Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtuQvsBxGDA

Hi, here are scope shots. For unknown reason reed is firing also between magnets and not only on the magnet.
Next version will be with optocoupler CNY 37.

Scope shots (one on the resistor is flipped because I had probes connected wrong way)

Frenky

Hey Jim
Well once you are at this point that it is this efficient, working on the generator portion is next. That where to get the Extree. Also the battery, I put a pic of a small lead acid that takes less to charge than most. As in it receives a charge more like a capacitor than other batteries.
Those mags are good size. I would try some gen coils in between the big coils. If you run them to a bridge rect. during that time in rotation the motor is not taking from the battery, so it is a good time to just send it straight to the battery. And the pickup gen coils may get some from the motor coils just being in proximity. Extree.  =]

Mags

Hi. I have already tested that by mistake. 
At first run I wired coil pairs wrong and there was big slowdown of rotor.
After that I re-soldered the wires of coils correctly and now rotor spins freely.

I have now also made version with optocoupler but there was nothing interesting going on.
Will still upload video and scope shots...

Frenky

Hi frenky

nice work

As you use the double flat coils in paralell as per Garry Stanley . Can you make some test and shortcut the coils in freewheeling to see if they brake the rotor (Lenz law)

Regards and good luck

Laurent

Hi Laurent, and All,

Years ago Ron already made such tests you just suggested to Frenky, see this link here: http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/pugh.html

Ron used the same flat coils Garry Stanley used too and now Frenky has shown. (Such coils came out from old 5 1/4" floppy drives, one such flat air core coil has about 1.1mH inductance and 4 Ohm DC resistance.)

Please read carefully all the tests. It turns out that a parallel connected coil pair (with the + of one coil end tied to the - of the other coil and vice versa) if loaded, produces Lenz effect. However Garry Stanley DID NOT use these coils pairs (he had 12 coil pairs and 12 facing magnet pairs) for GENERATING, he used them as motor coils, to attract in the magnet pairs till TDC then he switched off the coils by a bipolar power transistor.  This is where the misunderstanding was based: everybody expected from these coil pairs to get induced energy too. Garry did not design a generator with his parallel coil pair idea but a motor.
Garry did answer the question of how he thought to use these coil pairs for generating: just after the magnets pass TDC, the paralleld coils should be opened (say by a reed switch or whatever that was closed on approach till TDC)  and this way the individual and open coils could feed capacitors via diodes from the changing flux they sense from TDC and outwards from the  leaving magnet pairs.  This needs experimentation of course, I am not aware of any such test results from any body.

So there is no Lenz effect after you switch the coil pairs off at TDC and you do not load the coil pairs with anything. And before TDC, as you switch the coil pairs on to attract the magnet pairs on the rotor, there is a normal permanent magnet <-> air cored electromagnet interaction: the fixed coil pairs attract the rotor magnet pairs, the coil pairs have a closed circuit via the switch and the inner resistance of the battery, (under this coil pair ON time the situation is the same as like Ron test shows in Picture 7) hence there surely be Lenz effect in the attract mode but it is 'counteracted' or 'overwhelmed' by the battery energy for the whole attract time.

Now it would be too easy to abandon tests with such parallel coil pairs used in this setup, what would be good is to try opening indeed  a coil pair just after TDC and see how much 'juice' could be collected from any one coil individually and also see how such load on the opened pair may affect the rotor moving smoothly away.
If I recall correctly, Garry wrote he measured about 9V induced AC voltage coming from one flat coil, unloaded,  measured continuosly, not just after TDC, at the same rpm while he operated a test motor on a 12V battery. He did not have scope but a multimeter only.

rgds, Gyula

Arrhhh that was the trace when I had probe connected wrong way so it should be flipped.
Actual ratio is then 97,46%. Well not bad anyway...

Frenky

Hi frenky and Gyula and all

i have reread all what is at disposal about the 2 thin coils (from Garry Stanley) and is seems that there is anyway Lenz law but weak, (i would say about 1/2 Lenz).

That is the rotor is attracted with CEMF untill TDC and than it is liberated witout CEMF. So for each pulse there is half the CEMF (1/2 Lenz) is it somehow correct ?

So i made a test today  See pix

I tried to get attraction and repulsion of the rotor on a single pulse. And i placed the magnets to be slighty wider than the diameter coil  and the sandwitch magnets are inverted (one for attraction and one for repulsion) There is now 4 magnets acting together. And it works very well. I have to hold the coil with my hand or it slide away at start.

So in my previous config  (with only 1 active coil and sandwith rotor with each 4 magnets at 90 degrees)  i got  4 pulses per RPM per coil and 4 time the half CEMF = 2 full CEMF  (is it correct ?) per coil.

And now i get 2 pulses per RPM and also 4 half CEMF,   so this config ought to be much better efficiency as it is not the double torque per pulse but perhaps 1.5 more I don't know.

I think this config will not work correctly with reed switch. The hall sensor swithes only on south pole so it does not pulse when the second magnet passes.

What do you think ?

Regards

Laurent

Hi Laurent,

...
That is the rotor is attracted with CEMF untill TDC and than it is liberated witout CEMF. So for each pulse there is half the CEMF (1/2 Lenz) is it somehow correct ?   