the 500g weight.If Luc can get the weight with spring into resonance,and the 500g weight is lifted that 2cm's twice a minute,dose that still count?-are we aloud to use the spring. If a spring is not an energy source,then i dont see why not. this would then become like a kid on a trampoline.
Hi Tinman,
I really don't know the answer:
On one hand, the spring will distort the actual output of the device, will make it higher;
On the other hand - this exactly what we want to achieve...
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 18, 2014, 06:49:21 PM

@ telecom, when I came up with this design 5 years ago I ordered many large 2" square by 1" thick N52 magnets to build a super powerful version of it.
I never did build it because most said it wouldn't give OU and then the topic died.
I still have at least 10 or more of these super magnets in the original delivery box in storage . Today they are worth a fortune compared to when I purchased them.
I guess it's time to open the box and build the thing to see the real results!

I was thinking to build one that's at least 8 inches wide by using 4 of these 2" wide by 1 " thick magnets next to each other. That way most of the coils outer magnetic field is used. Only 1" on each sides where I attache the guides would be lost compared to my latest design where only half of the outer field is used.

Luc

Hi Luc,
this should work really well, IMHO
Looking forward to seeing it!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 19, 2014, 03:39:56 AM
Hi Tinman,
I really don't know the answer:
On one hand, the spring will distort the actual output of the device, will make it higher;
If a spring is not an energy source,but only an energy storage device,how will it make the output higher?
Think of the weight as an inductor,and the spring as a capacitor. All you need to do then is hit the right frequency of the tank circuit to gain resonance. Once resonance is achieved,we will get a large amplitude-in this case,the 1/2kg weight being lifted that 2cm twice per minute

To be within test guidlines,the 2cm lift would have to start from the point at which the spring is not compressed-just off the surface from which it will contact as the weight drops.If the spring is to compress 1cm,then the total travel of Luc's slide(coils travel) on his device would need to be 3cm.

Why the spring would allow the weight to be lifted more efficiently than if it wasnt there?.

The answer is simple. If there were no spring,and the weight was just allowed to hit the surface as it fell to a resting state,then energy is disipated from the system as noise/vibration. The spring removes this loss,and stores that energy that would have been disipated as noise/vibration,and returns it back to the system. So the spring wont actually distort the output,but it will make it higher due to less loss in the system.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 19, 2014, 04:02:40 AM
If a spring is not an energy source,but only an energy storage device,how will it make the output higher?
Think of the weight as an inductor,and the spring as a capacitor. All you need to do then is hit the right frequency of the tank circuit to gain resonance. Once resonance is achieved,we will get a large amplitude-in this case,the 1/2kg weight being lifted that 2cm twice per minute

To be within test guidlines,the 2cm lift would have to start from the point at which the spring is not compressed-just off the surface from which it will contact as the weight drops.If the spring is to compress 1cm,then the total travel of Luc's slide(coils travel) on his device would need to be 3cm.

Why the spring would allow the weight to be lifted more efficiently than if it wasnt there?.

The answer is simple. If there were no spring,and the weight was just allowed to hit the surface as it fell to a resting state,then energy is disipated from the system as noise/vibration. The spring removes this loss,and stores that energy that would have been disipated as noise/vibration,and returns it back to the system. So the spring wont actually distort the output,but it will make it higher due to less loss in the system.
When weight is being lifted, we increase its potential energy.
When it drops, the potential energy becomes kinetic, which is being absorbed
at the end by the holding string(w/o the spring).
When the spring is underneath, it absorbs the kinetic energy into the potential energy of the spring when it compresses, and releases it on the way up, which helps to pull
the weight up. This will distort the actual performance of the device.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 19, 2014, 04:21:16 AM
When weight is being lifted, we increase its potential energy.
When it drops, the potential energy becomes kinetic, which is being absorbed
at the end by the holding string(w/o the spring).
When the spring is underneath, it absorbs the kinetic energy into the potential energy of the spring when it compresses, and releases it on the way up, which helps to pull
the weight up. This will distort the actual performance of the device.
No,the kinetic energy isnt being absorbed by the string,it is being transformed into vibrational energy via the string through the framework of the device,and then to the bench the device is mounted on,and finally to ground(earth). The spring stores the kinetic energy that would be normally transformed into vibrations/vibrational energy/sound,and returns it back to the system apon spring decompression. Energy is never absorbed,it's stored or transformed.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 19, 2014, 04:34:42 AM
No,the kinetic energy isnt being absorbed by the string,it is being transformed into vibrational energy via the string through the framework of the device,and then to the bench the device is mounted on,and finally to ground(earth). The spring stores the kinetic energy that would be normally transformed into vibrations/vibrational energy/sound,and returns it back to the system apon spring decompression. Energy is never absorbed,it's stored or transformed.

If you have a brick and drop it on top of the spring, the spring will first compress
to a certain length, after that it will straighten up and propel the brick to a height
which is smaller than the initial height due to the losses...
What this discussion has to do with the topic of the thread?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 19, 2014, 05:00:03 AM
If you have a brick and drop it on top of the spring, the spring will first compress
to a certain length, after that it will straighten up and propel the brick to a height
which is smaller than the initial height due to the losses...
What this discussion has to do with the topic of the thread?
That is correct-the spring stores the energy,and then returns it back to the system.This is in relation to this thread in that a system be designed and understood,so as Luc can achieve maximum efficiency from his DUT.A correct understanding as to how your system opperates, where losses may occur, what those losses are,and how to remove those losses,is the best way to achieve the results you are after,and make your DUT the most efficient it can be. Although the spring itself will have losses (vibrational/noise),it will increase the efficiency of the DUT,as those losses in the spring are not as much as they would be without it.

All in all,we agree that the spring will increase the efficiency of the DUT.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 19, 2014, 05:21:24 AM
That is correct-the spring stores the energy,and then returns it back to the system.This is in relation to this thread in that a system be designed and understood,so as Luc can achieve maximum efficiency from his DUT.A correct understanding as to how your system opperates, where losses may occur, what those losses are,and how to remove those losses,is the best way to achieve the results you are after,and make your DUT the most efficient it can be. Although the spring itself will have losses (vibrational/noise),it will increase the efficiency of the DUT,as those losses in the spring are not as much as they would be without it.

All in all,we agree that the spring will increase the efficiency of the DUT.
It may increase the efficiency of this particular setup, but may be irrelevant
to a real life application of the device.
In  real life it will be connected to a generator with a resistance in both parts of a stroke - forward and return. There will be no free fall like in a setup.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 19, 2014, 06:59:06 AM
It may increase the efficiency of this particular setup, but may be irrelevant
to a real life application of the device.
In  real life it will be connected to a generator with a resistance in both parts of a stroke - forward and return. There will be no free fall like in a setup.
Indeed that is correct. But think of this-if Luc can raise that 1/2kg weight 2cm 2  times per second,he has a unity device.Thats a 100% efficient motor,and thats something that dosnt exist today. Every device i have tested so far,has no where that pull force that Luc shows with his device. I would hope that the high end builders here would try and build something that shows the efficiency of Luc's DUT-in fact,i make it a challenge to all here.I would spend more time on it,but im working on my Inertia drive at the same time,which i want to get finished.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 20, 2014, 04:34:34 AM
Here is the pull force(or torque) from a standard small dc motor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDLLphaRC-k&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDLLphaRC-k&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w)

Hi Brad,

I was giving your test more thought and remembered that the Watts consumed for a specific amount of grams pulled is not linear, well not in my device anyways.
Let me give you an example, if I can pull 500g with 0.43W and I reduce the input to pull 250g the watts are not divided in half, it's much less than that!... more like 1/3 or less. Unfortunately I don't have my latest test device with me but if I pulled 130g like you did it would probably use around 0.08W to do it.

If you can re-test your motor and raise the voltage till you achieve 500g of pull and calculate the watts used you may see what I mean.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 20, 2014, 05:37:26 AM
Hi Brad,

I was giving your test more thought and remembered that the Watts consumed for a specific amount of grams pulled is not linear, well not in my device anyways.
Let me give you an example, if I can pull 500g with 0.43W and I reduce the input to pull 250g the watts are not divided in half, it's much less than that!... more like 1/3 or less. Unfortunately I don't have my latest test device with me but if I pulled 130g like you did it would probably use around 0.08W to do it.

If you can re-test your motor and raise the voltage till you achieve 500g of pull and calculate the watts used you may see what I mean.

Luc
That sounds about right Luc. The less current your coil draw's,the higher the backEMF voltage will be in your coil-and of course,the higher the backEMF voltage,the lower the current draw.This is the very same in my little DC motor,and in most electric motors i know of.The more load you place on the motor,the less the BackEMF voltage in the inductors will be,so up go's the current to try and maintain the forward voltage within the inductor.

I dont know if that little motor would have 500g's of torque in it,but we can make some smoke and try lol.
Will go do it now.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 20, 2014, 06:38:45 AM
I have completed the test Luc,and video is uploading now. I will post the results with the video. I am now wondering if that power consumption would go down if the motor was actually running?-that will be my next test i think. Now just need to find my torque meter lol.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 20, 2014, 07:39:56 AM
So here is that second test Luc,and yes-more than double the power to achieve twice the pull force.

250g's-.888 volts@2.02 amps= 1.793 watts
500g's- 1.45 volts@3.18 amps= 4.8 watts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSvp5PtffUo&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 20, 2014, 11:11:06 AM
Would be good to have some test perameters right about now.
So we could do it like this.
It takes 1 joule of energy to lift 1kg of mass 10cm high.
If we are setting the weight to 1/2kg(500g's),with a lift hight of 2cm,then we need 100millijoules.
A cap that has say 5000uf would then need 6.325volts in it to give us our 100mJ.Or if we have a 10000 uf cap,we would need only 4.47 volts in it to give us our 100mJ.

So Luc,if you can lift that 500g weight by 2cm using a 10000uf cap with only 4.47 volts in it-you have hit unity. If you need only 4.46 volts in the cap to do it,you are OU.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 20, 2014, 08:26:07 PM
So here is that second test Luc,and yes-more than double the power to achieve twice the pull force.

250g's-.888 volts@2.02 amps= 1.793 watts
500g's- 1.45 volts@3.18 amps= 4.8 watts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSvp5PtffUo&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSvp5PtffUo&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w)

Thanks for doing this excellent tests Brad

This gives us a good idea that your motor does NOT produce much torque per watt since it needs about 10 times more watts to achieve the same 500g pull as mine.
If you have a larger DC motor it may be worth making the same 500g pull test and see how much it changes with the size of motor.
I know pull force is not everything but it's a good start since stall torque test are part of testing an electric motor.
See this link: http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html (http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html)
They say a motors maximum Torque is in stall position. You may not want to leave it for long in that position though!... best to give it small shots till you have it pulling the correct amount.

I'm still trying to get my latest prototype back to do more tests. I've pulled out my large magnets from storage and will start to design the new more powerful prototype to see how far we can push this puppy.

Thanks for taking the time to do the test and video.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 24, 2014, 10:14:04 AM
If a spring is not an energy source,but only an energy storage device,how will it make the output higher?
Think of the weight as an inductor,and the spring as a capacitor. All you need to do then is hit the right frequency of the tank circuit to gain resonance. Once resonance is achieved,we will get a large amplitude-in this case,the 1/2kg weight being lifted that 2cm twice per minute

To be within test guidlines,the 2cm lift would have to start from the point at which the spring is not compressed-just off the surface from which it will contact as the weight drops.If the spring is to compress 1cm,then the total travel of Luc's slide(coils travel) on his device would need to be 3cm.

Why the spring would allow the weight to be lifted more efficiently than if it wasnt there?.

The answer is simple. If there were no spring,and the weight was just allowed to hit the surface as it fell to a resting state,then energy is disipated from the system as noise/vibration. The spring removes this loss,and stores that energy that would have been disipated as noise/vibration,and returns it back to the system. So the spring wont actually distort the output,but it will make it higher due to less loss in the system.
Very Good and Accurate analysis!  :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 24, 2014, 10:17:59 AM
That is correct-the spring stores the energy,and then returns it back to the system.This is in relation to this thread in that a system be designed and understood,so as Luc can achieve maximum efficiency from his DUT.A correct understanding as to how your system opperates, where losses may occur, what those losses are,and how to remove those losses,is the best way to achieve the results you are after,and make your DUT the most efficient it can be. Although the spring itself will have losses (vibrational/noise),it will increase the efficiency of the DUT,as those losses in the spring are not as much as they would be without it.

All in all,we agree that the spring will increase the efficiency of the DUT.
Very Correct!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 24, 2014, 10:29:52 AM
That sounds about right Luc. The less current your coil draw's,the higher the backEMF voltage will be in your coil-and of course,the higher the backEMF voltage,the lower the current draw.This is the very same in my little DC motor,and in most electric motors i know of.The more load you place on the motor,the less the BackEMF voltage in the inductors will be,so up go's the current to try and maintain the forward voltage within the inductor.

I dont know if that little motor would have 500g's of torque in it,but we can make some smoke and try lol.
Will go do it now.
Please,  dear Tin, don't use "torque" when you speak about "tangential force". The first is in N.m  ("Newton.meter" or "kilogram.force.meter" if you want) and the second in N only ("Newton" or "kilogram.force"). This is confusing and may lead to erroneously concepts and ways in experiments and calculations them :/
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 24, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
Would be good to have some test perameters right about now.
So we could do it like this.
It takes 1 joule of energy to lift 1kg of mass 10cm high.
If we are setting the weight to 1/2kg(500g's),with a lift hight of 2cm,then we need 100millijoules.
A cap that has say 5000uf would then need 6.325volts in it to give us our 100mJ.Or if we have a 10000 uf cap,we would need only 4.47 volts in it to give us our 100mJ.

So Luc,if you can lift that 500g weight by 2cm using a 10000uf cap with only 4.47 volts in it-you have hit unity. If you need only 4.46 volts in the cap to do it,you are OU.
Dear TinMan, I think you're on the Very Right path in term of Correct Methodology for o.u. checking :D Caps are Very Great to provide accurate maths on energy delivering or input :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 24, 2014, 11:46:22 AM
Please,  dear Tin, don't use "torque" when you speak about "tangential force". The first is in N.m  ("Newton.meter" or "kilogram.force.meter" if you want) and the second in N only ("Newton" or "kilogram.force"). This is confusing and may lead to erroneously concepts and ways in experiments and calculations them :/
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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2014, 01:13:46 PM
Would be good to have some test perameters right about now.
So we could do it like this.
It takes 1 joule of energy to lift 1kg of mass 10cm high.
If we are setting the weight to 1/2kg(500g's),with a lift hight of 2cm,then we need 100millijoules.
A cap that has say 5000uf would then need 6.325volts in it to give us our 100mJ.Or if we have a 10000 uf cap,we would need only 4.47 volts in it to give us our 100mJ.

So Luc,if you can lift that 500g weight by 2cm using a 10000uf cap with only 4.47 volts in it-you have hit unity. If you need only 4.46 volts in the cap to do it,you are OU.

Hmmm.... what if I take a one nF cap and charge it to 15 kV and discharge that into a water arc chamber, full of water, with the bottom of the 500g "piston" in contact with the water? Or rather, since the arc will cut off before the cap is completely discharged, let's say I start with 17 kV and end with 2 kV still on the cap. If I can get 2 cm rise (or 2.2 cm) out of the 500g piston, will I have OU?

You have to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It's almost the same thing that caused Peter Graneau to waste years of his life and millions of dollars of grant funding, chasing an imaginary unicorn through a dense forest of experimental data.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 24, 2014, 03:45:57 PM
Dear TinMan, I think you're on the Very Right path in term of Correct Methodology for o.u. checking :D Caps are Very Great to provide accurate maths on energy delivering or input :)
How can be they so great if voltage varies and there is always a small charge remaining?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
How can be they so great if voltage varies and there is always a small charge remaining?
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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 24, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
Hmmm.... what if I take a one nF cap and charge it to 15 kV and discharge that into a water arc chamber, full of water, with the bottom of the 500g "piston" in contact with the water? Or rather, since the arc will cut off before the cap is completely discharged, let's say I start with 17 kV and end with 2 kV still on the cap. If I can get 2 cm rise (or 2.2 cm) out of the 500g piston, will I have OU?

You have to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It's almost the same thing that caused Peter Graneau to waste years of his life and millions of dollars of grant funding, chasing an imaginary unicorn through a dense forest of experimental data.
There is no reason i can see that this wouldnt be a valid test TK. Why dose this example you give,give reason for caution? Do you believe that your 15kv in your 1nF cap is enough to cause that greater explosion,that it will raise that 500g piston 2.2cm?. i doubt that very much. Infact,it is very hard to get an ark in water,and i dont think 15kv at 1nF would do anything at all.I have tried to get a spark plug to work under water,and even with that small spark gap and 25kv ,i couldnt get it to spark.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: ramset on August 24, 2014, 04:34:38 PM
TinMan
perhaps water purity will effect this? [very pure distilled or reverse osmosis]


Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 25, 2014, 01:27:33 AM
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.

Where will you get a cap with an exact value - they all within at least 10 %
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 25, 2014, 06:04:48 PM
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

Great work plan - looking forward to completion!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 25, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Not useable as a lifting tool, you will dampen out the resonance, try on any physics sim.

Subwoofer for lowbanwidth frequency range is all I see good here.

What you need, is rotating eccentric mass on the shifting platform.

Now you have a force that can be tapped into.

I remember some russian guy on YT who had similar PUMP idea but for reciprocating motor, nope.

But as always, as is always the case, higher torque tends to dampen out the resonance.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 25, 2014, 11:26:03 PM
Where will you get a cap with an exact value - they all within at least 10 %
Only as per the spec's on the cap. A decent DMM will give you the correct value,and this is the value you use. An AC cap can be used in a DC situation aswell,and this way the flyback could also be collected.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 26, 2014, 02:02:26 PM
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
This is a very large setup you have got going here Luc.
Your going to need a lot of good sized magnets,and a truck load of wire lol. Would you think that .71mm wire would be a good size for this one?.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 26, 2014, 03:48:16 PM
Hi Brad,

I already had all the magnet and wire supplies purchased over 4 years ago.  Just never built it because the topic didn't have that much interest and I was starting to doubt it would give the results I was looking for.
I still don't know but if I never build it, we'll never know.
So if I'm going to build it, I'll give it my best shot.

This design requires 8 of 2" x 2" x 1" thick N52 magnets for the center and 32 of 1" x 1" cube N52 magnets for the sides.

I used a coil calculator program to find the ideal wire size. Gyula recommended to keep the resistance to a minimum but to have the wire amp turns in the hundreds of turns.  Looks like16 AWG or 1.29mm wire gives (see attached) around 400 turns, so basically 200 turns each stand wound bifilar.
I also attached the result of 14 AWG wire (second shot) but the amp turns are not enough.
The inductance value is for air coil, so I'll only know its real value once it's sandwiched in between the cores.

I should have an update video in the next 24 hr. of the coil winding process and one coil already done.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on August 27, 2014, 01:16:53 AM
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
Great craftsmanship!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on August 27, 2014, 05:04:22 AM
Hey Luc

Its a Monsta!  ;D   Nice work, as always.  ;)

Try a local hobby shop for your super glue/CA .    They have very thin (instant cure), medium and thick for filling larger holes and areas.  Its a lot cheaper than the normal store glues. A lot lot. ;)   I use this stuff all the time.  I have 3  4oz bot of super thin, 2 8oz bot of thin and a couple of thick. No job is too big. lol

Also, try superglue with your fiberglass. Also carbon fiber strips from scrap cloth and superglue/CA can strengthen or repair many things. The CA is just like resin, its not real strong unless its with fiber, what ever it may be.

Also the CA at the hobby shops have fine tip applicator nozzles.   ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on August 27, 2014, 05:12:26 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. :o   lol   All that wire glued solid, would be a copper brick. ;) No glass needed.  ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: wattsup on August 27, 2014, 06:06:35 AM
@gotoluc

Great job - why no center taps?

wattsup

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 08:03:47 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://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 (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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 10:17:59 AM
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.
;)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 10:48:23 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 10:59:15 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 :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 27, 2014, 11:16:34 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 27, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
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://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 (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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 27, 2014, 05:27:54 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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 28, 2014, 02:13:04 AM
@gotoluc

Great job - why no center taps?

wattsup

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

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc 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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 28, 2014, 01:47:09 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 (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.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 28, 2014, 02:58:22 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 (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
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 29, 2014, 01:55:53 PM
Hi Brad. Nice we agree :)

For your vid on UFO torque motor measurement, Very Nice that you've noticed the error of adding dynamometers reading instead of subtract them, and Very Kind i.m.o. you took time to demonstrate it :)

For the calculations using only the metric system, I find same result as you at 2%: 257 [W], 0.345 [HP] :)

But is that my bad English but I couldn't find the way you have run your calculations until many comparisons between your calclations and mine ^_^.

The reason why is that looks to me you didn't describe a step while you have used the value of the diameter and not the radius, then dived by 2 and then multiplied by Pi. I couldn't find from where were coming the 7.17 inches! Lol but now it's ok:

58 [mm] = 5.8 [cm] = 5.8 [cm] × 0.3937 [inches/cm] = 2.283 [inches] of diameter;

2.283 [inches] × Pi = 7.17 [inches].

This step was missing or you said it verbally and I didn't get ^_^ but thanks for the vid, it Very Shows imho how you care about truth in the Free Energy Quest. Thanks for helping here, Brad :)

Regards,
Didier





Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 30, 2014, 05:49:07 AM
I now have my Inductance meter and the below are the measurements of the new coil.

Each bifilar coil strands measure 31 mH and when connected in series they measure 88 mH.
Measurements are Air core. So it looks like my coil software did not calculate the Inductance value very well probably because the actual shape of the coil center opening is not a circle. It got all the rest of the measurements right.  Just checked the weight and it's 2,500 grams including the center core board which may be about 300g. So the program got the weight right as well.
Once the coil is between the cores the Inductance should be much higher. It all looks good so far.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 30, 2014, 06:51:15 AM
I now have my Inductance meter and the below are the measurements of the new coil.

Each bifilar coil strands measure 31 mH and when connected in series they measure 88 mH.
Measurements are Air core. So it looks like my coil software did not calculate the Inductance value very well probably because the actual shape of the coil center opening is not a circle. It got all the rest of the measurements right.  Just checked the weight and it's 2,500 grams including the center core board which may be about 300g. So the program got the weight right as well.
Once the coil is between the cores the Inductance should be much higher. It all looks good so far.

Luc

Every morning and afternoon i check this thread,waiting for the MMM's first sign of life-first run. After seeing the results of your first test Luc,and seeing how much extra force/pull your setup had from that of what we have today,makes this such an interesting project. It has been a long time since something has sparked my interest this strongly. I have been thinking of a way to use your effect much more efficiently-but so far,nothing has come to mind.

A truly excellent project and design.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 30, 2014, 05:33:48 PM
Thanks Brad for posting your thoughts towards this design.

It's encouraging to know you "one of the few real builders" is so interested to see the results of what a super build could do.

It may take another week before I have it ready for testing as the side glide and guide system will have to be accurate and very solid before testing.
Once I magnetically close the outer steel plates together, it will be very difficult to separate them. I think it's over 2,000 pounds (per side) of holding force what 16 of N52 1" cubes and 4 N52 2" x 2" square will hold. So I've got to get the coil supports right the first time :P

I know, it's not easy to think of an improved design, like one that could rotate!...  I challenge all great minds out there to submit your ideas on a rotary version of this design.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on August 31, 2014, 01:08:56 AM
735.5 watts to lift 180 pounds equals a horsepower. 1 watt can lift 4 pounds. Anything better then that is overunity!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 31, 2014, 01:57:37 AM
There must be a certain amount of distance the weight needs to be lifted in a certain time frame no?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 31, 2014, 03:37:19 AM
There must be a certain amount of distance the weight needs to be lifted in a certain time frame no?

Luc
@ Luc
Syncro is using metric horse power there.If you wish to use that,then the calculations are:

1 metric horse power =735.498 watts
To have one metric horse power,you must lift 75kg's 1 meter in 1 second.

Power= work/time
Lifting 1kg per second, converts 10 joules of energy to 10 watts of power.
It takes 10 joules of energy to lift 1kg 1 meter.
So to lift 1kg up 100mm,it would take 1 joule of energy.
 As an example-10v in a 20000uf cap is 1 joule of energy.

What we need is a constant p/in(watt hours) to suspend say a 1kg mass. I think it can be done using the acelleration of G in this case. I will look into it.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on August 31, 2014, 10:52:38 AM
@tinman

Your perfectly right in your calculations, Brad.

Just at the end , if you mean by "watt hours": "watts times hours", I remember you it is no more a power but an energy ;)

Good idea to use gravitation but then only 1 phase of the cycle will be needed as excitation, right? And we would need to take in account that only half the time period the consumption will occur but that gravity will work the second part of the cycle; isn't it?

Theoretically, the pulling work made to lift the crank would be equal to the work made by the gravity in the second phase of the cycle. I am not sure that the system would be better if only excited on 1 half of the cycle, but experiments should tell.

@gotoluc

Please, be careful with your fingers and skin hands when you'll handle these so powerful neodymium magnets ^_^

Yes, if we can get o.u. in the straight design, a rotary system would be A Must! :)

Thanks for keeping going and sharing, Luc :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on August 31, 2014, 11:22:38 AM
@tinman

Your perfectly right in your calculations, Brad.

Just at the end , if you mean by "watt hours": "watts times hours", I remember you it is no more a power but an energy ;)

Good idea to use gravitation but then only 1 phase of the cycle will be needed as excitation, right? And we would need to take in account that only half the time period the consumption will occur but that gravity will work the second part of the cycle; isn't it?

Theoretically, the pulling work made to lift the crank would be equal to the work made by the gravity in the second phase of the cycle. I am not sure that the system would be better if only excited on 1 half of the cycle, but experiments should tell.

@gotoluc

Please, be careful with your fingers and skin hands when you'll handle these so powerful neodymium magnets ^_^

Yes, if we can get o.u. in the straight design, a rotary system would be A Must! :)

Thanks for keeping going and sharing, Luc :)
yes-not sure why i put watt hour's,should just be watts.
So would we use 1/2 G in this case? 4.45m*/s

So as 1 watt /4.9x1kg=204mW.
A pull force of 1kg @ 204mW of power?.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 31, 2014, 06:15:34 PM
Hi everyone,

I got my 1" cube mostly magnet motor back and have put together a new test which I feel should be a fairer comparison.
In this test I use a large 20VDC 400 RPM Permanent Magnet Motor since it's torque should be very higher and a better comparison to the torque of my 3xM design.

My reasoning for this is the 3xM design is a back and forth solenoid action which has a limit of how many times it can efficiently oscillate per second. At this time it seems to do well with 6 to 10Hz. So if we added a crank shaft to convert it to rotation it should turn in the 360 to 600 RPM range.
So using the above motor seems to be a more ideal comparison. However, keep in mind that the 3xM is only 1" wide compared to the DC motor rotor which is about 6" wide. So obviously surface area is an important factor for high torque hence my new 8" wide super build.

Link to video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5pmKBruuU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5pmKBruuU)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on August 31, 2014, 07:37:34 PM
Hi Luc,

Great work on the build.

I had two untested ideas for your design one is a linear generator.

Instead of having continuous bars along the edge replace them with steel pipes. A split is in the middle so that when the coil is powered it makes the top of the pipe south while the bottom is north. The output coil will see this change as it collapses toward the north pole. I'm not sure on how this will be effected by the opposing field though. Also a split may be needed along the side of the pipe so that eddy currents are minimized. It might be something to test.

The rotary idea is just a thought in progress. Magnets can be used to polarize the metal as all north. There is a falloff toward the center but it is still north facing, this difference is needed otherwise we end up with a static system. The gates would have the strongest field to push from while being pulled toward the next gate.

The polarizing is based off of this observation:
http://www.overunity.com/14843/are-partial-monopoles-possible/

This current design has issues but maybe it will inspire a better idea or design.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on August 31, 2014, 08:44:05 PM
Hi DreamThinkBuild,

Thank you for your post and sharing your ideas and illustration work.

The way I have come to understand the fields around an electromagnet coil is, it is not just North South on each end of the coils.  Actually half way through the thickness of the coil there is a blotch wall and the polarity shifts.
It would look more like you illustration below where I have identified the poles on one side of the coil.
This is why in my design the magnets poles are not on the vertical plain like your illustration.  They are on the horizontal plain with the blotch wall half way trough the coil windings.
Using a coil of the same thickness as the magnet will gives most torque output.

Look at the below video and take close attention to the magnet poles. Here I demonstrate you can double the torque when you use the coils outer magnetic field which is in opposite poles of the coils inner field.
If this wasn't the case we would have a cancellation of torque since the magnets on the outside cores are in opposite field of the inner cores.

Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM)

Let me know what you think and understand

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 02, 2014, 08:31:24 AM
@ All: Please, skip the algebraic developments of this VERY-VERY LONG spot, if you're if algebra is not really your friend ;)

yes-not sure why i put watt hour's,should just be watts.
So would we use 1/2 G in this case? 4.45m*/s

So as 1 watt /4.9x1kg=204mW.
A pull force of 1kg @ 204mW of power?.
No problem Brad, for the adding hours; aren't we here to correct, give ideas and share experiments to each other, in what we like the most to do? :)

For your question: no, cause we don't even have to care about G! Lol, cause it is NEUTRAL in the cycle, as I see it and as per the following algebraic operations:

Say:

• Wmt, the total effective mechanical energy of the whole cycle

• T1, the time period of lifting

• T2, the time period of droping

• Wm1, the effective mechanical energy of the lifting

• Wm2, the effective mechanical energy of the droping

• We1, the electrical energy consumption of the lifting

• We2, the electrical energy of the electromagnetic flyback at the droping

• Wg, the gravitational energy as per: Wg = F × g = (M × L) × g, with:

• F, weight [Newtons]

• M, mass [kg]

• L, crank or lifting or droping length [meter]

• g, gravitational acceleration, or "gravitational intensity field"

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy consumption

• We': effective electrical energy, as per We' = We - a × We = (1 - a) × We

• A, the conjugated quantity of "a", "1 - a", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective electrical energy directly from the electrical energy consumption: A × We = (1 - a) We = "effective electrical energy" = We'

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)

• Wm': effective mechanical energy, as per Wm' = We' - b × We' = (1 - b) × We'

• B, the conjugated quantity of "b", "1 - b", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective mechanical energy directly from the effective electrical energy minus the gravity energy "Wg" when lifting, but plus the gravity energy "Wg" when droping: B × (We' +/- Wg) = (1 - b) × (We' +/- Wg) = "effective electrical energy" = Wm'

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting,)

• Wm": effective mechanical energy returned, as per Wm" = Wm' + c × We1

• C, the conjugated quantity of "c", "1 + c", which is the corresponding coefficient.

● Wmt = Wm1 + Wm2

● Wm1 = [We1 - a × We1 - Wg] - [b × (We1 - a × We - Wg) ]

○ Wm1 = (1 - b) × (We1 - a × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × ( (1 - a) × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × (A × We1 - Wg)

● Wm2 = [We2 - a × We2 + Wg] - [b × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wm2 = (1 - b) × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × ( (1 - a) × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × (A × We2 + Wg)

○ Wmt = [ B × ( A × We1 - Wg) ] + [ B × ( A × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wmt = B × { [ A × We1 - Wg ] + [ A × We2 + Wg ] }

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 - Wg + A × We2 + Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 + A × We2 + Wg - Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 ); QED.

Note 1: In fact I didn't care of the time periods cause the time frame is fixed (even if not necessarily equal).

Note 2: I didn't care too of a spring. I considered that at the end of the first period, the lifting one, the mass is pulling back down by the gravity itself, so then no need of a spring (little more complex equations if we care! ^_^ ). And I have considered that at the end of the second period, it would have no returning mecanical energy system, so all the droping energy lost (which is placing us far below in efficiency than with a spring to reflect the energy or if a mechanical flywheel with a link).

Note 3: The electrical supplier voltage is only applied at the beginning of the lifting period.

Note 4: I used to use "expletive parentheses", they are to help the reading and understanding of the equations, even if it is not "mathematically necessary": "(...)", "[...]" and "{...}" is a personal use of parentheses to signify the different level of intrication, like: { [ ( ...) ] }. ;)

THEN, If I haven't messed up in my operations, it comes an interesting equation, imho, Brad: it the one of the conditions of o.u. for the device in the conditions I've just described:

As fixed time frame,

COP of mechanical output under electrical consumption

= mechanical output power / electrical consumption power

= mechanical output energy / electrical consumption energy

= Wmt / We1

● COP = Wmt / We1

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + c × We1)

○ Wmt = B × A × (1 + c) × We1

○ Wmt = B × A × C × We1

○ Wmt / We1 = (B × A × C × We1) / We1

○ Wmt / We1 = B × A × C = COP.

So, as we have to have:

● COP > 1

so, we have to have too:

● Wmt / We1 > 1

○ B × A × C > 1

Then, we have our basic condition as a low estimate (remember, we didn't care of any spring reflection or mechanical flywheel):

○  C > 1 / (B × A)

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆   C > 1 / (B × A)  ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Example:

If,

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy
= 0.10, or 10%, so A = 0.9,

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)
= 0.10, or 10%, so B = 0.9,

We get:

C > 1 / (B × A)

○ C > 1 / (0.9 × 0.9)

○ C > ~1.235

So, to have o.u. we should have

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting
> 24%.

○ For a = b = 20% ; c > ~57%

○ For a = 5% and b = 20%, or for  a = 20% and b = 5%, c > ~32%.


~○~

The problem we hmcan see while checking the equations for the system with a spring at bottom, is that if Wm2 would be transferred as per "d" spring coefficient losses "d", to the third time, BUT AT THE END OF THE THIRD TIME, ALL THE MECHANICAL ENERGY TRANSFERRED IS CONSUMED BY THE GRAVITY, so Wm4 = Wm2 :/

Then, we realise that luc's arrangement with 2 springs is decisive!

Indeed, it allows us the transfer each mechanical energy of each time to the next, as per the spring losses coefficient "d", and not consuming it just because of this gravity.

~°~

TWO SPRINGS SYSTEM WITHOUT GRAVITY INVOLVED:

After 34 pages of algebra and calculations, soon 24 hours non-spot of checking and rechecking ^_^, I got these following equations which state the conditions for overunity COP with my simplified operations.

The simplifications are:

▪ considering losses or gains always linear, proportional, when it not necessarily, and

▪ equalising the losses or gain coefficients as A = B = C = D = K, with:

□ A, coefficient of electromagnetic losses

□ B, coefficient of mecanical losses

□ C, coefficient of reflection losses (due to the springs)

□ D, coefficient of electromagnetic flyback gain

We see then that the NET ENERGY GAIN for the 2 first periods, for example, are: (we note We1 = We2 = constant = We)

● T1:
G1 = Wm1 - We
= A × We - We
= (A - 1) × We
-> a loss

● T2:
G2 = Wm2 - 2We

= (W,mech + W,ElectromagneticFlyback + W,Electrical Excitation) - 2We

= C × [ B × (A × We) ]
+ D × (A × We)
+ (A × We)
- 2We

= (A × B × C) × We
+ (A × D) × We
+ A × We
- 2We

= [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We

Then, to have COP overunity, we need:

● G2 > 0

So:

● [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A > 2

○ A [ (B × C) + D + 1 ] > 2

Setting A = B = C = D = K,

○ K [ (K × K) + K + 1 ] > 2

○ K^3 + K^2 + K > 2

○ [ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) ] - 1 > 2

○ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) > 3

Numerical examples:

• For K = 0.5 = 1/2, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 30 / 16 = ~1.8 and 1.8 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.75 = 3/4, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 175 / 64 = ~2.7 and 2.7 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.8 = 4/5, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 369 / 125 = ~2.95 and 2.95 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.9 = 9/10, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 3,439 / 1,000 = ~3.4 and 3.4 < 3; WE HAVE OVERUNITY.

This means that with 10 % losses for each kind of losses encountered here and for 90 % of electromagnetic flyback recycled, the numbers say that we would be able to have overunity with these first calculations.  :)

But now, here is "The Big One",

THE OVERUNITY EQUATION ON LONGUE PERIOD OF TIME:

□□□□□ COP = { [1 / (1 - K) ] - 1 } / K □□□□□

And the solution for COP > 1 is:

□□□□□□□□□□   K > 0.618   □□□□□□□□□□

Means that theoretically, if my calculations abd reasoning are correct (and you may correct me at anytime):

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET AN OVERUNITY EVEN WITH 38.2% OF LOSSES AND ONLY 61.8% OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FLYBACK. :P


Well, I have made my 24 hours around the clock now, hope few of you guys will appreciate the work!  ^_^


Regards,
Didier
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 02, 2014, 08:50:32 AM
Hi Luc,

Great work on the build.

I had two untested ideas for your design one is a linear generator.

Instead of having continuous bars along the edge replace them with steel pipes. A split is in the middle so that when the coil is powered it makes the top of the pipe south while the bottom is north. The output coil will see this change as it collapses toward the north pole. I'm not sure on how this will be effected by the opposing field though. Also a split may be needed along the side of the pipe so that eddy currents are minimized. It might be something to test.

The rotary idea is just a thought in progress. Magnets can be used to polarize the metal as all north. There is a falloff toward the center but it is still north facing, this difference is needed otherwise we end up with a static system. The gates would have the strongest field to push from while being pulled toward the next gate.

The polarizing is based off of this observation:
http://www.overunity.com/14843/are-partial-monopoles-possible/

This current design has issues but maybe it will inspire a better idea or design.
Very Well Done for the design and ideas!  :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on September 02, 2014, 12:37:44 PM
@ All: Please, skip the algebraic developments of this VERY-VERY LONG spot, if you're if algebra is not really your friend ;)
No problem Brad, for the adding hours; aren't we here to correct, give ideas and share experiments to each other, in what we like the most to do? :)

For your question: no, cause we don't even have to care about G! Lol, cause it is NEUTRAL in the cycle, as I see it and as per the following algebraic operations:

Say:

• Wmt, the total effective mechanical energy of the whole cycle

• T1, the time period of lifting

• T2, the time period of droping

• Wm1, the effective mechanical energy of the lifting

• Wm2, the effective mechanical energy of the droping

• We1, the electrical energy consumption of the lifting

• We2, the electrical energy of the electromagnetic flyback at the droping

• Wg, the gravitational energy as per: Wg = F × g = (M × L) × g, with:

• F, weight [Newtons]

• M, mass [kg]

• L, crank or lifting or droping length [meter]

• g, gravitational acceleration, or "gravitational intensity field"

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy consumption

• We': effective electrical energy, as per We' = We - a × We = (1 - a) × We

• A, the conjugated quantity of "a", "1 - a", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective electrical energy directly from the electrical energy consumption: A × We = (1 - a) We = "effective electrical energy" = We'

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)

• Wm': effective mechanical energy, as per Wm' = We' - b × We' = (1 - b) × We'

• B, the conjugated quantity of "b", "1 - b", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective mechanical energy directly from the effective electrical energy minus the gravity energy "Wg" when lifting, but plus the gravity energy "Wg" when droping: B × (We' +/- Wg) = (1 - b) × (We' +/- Wg) = "effective electrical energy" = Wm'

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting,)

• Wm": effective mechanical energy returned, as per Wm" = Wm' + c × We1

• C, the conjugated quantity of "c", "1 + c", which is the corresponding coefficient.

● Wmt = Wm1 + Wm2

● Wm1 = [We1 - a × We1 - Wg] - [b × (We1 - a × We - Wg) ]

○ Wm1 = (1 - b) × (We1 - a × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × ( (1 - a) × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × (A × We1 - Wg)

● Wm2 = [We2 - a × We2 + Wg] - [b × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wm2 = (1 - b) × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × ( (1 - a) × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × (A × We2 + Wg)

○ Wmt = [ B × ( A × We1 - Wg) ] + [ B × ( A × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wmt = B × { [ A × We1 - Wg ] + [ A × We2 + Wg ] }

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 - Wg + A × We2 + Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 + A × We2 + Wg - Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 ); QED.

Note 1: In fact I didn't care of the time periods cause the time frame is fixed (even if not necessarily equal).

Note 2: I didn't care too of a spring. I considered that at the end of the first period, the lifting one, the mass is pulling back down by the gravity itself, so then no need of a spring (little more complex equations if we care! ^_^ ). And I have considered that at the end of the second period, it would have no returning mecanical energy system, so all the droping energy lost (which is placing us far below in efficiency than with a spring to reflect the energy or if a mechanical flywheel with a link).

Note 3: The electrical supplier voltage is only applied at the beginning of the lifting period.

Note 4: I used to use "expletive parentheses", they are to help the reading and understanding of the equations, even if it is not "mathematically necessary": "(...)", "[...]" and "{...}" is a personal use of parentheses to signify the different level of intrication, like: { [ ( ...) ] }. ;)

THEN, If I haven't messed up in my operations, it comes an interesting equation, imho, Brad: it the one of the conditions of o.u. for the device in the conditions I've just described:

As fixed time frame,

COP of mechanical output under electrical consumption

= mechanical output power / electrical consumption power

= mechanical output energy / electrical consumption energy

= Wmt / We1

● COP = Wmt / We1

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + c × We1)

○ Wmt = B × A × (1 + c) × We1

○ Wmt = B × A × C × We1

○ Wmt / We1 = (B × A × C × We1) / We1

○ Wmt / We1 = B × A × C = COP.

So, as we have to have:

● COP > 1

so, we have to have too:

● Wmt / We1 > 1

○ B × A × C > 1

Then, we have our basic condition as a low estimate (remember, we didn't care of any spring reflection or mechanical flywheel):

○  C > 1 / (B × A)

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆   C > 1 / (B × A)  ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Example:

If,

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy
= 0.10, or 10%, so A = 0.9,

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)
= 0.10, or 10%, so B = 0.9,

We get:

C > 1 / (B × A)

○ C > 1 / (0.9 × 0.9)

○ C > ~1.235

So, to have o.u. we should have

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting
> 24%.

○ For a = b = 20% ; c > ~57%

○ For a = 5% and b = 20%, or for  a = 20% and b = 5%, c > ~32%.


~○~

The problem we hmcan see while checking the equations for the system with a spring at bottom, is that if Wm2 would be transferred as per "d" spring coefficient losses "d", to the third time, BUT AT THE END OF THE THIRD TIME, ALL THE MECHANICAL ENERGY TRANSFERRED IS CONSUMED BY THE GRAVITY, so Wm4 = Wm2 :/

Then, we realise that luc's arrangement with 2 springs is decisive!

Indeed, it allows us the transfer each mechanical energy of each time to the next, as per the spring losses coefficient "d", and not consuming it just because of this gravity.

~°~

TWO SPRINGS SYSTEM WITHOUT GRAVITY INVOLVED:

After 34 pages of algebra and calculations, soon 24 hours non-spot of checking and rechecking ^_^, I got these following equations which state the conditions for overunity COP with my simplified operations.

The simplifications are:

▪ considering losses or gains always linear, proportional, when it not necessarily, and

▪ equalising the losses or gain coefficients as A = B = C = D = K, with:

□ A, coefficient of electromagnetic losses

□ B, coefficient of mecanical losses

□ C, coefficient of reflection losses (due to the springs)

□ D, coefficient of electromagnetic flyback gain

We see then that the NET ENERGY GAIN for the 2 first periods, for example, are: (we note We1 = We2 = constant = We)

● T1:
G1 = Wm1 - We
= A × We - We
= (A - 1) × We
-> a loss

● T2:
G2 = Wm2 - 2We

= (W,mech + W,ElectromagneticFlyback + W,Electrical Excitation) - 2We

= C × [ B × (A × We) ]
+ D × (A × We)
+ (A × We)
- 2We

= (A × B × C) × We
+ (A × D) × We
+ A × We
- 2We

= [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We

Then, to have COP overunity, we need:

● G2 > 0

So:

● [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A > 2

○ A [ (B × C) + D + 1 ] > 2

Setting A = B = C = D = K,

○ K [ (K × K) + K + 1 ] > 2

○ K^3 + K^2 + K > 2

○ [ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) ] - 1 > 2

○ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) > 3

Numerical examples:

• For K = 0.5 = 1/2, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 30 / 16 = ~1.8 and 1.8 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.75 = 3/4, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 175 / 64 = ~2.7 and 2.7 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.8 = 4/5, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 369 / 125 = ~2.95 and 2.95 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.9 = 9/10, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 3,439 / 1,000 = ~3.4 and 3.4 < 3; WE HAVE OVERUNITY.

This means that with 10 % losses for each kind of losses encountered here and for 90 % of electromagnetic flyback recycled, the numbers say that we would be able to have overunity with these first calculations.  :)

But now, here is "The Big One",

THE OVERUNITY EQUATION ON LONGUE PERIOD OF TIME:

□□□□□ COP = { [1 / (1 - K) ] - 1 } / K □□□□□

And the solution for COP > 1 is:

□□□□□□□□□□   K > 0.618   □□□□□□□□□□

Means that theoretically, if my calculations abd reasoning are correct (and you may correct me at anytime):

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET AN OVERUNITY EVEN WITH 38.2% OF LOSSES AND ONLY 61.8% OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FLYBACK. :P


Well, I have made my 24 hours around the clock now, hope few of you guys will appreciate the work!  ^_^


Regards,
Didier
???

Ok-something went wrong in translation there.
I am trying to convert a constant pull force x watts-no moving parts.If we are to lift a weight of x amount by a distance of y amount in a fixed amount of time,then that is much easer. But to convert a non moving pull force x continuous watts input is a little harder.

What we want is to be able to hook up the scales to the moving coil,and get a pull force. Then we also have a stedy whatt input aswell-nothing moves. So we want to go say 500 grams pull x 1.2 watts input,and then be able to calculate efficiency from that with the correct math.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 03, 2014, 03:28:34 PM
???

Ok-something went wrong in translation there.
I am trying to convert a constant pull force x watts-no moving parts.If we are to lift a weight of x amount by a distance of y amount in a fixed amount of time,then that is much easer. But to convert a non moving pull force x continuous watts input is a little harder.

What we want is to be able to hook up the scales to the moving coil,and get a pull force. Then we also have a stedy whatt input aswell-nothing moves. So we want to go say 500 grams pull x 1.2 watts input,and then be able to calculate efficiency from that with the correct math.
Understand your feelings, Brad, but I was going just a little bit further and more general for the seak of a overunity COP.

But as a matter of fact, I don't know for now any standard operations in physics allowing to get a COP from a none moving pulling force :/

Indeed, if you sustain a mass in the gravity to a steel hook, we don't consider that the hook consumes any energy, so NO consumption power involved.

The only think we can do I think is as we do right now: comparing with other systems; I mean ONLY IF NOT MOVING.

That is very why I didn't care about calculations about the setups you are running presently, Brad, but of the only setups which allow us to have a mechanical POWER [W] (not just a FORCE [Newtons] ), so we are able to get a COP. ;)

Then, it will be only with a TRANSLATING or ALTERNA or ROTATIONNAL setup we will be able to calculate any COP.

Then, it is possible to calculate a COP by just a simple lifting cause we do have A MOVING FORCE in a TIME PERIOD. But you already know the maths as good as me on this one ;)

Still, my maths of my previous post (that I will repost to correct minor errors or clear up few points), could be usable especially if a link-pulley system. :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 03, 2014, 04:04:48 PM
I repost here this very very long post of maths about Luc's MMM, to make few minor corrections for seak of more clarity and to add an expression in words of the necessary conditions for a COP in this particular setup but not only:



TO HAVE OVERUNITY COP, THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FLYBACK COEFFICIENT "JUST" NEED TO BE STRICTLY SUPERIOR TO THE INVERT SUM OF ALL COEFFICIENTS OF LOSSES. 



Looks it is "as simple as that". ^_^

---------

@ All: Please, skip the algebraic developments of this VERY-VERY LONG spot, if you're if algebra is not really your friend ;)
No problem Brad, for the adding hours; aren't we here to correct, give ideas and share experiments to each other, in what we like the most to do? :)

For your question: no, cause we don't even have to care about G! Lol, cause it is NEUTRAL in the cycle, as I see it and as per the following algebraic operations:

Say:

• Wmt, the total effective mechanical energy of the whole cycle

• T1, the time period of lifting

• T2, the time period of droping

• Wm1, the effective mechanical energy of the lifting

• Wm2, the effective mechanical energy of the droping

• We1, the electrical energy consumption of the lifting

• We2, the electrical energy of the electromagnetic flyback at the droping

• Wg, the gravitational energy as per: Wg = F × g = (M × L) × g, with:

• F, weight [Newtons]

• M, mass [kg]

• L, crank or lifting or droping length [meter]

• g, gravitational acceleration, or "gravitational intensity field"

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy consumption

• We': effective electrical energy, as per We' = We - a × We = (1 - a) × We

• A, the conjugated quantity of "a", "1 - a", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective electrical energy directly from the electrical energy consumption: A × We = (1 - a) We = "effective electrical energy" = We'

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)

• Wm': effective mechanical energy, as per Wm' = We' - b × We' = (1 - b) × We'

• B, the conjugated quantity of "b", "1 - b", which is the corresponding coefficient which allows to obtain the effective mechanical energy directly from the effective electrical energy minus the gravity energy "Wg" when lifting, but plus the gravity energy "Wg" when droping: B × (We' +/- Wg) = (1 - b) × (We' +/- Wg) = "effective electrical energy" = Wm'

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting,)

• Wm": effective mechanical energy returned, as per Wm" = Wm' + c × We1

• C, the conjugated quantity of "c", "1 + c", which is the corresponding coefficient.

● Wmt = Wm1 + Wm2

● Wm1 = [We1 - a × We1 - Wg] - [b × (We1 - a × We - Wg) ]

○ Wm1 = (1 - b) × (We1 - a × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × ( (1 - a) × We1 - Wg)

○ Wm1 = B × (A × We1 - Wg)

● Wm2 = [We2 - a × We2 + Wg] - [b × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wm2 = (1 - b) × (We2 - a × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × ( (1 - a) × We2 + Wg)

○ Wm2 = B × (A × We2 + Wg)

○ Wmt = [ B × ( A × We1 - Wg) ] + [ B × ( A × We2 + Wg) ]

○ Wmt = B × { [ A × We1 - Wg ] + [ A × We2 + Wg ] }

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 - Wg + A × We2 + Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × [ A × We1 + A × We2 + Wg - Wg ]

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 ); QED.

Note 1: In fact I didn't care of the time periods cause the time frame is fixed (even if not necessarily equal).

Note 2: I didn't care too of a spring. I considered that at the end of the first period, the lifting one, the mass is pulling back down by the gravity itself, so then no need of a spring (little more complex equations if we care! ^_^ ). And I have considered that at the end of the second period, it would have no returning mecanical energy system, so all the droping energy lost (which is placing us far below in efficiency than with a spring to reflect the energy or if a mechanical flywheel with a link).

Note 3: The electrical supplier voltage is only applied at the beginning of the lifting period.

Note 4: I used to use "expletive parentheses", they are to help the reading and understanding of the equations, even if it is not "mathematically necessary": "(...)", "[...]" and "{...}" is a personal use of parentheses to signify the different level of intrication, like: { [ ( ...) ] }. ;)

THEN, If I haven't messed up in my operations, it comes an interesting equation, imho, Brad: it the one of the conditions of o.u. for the device in the conditions I've just described:

As fixed time frame,

COP of mechanical output under electrical consumption

= mechanical output power / electrical consumption power

= mechanical output energy / electrical consumption energy

= Wmt / We1

● COP = Wmt / We1

○ Wmt = B × (A × We1 + A × We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + We2 )

○ Wmt = B × A × (We1 + c × We1)

○ Wmt = B × A × (1 + c) × We1

○ Wmt = B × A × C × We1

○ Wmt / We1 = (B × A × C × We1) / We1

○ Wmt / We1 = B × A × C = COP.

So, as we have to have:

● COP > 1

so, we have to have too:

● Wmt / We1 > 1

○ B × A × C > 1

Then, we have our basic condition as a low estimate (remember, we didn't care of any spring reflection or mechanical flywheel):

○  C > 1 / (B × A)

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆   C > 1 / (B × A)  ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Example:

If,

• a, the ratio of electrical energy losses respect the electrical energy
= 0.10, or 10%, so A = 0.9,

• b, the ratio of mechanical energy losses respect the difference (electrical energy consumption - gravitational energy)
= 0.10, or 10%, so B = 0.9,

We get:

C > 1 / (B × A)

○ C > 1 / (0.9 × 0.9)

○ C > ~1.235

So, to have o.u. we should have

• c, the ratio of electrical energy flyback respect the electrical energy consumption of the lifting
> 24%.

○ For a = b = 20% ; c > ~57%

○ For a = 5% and b = 20%, or for  a = 20% and b = 5%, c > ~32%.


~○~

The problem we can see while checking the equations for the system with a spring at bottom, is that if Wm2 would be transferred as per spring coefficient losses "d", to the third time, BUT AT THE END OF THE THIRD TIME, ALL THE MECHANICAL ENERGY TRANSFERRED IS CONSUMED BY THE GRAVITY, so Wm4 = Wm2 :/

Then, we realise that luc's arrangement with 2 springs is decisive!

Indeed, it allows us the transfer each mechanical energy of each time to the next, as per the spring losses coefficient "d", and not consuming it just because of this gravity.

~°~

TWO SPRINGS SYSTEM WITHOUT GRAVITY INVOLVED:

After 34 pages of algebra and calculations, soon 24 hours non-spot of checking and rechecking ^_^, I got these following equations which state the conditions for overunity COP with my simplified operations.

The simplifications are:

▪ considering losses or gains always linear, proportional, when it not necessarily, and

▪ equalising the losses or gain coefficients as A = B = C = D = K, with:

□ A, coefficient of electromagnetic losses

□ B, coefficient of mecanical losses

□ C, coefficient of reflection losses (due to the springs)

□ D, coefficient of electromagnetic flyback gain (note that in this case D > 1 while in the previous operations, the electromagnetic flyback coefficient was < 1, for just a question of how it used in the equations).

We see then that the NET ENERGY GAIN for the 2 first periods, for example, are: (we note We1 = We2 = W3 = ... = constant = We).

G1 and G2 are the net energy gain at period 1, "T1", and period 2, "T2":

● T1:
G1 = Wm1 - We

= electrical excitation energy, reduced by electromagnetic and mechanical losses, minus Energy of ElectricalExcitation.

= B × (A × We - We )
= B × (A - 1) × We
-> a loss

● T2:
G2 = Wm2 - 2We

= spring reflected mechanical energy + electromagnetic flyback energy + electrical excitation energy, reduced by electromagnetic and mechanical losses (spring losses and translating losses), minus energy of two electrical excitations.

= C × [ B × (A × We) ]
+ D × (A × We)
+ (A × We)
- 2We

= (A × B × C) × We
+ (A × D) × We
+ A × We
- 2We

= [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We

Then, to have COP overunity, we need:

● G2 > 0

So:

● [ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 ] × We > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A - 2 > 0

○ (A × B × C) + (A × D) + A > 2

○ A [ (B × C) + D + 1 ] > 2

Setting A = B = C = D = K,

○ K [ (K × K) + K + 1 ] > 2

○ K^3 + K^2 + K > 2

○ [ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) ] - 1 > 2

○ (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) > 3

Numerical examples:

• For K = 0.5 = 1/2, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 30 / 16 = ~1.8 and 1.8 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.75 = 3/4, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 175 / 64 = ~2.7 and 2.7 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.8 = 4/5, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 369 / 125 = ~2.95 and 2.95 < 3; no overunity.

• For K = 0.9 = 9/10, (1 - K^4) / (1 - K) = 3,439 / 1,000 = ~3.4 and 3.4 > 3; WE HAVE OVERUNITY.

This means that with 10 % losses for each kind of losses encountered here and for 90 % of electromagnetic flyback recycled, the numbers say that we would be able to have overunity with these first calculations.  :)

But now, here is "The Big One",

THE OVERUNITY EQUATION ON LONGUE PERIOD OF TIME:

□□□□□ COP = { [1 / (1 - K) ] - 1 } / K □□□□□

And the solution for COP > 1 is:

□□□□□□□□□□   K > 0.618   □□□□□□□□□□

Means that theoretically, if my calculations and reasoning are correct (and you may correct me at anytime):

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET AN OVERUNITY EVEN WITH 38.2% OF LOSSES AND ONLY 61.8% OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FLYBACK. :P


Well, I have made my 24 hours around the clock now, hope few of you guys will appreciate the work!  ^_^


Regards,
Didier
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 05, 2014, 06:48:51 PM
Just a quick update,

both coils are wound, Epoxy and Glass coated.
The next step is making the end glide bushing system.

From today I'll be away for 5 days and on my return I'll start making the glide system. So it may be another 10+ days before I can test the Super build.

Stay tuned

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 05, 2014, 06:52:57 PM
Well received, Luc. Great you've advance on your setup.

Nice 10 days what you need for! :)

Best regards,
Didier
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 12, 2014, 03:46:51 AM
Hi everyone,

I'm now back and will resume the Super build.

I made a video to show the coils finished with the Epoxy and Fiberglass cloth.
I also included a test to demonstrate the opposite pole on the outside of the coil which is not commonly known or used.
Link to new video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvfwELDmKIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvfwELDmKIM)


The illustration below demonstrates the poles of the electromagnet and how my design uses it.
Below is an old video which demonstrates the double pull torque advantage if you have not seen it yet.
Link to old video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM)

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on September 12, 2014, 05:50:02 AM
OK-some one please explain to me as to why the magnetic field is opposite on the inside of the coil,as aposed to the outside of the coil,when all wire is wound in the same direction,and current flow is uniform.\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvfwELDmKIM

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: shylo on September 13, 2014, 11:42:04 AM
Thanks Luc, I've been testing with coils as well, I assumed that when you powered a coil that one side was n and the other s. If you lay your coil flat instead of on edge and put a magnet on it ,then power it depending on polarity the magnet will be repelled or attracted. How can this be ? One of the poles must be stronger to see this effect. I wasn't aware that both poles were present on the same side at the same time.
Very interesting Thanks
artv
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 13, 2014, 05:48:58 PM
Thanks for your post Shylo

I have no schooling, so I experiment to understand how things work. I found this about 7 years ago when I built a motor out of 2 MOT secondaries with a ceramic permanent magnet rotor. I still have that build if anyone wants to see it.

Ever since then I assumed it was common knowledge and would mention it here and there but now I'm finding out it's not common knowledge at all. I've just been told it's not in the textbooks.

If experimenters would like to test it, I would suggest a MOT secondary since it's more difficult to detect the poles with a round coil. You need a long strait side of a coil which separates the poles and makes it easily detectable. Also, best if the coil winding width and height are the same, so a square Brooks winding is best.

Please note as I have mentioned in my video that the center opening pole will be stronger because they are double together and in close proximity as opose to the outside poles away from each other but if you combine the two outside opposite poles (as I do in my MMM design) they are as strong as the inner pole.

So now you can double the torque of a coil if you understand this and know how to use it.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 14, 2014, 11:15:51 PM
OK-some one please explain to me as to why the magnetic field is opposite on the inside of the coil,as aposed to the outside of the coil,when all wire is wound in the same direction,and current flow is uniform.\




Hi tin man,


First, great work on the inertia drive! most interesting.


Luc does come up with some interesting things, right? Gyula and I were talking about this so did a quick and nasty vid for him...the polarity gets even more interesting with a gauss probe


http://youtu.be/GXkVpZYT76I (http://youtu.be/GXkVpZYT76I)


This is unlisted so refrain from passing it around please


The gauss meter is this one


http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmetr1.htm (http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmetr1.htm)


Ron





Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on September 15, 2014, 12:34:19 AM
Hi Ron,

Many thanks for doing these tests. 

Would like to ponder on the resulting poles when an open soft iron core is used in or on the close outside of such oval shaped coil.  Cores collect and guide magnetic flux so I assume the unlike poles that are near to each other tend to close in the core surface so not likely to exit the open core. Obviously there will be a resultant flux, the result should come from all the flux collected and not closing in the core.  Surely there are plenty of flux remaining that would not close in the core to neutralize themselves but do work when current appears in the coil. 
 For a normal cylinder shaped coil and core, the strongest flux manifests at the core ends of course.  If the cylinder coil is also a multiturn, multilayer type, then one has to think it over how the outside flux from the cylinder coil could be utilized for increasing the ends flux (if the goal is to maximize the force from such electromagnet).  Probably a similarly closed magnetic path with the inside and outside cores applied (as Luc showed in his earlier MMM force test videos) should also be used.

Thanks,
Gyula

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 15, 2014, 02:32:24 AM
Thanks Ron for making this clean test and video

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Farmhand on September 15, 2014, 02:45:28 AM
Hi Ron,

Many thanks for doing these tests. 

Would like to ponder on the resulting poles when an open soft iron core is used in or on the close outside of such oval shaped coil.  Cores collect and guide magnetic flux so I assume the unlike poles that are near to each other tend to close in the core surface so not likely to exit the open core. Obviously there will be a resultant flux, the result should come from all the flux collected and not closing in the core.  Surely there are plenty of flux remaining that would not close in the core to neutralize themselves but do work when current appears in the coil. 
 For a normal cylinder shaped coil and core, the strongest flux manifests at the core ends of course.  If the cylinder coil is also a multiturn, multilayer type, then one has to think it over how the outside flux from the cylinder coil could be utilized for increasing the ends flux (if the goal is to maximize the force from such electromagnet).  Probably a similarly closed magnetic path with the inside and outside cores applied (as Luc showed in his earlier MMM force test videos) should also be used.

Thanks,
Gyula

I think coil gun makers are aware of these things, I think I read that some use magnetic shields to increase performance.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6325058&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6325058

Quote of page here.
Quote
The shield material properties and its structure are important to the coilgun's performance. In present article, a two-dimensional (2-D) transient finite element model was established based on the structural characteristics of the coilgun and launching process. Effects of variable shield materials with different dimensions on the launching performance have been investigated. The magnetic field distributions at different times have been presented. The results show that, the eddy currents induced in the conductive shield will reduce the projectile's muzzle velocity, and the electromagnetic shielding effect of the conductor is not ideal. Strengthening the main magnetic flux, permeable non-conductive material shield increases the muzzle velocity of the projectile, and the electromagnetic shielding effect is good. Increasing the thickness of the shield, the magnetic materials enhance the magnetic flux better, projectile muzzle velocity increases, and the electromagnetic shielding effects are better. In order to achieve higher projectile muzzle velocity and better electromagnetic shielding effects, high permeability silicon steel sheets can be used as the shield. The distance between coils and shield should be reduced. The thickness of silicon steel sheets should be as small as possible to reduce eddy current effects.

Might be of some interest.  ;)

I made a very rough accelerator for fun but the stored energy required for spectacular effects could be dangerous.

I know it's a bit different to the device in this thread but I think the shielding is like an external core is all.

..
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: teslaedison on September 16, 2014, 01:52:16 AM
here are my two cents into what you have also because magnets many of them can help make a repel cushioning affects on both sides of the center magnets that rotate that are also connected to those two center magnets with a disk circular disk and at the outside would have many magnets also that will rotate and possibly go at light speeds b/c the outside magnets would on both sides but inside enough to helps repels them with no metal to metal frictions as a North to North cushioning for both sides too so enjoy what my two cents might come out to show you all here too !!!
Thomas C.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 18, 2014, 01:04:31 PM
because the "sense" of direction of rotation inside the coil is, lets just say, up and on the outside it is down and it is the "sense" of direction of rotation that is polarity.
Hi! webby1. Thanks for your input but I am not sure to get the concept  :-\ (which directions and sens you speak). Could you please join drawing with arrows?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 18, 2014, 01:09:23 PM

Hi tin man,


First, great work on the inertia drive! most interesting.


Luc does come up with some interesting things, right? Gyula and I were talking about this so did a quick and nasty vid for him...the polarity gets even more interesting with a gauss probe


http://youtu.be/GXkVpZYT76I (http://youtu.be/GXkVpZYT76I)


This is unlisted so refrain from passing it around please


The gauss meter is this one


http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmetr1.htm (http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmetr1.htm)


Ron


Thumb! Ron. Thanks for having taken time to do this experiment and sharing it to us :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 18, 2014, 01:15:32 PM
Thanks for your post Shylo

I have no schooling, so I experiment to understand how things work. I found this about 7 years ago when I built a motor out of 2 MOT secondaries with a ceramic permanent magnet rotor. I still have that build if anyone wants to see it.

Ever since then I assumed it was common knowledge and would mention it here and there but now I'm finding out it's not common knowledge at all. I've just been told it's not in the textbooks.

If experimenters would like to test it, I would suggest a MOT secondary since it's more difficult to detect the poles with a round coil. You need a long strait side of a coil which separates the poles and makes it easily detectable. Also, best if the coil winding width and height are the same, so a square Brooks winding is best.

Please note as I have mentioned in my video that the center opening pole will be stronger because they are double together and in close proximity as opose to the outside poles away from each other but if you combine the two outside opposite poles (as I do in my MMM design) they are as strong as the inner pole.

So now you can double the torque of a coil if you understand this and know how to use it.

Luc
I am amazed again by the Power of you Intuition, Luc, and your obvious to me capability to look accurately at things :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: teslaedison on September 20, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
just check this link out guys at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsZG-6Lp1o


oh wow really check this out all
Tom
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on September 21, 2014, 02:08:13 PM
just check this link out guys at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsZG-6Lp1o


oh wow really check this out all
Tom
I see you are here just to peddle your religion. Please tell us all what this has to do with Luc's project?--> maybe take your rubbish else where.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 21, 2014, 05:57:39 PM
I've already sent Stefan a PM and requested to delete this post and user to be moderated.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: shylo on September 23, 2014, 01:54:13 AM
Excellent demo, i-ron, So really the magnetic field in the coil is positioned  on a 45 deg. angle to the 2 surfaces?
This contridicts' what Luc is saying , about 2 fields being present ?  equally but both norths in the middle ,souths on the outside?
Maybe it depends on the field your looking at it?
Very interesting stuff.
artv
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 23, 2014, 03:34:19 AM
Nice vid iron

Consider this....

When the coil is energized, the windings in each leg of the rectangle, all the fields from each wire form a collaboration and circle around the outside of each whole leg.

If you are facing the hall sensor toward the leg, then think about where on that surface of that leg is the field seeing more N, and the other, more south, considering the circular path of the field around the leg. When the sensor is in the middle of the face of a leg of the coil, the field orientation is crossing the sensor from top to bottom, not through the face of the sensor. So no field detected because of improper orientation of the sensor at that point. The field is there, the sensor is not positioned correctly.

Here is a test to clear that up....

Put your sensor 'top' on the face of the coil. Say the coil lays flat as you have shown and make sure the sensor is facing across the windings, not with the length. Just as in your vid but top of sensor on the coil You will have the most field strength where you had little to none as in your vid. ;) If the coil were wound round where the leg of the coil is not square, if you try the new test, dragging the sensor around the leg, you will have pretty much the same field strength all the way around the leg.  More on the interior, due to more field density because all legs of the coil contribute to the center opening of the coil as a whole.

If you need a diagram, I can put something together for better understanding.

Mags

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 03:35:56 PM
OK-some one please explain to me as to why the magnetic field is opposite on the inside of the coil,as aposed to the outside of the coil,when all wire is wound in the same direction,and current flow is uniform.\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvfwELDmKIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvfwELDmKIM)

Guys, guys, guys, you seem so fixated on this "Boch Wall" notion.  :-\

There is no Bloch Wall in standard magnet configurations, nor coils. When you see a "null" in the measured B field, it is because there is a "zero-sum" result of the net flux being sensed by your measuring device, be it a compass or Hall device.

Bloch Walls occur when there are two adjacent domains magnetized in opposite directions. So this is reserved in cases where a block of magnetic material is magnetized in more than one direction in different sections.

Look at the attached diagram of a solenoid and the flux lines shown "flowing" around it. As you move your eye from the center towards the outside, you notice that the direction of the flux changes 180º. Somewhere in this transition area, the amount of upward flux is equal to the downward flux, and if your sensing device was placed there it would measure 0 flux.

Now it should also be clear as to why the polarity is opposite when measuring inside the coil compared to the outside of the coil (or magnet).
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 23, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
Hi poynt

thanks for your post.

The term Bloch wall, I thought it meant the Neutral point between two magnetic poles and that's what I was using the word as.
If that is not correct, then I have no problem calling it the Poles Neutral Zone if that's a better way to describe it.

In the illustration of the solenoid magnetic field you posted, we can see -> arrows going in different directions. Do these arrows represent a pole direction?

I assume the the fine black rectangle line is the outside of the solenoid coil?... is that correct?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: lancaIV on September 23, 2014, 06:46:33 PM
About pole direction there is another phaenomen :the Hallbach array direction
http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/A%20Solution%20for%20the%20Future.htm (http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/A%20Solution%20for%20the%20Future.htm)


New,for me, something called "Ronbach array" from an inventor named Sankar Pat ( Pathamadai).
http://radaris.com/p/Pat/Sankar/
http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US20110241349 (http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US20110241349)

Compared with the use of the traditional magnet, the improvement in EMF 8 as well as the torque generated by the electromagnetic generator/motor 1 is given by (3n/2).
Referring next to FIG. 2 of the drawings, a schematic diagram a single phase electromagnetic generator/motor having three pairs of permanent magnets 3 a-3 c and 4 a-4 c, respectively, and three coils 2 a-2 c in a Ronbach array is generally indicated by reference numeral 1 a. The magnets 3 a-3 c may each have a dominant north pole whereas the magnets 4 a-4 cmay each have a dominant south pole. The improvement in EMF and torque generated by the electromagnetic generator/motor 1 a is given by 3(n+1)/2.



TABLE I Increase in Torque as well as EMF for RonbachGenerators/Motors (theoretically predicted maximum values)No.TRF = VRF = (3n/2)TR3F = VR3F = (3) * (3n/2)11.73 for n = 1 5.19 for n = 1 and m = 3 (73% increase) (419% increase)2 3.0 for n = 2 9.0 for n = 2 and m = 3(200% increase) (800% increase)3 5.2 for n = 315.60 for n = 3 and m = 3(420% increase)(1460% increase)

As illustrated in Table I (above), the Ronbach magnetic array of both the electromagnetic generator/motor 1 (FIG. 1) and the electromagnetic generator/motor 1 a (FIG. 1A) improve the output of EMF 8 and torque significantly over conventional single-magnet arrays.




Sincerely
              OCWL
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 07:17:11 PM
Hi poynt

thanks for your post.

The term Bloch wall, I thought it meant the Neutral point between two magnetic poles and that's what I was using the word as.
If that is not correct, then I have no problem calling it the Poles Neutral Zone if that's a better way to describe it.
There are no neutral zones between the poles. "Poles" is actually somewhat poor terminology. Poles really only tells you what direction (by standard convention) the main central flux is going. Also causing confusion is the way magnets are illustrated with one half being blue and one half being red. This leads us to believe that there is no field (or that there is a "Bloch wall") right in the middle where the color changes. This is simply incorrect. Magnets really should be illustrated with one solid color and a single arrow from one end to the other.

Quote
In the illustration of the solenoid magnetic field you posted, we can see -> arrows going in different directions. Do these arrows represent a pole direction?
All magnets and solenoids have a magnetized direction (permanent magnets by how they were magnetized, and solenoids by the direction of current). In the illustration, that magnetized direction is in the center (centre if you are Canadian) of the solenoid, so bottom to top. Magnets and solenoids have "curl". The flux lines curl back to the "x" of the arrow and exit out the "." of the arrow. Notice that there is no neutral zone in the middle of the arrows?

The "poles" if you will are vertical, not horizontal in this illustration. So going from the centre towards the outside, you do sort of hit a pseudo neutral zone because at some point the main flux and curled flux levels will be equal and will cancel inside your measuring instrument giving you a reading of "0".

Quote
I assume the the fine black rectangle line is the outside of the solenoid coil?... is that correct?

Luc
Correct.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 07:34:14 PM
Magnet illustration.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 23, 2014, 07:55:31 PM
Thanks for the reply and explanation poynt

Looking at your new illustration above, would it be correct to say the point of the arrow is in the direction of North and South follows behind?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 07:58:11 PM
Thanks for the reply and explanation poynt

Looking at your new illustration above, would it be correct to say the point of the arrow is in the direction of North and South would follow behind?

Luc

Yes, and Hyperphysics concurs (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html).
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 23, 2014, 08:36:25 PM
Okay

if we look at your first illustration (attached below) of an energized solenoid and we follow the arrows, how can we tell which end will be North or South?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: burnit0017 on September 23, 2014, 09:02:40 PM
Hi, point of the arrow is North. Travels North to South.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 23, 2014, 09:26:45 PM
Hi, point of the arrow is North. Travels North to South.

I've confirmed this prior to my above post.

What I'm asking here is, if we look at the direction of the points (see below coil ends), to me it looks like both coil ends have the arrow points going in the same direction, how can this be?
How do you explain this?

Luc

ADDED  Unless the coil ends are top and bottom?... then I don't know why this is called a Solenoid coil!
Isn't a solenoid usually longer between its ends?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 10:00:38 PM
This is what I wrote in my previous post:
Quote
In the illustration, that magnetized direction is in the center (centre if you are Canadian) of the solenoid, so bottom to top.

So yes, the field is VERTICAL and the windings are horizontal.

The "poles" are on the top and bottom, not on the sides as you are illustrating.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 10:04:22 PM
The term "Solenoid" is usually associated with a long thin coil, yes.

However, it makes little difference what you call it, a coil is a coil, and the flux diagram is essentially the same no matter the dimensions.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 23, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
Okay

if we look at your first illustration (attached below) of an energized solenoid and we follow the arrows, how can we tell which end will be North or South?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 24, 2014, 01:21:29 AM
Okay, we are now in agreement!

The below now illustrates what I've originally observed, understood and shared. However, when originally shared I used Red an Blue block to show the positions of the poles but I can use arrows if that works better for the people.
Anyways, I don't see or understand it any differently now by seeing arrows then when I first understood it, so if anyone see it in a different way by using arrows please share what you see is different.

Thanks poynt for your effort of making it clear.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 24, 2014, 05:10:38 AM
Here is a video update of the Triple M Super build progress

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a-dCwn-d0s

Stay tuned

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 24, 2014, 04:25:39 PM
Hi Luc.

Great job you're doing, imho :)

For the problem of sticking the magnets inside safely. What about to glue them of a piece of wood each one separately and to make a guiding system which will guide them in their place between the 2 plates? A long press to force them in the space while having put glue on them first. (I better to try without first to check if it fits well and then to do it again with the glue).

What do you think?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 24, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
Hi poynt

thanks for your post.

The term Bloch wall, I thought it meant the Neutral point between two magnetic poles and that's what I was using the word as.
If that is not correct, then I have no problem calling it the Poles Neutral Zone if that's a better way to describe it.

In the illustration of the solenoid magnetic field you posted, we can see -> arrows going in different directions. Do these arrows represent a pole direction?

I assume the the fine black rectangle line is the outside of the solenoid coil?... is that correct?

Luc


You are correct Luc... according to wiki...


"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_domain), over which the magnetization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetization) changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Bloch).


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 24, 2014, 08:42:47 PM
Bloch walls exist inside solid ferromagnetic material and typically exhibit a 180 degree rotation of the magnetic domains inside this material. An unmagnetized (random) piece of iron will have many Bloch walls inside, some at 180 and some at 90 degrees.

When you have an energized cored coil (such as the one shown in Luc's video), the core is polarized in one direction only, so no Bloch wall exists there. Bloch walls do not exist in air or copper.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on September 24, 2014, 11:47:05 PM
Hi all,

Maybe all that you are discussing is what Howard Johnson demostrated by experimental tests in his book "The Secret World of Magnets". He states, and measured with a Hall probe, that the lines of force do not move from one pole to the other but they move from one pole to the center point, forming a double vortex.

Please see the attached picture from his book.

Regards
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 01:13:56 AM
Hi all,

Maybe all that you are discussing is what Howard Johnson demostrated by experimental tests in his book "The Secret World of Magnets". He states, and measured with a Hall probe, that the lines of force do not move from one pole to the other but they move from one pole to the center point, forming a double vortex.

Please see the attached picture from his book.

Regards
Hi Hanon, thanks for your input but how it would be possible the 2 sides, top and bottom, having exactly the same behaviour (flux going outside), would be 2 different poles? :/
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 25, 2014, 01:33:12 AM

Luc indicated 4 block walls, my sketch indicates there are actually 8


The core makes no difference


The following photos show exactly what my sketch indicated


Ron

What you're seeing there is the result of the net flux passing through the Hall sensor. Null readings do not indicate the presence of a Bloch wall, they are simply indications that the Hall sensor is in a location where the flux passing through it from the front to back is equal to the flux passing through it back to front, for a net sum of 0.

Just to reiterate, Bloch walls can only be present in a ferromagnetic material that inherently contains magnetic domains. There are no such magnetic domains present in air or copper, or anything non-ferromagnetic for that matter.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: poynt99 on September 25, 2014, 02:02:21 AM
Magnets are strongest at their ends,
not the middle

Actually this is not correct.

On the surface where one measures it appears the magnet is weakest in the middle, but if you could insert a micro-probe inside the magnetic material in the middle, you would see that the field is actually stronger there than it is on the ends.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 25, 2014, 04:08:35 AM
Quote
In the mean time this is not an engineers forum,
rather a hobbiest/hands on experimenter group where the transition between two opposite poles is
commonly referred to as the bloch wall... lets keep it simple and on track.

That would be a very foolish thing to do.  Why play with magnets for years and not even understand how magnetic fields work?  Hobbyists and experimenters work with exactly the same materials and circuits that engineers work with.

Please just work on trying to understand what Poynt is saying.  Your keyboard can take you to a thousand web sites if you need more information.  Without understanding what you are doing and what is happening, you are just keeping yourself in darkness and ignorance.  It's definitely not what you want to do.

Bloch walls, how coils work, how capacitors work, how electric circuits work, how to make proper measurements, and so on form the basic building blocks of understanding and working with electronics.   Even your phrase, "the transition between two opposite poles" doesn't really and truly make sense.  You would never hear anybody state that outside of the forums.  The challenge for you is to understand why there are problems with that statement.  It's all part of the learning process.

I read the past 20 to 30 posts and i_ron, you are simply wrong.  So either you really and truly try to learn, or if not then you will be stuck in a murky dark world of ignorance.

I am stating this with some force, because I see you push back with some force, and you are wrong.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 04:30:06 AM

LOL


It is pointless to encourage this ridicules line of endeavour any longer. Lets return to the TOPIC,
Luc's graphic. Luc raised a very valid point. I added to it. If anyone does the experiment with different
results, I would be pleased to correct my material. In the mean time this is not an engineers forum,
rather a hobbiest/hands on experimenter group where the transition between two opposite poles is
commonly referred to as the bloch wall... lets keep it simple and on track.


Ron
If you don't want to continue to discuss your way to interpret and use the probe when you get your read it is your choice and you're very free to not participate to the discussion.

Your made measurements and shared them and it very nice you did so but let others have other ways.

I am indeed interested in understanding what's going on cause this is the very way to save time and go somewhere with more insurance. Let's other express their own viewpoints and knowledge.

Good that there can be practical experimenters, engineers or not, and good there can be theoretical approaches too, scientists or not. Each approach may enrich each other if we try FIRST to understand in what way the other can be true.

Stop arguing or just provide better arguments, please.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 05:00:54 AM
@ Luc.

My idea of guiding system to place your outside magnets between the steel plates and gluing them. (See attachment).

Added:

Large picture deleted! ^_^

BTW, how you can reduce the picture on a smartphone? :/
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 05:02:20 AM
Sorry, didn't see any option to reduce the picture when uploading :/
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 25, 2014, 05:04:11 AM
Ron, please do keep up your experiment and share your findings as it is worth more then words.

Khwartz, can you please calculate how much Joule energy it takes at Unity to lift 2.35Kg. 1mm, 2mm and 3mm in 1 second.

Thanks for your time and help

Luc


ADDED

Also, please delete that large pic and reduce it prior to uploading.
I worked all day on my guide system, it's 90% done now, so I would not be open to changes unless it fails.

Thanks
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 25, 2014, 05:05:11 AM

Thanks for the comeback. Not too clear, would need a diagram.


However, confirmation of the poles shown in the video is if you place a magnet over the energized coil.
In this case I have drawn it inside but can be on any side of the coil... see the N pole locates adjacent
to the N pole of the coil. Now everyone knows like poles repel, right?


So the S pole that the hall sensor indicates on the top inside is present.


OK, I have redone the 'sketch' to better indicate all the block walls present in an air cored
rectangular coil. The external magnet shows the natural attachment direction.

poyntie's  cored solenoid coil is invalid in this discussion as my video is a representation of the polarity
present around a cross section of an air cored coil, which enhances Luc's original diagram, not the whole external field of a solenoid coil, which is a diversion.
 
Ron

Hey Iron

Below are pics to simulate 1 leg of the coil you used in the vid, showing only 6 wires for simplicity of making the diagram.  ;D But still square like your coil.

These pics depict what you were showing. Just a cutaway of 1 leg of your coil.

More in next post

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 25, 2014, 05:08:30 AM
This was the alternative orientation of the sensor that I suggested below

More in next post

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 25, 2014, 05:17:36 AM
Now, whether it be N or S pole fields detected by the sensor, the lines of force are measured/detected  by going through the face of the sensor, the larger flat sides. If the field lines go through the edges, the sides of the sensor, top to bottom or side to side, there will be little to nothing detected or measured.

So below shows the lines of force around the coil leg with the sensor orientation as you have demonstrated. Notice how the lines of force do go through the face of the sensor when at the left or right, but in the middle, the lines go through the top to bottom of the sensor. Lets call the end of the sensor with the 3 leads the bottom of the sensor.

More next post

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 25, 2014, 05:28:13 AM
Here we have the sensor in the orientation that I suggested earlier.

Notice how the lines of force with the sensor in the middle, the sensor should read more than to the left or right, sorta opposite of the way you measured it in the vid. Not that you did anything wrong. Im just giving a view of looking at the fields in a second dimension to show a more complete view of the fields. A third dimension of the field would be to face the sensor with the length of the wire/leg of the coil.

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 05:29:21 AM
Ron, please do keep up your experiment and share your findings as it is worth more then words.

Khwartz, can you please calculate how much Joule energy it takes at Unity to lift 2.35Kg. 1mm, 2mm and 3mm in 1 second.

Thanks for your time and help

Luc
Yep! Except that if "by second" it means you ask for Watts and not Joules ^_^ but I will give you both:


□ W [J] = M [kg] × g [m.s^-2] × h [m]

□ P [W] = W [J] / T [ s]


● For 1 mm height:

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 1/1000 [m]

= 23.5/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.0235 [J]


P [W] = 0.0235 [J] / 1 [ s] = 0.0235 [W]


● For 2 mm height:

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 2/1000 [m]

= 47/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.047 [J]


P [W] = 0.047 [J] / 1 [ s] = 0.047 [W]


● For 3 mm height:

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 3/1000 [m]

= 70.5/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.0705 [J]


P [W] = 0.0705 [J] / 1 [ s] = 0.0705 [W]


So the potential gravitational energy of the mass is increased proportionally to the height and the power in Watt goes with the energy in Joules, in term of value (but not the same nature of quantity).

If not clear enough, please just tell me :)

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 25, 2014, 05:39:25 AM
Thanks Khwartz for the calculations

Can you please also go back the the previous page and delete the oversize pic you posted.
It is causing problems for the page to load.
Also, I worked all day on my guide system and it's now 90% done, so I'm not going to change anything unless mine fails

Thanks for your help

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 05:47:10 AM
You're most welcome for the calculations  :P

The big picture is already deleted.

Nice that you are no more worried about your guiding system to stick the outside magnet between the your steel plates and that you have well advance on :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 25, 2014, 06:07:47 AM
Yep! Except that if "by second" it means you ask for Watts and not Joules ^_^ but I will give you both:


● For 1 mm height:

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 1/1000 [m]

= 23.5/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.0235 [J]


If not clear enough, please just tell me :)

Okay, question

if I raise 2.35Kg up 1mm with 0.0245 Joule, are you saying the time it takes for the weight to rise or the time it stays up 1mm is not important?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on September 25, 2014, 06:22:58 AM
Exactly,  if about "potential energy", the duration of the lifting doesn't matter, indeed. BUT if it was about "power" (Watts) it would be.

Nevertheless, it is not always completely true in practice: if we ask an electric motor to lift very fast a weight it will have non-proportional loses and the energy consumed will be a little bit more. But we are talking about energy CONSUMPTION ;)

But for your simple lifting experiments I don't think it is relevant to care care if only electromagnets.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The calculation W = M.g.h gives the change of potential energy in the gravitational field. It means that when the mass is on the floor its "gravitational potential energy" respect to the floor is zero, and when lift of any height it may restitue some energy when falling. This is this "potential falling energy" we have calculated.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 25, 2014, 07:12:32 AM
I received a PM from poynt99 but he has blocked me to reply.
I know he may not be happy with me sharing his message but I'm doing it so you can see and understand my reply to him.

Luc

Don't worry Luc,

I'll not "intrude" with my "words" any longer in any of your threads.

I'll have no difficulty putting that time to good use.  :)

Cheers!

Dear poynt99

what I wrote was not specific to you, so don't take it personally.

You have been of much help through the years and I would like to thank you for that.

You are well learned in EE but we both know to find what FE researchers are looking for we won't find it in the science books.

I know it must be painful for you to see us trying to reinvent the wheel but maybe that's what it takes?

Kind Regards and many thanks for all your help

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 25, 2014, 05:00:50 PM

Ron, please do keep up your experiment and share your findings as it is worth more then words.


Luc






Always a pleasure to work with you Luc.


I have touched up your graphic to show that you are quite correct. Although what you show is a simplification the outcome is the same as my crude sketches. So across the top of the graphic we
have a South pole, North pole (centre) South pole.


I have added the major Bloch walls in yellow. I have indicated the poles on the outer sleeve as if it was metal. (I know this was not the case) This ties in with the original E core graphic on page one where on DC we would have a S, N, S, on the E core legs, utilizing the the outer field of the coil.


What my sketches show (I hope) is how we can have the core and the coil both having the same N pole.
Well simply put, the 'hidden' south pole is generating the North pole.


So you are right on with your original graphic Luc, good work as always!!!


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 25, 2014, 05:15:11 PM
Here we have the sensor in the orientation that I suggested earlier.

Notice how the lines of force with the sensor in the middle, the sensor should read more than to the left or right, sorta opposite of the way you measured it in the vid. Not that you did anything wrong. Im just giving a view of looking at the fields in a second dimension to show a more complete view of the fields. A third dimension of the field would be to face the sensor with the length of the wire/leg of the coil.

Mags




Thanks for all your work with the graphics, yes I see what you are saying. I wondered at the time if it was a sensor position artifact but eventually ruled this out. What I found  with a small diameter neo stack is that it would adhere to any face of the coil in a manner consistent with what the hall probe had indicated!


Anyway nobody has to accept my results without doing the experiment, it is easy enough. I gave a link to the 'easy gauss meter', any coil with a rectangular cross section will be the subject, any magnet stack can be a sensor. The one question to ask is "why does the North pole of the magnet stack stick to the North pole of the coil? ??? (please refer to one of my sketches for orientation)... [or, why does the core become a North when adjacent to the coils North?]


Thanks, Ron




Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 25, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
Thanks for your post Ron

How about a new test. Find 2 separate cores and inset one in the center of your coil and one on the outside of the coil and probe to see how the core fields compare to the coil fields.
The core may need to be higher then the coil so it's away enough that your probe won't picking up coil fields.

Thanks for your help

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 25, 2014, 07:26:32 PM
Thanks for your post Ron

How about a new test. Find 2 separate cores and inset one in the center of your coil and one on the outside of the coil and probe to see how the core fields compare to the coil fields.
The core may need to be higher then the coil so it's away enough that your probe won't picking up coil fields.

Thanks for your help

Luc


You are welcome.


As before a positive reading is North (no minus sign) and a minus reading is South.


Two setups, not elegant, just stuff I had laying about.


As before both, inner top face of coils N. On the E core I would have to change my drawing. as the probe shows south on the inner face of the coil from top to bottom and north outside top to bottom.


Ron


Edit: sorry, the E cores I was referring to are in a different forum!  I was thinking of dmmpower's  list


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjnALkkUlNY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjnALkkUlNY)


Page 1 fig B
-------------------------

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 26, 2014, 12:35:27 AM
I gave up trying to teach basics to people on the forums a long time ago because it is so frustrating.  The two of you are being willfully ignorant.  You are talking to each other like you are making sense, but my feeling is that in the back of your minds both of you know that you are not making sense.  All of your problems would disappear if you both just stopped for a week and read a book or went online and educated yourselves about magnetism.  It's like the two of you are afraid to disagree with each other so you engage in a fake "dance" with each other instead.

Luc, experiments do not trump words if the experiments are interpreted incorrectly.  The people giving you advice, like myself and Poynt, did the experiments a long time ago.  We know how to apply our knowledge and you should respect that.  You end up posing questions that you should have known the answers to years ago considering how long you have been at this.  It's like you are stuck.  Once you even wanted to change all of the physics books.

You can see how your attitude is holding you back.  Both of you have ignored Poynt's comments and my comments.  It's a no-win situation for both of you unless you change your outlook.

For the two attached pictures, there is no Bloch wall between the cylindrical magnet and the attached cylindrical piece of iron.  I am telling you this with metaphysical certitude and if you disagree with me then you are crippling yourselves with willful ignorance.  One week of self-study would resolve this and both of you could come back and say, "I get it now."

The other attached picture is presumably a cutaway of Luc's transformer and the current is the same direction in every conductor.  You will get a very weak magnetic field in the center of the cross-section.  As you move towards the outer perimeter the magnetic field will get stronger and stronger.  Once you are past the perimeter the magnetic field will start to decrease in strength.  The magnetic field will look approximately like the magnetic field around a single straight current-carrying wire.  No Bloch walls anywhere.

This is my last posting because like I said I have given up on this business of trying to educate people.  You get ignored just like you guys are doing right now.  So you can ignore this and keep on faking it or get down to brass tacks and finally understand this by starting with the basics with a book or on a web site.  It all up to you guys and how you choose to use your time.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 26, 2014, 03:19:32 AM
Thanks for the new core tests Ron

Your tests are confirming the field on the ends of the cores but I was hoping you would also place your probe on the core sides (like you did with the coils) to see if the cores mimic what you found in the coils.

If you did the tests and you got nothing please let me know as that would be interesting.

Thanks again for your time

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 26, 2014, 07:28:03 AM
Thanks Ron for the extra tests and Bloch wall Images.

So, what's your take on why an energized coil has all those pole domains compared to a magnetized bar or a permanent magnet?

You may be interested in viewing this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1R44WjyppQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1R44WjyppQ)

Thanks for your time

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 26, 2014, 02:16:08 PM
I am only responding because of this:

Quote
I wonder if this denial of the Bloch wall is a NWO dumb down tactic?

You play the MIB card on me because I encourage you to go and educate yourself so your experimentation can be more productive and rewarding?  It's incredible that you would state that.

Well I am not MIB and I resent that ridiculous accusation.  I would not be surprised if that ridiculous diagram from 1936 was made by con artists back then.  They were looking for gullible people to take advantage of.  If somebody would believe that diagram then chances are you could sucker them into parting with their money.  The QEG is a current example of the same story.  There is a sucker born every minute.

Nobody is disputing the existence of Bloch walls.  The dispute is about talking about fake nonsensical allegations of the existence of Bloch walls.  One week of self-education would solve that problem but apparently there is no interest.  Hence I gave up on trying to educate people on the forums.

The ridiculous MIB allegation has been rebutted so I am out.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 26, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
The Bloch Wall is not missing here, it's simply tunneled through the inside. "Metaphysical certitude" is just some kind of meaningless rubbish.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
Thanks Ron for the extra tests and Bloch wall Images.

So, what's your take on why an energized coil has all those pole domains compared to a magnetized bar or a permanent magnet?

You may be interested in viewing this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1R44WjyppQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1R44WjyppQ)

Thanks for your time

Luc


Again, you are welcome.


My take? just if we want to know how things work this is a valid experiment. Please see my reply to synchro.


I had seen a bit of that video but didn't find it to definitive.


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 04:52:57 PM


Deleted


 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 04:57:49 PM


Nobody is disputing the existence of Bloch walls.  The dispute is about talking about fake nonsensical allegations of the existence of Bloch walls. 


Good to see you are still with us Mile High, let's not get hung up on Block walls... how do you see the  multiple poles ? can you prove or disprove my findings?


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 26, 2014, 04:59:17 PM

Again, you are welcome.


My take? just if we want to know how things work this is a valid experiment. Please see my reply to synchro.


I had seen a bit of that video but didn't find it to definitive.


Ron

Simple enough of an answer ;D

Yes, the video doesn't prove anything, what I found interesting is the mix of poles.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 05:31:49 PM

So, what's your take on why an energized coil has all those pole domains compared to a magnetized bar or a permanent magnet?

Luc


Luc and all, my apologies to the group for the misinformed information I have posted. Unfortunately I can't delete it as the 'modify' button has expired. Please just disregard my previous posts.


Many thanks to Mile High for the clear and precise explanation of what I was seeing.


Ron
 

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on September 26, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
Ron
The picture you posted (below) is incorrect in saying the point of zero magnetism. The center of a PM is where the strongest concentration of magnetic fields exist-this is the strongest part of magnetism within the magnet,not the weakest.

I can also back up my claim with a simple test for all that think otherwise. Take two magnets of the same type and shape-lets say two rod magnet-->3/4 in diameter x 1 inch long. Now join the together(north to south) so as they become one complete magnet that is now 3/4 in diameter x 2 inches long(any size will work of course). Now you have one big magnet,and the center will be this bloch wall you speak of(point of weakest magnetism-so the picture says). OK,so now pull them apart,and see just how weak that point of no magnetism is. You will see from this simple experiment that your picture is completely wrong.

The other error you have made(looking at your diagrams a few post back) is assuming that there is a bloch wall in an air core coil.Bloch walls are only formed within the core material of an electro or permanent magnet.They do not exist in an air core coil/electromagnets. What you are calling the bloch wall is only the transition point of fields-the strongets point of the magnetic field.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 26, 2014, 06:52:00 PM
Ron:

I annotated your drawing and attached it here.  In position 1 the magnetic field comes in at the "top" of the hall sensor (where the black band is).   So in your interpretation you are calling that "South" because your sensor is telling you flux is coming in the top and going out the bottom of the sensor.  You say that flux going in an "up to down" direction is "South" so you label that part of the coil "South."

Likewise in position 2 you see flux entering by the "bottom" of the hall sensor so you call that "North."

The reality is what you see in the annotated sketch.  There is NO "North" or "South," there is just the convention that we have adopted that says "flux direction coming towards you" is "North" and "flux direction going away from you" is "South" when you position yourself above or below the core in your sketch and you look towards the core.

I don't know if you can understand that but your drawing of the cross section of the coil core with the polarities at each corner of the cross section is completely wrong.  The reality is the orange lines of flux with the directional arrows as I have drawn them out.  There is NO true "North" or "South" there is just flux direction as per the convention that we have defined.  All that "North" and "South" really mean on a bar magnet is that flux is "exiting" from the "North" end of the magnet and "entering" at the "South" end of the magnet.  It's a  just a naming convention.  In reality the flux lines are closed loops with no "start" or "end" or "North" or "South."

The only thing the hall sensor is showing you is the amount of flux and the direction of the flux.  It's up to you to make sense of that information and right now you clearly are not making sense of it and you are drawing conclusions and making statements that are wrong.

A stack of cylindrical magnets will line itself up with the field created by the coil.  You are stating "how can the North of the stack of magnets be attracted to the "North" part of the coil?"  The answer is that there IS NO "NORTH" PART OF THE COIL.  Repeat, the cylindrical magnets simply line themselves up with the field created by the coil.

This madness, this endless spinning and grinding and arguing and getting nowhere, could be remedied if you locked yourself away in a room for one week with a determination to understand magnetic fields and to understand how magnetic fields interact with ferromagnetic materials.   Then you will be able to look at a relatively simple setup and nearly instantly be able to visualize and understand what is going on.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on September 26, 2014, 08:27:27 PM
Hi,

I have found another device based on magnetic repulsion. It is called Gap Power.

The device consists of two lateral groups of permanent magnets and one intermediate permanent magnet in repulsion mode. It has two lateral coils with are fed with pulses in order to act as "magnetic switch" of the lateral permanent magnets field. The idea is to block the magnetic field of each group of lateral magnets: while one group is pushing the other is blocked. Then the action is reversed and the intermediate magnets is swung back and forth. The author states that it is an overunity motor. He calls the effect as Magnetic Amplification and Neutralization.

A video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnWuPzAKigs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnWuPzAKigs)

Regards
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 08:30:10 PM
Ron:

I annotated your drawing and attached it here.  In position 1 the magnetic field comes in at the "top" of the hall sensor (where the black band is).   So in your interpretation you are calling that "South" because your sensor is telling you flux is coming in the top and going out the bottom of the sensor.  You say that flux going in an "up to down" direction is "South" so you label that part of the coil "South."

Likewise in position 2 you see flux entering by the "bottom" of the hall sensor so you call that "North."

The reality is what you see in the annotated sketch.  There is NO "North" or "South," there is just the convention that we have adopted that says "flux direction coming towards you" is "North" and "flux direction going away from you" is "South" when you position yourself above or below the core in your sketch and you look towards the core.

I don't know if you can understand that but your drawing of the cross section of the coil core with the polarities at each corner of the cross section is completely wrong.  The reality is the orange lines of flux with the directional arrows as I have drawn them out.  There is NO true "North" or "South" there is just flux direction as per the convention that we have defined.  All that "North" and "South" really mean on a bar magnet is that flux is "exiting" from the "North" end of the magnet and "entering" at the "South" end of the magnet.  It's a  just a naming convention.  In reality the flux lines are closed loops with no "start" or "end" or "North" or "South."

The only thing the hall sensor is showing you is the amount of flux and the direction of the flux.  It's up to you to make sense of that information and right now you clearly are not making sense of it and you are drawing conclusions and making statements that are wrong.

A stack of cylindrical magnets will line itself up with the field created by the coil.  You are stating "how can the North of the stack of magnets be attracted to the "North" part of the coil?"  The answer is that there IS NO "NORTH" PART OF THE COIL.  Repeat, the cylindrical magnets simply line themselves up with the field created by the coil.

This madness, this endless spinning and grinding and arguing and getting nowhere, could be remedied if you locked yourself away in a room for one week with a determination to understand magnetic fields and to understand how magnetic fields interact with ferromagnetic materials.   Then you will be able to look at a relatively simple setup and nearly instantly be able to visualize and understand what is going on.


OK, that makes sense. Now why couldn't you have said that before now instead of all the insults???
To be an effective teacher you should not start out calling the pupil a dumb shit. I am the first to admit that I am here to learn and open to correcting my mistakes


Thanks for the useful information! real thanks for contributing to the group, much appreciated.


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 26, 2014, 08:48:36 PM
deleted
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 02:54:52 AM
Hi everyone,

here is the first test video of the Triple MMM Super build.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GY-lhATLv4

The results are for one coil and one wire strand

More tests to come

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 27, 2014, 03:28:08 AM
Hi Luc,
incredible results and fantastic setup -a very fine craftsmanship!
I think you are making history here.
Regards
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 04:39:51 AM
Hi everyone,

here is a quick 2nd test of the Triple M Super build.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pc-XNS9uo

The results are for one coil and two wire strand connected in series


The simple 1 inch wide Triple M Pulled 500g for 0.43 Watts

The 8 inch Super build single coil one stand gave a result of 2Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts

and now the 8 inch Super build single coil 2 series stands gave a result of 2.5Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts

So by using only half of the 8 inch Super Build we are pulling 5 times more then the one inch build

Stay tuned for the full results of the Tandem (double) Triple M Super build

Place your bets on what you think it will pull for 0.43 Watts

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DaKrampus on September 27, 2014, 04:56:39 AM
Same here

thank you luc for pointing me to this thread in this forum.
I am very impressed!

The only question I have is: how do you get to 0.78 volts...
This is not a voltage I would have preset on my power supply.. I meen I probably could as it is a lab grade power supply where i can preset anything between 0.1 and 30 volts and 0.1 and 5 amps..
but I would not have set it to 0.78 by intuition.
so i was wondering.. is there a special reason?

Luciano
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 05:14:18 AM
I was having some Youtube link problems with the above link which was going to the previous video even though it was a different link ???

It's fixed now

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Farmhand on September 27, 2014, 08:30:10 AM
Luc, Aren't you just getting closer and closer to 100 % efficiency ? And when you get the best possible efficiency you can get won't
that be the closest to 100 % efficient you can get ? Is there an efficiency rating for those lifts and what an OU lift would figure as ?

Please forgive my "Apparent skepticism" and feel free to ignore my questions if you wish.

..
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: woopy on September 27, 2014, 10:04:41 AM
Hi Luc

Thank's very much for sharing

Beautifull work great bravo

Can't wait for the next videos

Laurent
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 27, 2014, 03:35:26 PM
Hi everyone,

here is a quick 2nd test of the Triple M Super build.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pc-XNS9uo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pc-XNS9uo)

The results are for one coil and two wire strand connected in series


The simple 1 inch wide Triple M Pulled 500g for 0.43 Watts

The 8 inch Super build single coil one stand gave a result of 2Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts

and now the 8 inch Super build single coil 2 series stands gave a result of 2.5Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts

So by using only half of the 8 inch Super Build we are pulling 5 times more then the one inch build

Stay tuned for the full results of the Tandem (double) Triple M Super build

Place your bets on what you think it will pull for 0.43 Watts

Luc

@Gotoluc,

Are "2 series strands" the same as "Series bifilar"? I forecast a very exciting historical precedent on the approaching horizon!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 04:24:26 PM
Luc, Aren't you just getting closer and closer to 100 % efficiency ? And when you get the best possible efficiency you can get won't
that be the closest to 100 % efficient you can get ? Is there an efficiency rating for those lifts and what an OU lift would figure as ?

Please forgive my "Apparent skepticism" and feel free to ignore my questions if you wish.


Good questions Farmhand and I'm glad you brought it up as this post will hopefully clear the air on this.

I've already said that I would be surprised if this design could be 100% efficient or even OU. How can it be since the generator effect is present in this design. So the more magnet power surface area this design has, the more generator effect it also has, which you should know is a braking effect on the speed the coil can move.

I understood this before building the new Super build. So why build it?... because I already had all the magnets and wire purchased to build it 5 years ago. The other reason is, if we never build and just trust what science says then we can never claim we personally know.
And a better reason is, maybe this design technology can be used to make the most powerful Solenoid action yet available?

I ask everyone to please research a Solenoid Pull or Push force to see how many Kg. the existing technology can pull per Watt.  Please post the best scores you can find.

One thing you also need to keep in mind is Solenoids may hold a certain amount of weight once the center core has reached it's resting position. However, they can only pull a fraction of that weight at the beginning of their stroke.
The Triple M does not suffer from this limitation as it's pull or push force is equal throughout it's 1 inch stroke.

So there you have it, this should answer more then enough questions people may have as to why I went though the time and trouble of building this.

Don't get me wrong, I will test it for OU ptential ;) by seeing if it's own coil weight (2.35kg) can travel up 1mm against gravity.
The below amount of Joule energy is for the 100% efficiency mark. It has been calculated by Khwartz
post: http://www.overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg418177/#msg418177 (http://www.overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg418177/#msg418177)

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 1/1000 [m]

= 23.5/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.0235 [J]


Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 04:32:47 PM
@Gotoluc,

Are "2 series strands" the same as "Series bifilar"? I forecast a very exciting historical precedent on the approaching horizon!

Yes!... same as Series bifilar

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: i_ron on September 27, 2014, 04:37:58 PM
Hi everyone,

here is a quick 2nd test of the Triple M Super build.

Luc


Great experiment Luc, nicely done!


Ron
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 05:45:20 PM
Here is a chart of what a tipical Solenoid can pull of grams per watts.

The % is is on time and notice as the stroke increases the pull force drops.

Here is the link to the pdf. http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Robotics/ZHO-420S.pdf (http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/Robotics/ZHO-420S.pdf)

So I challenge everyone to find the most powerful specs. you can find and post them.
I would be surprised you can even come close to what the 1" build can do!

Luc 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 27, 2014, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from Gotoluc:


"The 8 inch Super build single coil one stand gave a result of 2Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts, and now the 8 inch Super build single coil 2 series stands gave a result of 2.5Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts"!


Luc's test results prove conclusively that the value of Tesla's "Coil for Electromagnets" is genuine and not imaginary as falsely claimed by some. 



Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 06:18:19 PM

Quote from Gotoluc:


"The 8 inch Super build single coil one stand gave a result of 2Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts, and now the 8 inch Super build single coil 2 series stands gave a result of 2.5Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts"!


Luc's test results prove conclusively that the value of Tesla's "Coil for Electromagnets" is genuine and not imaginary as falsely claimed by some. 



Not really Synchro,

all this proves is if you double the amount of turns you get 25% more pull force.
It may not even prove that as if I would of wound the coil with one wire the magnetic field would be more concentrated since the coil would half the size and weight.

The reason I wound the coils bifilar was not to prove this kind of thing. It's to give me some flexibility and more test options.

You'll see as more tests come

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 27, 2014, 06:25:34 PM
Here is a Solenoid with a magnet built into it for better holding force
See chart as it has a better score but nothing close yet
Hopefully you're all getting the point and the advantage the Triple M has. If not, please post your questions or concerns.

http://www.solenoids-mfg.com/index.php?_m=mod_product&_a=view&p_id=100 (http://www.solenoids-mfg.com/index.php?_m=mod_product&_a=view&p_id=100)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 27, 2014, 07:31:39 PM
I'll post some questions and concerns to the collective group.

For starters, the classic error is being made by discussing "efficiency" without defining what it is.   Take the example of pulse motors.  You read comments all the time that say, "Wow, your pulse motor is really efficient."  When you are watching a pulse motor spinning in a YouTube clip and you don't define your parameters for "efficiency" that is a totally meaningless statement.  So if you are going to discuss "efficiency" then you have to define what it means and then show measurements to demonstrate the efficiency.

The major problem is with the variables that you are tracking as you do these experiments because in the strictest terms they don't actually make sense.  This is a place to discuss energy and related matters and you live and die by the data that you generate.  So this should be resolved before you go further.  Right now as it stands the data generated would have to be reverse-engineered to turn it into proper data.  This is research and you should be presenting proper data on paper (like in this thread and not on a YouTube clip) that has true meaning.  If you were missing the information that you would need to reverse-engineer the data as being presented right now, then the data would be meaningless.

So the choice for the group is to ignore these comments and sleepwalk through the rest of the experiments, or discuss the issues and brainstorm and figure it out for yourselves and then take the proper corrective measures so as you go forward you generate valid data.

Spoon-feeding you all the answers is not the route I will take for this one.  I suggest that you discuss these issues in this thread amongst yourselves and resolve them.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 27, 2014, 08:13:23 PM
I'll post some questions and concerns to the collective group.

For starters, the classic error is being made by discussing "efficiency" without defining what it is.   Take the example of pulse motors.  You read comments all the time that say, "Wow, your pulse motor is really efficient."  When you are watching a pulse motor spinning in a YouTube clip and you don't define your parameters for "efficiency" that is a totally meaningless statement.  So if you are going to discuss "efficiency" then you have to define what it means and then show measurements to demonstrate the efficiency.

The major problem is with the variables that you are tracking as you do these experiments because in the strictest terms they don't actually make sense.  This is a place to discuss energy and related matters and you live and die by the data that you generate.  So this should be resolved before you go further.  Right now as it stands the data generated would have to be reverse-engineered to turn it into proper data.  This is research and you should be presenting proper data on paper (like in this thread and not on a YouTube clip) that has true meaning.  If you were missing the information that you would need to reverse-engineer the data as being presented right now, then the data would be meaningless.

So the choice for the group is to ignore these comments and sleepwalk through the rest of the experiments, or discuss the issues and brainstorm and figure it out for yourselves and then take the proper corrective measures so as you go forward you generate valid data.

Spoon-feeding you all the answers is not the route I will take for this one.  I suggest that you discuss these issues in this thread amongst yourselves and resolve them.




That's nothing but a STEAMING HOT CROCK OF UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 27, 2014, 10:07:44 PM

That's nothing but a STEAMING HOT CROCK OF UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT!

Synchro1, if you are interested in this thread and the experiments then put your brain in gear and say something productive instead of acting like a 49-year-old idiot that has bipolar bifilar coil fantasies.  If you don't have something productive to say then STFU.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 01:18:25 AM
Was working on some things with Zeropoint132 some time ago, and from that, he produced this video. ;D It should relate to what is being discussed here recently. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbFqVh7GdGk

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 02:42:20 AM
Hi Mags,

do you know how the coil is wound?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 03:37:20 AM
Hi Mags,

do you know how the coil is wound?

Luc

Hey Luc

Quadfilar, if that is the correct term. 4 individual wires wound at the same time.

tested 1 wire first, 2 in series second, 3, then 4 in series. Each time he added a coil in series, there was more mechanical output, while decreasing input. ;)

YT doesnt have pm anymore. Wish I could go through those msgs to recall our conversations on that.


Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 06:10:21 AM
Hi Mags,

okay I see

The problem with Zeropoint132 test is similar to what I was trying to tell synchro some posts back.
If you wind a coil with many wires together, 4 in this case, the coil ends up being 4 times the size. So now if you energized only one wire all the other stands cause 3 times more space between the energized wire turns and weaken its magnetic field since the turns are not concentrated and as close together as possible.
I'm quite sure if you took the same length of wire and wound it alone in a nice Brooks coil the magnetic field would be stronger then it being spread out like that.
So to me his test is not valid unless he had made a single coil to disprove this possible problem. Better yet, he should of had 4 individual single filar coils and place them one after the other to prove there's a benefit.

Come to think of it, my first Super build test 1 uses one of two strand is possibly suffering of the same problem ::) ... I'll need to recheck that!

Hope you understand?
Let me know if this makes sense

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 07:15:43 AM
Hi Mags,

okay I see

The problem with Zeropoint132 test is similar to what I was trying to tell synchro some posts back.
If you wind a coil with many wires together, 4 in this case, the coil ends up being 4 times the size. So now if you energized only one wire all the other stands cause 3 times more space between the energized wire turns and weaken its magnetic field since the turns are not concentrated and as close together as possible.
I'm quite sure if you took the same length of wire and wound it alone in a nice Brooks coil the magnetic field would be stronger then it being spread out like that.
So to me his test is not valid unless he had made a single coil to disprove this possible problem. Better yet, he should of had 4 individual single filar coils and place them one after the other to prove there's a benefit.

Come to think of it, my first Super build test 1 uses one of two strand is possibly suffering of the same problem ::) ... I'll need to recheck that!

Hope you understand?
Let me know if this makes sense

Luc

Yep, I know exactly what you mean.  He and I had some conflict there back then. But there were other aspects that I could not deny that were discussed in pm and I cannot read them any longer.

But the tests I proposed were to make a single wire coil of the same volume, and also a single wire coil with wire the length of 1 of 4 strands of the quadfi.  The latter would compare to powering a single wire of the quad. I was into some other experiments at the time and didnt replicate. So these things need to be tested.

Either way, it does relate here as someone who had performed tests as being done here and I thought you guys might like to see.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on September 28, 2014, 07:22:25 AM
Hi folks, Hi gotoluc, thanks for sharing your latest work, updates here, looks promising.
Also, look forward to seeing you floating around in your house boat, hehe.

So, 5 times greater force with the first coil compared to smaller model at same input.
Well, i have to say the name, Joseph Newman.
Though i feel Newmans motors are using multiple principles to achieve high efficiency in operation.
One of the main principles, is lots of copper atoms.
Though his in operation, delay line effect helps.
I wonder the weight of your first models coil compared to this super model, might be a ratio correlation.
One thing is a given, this design motor you have here luc, will outperform even the motors that are using both sides of a coil directly.
I forget the guys name who built that motor, but he gets double the shaft work compared to standard motor.
In my view, if we can get the same mileage at same average speed on an electric bicycle, car, etc. for half or even less input power, that actually means we can get 2-4 times the mileage at same average speed as the typical electric bicycle or car gets today on lead acid batts.
So say an econo electric bike gets 15-20 miles, we now get 30-40 or more for same charge.
You know folks, even Garry Stanleys dual magnet rotor, air core motor gave double the performance of standard electric bike motor based on his real road tests.
peace love light
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 07:27:23 AM
It would be interesting to see if there is more initial pull with a bifi. I didnt understand the influence of the capacitance of a bifi back then as I do now.

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 07:47:59 AM
Something that just came to mind. Thane wound his coils in a random fashion from what I was told. This would put a lot of empty space in the windings. So would he have been better off winding straight and tight? How much better? Better output than Z shows with increased resistance of adding all the existing 4 wires in series?  There may be more to this, considering the level of output change.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: DaKrampus on September 28, 2014, 08:59:55 AM
here is my 2 cents...just thinking out loud.. what if you think of the coil as a multilayerd coil, perfctly wound.. i might be wrong but i would think the output  would go up the closer it gets to a brooks coil shape and then down again.. or is my thinking totally wrong?
Luciano
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 28, 2014, 02:23:11 PM

The relationship is very simple; Let's compare a coil of one loop to a coil of two loops and apply Ampere's and Ohm's laws. Given an equal amount of power, the magnetic strength doubles in the two loop coil along with the Ohmic resistance. Current is inversely proportional to Ohmic resistance: Therefore, we double the magnetic strength with the addition of the second loop, coupled with lower current draw! The addition of the second loop also adds a volt to the equation which lowers resistance and increases current, so the proportion is not linear but a factor of PI. That's why it takes four times the coil wraps to double the magnet throw for less current draw in Zeropoint123's video. So it's two steps forward and a partial step back.


Take this to it's logical extreme, and you can understand how Newman spins a 1/2 ton flywheel on voltage alone, with no current draw whatsoever! Newman's power coil is of gargantuan scale consisting of thin wire of many many turns to maximize this power ratio. His carnival motor has been COP>1 the entire time! Newman's COP is actually impossible to calculate bordering on infinity. Newman's oversized motor works identically to his miniature with a commutator like Lidmotor demonstrates. Nothing could be simpler! Lastly, just because Newman understands it doesn't mean he can explain it.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 06:54:18 PM
Hi Mags,

okay I see

The problem with Zeropoint132 test is similar to what I was trying to tell synchro some posts back.
If you wind a coil with many wires together, 4 in this case, the coil ends up being 4 times the size. So now if you energized only one wire all the other stands cause 3 times more space between the energized wire turns and weaken its magnetic field since the turns are not concentrated and as close together as possible.
I'm quite sure if you took the same length of wire and wound it alone in a nice Brooks coil the magnetic field would be stronger then it being spread out like that.
So to me his test is not valid unless he had made a single coil to disprove this possible problem. Better yet, he should of had 4 individual single filar coils and place them one after the other to prove there's a benefit.

Come to think of it, my first Super build test 1 uses one of two strand is possibly suffering of the same problem ::) ... I'll need to recheck that!

Hope you understand?
Let me know if this makes sense

Luc

Hi Mags and all,

I can now confirm what I described above is exactly the problem.

I retested my super build coil by connecting both wires in parallel and the pull force is 2.56Kg. so 60g. better then with the two leads connected in series using the same 0.43 Watt

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 07:35:57 PM
Hi Mags and all,

I can now confirm what I described above is exactly the problem.

I retested my super build coil by connecting both wires in parallel and the pull force is 2.56Kg. so 60g. better then with the two leads connected in series using the same 0.43 Watt

Luc

Hey Luc
So you reduced the input voltage for the parallel test as compared to the voltage for the series test to come to a common watt figure?

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 28, 2014, 08:00:27 PM
Tesla projected magnet waves from his series bifilar by impulse. D.C. current adds no magnetic strength to the winding. D.C. coil magnet strength is a function of wire length, thickness, and number of turns regardless of configuration.

I pulsed a tightly wrapped machine shop series bifilar with a welding rod core, and attracted a set of carving knives from far accross the kitchen counter. I ordered a sloppy lash wrapped version from Rick Fredrich, and noticed a dramatic reduction in magnetic strength.

Connecting the power coils series bifilarly, then pulsing them at the self resonant frequency will increase the magnetic strength many times per joule, over the straight D.C. magnet strength!


What the hell is bifilar bipolar?

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 08:25:01 PM
Hey Luc
So you reduced the input voltage for the parallel test as compared to the voltage for the series test to come to a common watt figure?

Mags

Yes, it was 0.63vdc and 0.682 Amp = 0.43 Watt

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 08:27:48 PM
Hi everyone,

I just completed the 100% efficiency test on the Super build by using a fixed Joule energy input calculated by Khwartz
post: http://www.overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg418177/#msg418177 (http://www.overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg418177/#msg418177)

W [J] = 2.35 [kg] × ~10 [m.s^-2] × 1/1000 [m]

= 23.5/1000 [kg.m^2.s^-2] = 0.0235 [J]


In my test I placed the Super build vertically so the coil is against gravity.
I used a Capacitor bank which I checked with my Capacitance meter to measure: 7170uf

I charged the 7170uf cap bank to 2.56vdc =  23.5 Millijoules

when the coil was energized by the Capacitor bank it moved up about half of 1mm

If anyone cares to check the numbers and Math to see if all looks right that would be helpful.

Thanks

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Liberty on September 28, 2014, 08:46:34 PM
Hey Luc
So you reduced the input voltage for the parallel test as compared to the voltage for the series test to come to a common watt figure?

Mags

When compared to running a single coil:

When the coils are in parallel, the resistance of the circuit is basically cut in half (increasing current flow), and likewise when the coils are in series, the circuit resistance is nearly doubled (reducing current flow). 

As far as I have been able to determine, whenever a coil is used directly in a motor, it acts as a generator and limits performance to under unity, due to the generator effect.  (The better the magnetic coupling, the better the efficiency, but it also increases the generator effect limiting performance to under unity).  The device does appear to be a good way to increase magnetic coupling. 

Liberty
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 08:59:36 PM
Yes Liberty, you are saying the same thing that I have already posted: http://www.overunity.com/8429/mostly-permanent-magnet-motor-with-minimal-input-power/msg418431/#msg418431

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on September 28, 2014, 10:04:22 PM
Luc,

You can make major improvements to your efficiency test.  Can your setup move up one centimeter instead of one millimeter?  You can't eyeball a 1/2 millimeter height increase with more than say +/- 15% accuracy.

I am going to assume that you can do a one centimeter jump up as the basis for the test.  Then all you have to do is adjust the voltage on your capacitor until the jump up is one centimeter.  If you do this properly where you watch a marked reference line on the jumping Super build and see if it comes into alignment with an external reference line that indicates a one centimeter height increase, you should be able to eyeball this to +/- 2% accuracy.  You just have to experiment with different voltages on the capacitor until you find a voltage that causes a one centimeter jump.

Of course when you calculate the the amount of energy in the capacitor it will be larger than the energy required to make the one centimeter jump.  So where did that energy go?  That's all part of the analysis of the experiment.  You should be stating this stuff as part of your conclusions.  I can think of two places right off the bat that would most likely account for most of the lost energy.  Can anybody else?

If you do choose to do this improved experiment then I challenge you to actually report your calculations, including your estimate on the error tolerance, and how you actually estimated that error tolerance.  You didn't follow through on the previous attempt.

Meanwhile my previous challenge to everyone about the issues with the tracking of the variables for the main tests remains ignored.  The more you put into your experimentation, the more you get out of it.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 10:28:05 PM
Hi MH,

to raise the 2.325kg coil up 10mm the 7170uf cap bank needs to be charged to 9.3vdc = 310mj

I'm sure these solid steel cores are a cause of some loses

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 11:03:39 PM
I'll add that the test above was with the coil connected in bifilar Series since when it was connected in Parallel it needed a little more Joule energy.

So to raise the 2.325kg coil up 10mm

Coil in Series with 7170uf cap @ 9.3vdc = 310.07mj

Coil in Parallel with 7170uf cap @ 9.9vdc = 351.37mj

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 28, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
I'll add that the test above was with the coil connected in bifilar Series since when it was connected in Parallel it needed a little more Joule energy.

So to raise the 2.325kg coil up 10mm

Coil in Series with 7170uf cap @ 9.3vdc = 310.07mj

Coil in Parallel with 7170uf cap @ 9.9vdc = 351.37mj

Luc

So this is quite different in terms of input/output as compared to the previous tests, correct? More power needed for parallel than for series bifi?

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 28, 2014, 11:24:11 PM
So this is quite different in terms of input/output as compared to the previous tests, correct? More power needed for parallel than for series bifi?

Mags

Yes must be because the input is a capacitive discharge compared to the previous test was continuous DC pull force test

I've also noticed the coil holds up a little longer when connected in series. Maybe it's the small coil capacitance? or maybe it's just the coil has more inductance so now the generator effect is more as the coil drops down with gravity and tries to charge the cap bank in opposite polarity?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: telecom on September 29, 2014, 12:17:29 AM
Hi Luc,
capacitor will never do the work completely due to the nature of the discharge , IMHO.

This may be the reason why it shows 80 % efficiency.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on September 29, 2014, 12:18:05 AM
Hi Luc,

You can check the built-in capacitance between the parallel wires of your coil by using your C meter of course, just leave open all the four wire ends and connect the meter to one wire pair at say the left side, note the C and then repeat this at the right side and note the C, these two ought to be pretty much the same within a few percent.

I believe the series connection holds up a little longer because the discharge time of the capacitor increases a little due to the higher impedance of the series connected coils.

If you suspect the increased generator effect of the series coil configuration is also to blame for the little longer holding time then consider to include a diode in series with the capacitor with forward direction to the discharge process i.e. lifting, so it will block any reverse voltage hence current in the falling phase of the coils.

Regarding losses, there is the I2R heat loss as the most significant,  beside the steel core eddy current loss and the possible saturation loss you mentioned.
Also,  if you had an open magnetic path for the coils, then some stray field loss would also occur (certain part or amount of the coils flux would not participate in the useful lifting direction)  but such loss in your present setup is most likely at a minimum.

Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 29, 2014, 12:45:58 AM

Yes must be because the input is a capacitive discharge compared to the previous test was continuous DC pull force test

I've also noticed the coil holds up a little longer when connected in series. Maybe it's the small coil capacitance? or maybe it's just the coil has more inductance so now the generator effect is more as the coil drops down with gravity and tries to charge the cap bank in opposite polarity?

Luc


That's what I'm talking about! Luc generated a "Magnet Wave".
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 01:00:39 AM
Hi Gyula,

the measured coil capacitance between strands is 59nf and each strand has 3.2mH with coil moved to center to 3.9mH with coil at end. DC resistance of each strand is 1.4 Ohms
Cannot measure series Inductance with my good meter and have no other meter that works

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 29, 2014, 01:58:21 AM
Yes must be because the input is a capacitive discharge compared to the previous test was continuous DC pull force test

I've also noticed the coil holds up a little longer when connected in series. Maybe it's the small coil capacitance? or maybe it's just the coil has more inductance so now the generator effect is more as the coil drops down with gravity and tries to charge the cap bank in opposite polarity?

Luc

Hey Luc

I agree with Gyula that most likely the resistance change would have a difference in drain time of the cap.  I would recommend a constant dc input, using caps to stiffen the supply, trying to maintain solid input to either coil for these tests. 

The effect of capacitance of the bifi increases with voltage increase. The higher the voltage, the acceptance of that voltage by the bifi gets better, overcoming the bifi inductance, as suggested in Teslas pat for electromagnets.  Would be interesting to see 100v - 500v cap discharge into each version of the coil. ;) Just for the heck of it.

Gota do laundry.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 02:17:15 AM

If you suspect the increased generator effect of the series coil configuration is also to blame for the little longer holding time then consider to include a diode in series with the capacitor with forward direction to the discharge process i.e. lifting, so it will block any reverse voltage hence current in the falling phase of the coils.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

I did place a diode between my 7170uf electrolytic capacitor and the coil but all that does is charge the cap to an negative value when the coil starts to fall back down since the current is going in the opposite direction when it fall.
Cap starts at +10vdc and coil travels up 12.3mm then the cap goes Negative as the coil starts falling back down and cap charges to minus -6.72vdc

The cap being electrolytic don't hold the negative charge too well but only loose about 1vdc.

Make a recovery system though!

Maybe if I use AC caps it would be more efficient?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 02:30:14 AM
Hey Luc

I agree with Gyula that most likely the resistance change would have a difference in drain time of the cap.  I would recommend a constant dc input, using caps to stiffen the supply, trying to maintain solid input to either coil for these tests. 

The effect of capacitance of the bifi increases with voltage increase. The higher the voltage, the acceptance of that voltage by the bifi gets better, overcoming the bifi inductance, as suggested in Teslas pat for electromagnets.  Would be interesting to see 100v - 500v cap discharge into each version of the coil. ;) Just for the heck of it.

Gota do laundry.  ;D

Mags

Hi Mags

I think I understand what the benefit of "overcoming the bifi inductance" would be but if you don't mind I would like to get your version of the benefit... once you have time between loads that is

Luc

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 29, 2014, 03:19:39 AM
Hi Mags

I think I understand what the benefit of "overcoming the bifi inductance" would be but if you don't mind I would like to get your version of the benefit... once you have time between loads that is

Luc

Just loaded up and headed out to do laundry.

Instead of the slow rise in current due to self inductance of the coil when input is suddenly introduced,  the capacitance draws in the charge of higher voltages faster than lower voltages, producing more prominent impulse rather than slow rise to current peak of a normal wound coil/inductor.

Try a smaller cap at a higher voltage and redo the tests. Unless you have large caps that can handle 100 or more volts. Just for giggles. Into the 1000s of volts, the effect should be more prominent.

Ive been looking at litz wire so I can separate the strands into group pairs of conductors, which will increase the capacitance further. plus litz helps reduce losses due to low radial volume of copper per strand. 

Ok, off I go to spin land.

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 03:55:28 AM
Thanks Mags,

your version of it kind of lines up with mine and was on the list to test.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 04:54:34 AM
Something that just came to mind. Thane wound his coils in a random fashion from what I was told. This would put a lot of empty space in the windings. So would he have been better off winding straight and tight? How much better? Better output than Z shows with increased resistance of adding all the existing 4 wires in series?  There may be more to this, considering the level of output change.  ;D

Mags

Hey Mags,  I forgot to answer this one.
As you may know Thane lives in my city and we've known each other before he was doing the ReGenx thing.
I do some work for him here and there and I can tell you he no longer winds his coils in random. He now takes much care to wind coils tight and keeping strands side by side.
I think you mentioned litz wire, as far as I know that's not a good choice for bifilar coils as the strands are usually twisted.
I think if you don't keep your stands next to each other as you wind and you allow then to cross back and forth you no longer have coil capacitance.

I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines. This was posted by "Farmhand" in a topic at EF

 "Twisting the conductors in multifilar coils then series connecting them
 will increase the inductance when the windings are connected together
 as does any coils inductance increase with more turns and wire, however
 the "capacity" Tesla speaks of is related to the potential difference
 between adjacent turns, which twisting randomizes, a twisted coil is not
 making a coil as Tesla describes in the patent and will not secure the results
 the patent describes. The "self capacitance" is not the "capacity" of the coil.
 The "capacity" of the coil is how much energy it can store."

Just thought I would share that

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on September 29, 2014, 06:31:04 AM
Hey Mags,  I forgot to answer this one.
As you may know Thane lives in my city and we've known each other before he was doing the ReGenx thing.
I do some work for him here and there and I can tell you he no longer winds his coils in random. He now takes much care to wind coils tight and keeping strands side by side.
I think you mentioned litz wire, as far as I know that's not a good choice for bifilar coils as the strands are usually twisted.
I think if you don't keep your stands next to each other as you wind and you allow then to cross back and forth you no longer have coil capacitance.

I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines. This was posted by "Farmhand" in a topic at EF

 "Twisting the conductors in multifilar coils then series connecting them
 will increase the inductance when the windings are connected together
 as does any coils inductance increase with more turns and wire, however
 the "capacity" Tesla speaks of is related to the potential difference
 between adjacent turns, which twisting randomizes, a twisted coil is not
 making a coil as Tesla describes in the patent and will not secure the results
 the patent describes. The "self capacitance" is not the "capacity" of the coil.
 The "capacity" of the coil is how much energy it can store."

Just thought I would share that

Luc

Ok, here is my idea behind using litz...

Say we have 20awg mag wire and some 6 strand litz that is equal to 2 of those 20awg wires.

So we wind 2 20 awg wires together as a bifi. If we were to look at a cross section of those 2 wires, we can see that only a very small amount of each wires outer surfaces are in physical contact, and the rest of those surfaces are further away from each other.

lets call 1 of the 2 20 awg strands A and the other B.

Now the 6 strand litz, equal to 2 strands of 20awg, say equal resistance by length.  If we look at the cross section of the 6 strand litz, where half of the strands, are connected at the end of the windings to form 1 of the 20awg wires, and the other 3 strands are the other, sorting the strands so they alternate A and B strands rather than to have an A strand next to an A strand only.
Within that litz bundle, the first thing we should notice is that the surface area of the A and B strands in the litz is greater than the surface area of the 2 20 awg wires. The second is there are more contact areas within the litz of A and B strands than the 2 20 awg wires. 

So there is more possible capacitance between A and B in the litz than there is with the 2 20 awg wires.

We are talking about capacitance between A and adjacent B strands, let alone contact and proximity with other adjacent windings. 

Litz doesnt only come in weave form.  Examples below. 

Just something I had been thinking of for some time.

Mags


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 29, 2014, 01:12:07 PM
Yes must be because the input is a capacitive discharge compared to the previous test was continuous DC pull force test

I've also noticed the coil holds up a little longer when connected in series. Maybe it's the small coil capacitance? or maybe it's just the coil has more inductance so now the generator effect is more as the coil drops down with gravity and tries to charge the cap bank in opposite polarity?

Luc


Everyone's familiar with the concept of time dilation; Light traveling from distant portions of the universe remains non-decayed after billions of years. The electro-gravity wave has supra effects as well. Gravity not only connects matter together in space, it also connects space to time. Gravity connects the present to the future and the past. When we generate a gravity wave, it reaches the outer limits of the universe nearly instantly, which is billions of years in the past. The wave passes through the future as well. Time is a continuum in the 5th dimension:  So the magnet wave not only reaches the ends of the spatial universe, it reaches the limits of time from beginning to end as well. "The coil holding up a little longer" could be a consequence of the coil catching up to the magnet wave it projected into the future.


Tesla, the patentor of the series bifilar coil and theorist of the longitudinal wave, posited Gravity as the cosmological constant and originated the insight outlined above. Tesla thought Einstein's "Special theory of relativity" was incomplete without his notion of "Eather".   
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on September 29, 2014, 02:10:35 PM
Hi Luc,

Yes, the use of the series diode does not block the backward flowing current just because the induced current's  direction (when the coil is falling down in your test setup) is such that it biases the diode to conduct again, sorry I did not fully consider this.
Sure, the use of AC type capacitor could be helpful to receive the opposite polarity without a problem but finding several thousand uF AC caps is not easy and not cheap. There is a way though to "build" an AC cap from normal electrolytic DC caps by using two diodes and two electrolytic caps. One method is to connect a diode in series with each electrolytic cap and parallel the two while the other method is to parallel a diode with each electrolytic and then connect them in series, see the attached for the latter method. Here is a link to the first method:
http://www.robkalmeijer.nl/techniek/electronica/radiotechniek/hambladen/radcom/1994/11/page55b/index.html (http://www.robkalmeijer.nl/techniek/electronica/radiotechniek/hambladen/radcom/1994/11/page55b/index.html)
while I took the attached drawing from this site: http://www.electronicspoint.com/threads/normal-electrolytic-capcitors-as-non-polarized-bipolar-ones-in-ac-circuits.251027/ (http://www.electronicspoint.com/threads/normal-electrolytic-capcitors-as-non-polarized-bipolar-ones-in-ac-circuits.251027/)

The voltage and current ratings for the diodes should be chosen to 'survive' the highest peak charging or discharging currents and peak AC voltages of course.

Gyula



Hi Gyula,

I did place a diode between my 7170uf electrolytic capacitor and the coil but all that does is charge the cap to an negative value when the coil starts to fall back down since the current is going in the opposite direction when it fall.
Cap starts at +10vdc and coil travels up 12.3mm then the cap goes Negative as the coil starts falling back down and cap charges to minus -6.72vdc

The cap being electrolytic don't hold the negative charge too well but only loose about 1vdc.

Make a recovery system though!

Maybe if I use AC caps it would be more efficient?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 06:55:12 PM
Ok, here is my idea behind using litz...

Say we have 20awg mag wire and some 6 strand litz that is equal to 2 of those 20awg wires.

So we wind 2 20 awg wires together as a bifi. If we were to look at a cross section of those 2 wires, we can see that only a very small amount of each wires outer surfaces are in physical contact, and the rest of those surfaces are further away from each other.

lets call 1 of the 2 20 awg strands A and the other B.

Now the 6 strand litz, equal to 2 strands of 20awg, say equal resistance by length.  If we look at the cross section of the 6 strand litz, where half of the strands, are connected at the end of the windings to form 1 of the 20awg wires, and the other 3 strands are the other, sorting the strands so they alternate A and B strands rather than to have an A strand next to an A strand only.
Within that litz bundle, the first thing we should notice is that the surface area of the A and B strands in the litz is greater than the surface area of the 2 20 awg wires. The second is there are more contact areas within the litz of A and B strands than the 2 20 awg wires. 

So there is more possible capacitance between A and B in the litz than there is with the 2 20 awg wires.

We are talking about capacitance between A and adjacent B strands, let alone contact and proximity with other adjacent windings. 

Litz doesnt only come in weave form.  Examples below. 

Just something I had been thinking of for some time.

Mags

Thanks Mags for explaining your Litz reasoning.

Worth testing!

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 29, 2014, 06:58:06 PM
Thanks for all the information Gyula

At this point I'm going to get some AC caps from storage and test with higher voltages

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on September 30, 2014, 03:17:01 AM
Well, not much luck finding anything with the coil connected in bifilar series and using high voltage discharges. Voltage and Current seem to be in phase.
The current sensing resistor is a carbon 1 ohm 1% resistor. Voltage probe is no.1 (green) and current probe is no. 2 (yellow)

The Scope shots below range from 50vdc to 1000vdc and cap value from 16.66uf from 50 to 250vdc, 10.16fuf rom 300 to 800vdc and 3.44uf for 1000vdc
Each pic title has the details. The recovery is from the diode as the coil falls back.
I did not bother with the coil height measurement for each test as they were all higher Joule energy for the height reached then when using low voltage. Basically, the higher the voltage the more Joule energy it take for the coil to travel up. The coil wants to go up faster as the voltage increase but so does the generator effect increase at the same time. So more and more energy is wasted as voltage goes up.

I'm not going beyond 1kv as the coils wire insulation could be compromised.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2014, 05:32:07 PM
@Gotoluc,

Thanks for trying! One other note in passing; Quote from Norman Wootan:

"Joel and I were successful in isolating and identifying the fundamental Ferromagnetic Resonant Frequency as being around 174.9 KHz".

It might help to use this frequency. The only alternative left after that, would involve rewinding the series bifilar coils to self resonate at the ferromagnetic frequency of 174.9 Khz, and then try pulsing them at the same rate.

One other quote from Norman:

"Doesn't it sound ironic that this freq should fall so close to what the Corums have determined that Tesla designed his big coil out in Colorado springs around"?

Tesla lit 200 incandescent bulbs wirelessly at a distance of 26 miles with his big coil and ground currents!

It appears that Tesla's magnet wave has a power band!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gyulasun on October 01, 2014, 12:12:17 AM
Hi Luc,

Thanks for showing the waveforms of your tests. I am trying to understand why you said the voltage and current seem to be in phase.

I see it differently, in the very moment of switch-on, the full capacitor voltage is across the coils and the current is zero. As the capacitor discharges (its voltage decreases) the inductor current increases and when the capacitor is fully discharged, the current has increased to its maximum value.
This would mean a at least a 85 degree phase lag for the current versus the voltage, no?
Then the reverse induction (due to the falling coil) starts to charge up the capacitor to an opposite polarity it had at discharge, while the coil current starts reducing, so here we have an increasing voltage versus a decreasing current.
It is okay that when the coil stops moving, the induced voltage becomes nearly zero then zero and the current also will be zero in the end.

Good and informative tests, thanks.

Gyula
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on October 01, 2014, 12:57:02 AM
Luc:

Did you consider doing tests where the coils were first connected bifilar, and then you redo the tests with essentially the same coil configuration, but monofilar?  Same number of turns, same gage of wire, etc.  From a cursory observation of what you are doing, there is no logical reason whatsoever for a bifilar coil configuration to be different from a regular coil configuration for this setup.  You basically have a large electromagnet with a large inductance picking up a large weight, and whether the setup be bifilar or monofilar, the coil capacitance will be minuscule and totally insignificant and have absolutely no affects whatsoever on your tests.

The important principle to understand here is to take stock of what actually affects your experiment.  It'd just like the thread about myths and misconceptions for magnets.  There may be a specific narrow set of cases where a bifilar coil will make a difference, but for a brute force electromagnet the expectation would be that a few extra nano or microfarads of capacitance will make absolutely no difference in the performance of the electromagnet.  If you don't agree or believe me then simply run the tests for yourself if you are so inclined.  It's simply not right to see people make clips where they make their coils bifilar when there is no logical reason to do so - it's just another myth.  The inductance of the electromagnet is the elephant in the room.  The capacitance of the electromagnet proportionally might be the size of a fly on the elephant.

With respect to the efficiency of doing the lift, I asked you where all the lost energy went.  Gyula mentioned the resistive losses in the wire which I agree with.  Here is another thing to think about:  As the capacitor discharges it is building up the magnetic field in the coil.  So for a certain number of milliseconds as the capacitor discharges, there are i-squared-R losses in the wire, and energy is going into the coil to build up the magnetic field.  Before the weight even moves, the electromagnet is building up in strength.  So that means you have resistive losses in the wire, and there is energy put into the coil, before the weight even moves.  Both of these components will factor into the losses.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 01, 2014, 12:58:26 AM
LOL ;D Gyula, at least you're interested and will take the time to comment.

Just checking to see who's awake here ;)

Thanks for your post

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2014, 01:12:53 AM
Luc:

Did you consider doing tests where the coils were first connected bifilar, and then you redo the tests with essentially the same coil configuration, but monofilar?  Same number of turns, same gage of wire, etc.  From a cursory observation of what you are doing, there is no logical reason whatsoever for a bifilar coil configuration to be different from a regular coil configuration for this setup.  You basically have a large electromagnet with a large inductance picking up a large weight, and whether the setup be bifilar or monofilar, the coil capacitance will be minuscule and totally insignificant and have absolutely no affects whatsoever on your tests.

The important principle to understand here is to take stock of what actually affects your experiment.  It'd just like the thread about myths and misconceptions for magnets.  There may be a specific narrow set of cases where a bifilar coil will make a difference, but for a brute force electromagnet the expectation would be that a few extra nano or microfarads of capacitance will make absolutely no difference in the performance of the electromagnet.  If you don't agree or believe me then simply run the tests for yourself if you are so inclined.  It's simply not right to see people make clips where they make their coils bifilar when there is no logical reason to do so - it's just another myth.  The inductance of the electromagnet is the elephant in the room.  The capacitance of the electromagnet proportionally might be the size of a fly on the elephant.

With respect to the efficiency of doing the lift, I asked you where all the lost energy went.  Gyula mentioned the resistive losses in the wire which I agree with.  Here is another thing to think about:  As the capacitor discharges it is building up the magnetic field in the coil.  So for a certain number of milliseconds as the capacitor discharges, there are i-squared-R losses in the wire, and energy is going into the coil to build up the magnetic field.  Before the weight even moves, the electromagnet is building up in strength.  So that means you have resistive losses in the wire, and there is energy put into the coil, before the weight even moves.  Both of these components will factor into the losses.


What MileHigh fails to understand is that the series bifilar coil has no magnetic field inside the coil. The coil vectors a monopolar magnet wave like a smoke ring, with the positive pole nested in the center. This field forms outside the coil when pulsed.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on October 01, 2014, 01:17:11 AM
Sorry Synchro1 but that is just another nonsensical fantasy posting.  I don't want to disrupt the thread, but that is the honest rebuttal to your posting.  You have made other fantasy postings in this thread that disrupt what is going on.  I will ignore them from now on.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2014, 01:21:24 AM
Sorry Synchro1 but that is just another nonsensical fantasy posting.  I don't want to disrupt the thread, but that is the honest rebuttal to your posting.  You have made other fantasy postings in this thread that disrupt what is going on.  I will ignore them from now on.


You are a supercilious and pompous ignoramus of the first degree!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 01, 2014, 05:36:56 AM
Hi MH,

Today I found there is a difference between the coil connected in parallel vs series.
In today's tests the best efficiency results for the coil to move up against gravity was with it connected in series. However, I think the gain could be mostly from the boost in Inductance. Gyula suggested a way to measure the Inductance and the results are 8mH vs 30mH in series. So I think this would need to be considered.

Today's tests
All tests done with low voltage.
To maintain a stable low voltage through the coils power stroke, I used a 650F Super Cap fully charged and stable at 2.7vdc 
By using this low voltage the coil moves up slowly and resulted in less losses as these were the most efficient results to date.
Using the coils maximum upward travel stroke of 23.5mm it used 1.2J connected in parallel and 0.94J in series.
If we use the 0.94J and we subtract 0.54J which would be the unity amount needed for the coil to travel 23.5mm (if my calculations are correct?) then we are left with 0.40J under unity.
However, by having the coil travel to the maximum height I was able to collect (in another cap bank) 0.32J as the coil fell back down with most speed.
So if we deduct that we are basically 0.08J under unity.

So it looks like at best around 90% efficiency.

Now that it's confirmed the device is Under Unity, can you please help me to rate it as it's ideal work solution, a Solenoid.
There must be an established protocol to test Push or Pull force vs power and stroke to rate the efficiency of a Solenoid as I've found charts in some solenoids pdf data (see below)

This would be of most help

Thanks

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2014, 06:00:25 AM

What MileHigh fails to understand is that the series bifilar coil has no magnetic field inside the coil. The coil vectors a monopolar magnet wave like a smoke ring, with the positive pole nested in the center. This field forms outside the coil when pulsed.
Facepalm.

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2014, 10:44:19 AM
Facepalm.


Trash hound!

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on October 02, 2014, 07:44:57 AM
Well, not much luck finding anything with the coil connected in bifilar series and using high voltage discharges. Voltage and Current seem to be in phase.
The current sensing resistor is a carbon 1 ohm 1% resistor. Voltage probe is no.1 (green) and current probe is no. 2 (yellow)

The Scope shots below range from 50vdc to 1000vdc and cap value from 16.66uf from 50 to 250vdc, 10.16fuf rom 300 to 800vdc and 3.44uf for 1000vdc
Each pic title has the details. The recovery is from the diode as the coil falls back.
I did not bother with the coil height measurement for each test as they were all higher Joule energy for the height reached then when using low voltage. Basically, the higher the voltage the more Joule energy it take for the coil to travel up. The coil wants to go up faster as the voltage increase but so does the generator effect increase at the same time. So more and more energy is wasted as voltage goes up.

I'm not going beyond 1kv as the coils wire insulation could be compromised.

Luc

hey Luc

Thanks for doing the tests.  So 2.8ohm series coil and 1 ohm current sense.  Do you have a lower ohm resistor?  Say 0.1 ohm or lower?   Just thinking, in the series winding, that resistor is consuming 1/4 of the energy from the cap. And in parallel, .7ohm coil 1 ohm resistor, the resistor is consuming more than half. This will definitely throw off comparisons of the 2 coil setups I think

Like if the resistor wasnt there, then we would have to worry about connecting wires and switch resistance. If there were an inrush discharging into the bifi coil, 1000v/2.8=1357w max possible. At .7ohm coils in parallel, 1000v/.7=2428w,  all just resistance values, inductance is in the way.

Tesla talked about discharging 40kv and getting what, 10000hp. Thats 7.5MW.          If that energy were only for an instant,   7.5MW/40kv=187.5A   40kv/187.5A=213.3ohms  That is if inductance whasnt an impedance. Pun  ;D

Anyway, thanks again. I want to try some things Ive thought of with all this. See if I have time.

I tired and off balance like my text. Just babbling.

Mags




Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on October 02, 2014, 07:57:14 AM
In other words, its possible that the parallel might outperform distance wise than series if the resistor is not there at all.

Night

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 02, 2014, 06:14:23 PM
In other words, its possible that the parallel might outperform distance wise than series if the resistor is not there at all.

Night

Mags


Good point about the resistor Mags. Wonder why you're the only one who thought of this?
I only used it in my high voltage tests to see the phase difference between voltage and current as the voltage goes up. I couldn't see any.

I'll try it again with 1kv without a resistor and measure the upwards travel distance and retest with a resistor to see how much it changes.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 02, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
Hi Mags,

the results are very bad with high voltage :P

With coil connected in series and no resistor the 2.35kg weight raised by 1mm using a 3.44uf ac cap charged to 1000 vdc  = 1.722 Joules

With coil connected in parallel using same cap and charge, the rise was too low to measure.

The low voltage wins hands down with a 23mm rise with 1 Joule input

Luc




Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on October 02, 2014, 09:06:53 PM
Luc:

Parallel/series is not appropriate terminology for what you are doing.  Two wires in parallel to form a coil act like a single wire with less resistance.  Two, three, four or more wires in parallel wrapped around a spool to form a coil are in fact a single wire as far as the coil is concerned.

You have two pieces of wire of equal length.  Each wire makes N turns.  Each wire has R resistance.

When they are in series you have 2N turns, with 2R resistance, and 4 units of inductance.

When they are in parallel you have N turns with 0.5R resistance and 1 unit of inductance.

Let's say each wire gives you 100 turns.  So the simplified description of your test is that you are comparing a 100-turn coil with a 200-turn coil.  That's what you are really doing.  The resistance of the coil is also an important secondary parameter.

The fundamental parameter for the magnetic field strength of a coil is ampere-turns.

When you discuss anything to do with coil experiments the current through the coil and the number of turns are the variables of paramount importance.  The voltage that you drive the coil with is just a means to put current through the coil.  Coils are current-based devices and current is what it is all about.

So again, you are not testing "series vs. parallel."  What you are really testing is 2N turns vs. N turns.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Magluvin on October 03, 2014, 05:37:51 AM
Parallel and series is just a description of how the 2 side by side windings are connected in each test.

Mags
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 05, 2014, 09:13:55 PM
Hi Mags,

the results are very bad with high voltage :P

With coil connected in series and no resistor the 2.35kg weight raised by 1mm using a 3.44uf ac cap charged to 1000 vdc  = 1.722 Joules

With coil connected in parallel using same cap and charge, the rise was too low to measure.

The low voltage wins hands down with a 23mm rise with 1 Joule input

Luc
Hi Luc! Nice to see you are now fully self-related with these kind of calculations; and nice you now use and share your results on this base! Cheers!  :)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 14, 2014, 12:56:15 PM
Hi Luc, an all.

I come back on this post of you, Luc, for MH.

Hi MH,

Today I found there is a difference between the coil connected in parallel vs series.
In today's tests the best efficiency results for the coil to move up against gravity was with it connected in series. However, I think the gain could be mostly from the boost in Inductance. Gyula suggested a way to measure the Inductance and the results are 8mH vs 30mH in series. So I think this would need to be considered.
indeed, as inductance expresses the ration of magnetic flux, in Webers (Wb) against the current flow in Ampers (A). So this is a kind of efficiency ratio. Higher the inductance is, higher is the magnetic flux will be for the same current. (But you probably know that :) ).

The problem, as I see it, is that inductance goes much with the number of turns.

You want to increase the number of turns to have better inductance but then you get, if same wire section in mm², a higher resistance if you increase the length of the wire in the same time.

Then, it may be ask what would be the optimum solution.

One can increase the voltage for example, to compensate the higher resistance.

As a matter of fact, there is no analytical formula for now, which allows to get the answer in terms of length of wire, number of turns, length of coil, inner and outer diameters. Only formulas exist for specific configurations.

I have worked these days on a spreadsheets and I have tried to test each characteristic, against an efficiency ratio I made: FLUX under INPUT POWER; which is, imho, the very ratio we need to work against.

The first results I have on a specific formula are, that the efficiency (having all the other factor maintained constant):

1. drops with voltage (very at the opposite I was thinking! ^_^)
2. doesn't really change with the inner diameter
3. drops with the wire diameter (because it change the outer diameter?)
4. increases with the number of spires (remember: all the other factor remain the same, so for a same wire length! will mean shorter coil...)
5. increases with the number of layers (which is equivalent to a shorter coil).

These are in my opinion important data to check and know to go in the right direction of researches and suggest that pancake coils would be the most efficient by this ratio.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the flux here is gotten through the whole section of the coil while it is not necessarily what we are looking for in we want to concentrate to flux in the core of the coil.

BTW, all these results were for air coils.


Quote
Today's tests
All tests done with low voltage.
To maintain a stable low voltage through the coils power stroke, I used a 650F Super Cap fully charged and stable at 2.7vdc 
By using this low voltage the coil moves up slowly and resulted in less losses as these were the most efficient results to date.
so, this looks to verify my result number 1. :)

Quote
Using the coils maximum upward travel stroke of 23.5mm it used 1.2J connected in parallel and 0.94J in series.
If we use the 0.94J and we subtract 0.54J which would be the unity amount needed for the coil to travel 23.5mm (if my calculations are correct?) then we are left with 0.40J under unity.
However, by having the coil travel to the maximum height I was able to collect (in another cap bank) 0.32J as the coil fell back down with most speed.
So if we deduct that we are basically 0.08J under unity.
Very Great you had, Luc, the idea to make this calculations  8)


Quote
So it looks like at best around 90% efficiency.
No so bad :)

Quote
Now that it's confirmed the device is Under Unity, can you please help me to rate it as it's ideal work solution, a Solenoid.
I would need some of you guys, make systematic tests of different kind of coil so I could analyse it and produce a spreadsheet able to give the optimum coil in any case against any factor.

I have work indeed on existing formulas but I am not too confident in their behaviour compare to the reality, especially when we try to push a factor towards a certain limit. But seeing how many of us work with coils, I think it is most sad not having any real complete tool to calculate and predict the ideal coil for a specific use. We could work together all here on that research. What do you think here guys?


Quote
There must be an established protocol to test Push or Pull force vs power

Maybe, but remember they are not same kind of quantities cause FORCE missing the TIME DIMENSION and even the LENGTH DIMENSION. I remember you power goes with A MOVING FORCE IN A CERTAIN LAP OF TIME.

If you don't care of the time, then you deal with ENERGY, while ENERGY [Joule] = FORCE [Newton] * DISPLACEMENT [meter].

But you may indeed make yourself a ratio of power consumption against the pulling force of your coil as you have already done several times.


Quote
and stroke to rate the efficiency of a Solenoid as I've found charts in some solenoids pdf data (see below)

This would be of most help

Thanks

Luc
The protocol is just what you do: measuring pulling force against electrical input power, and for torque: not forgetting to divide the pulling force by the radius of the application point of the dynamometer.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 14, 2014, 07:20:21 PM
Thanks Khwartz for your interest and posting your ideas.

Looks like no one knows how solenoids pull charts are done or they are not interested.

If OU is not a possibility or claimed, people are just not interested, even those who believe OU is not possible.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 14, 2014, 07:56:06 PM
I'm drowning in pink, what gives?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: MileHigh on October 14, 2014, 09:37:23 PM
Well nobody ventured an idea when I said that the variables being tracked for Luc's experiment were wrong.

Luc was quoting pull force per watt of consumed power.  What is wrong with that?  Well, I will use hypothetical data as an example.  Let's say that it's 10 watts for 100 grams of pull force.  Then we keep the same identical setup except we change just one thing.  Let's say we increase the diameter of the wire slightly, say from 32 gauge wire to 24 gauge wire.  You repeat the test and now you get 7.5 watts of power for 100 grams of pull force.  What conclusions can you arrive at after looking at that data?

For the commercial solenoid, Luc posted diagrams from the manufacturer that showed pull force vs. distance for different power levels.  Why is the manufacturer posting that data?  It's taken for granted that the higher the power you put into the coil the more pulling force you will get from the solenoid.  So what is the REAL reason for the manufacturer to post that data?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: phoneboy on October 15, 2014, 12:19:40 AM
@gotluc, might help??
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: A_Giggle_For_Chaos on October 15, 2014, 12:27:27 PM
I personally don't understand the fuss about a solenoid. I would get that epoxy out and put connecting rods to a short stroke drive shaft and see what that puppy could do compared to a regular motor, IE 1 hp 746 watts.
A good diode protected H bridge circuit driven with an optical switch, all powered from a big a cap on the front end. Top off the cap as needed to measure input.
We can only imagine. Until then.

Giggles
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 15, 2014, 04:55:50 PM
Pulsing a series connected bifilar vectors a magnet wave outside the coil. A single wire coil or parallel bifilar will not act the same way.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 15, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
Thanks Khwartz for your interest and posting your ideas.

Looks like no one knows how solenoids pull charts are done or they are not interested.

If OU is not a possibility or claimed, people are just not interested, even those who believe OU is not possible.

Luc
You're welcome, Luc, it was "for the cause" ;)

But to be honest, surely my bad English, I am not sure to well understand your post: do you say you are giving-up and no more willing to see if OU is possible?

Cause, as I have said many times: OU is already a current thing since long:

- heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, et cetera, are all overunity COP, even wind turbines and solar panel are infinite COPs

(no energy input power that you pay for to run the device)

(and I remember anyone that "COP" is something else than "physical efficiency":

- heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines are all underunity physical efficiencies despite the fact that each takes its energy in a large reservoir of energy for free).

Best regards.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 16, 2014, 02:57:19 AM
Bonjour Khwartz,
ce que je dis, c'est que je ne pense pas que les membres du Forum sont intéressés s'il n'y a pas de potentiel OU dans cette appareil.
J'ai construit cet appareil au mieux de mes capacités et il exécute comme il se doit dans la mesure où une bobine peut déplace un poids spécifique avec une énergie Joule spécifique.
L'appareil est sous l'unité et ne peut pas être mieux.
Ce que j'ai aussi essayé de dire, c'est que mon appareil peut être mieux qu'un solénoïde standard car de ce que j'ai pu trouver sur le net est sa force de tire par watt est plus de 10 fois plus.
Mais je n'ai aucune idée comment s'y prendre pour comparer les deux et personne d'autre ont partagé comment le faire.

Hello Khwartz,
what I'm saying is, I don't think the members of the Forum are interested if there is no OU potential in this device.
I have built this device to the best of my ability and it performs as it should as far as a coil can moves a specific weight using a specific Joule energy.
The device is under unity and cannot be any better.
What I have been also trying to say is, my device may be better then a standard solenoid because from what I could find on the net is its pull force per watt is more than 10x more.
But I have no idea how to go about comparing the two and no one else have shared how to do so.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 16, 2014, 03:47:23 AM
OK, apparemment tout tes test te donnent jusque là des résultats sous unitaire et tu voudrais comparer avec une bobine standarde, mais je ne comprends pas : tu as bien fait toi-même la comparaison (dix fois plus de force de traction) donc où est le problème ?

Tu as bien testé la force de traction de ta bobine sans l'amplification par l'addition d'aimants en comparaison avec ta manière de la faire, donc je ne vois pas bien ce que tu veux de plus :/

Cela dit, c'est vrai que passer du temps à faire des abaques qui n'intéresseraient personne ce ne serait pas très motivant pour moi.

Par contre, une chose qui pourrait permettre d'estimer s'il y a un espoir de surunité c'est si la courbe d'évolution du rendement est "divergente" ou "convergente". En effet, dans le premier cas la surunité serait très probable, dans l'autre très compromise.

A quoi cela correspond-t-il ? disons que si la tendance de la courbe va dans sa direction en gros "au-delà" de la surunité : bingo ! dans le cas contraire, si par exemple la courbe se rapproche tout le temps mais sans jamais vraiment "atteindre" et donc dépasser si on la prolonge (une asymptote), alors on améliore le rendement certes mais rien de plus.

---
OK, apparently all your test  give underuntity resutls and you would want to compare with a standard reel, but I do not understand: you did well yourself the comparison (ten times more of pulling force) thus where is the problem?

You tested well the strength of drive of your coil without increase/amplification by the addition of magnets in comparison with your way of making it, thus I do not see well what you want furthermore :/

Having said that, it is true that to spend time to make abacuses which would interest nobody it would not be very rewarding for me.

On the other hand, a thing which could allow to consider if there is a hope of surunité it is if the curve of evolution of the efficiency is "divergent " or " convergent". Indeed, in the first case the surunité would be very likely, in the other one very compromised.

To what does it correspond? Let us say that if the tendency of the graph goes in its direction roughly "beyond" the overunity: you get it potentially! Should the opposite occur, if for example the graph gets closer all the time but without ever "achieving" really and thus overtaking if we extend it (= an asymptote), then we improve the efficiency certainly but nothing more.

Didier
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on October 16, 2014, 04:58:04 AM
Here's how I did it back in the Steorn Orbo days.
I measured the force (from the digital force gauge) and the distance (from the micrometer head adjustment) while running various levels of current through the coil.

Back off distance until at some "start" point. Apply current to the coil. Take force readings every 0.1 mm as you crank the micrometer head to make the magnet in the head of the force gauge get closer and closer to the coil. Take readings going in the other direction as you go back up. Then set a new current level, and repeat the measurement series. Plot the data.

In this way I was fully able to characterize the Orbo "core effect" and to show just how little reduction in attractive force was really needed to make the Orbo run at speed.


Inductors in parallel and in series:
Inductors add like resistors. That is, for inductors in series, the final inductance is just the sum of all the individual inductances. For inductors in parallel, the relationship is more complex.
 
Quote
the total inductance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance) of non-coupled inductors in parallel is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of their individual inductances
IOW inductors in parallel add up in the same way as resistors in parallel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#Inductors_2



Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 16, 2014, 08:28:53 AM
Thanks for your post TK

I don't see or maybe don't understand the point of making a curve chart when my coils push or pull force is equal (does not change in any position) throughout its 1 inch of travel?

This is where my design blows away a standard solenoid.
As you know, solenoid are not capable of pulling over 2.5kg at the beginning of their stroke and maintain the same pull force for 23mm of travel and only consume 0.43 Watt continuous 24/7 without the coil even getting warm.

Luc


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on October 16, 2014, 11:21:08 AM
I'm a little confused here. I thought you  didn't know how to  measure these pull forces and you wanted to know how to do it. So I am puzzled that you now say you know what the forces are, you know they are constant over an inch of travel, etc etc.

How are you measuring this pull force? What is the smallest difference in force your method can reliably detect? Can you show a plot of force vs. distance along a well defined path, that can be compared with other coil configurations along the same path?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 16, 2014, 04:16:17 PM
Take a well wrapped bifilar solenoid coil connected serially with a welding rod core. Hang a steel carving knife by a string. Aim the center of the coil at the dangling knife and pulse it like you would a Leedskalnin device shorting the coil across a 12 volt battery. Watch what happens to the knife. Next, move the coil further away and try it again. This laser dimension magnet wave was broadcasted and received by Tesla at a distance of 40 miles from his downtown laboratory to West Point on line of sight. This was the first wireless transmission in History!. The broadcast and receiver coils were identical and both were grounded. The wave carried power that Tesla believed traveled through the ground! 

I re-discovered this effect by accident as I've recounted in the past: My first shop wound bifilar coil, 350 turns of 22 gauge, with welding rod core slid around ten feet to collide with a cutlery box that was drawn an equal distance along my kitchen counter, from one direct short pulse. The experience was traumatic! The magnetic force produced this way had nothing whatsoever to do with the customary D.C. Joule to coil flux ratios. Try it! 
 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 16, 2014, 05:49:43 PM
Thanks for your post TK

I don't see or maybe don't understand the point of making a curve chart when my coils push or pull force is equal (does not change in any position) throughout its 1 inch of travel?

This is where my design blows away a standard solenoid.
As you know, solenoid are not capable of pulling over 2.5kg at the beginning of their stroke and maintain the same pull force for 23mm of travel and only consume 0.43 Watt continuous 24/7 without the coil even getting warm.

Luc
Luc, could you indicate the frequency of the run up and down while pulling 2.5 kg 1 time (lifting) on 2 (lifting and dropping)? (I suppose you run it against the gravity, to talk about "kg", so mass, otherwise only about "pulling force" and so "newtons"...).

Because if I am not mistaking, if you lift 2.5 kg the first second, that you not energise at the second time and let the mass dropping, so no consumption of input power, you would have overunity, cause:

P [W] = W [Joule] / T [second]

P [W] = (F [Newtons] * Displacement [m]) / T [second]

P [W] = ((M [kg] * Gravity acceleration [m/s²])* Displacement [m]) / T [second]

so:

P [W] = ((2.5 [kg] * 9.84 [m/s²])* 0.023 [m]) / 1 [second] = 0.566 [W]

and:

COP = 0.566 [W] / 0.43 [W] = 1.32 ^^

Note: if you get that king of result while energising both times (lifting and dropping), it is even more promising cause we didn't care in the previous calculation of the work we may harness while dropping! in fact, it would correspond to a COP of (few mechanical losses aside):

COP ~= (2 * 0.566 [W]) / 0.43 [W] = 2.63  :D
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 16, 2014, 07:20:02 PM
Hi TK,

I had no idea the topic was confusing but I'll sum it up in this one post.

Over five years ago I came up with a unique linear motor design where a coil moves on a steel core between two opposing permanent magnets.

The benefits I found in this design are:
1. The stronger the magnets and the more core surface area, the stronger the push or pull gram force is.
2. The design has no magnet cogging as the cores and magnets don't move.
3. The coils Inductance has next to no change as it moves since it never leaves the core.
4. If designed correctly the coils push or pull gram force is equal throughout the travel stroke.
5. Compared to a standard solenoid my design uses a fraction of the input power, so it can be continuously operated 24/7. A standard solenoid would catch on fire if it tried to continuously push or pull what my design can do.
6. My design offers huge travel distances compared to a standard solenoid.
7. It can be made to travel a 1/4 inch to 4 inches or more if needed while maintaining the same gram force throughout the stroke.

Here is a demo video of how my basic design works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTQ49RcFKM)
Here is a larger magnet version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1dO8qWPQU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1dO8qWPQU)
Here is a super build version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pc-XNS9uo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pc-XNS9uo)

All tests were done with the same digital scale which displays pull gram force in 5 gram increments.

Results of the tests in the same order as the videos above:

no.1 has   250 grams pull force with a continuous 1.2 watt input
no.2 has   500 grams pull force with a continuous 0.43 watt input
no.3 has 2500 grams pull force with a continuous 0.43 watt input

As you can see I'm demonstrating that the pull gram force can be increased by the force of the permanent magnet without increasing the input power. Note that test no.1 has 1.2 watt input and test no.2 has 0.43 watt input which is a 65% reduction in input power but still has double the gram pull force.
Test no.3 has 5 times the gram pull force of test no.2 using the same input power since the core and magnet surface area is 8 times wider.
So obviously not just the force of the magnet can play a part but more core and magnet surface area also increases the push or pull gram force.

This is what I've been trying to demonstrate in a nutshell. However, since this is the Overunity Forum people here are mostly interested in OU possibility rather then an innovation.
So to please everyone I did tests to see if the super build could have OU potential even though I knew it would not since the design also suffers of the generator effect as the coil moves in the permanent magnet field. Since it can only move at a certain speed because the coil generates power as it moves, it fights the input power which is coming in the same direction, so we cannot beat the laws of physics here.

So what I'm saying now is, lets forget about OU and look at this design and compare it to a solenoid since I think it has many advantages (listed above) and could be used in the industry to perform certain tasks that a standard solenoid cannot do.
However, I have no idea how solenoids are rated and I also have no schooling. So I looked around on the net and found a few charts which I posted to see if anyone would help but nothing has come of it.

Hope this clears up the confusion?

BTW, I don't have an off the shelf solenoid to make comparisons with. There must be a way to look at solenoid data to find their performances? so maybe we don't need to physically re-test a solenoid if the manufacture have done it?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on October 17, 2014, 02:09:12 AM
Way to go Luc.
With out a doubt one of the best achievements I have seen on any OU forum-weather it's OU or not.

Brad
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 17, 2014, 03:13:08 AM
Would be great,  guys that if you speak about "force" you speak about "gram.force" (gf), or "kilogram.force" (kgf) but not just "gram" or "kg", otherwise it is confusing.

See on the charts you provide,  Luc, it is indeed "gf" for the "force" scale. Because if you just speak about "2.5 kg" this then just a mass and this can lead to wrong interpretation of the results. Now that I have seen your vid on the very large one you've just provided, I see it had nothing to do with lifting a mass.

But you're right, even if not OU it may have a industrial interest.

BTW, I would be very happy if "just for the pleasure" you could make a video, Luc, of the energy consumption against de lifting of a mass by cap discharge, like you have done apparently for yourself already: having the numbers is quiet good but seeing the thing been done is great too ;)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 17, 2014, 03:59:39 AM
Way to go Luc.
With out a doubt one of the best achievements I have seen on any OU forum-weather it's OU or not.

Brad

Thanks Brad for your positive comment. That means a lot to me coming from a great experimenter like you mate!

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 17, 2014, 04:58:52 AM
Would be great,  guys that if you speak about "force" you speak about "gram.force" (gf), or "kilogram.force" (kgf) but not just "gram" or "kg", otherwise it is confusing.

See on the charts you provide,  Luc, it is indeed "gf" for the "force" scale. Because if you just speak about "2.5 kg" this then just a mass and this can lead to wrong interpretation of the results. Now that I have seen your vid on the very large one you've just provided, I see it had nothing to do with lifting a mass.

But you're right, even if not OU it may have a industrial interest.

BTW, I would be very happy if "just for the pleasure" you could make a video, Luc, of the energy consumption against de lifting of a mass by cap discharge, like you have done apparently for yourself already: having the numbers is quiet good but seeing the thing been done is great too ;)

I edited my post above to to gram force where it applies.

I did not do a video of the low voltage lift test as MileHigh was complaining of too many videos and not enough test result numbers. So I gave all the numbers instead of doing a video.

I'll see if I can do a video demo also.

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 17, 2014, 05:36:22 AM
Very thanks Luc. :)

On my side I've still continued to work on the different factors which increase the efficiency of a (air) coil, in terms of inductance against power consumption, or flux against power consumption, and with 2 different formulas I just find full opposite results, even not a range where both would have coherent results. Then, I really think only own experiments will do...

Best regards,
Didier.

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 17, 2014, 08:20:23 PM
Here is the efficiency test video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw)

Here is the Math:

Super Cap start Voltage 2.07197vdc x 650F = 1395.244J

Super Cap end Voltage 2.07110vdc x 650F = 1394.073J

= 1.185J used

then we subtract 0.54J which is the unity amount needed for the 2.35kg coil to travel 23.5mm

=  0.645J 

then we subtract 0.334J collected from the recovery cap bank (12.2mF @ 7.4vdc = 0.334J)

we are left with 0.311J under unity
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: TinselKoala on October 18, 2014, 04:04:00 AM
Here is the efficiency test video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw)

Here is the Math:

Super Cap start Voltage 2.07197vdc x 650F = 1395.244J

Super Cap end Voltage 2.07110vdc x 650F = 1394.073J

= 1.185J used

then we subtract 0.54J which is the unity amount needed for the 2.35kg coil to travel 23.5mm

=  0.645J 

then we subtract 0.334J collected from the recovery cap bank (12.2mF @ 7.4vdc = 0.334J)

we are left with 0.311J under unity

Ignoring the false precision for the moment, energy E in Joules on a capacitor  is
E = 1/2 (CV2)

So your starting energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07197 V x 2.07197 V) = 1395.244396292 Joules.
Ending energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07110 V x 2.07110 V) = 1394.07294325 Joules.

You got the right answer even though your stated formula is wrong. Therefore you did not use your stated formula, but actually used the correct one.

It is really difficult to check your work if your answers and your formulae do not agree.

Can you really measure voltage on a capacitor to the tens of microvolts precision? I am jealous.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 04:55:21 AM
Ignoring the false precision for the moment, energy E in Joules on a capacitor  is
E = 1/2 (CV2)

So your starting energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07197 V x 2.07197 V) = 1395.244396292 Joules.
Ending energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07110 V x 2.07110 V) = 1394.07294325 Joules.

You got the right answer even though your stated formula is wrong. Therefore you did not use your stated formula, but actually used the correct one.

It is really difficult to check your work if your answers and your formulae do not agree.

Can you really measure voltage on a capacitor to the tens of microvolts precision? I am jealous.
I think Luc was just saying yay amount of volt's in a 650f cap-much like we say 1x bucket of ice cream :D
Do you not have a DMM that can go to the 5th decimal TK ?.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 04:58:51 AM
Here is the efficiency test video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zdfBbDarQw)

Here is the Math:

Super Cap start Voltage 2.07197vdc x 650F = 1395.244J

Super Cap end Voltage 2.07110vdc x 650F = 1394.073J

= 1.185J used

then we subtract 0.54J which is the unity amount needed for the 2.35kg coil to travel 23.5mm

=  0.645J 

then we subtract 0.334J collected from the recovery cap bank (12.2mF @ 7.4vdc = 0.334J)

we are left with 0.311J under unity
Luc-why is the coil sliding so slowly up the guide's?. It almost looks as though the slides are coated in honey or something ???. Have you taken into accound the friction on those slides?-there seems to be to much friction there.

P.S-just watched the video again,and even when coming back down it seem'd very slow,regardless of weather or not you where collecting the BEMF. How fast dose it fall with the recapture cap's disconected(free fall)>?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 18, 2014, 05:03:51 AM
your formulae do not agree.

Can you really measure voltage on a capacitor to the tens of microvolts precision? I am jealous.
You're not jealous!... you're sarcastic ;)

btw, the meter was on 5 digit display but it can do 6 digits after the decimal point if I select it. However, I didn't think I needed to be that picky, mostly if I'm making no claims!... also, is formulae the correct way to write formula?
 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 18, 2014, 05:19:30 AM
Luc-why is the coil sliding so slowly up the guide's?. It almost looks as though the slides are coated in honey or something ??? . Have you taken into accound the friction on those slides?-there seems to be to much friction there.

P.S-just watched the video again,and even when coming back down it seem'd very slow,regardless of weather or not you where collecting the BEMF. How fast dose it fall with the recapture cap's disconected(free fall)>?

Hey Brad,

what you're observing is the generator effect that I've been talking about. When I connect the coil lead to the super cap, as the coil moves up current is also produced in the coil while moving in the powerful magnetic field, so it's also trying to charge the supper cap as it's being fed by the super cap, so it's a slow climb uphill ;D
So you're observing a very noticeable generator effect because of such a strong magnet field the coil is in and why this cannot go to OU.
If only there was a way to have separate power source leads (unlink) to each coil lead, one for positive and one for negative, then the current the coil produces as it moves would have nowhere to go and the coil would move freely. But how could current flow if the positive and negative if they are not linked?
Maybe EV Gray found a way to do that and the link used the environment to complete the circuit by a super abrupt discharge of some kind?

When the coil comes back down, the same thing is going on. It's charging a 12,200uF cap bank from zero to 7.5vdc, so it's fall is being dampened by this load. Without the cap it crashes back down like a falling 2.35kg weight would. The guides are working just fine ;)
I think GM Corvette had shock absorbers working under this principal?... ReGen shock absorbers would be a good option if you have an off road electric racing car.

Hope this clears up the visual effect?

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 03:17:10 PM
Hey Brad,

what you're observing is the generator effect that I've been talking about. When I connect the coil lead to the super cap, as the coil moves up current is also produced in the coil while moving in that powerful magnetic field, so it's also trying to charge the supper cap as it's being fed by the super cap, so it's a slow climb uphill ;D
So now you're observing a visual of this effect and why this cannot go to OU.
If only there was a way to have separate power source leads (unlink) to each coil lead, one for positive and one for negative, then the current the coil produces as it moves would have no where to go and the coil would move freely. But how could current flow if the positive and negative arn't linked?
Maybe EV Gray found a way to do that and the link is using the environment to complete the circuit by a super abrupt discharge of some kind?

When the coil comes back down the same thing is going on. It's charging a 12,200uF cap bank from zero to 7.5vdc, so it's fall is being dampened by this load. Without the cap it crashes back down like a falling 2.35kg weight would. The guides are working just fine ;)
I think GM Corvette had shock absorbers working under this principal?... ReGen shock absorbers would be a good option if you have an off road electric racing car.

Hope this clears up the visual effect?

Luc
Mmm-ok,so this is working much like the maglev train dose.\
Quote: So now you're observing a visual of this effect and why this cannot go to OU.
If only there was a way to have separate power source lead's.

Wait just a minute there-lets not give up yet,as i believe there is a way to fix this problem. You have done before what is needed here Luc,and now you must do it again.It's time to put the effects of two of your projects together. You need to offset the voltage and current by 180* during the P/in cycle to your coil,so your going to need a pulsed input at the right frequency for your setup. As you know,when you switch of an inductor,the current will keep flowing in the same direction,BUT the voltage polarity will reverse-->If only there was a way to have separate power source lead's.
You dont need seperate lead's,as one set will do both job's,but you have to get the offset and frequency right for that coil.Normally with an air core inductor(coil) you would need a high frequency,but with that strong magnetic field i think the frequency needed would be quite low.

First to nut out a circuit to do the job,then find the right frequency to offset the current and voltage.To do this you need to fully understand as to what happens when an inductors P/in is suddenly cut off when running with a 180* current/voltage offset in the strong magnetic field it is in.This is something i dont remember anyone here ever looking into,or try doing. But i have actually done this myself,although the setup was a little different. I believe i called that particular project the magneformer-not quite sure,as it was some time ago. I remember showing TK my result's at being able to get a 180* offset of current over voltage,and if i remember rightly,he said i was creating a standing wave within the unit.This way i was able to maintain a continuous current flow within the inductor,but charge a cap with an opposite potential than that of my P/in-useing the same two wires. The circuit wasnt all to different to that of the SSG,which basically dose the exact same thing if you look at how the circuit work's-the negative of the charge battery is hooked to the positive of the run battery.

I guess the thing you will need to make this work is a signal generator-do you have one of these?.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 18, 2014, 04:59:06 PM
Hi Brad,

a 180 degrees phase shift is not an easy thing to get!... but I'll play around with my smaller one inch build as the cores in it are transformer laminations and should work better then the solid steel cores in the Super build.

I'll post what I find

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 20, 2014, 04:40:02 PM
Take a well wrapped bifilar solenoid coil connected serially with a welding rod core. Hang a steel carving knife by a string. Aim the center of the coil at the dangling knife and pulse it like you would a Leedskalnin device shorting the coil across a 12 volt battery. Watch what happens to the knife. Next, move the coil further away and try it again. This laser dimension magnet wave was broadcasted and received by Tesla at a distance of 40 miles from his downtown laboratory to West Point on line of sight. This was the first wireless transmission in History!. The broadcast and receiver coils were identical and both were grounded. The wave carried power that Tesla believed traveled through the ground! 

I re-discovered this effect by accident as I've recounted in the past: My first shop wound bifilar coil, 350 turns of 22 gauge, with welding rod core slid around ten feet to collide with a cutlery box that was drawn an equal distance along my kitchen counter, from one direct short pulse. The experience was traumatic! The magnetic force produced this way had nothing whatsoever to do with the customary D.C. Joule to coil flux ratios. Try it!
Here's a picture of a magnetic ray:
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 20, 2014, 06:30:35 PM
Take a well wrapped bifilar solenoid coil connected serially with a welding rod core. Hang a steel carving knife by a string. Aim the center of the coil at the dangling knife and pulse it like you would a Leedskalnin device shorting the coil across a 12 volt battery. Watch what happens to the knife. Next, move the coil further away and try it again. This laser dimension magnet wave was broadcasted and received by Tesla at a distance of 40 miles from his downtown laboratory to West Point on line of sight. This was the first wireless transmission in History!. The broadcast and receiver coils were identical and both were grounded. The wave carried power that Tesla believed traveled through the ground! 

I re-discovered this effect by accident as I've recounted in the past: My first shop wound bifilar coil, 350 turns of 22 gauge, with welding rod core slid around ten feet to collide with a cutlery box that was drawn an equal distance along my kitchen counter, from one direct short pulse. The experience was traumatic! The magnetic force produced this way had nothing whatsoever to do with the customary D.C. Joule to coil flux ratios. Try it!
Hi synchro1. Thanks for your input :)
I am not English tongue and have hard time to well understand your experiment,  may you publish a schematic of with the according values of the different characteristics?
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 20, 2014, 07:29:11 PM
Hi synchro1. Thanks for your input :)
I am not English tongue and have hard time to well understand your experiment,  may you publish a schematic of with the according values of the different characteristics?
@Khwartz,
Check this lost and newly re-published "Telos" Quadra test:
 
http://www.electrogravity.com/TELOSTESTS/vectorpot1.htm (http://www.electrogravity.com/TELOSTESTS/vectorpot1.htm)
 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on October 20, 2014, 07:30:37 PM
error post
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 20, 2014, 07:57:48 PM
Ignoring the false precision for the moment, energy E in Joules on a capacitor  is
E = 1/2 (CV2)

So your starting energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07197 V x 2.07197 V) = 1395.244396292 Joules.
Ending energy in Joules is
E = 1/2(650 F x 2.07110 V x 2.07110 V) = 1394.07294325 Joules.

You got the right answer even though your stated formula is wrong. Therefore you did not use your stated formula, but actually used the correct one.

It is really difficult to check your work if your answers and your formulae do not agree.

Can you really measure voltage on a capacitor to the tens of microvolts precision? I am jealous.
hehe, you're right, TK, Luc didn't put the formulas right but he got the right results cause he simplified in his optmised mind its expression :)

For the calculation of efficiency, I would like to bring your attention all that here, we are indeed working against gravity and that the complete maths must include the mechanical energy of the dropping to get the right COP:

Lifting energy consumption: 1.17 joules.

Electrical flyback energy recovered: 0.34 joules.

Dropping mechanical energy which may be harvest: 0.53 joules.

-> COP : (0.34 + 0.53) / 1.17 = 0.74.
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 20, 2014, 08:19:57 PM
Mmm-ok,so this is working much like the maglev train dose.\
Quote: So now you're observing a visual of this effect and why this cannot go to OU.
If only there was a way to have separate power source lead's.

Wait just a minute there-lets not give up yet,as i believe there is a way to fix this problem. You have done before what is needed here Luc,and now you must do it again.It's time to put the effects of two of your projects together. You need to offset the voltage and current by 180* during the P/in cycle to your coil,so your going to need a pulsed input at the right frequency for your setup. As you know,when you switch of an inductor,the current will keep flowing in the same direction,BUT the voltage polarity will reverse-->If only there was a way to have separate power source lead's.
You dont need seperate lead's,as one set will do both job's,but you have to get the offset and frequency right for that coil.Normally with an air core inductor(coil) you would need a high frequency,but with that strong magnetic field i think the frequency needed would be quite low.

First to nut out a circuit to do the job,then find the right frequency to offset the current and voltage.To do this you need to fully understand as to what happens when an inductors P/in is suddenly cut off when running with a 180* current/voltage offset in the strong magnetic field it is in.This is something i dont remember anyone here ever looking into,or try doing. But i have actually done this myself,although the setup was a little different. I believe i called that particular project the magneformer-not quite sure,as it was some time ago. I remember showing TK my result's at being able to get a 180* offset of current over voltage,and if i remember rightly,he said i was creating a standing wave within the unit.This way i was able to maintain a continuous current flow within the inductor,but charge a cap with an opposite potential than that of my P/in-useing the same two wires. The circuit wasnt all to different to that of the SSG,which basically dose the exact same thing if you look at how the circuit work's-the negative of the charge battery is hooked to the positive of the run battery.

I guess the thing you will need to make this work is a signal generator-do you have one of these?.
Very Great imput: Cery Relevant imho, Brad! :D

It makes me think of the way guys like Jim Murray and Paul Babcock set their devices so that the source of power "doesn't see it":

http://www.emediapress.com/go.php?offer=Khwartz&pid=19 (http://www.emediapress.com/go.php?offer=Khwartz&pid=19)

It is too what looks to happen in the Richard Vialle's Autogenerator when he speaks about "negative power" going back to the power source through a king of "virtual resistor" in the theoretical model of former transistor he used when the electronic laboratory got apparently the OU:

http://www.overunity.com/12639/richard-vialles-new-theory-about-negative-mass-and-overunity/nowap/#.VEVRs3OvTqA (http://www.overunity.com/12639/richard-vialles-new-theory-about-negative-mass-and-overunity/nowap/#.VEVRs3OvTqA)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Khwartz on October 20, 2014, 09:22:01 PM
Interesting excerpt from the previous Jim Murray and Paul Babcock's video, not on phase offsetting but about something looks to me very similar to what you've discovered, Luc, about adding magnets and core:

Time 00:20 to 00:22, slide "The Torque Measurement versus Flux Density Test":

~" The relation is always proportional, even when you exceed to the point you enter in saturation: the torque continues to go up as a direct function of the number of the lines*".

(*: I gess "lines of magnetic flux).
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 21, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
This "Telos Quadra" research paper was suppressed for nearly 15 years! Look at this paperblowoff test: The small paper dot cut from 20lb paper is ejected off of  the top of the coils when the coils are excited with a trigger  pulse.
 
Ask yourselves what effect, running D.C. current through the toroid coils, would have on the paper dot? Luc noticed a difference in magnetic attraction when he discharged a Joule package from a capacitor through a serially connected bifilar. What do the twin toroids have in common with the seial bifilar wrap? Might there be a connection?

The pulsed twin toroids fires a nail from the core at high velocity. The "A" vector is not part of the curved field but extends in a straight line from the neutral zone towards infinity. Aiming the pulsed magnet ray at a steel carving knife from the twin toroids would have the same effect on the knife as aiming a pulse from a ferrite core series bifilar solenoid. A dramatic effect!
 
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: synchro1 on October 22, 2014, 08:10:40 PM
Sorry Synchro1 but that is just another nonsensical fantasy posting.  I don't want to disrupt the thread, but that is the honest rebuttal to your posting.  You have made other fantasy postings in this thread that disrupt what is going on.  I will ignore them from now on.

This kind of routine insult from Milehigh is extremely egregious when I'm making a legitimate point backed up by solid reference data like the kind presented in the "Telos Quadra" test! Maybe someone should scold him for a change!
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on January 05, 2015, 01:21:27 AM
Hi Luc,

This post is about your video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM)

It is just to reference you, for your info,  this other video about this scheme , published in hyiq.org about Bucking Coils:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA)

I suppose that if in your video you would have used an intermediate tap between the CW coil and the CCW coil to extract the induced voltage you would have got current without the Lenz effect...

The concept about bucking coils is very interesting to me, and it seem to have been used in many overunity devices: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf)
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 05, 2015, 01:54:12 AM
Hi Luc,

The concept about bucking coils is very interesting to me, and it seem to have been used in many overunity devices: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf)



Many overunity devices?  No offense intended but, could you please just name one that has been tested and proven?  I see this stated many times here but I have never seen any proof of any devices that have been really tested to be O.U.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: dieter on January 05, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
Hanon,


I agree one can find the bucking coil in many concepts. Yet it bends my mind... Each coil would generate a CEMF, but as the currents collide at the center tap, no current may flow at all ..? And of cource, no CEMF.


Have you successfully obtained any current flow from a bucking coil?


Or is it maybe something for HF, so slight diffrences between the coils allow the current to pass one by one?


BR

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: gotoluc on January 06, 2015, 01:06:06 AM
Hi Luc,

This post is about your video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM)

It is just to reference you, for your info,  this other video about this scheme , published in hyiq.org about Bucking Coils:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA)

I suppose that if in your video you would have used an intermediate tap between the CW coil and the CCW coil to extract the induced voltage you would have got current without the Lenz effect...

The concept about bucking coils is very interesting to me, and it seem to have been used in many overunity devices: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf)

Thanks for remembering me sharing the beginning concept of this hanon

I suppose you could be right but what matters is to find the use for the effect and share it as Chris Sykes is doing!

I will be testing his version real soon and who knows, maybe I'm kind of testing this now without knowing lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LK2C4qBY1Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LK2C4qBY1Y)

Thanks for taking the time to bring it to the attention of this topic

Luc
Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: hanon on January 06, 2015, 12:50:38 PM
Hanon,


I agree one can find the bucking coil in many concepts. Yet it bends my mind... Each coil would generate a CEMF, but as the currents collide at the center tap, no current may flow at all ..? And of cource, no CEMF.


Have you successfully obtained any current flow from a bucking coil?



Hi Dieter,

I have not test it yet but I have guessed some configurations which can get induction along the center tap of both bucking coils.

What about an aligned configuration as:
 
 INDUCER (N) ---- ONE BUCKING COIL ---- ONE BUCKING COIL ---- (N) INDUCER
 
 Where both inducers are creating a North pole toward each bucking coil (same inducer poles facing each other: North-North). This way each bucking coil is transversed by a different inducer field : one inducing in CW and other inducing in CCW, the same as the wiring of both bucking coils. With this configuration the induced current is extracted in the center tap. Now the question is if there is Lenz effect??


Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: dieter on January 15, 2015, 09:49:54 PM
Basicly, when there is a current flow then there is a CEMF,  and Lenz is slapping his "law" right into our faces...again  :'( . If the two parts of the bucking coil would share the same space then they would neutralize eachother's CEMFs, but I don't know if any current would flow if both parts have eg. north poles on both ends, or alternating both north, then both south... Maybe something that could be simulated in FEMM.


BR

Title: Re: Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
Post by: rushi95 on February 15, 2018, 03:53:29 AM
Hi Gotoluc and others,

I am new to overunity forum. I did go through all the videos of Gotoluc and it did show very interesting effects.

This forum is inactive but I am not able to draw proper conclusions from the present conversation.

All the experiments done by Luc confirm that the magnets add strength to the solenoid. However, OU is not reached because of the generator effect. But I think these experiments should have indeed changed how solenoids/electromagnets are used today. Any one is aware of using these experiments in the real world? Or I am missing something due to which it will not work.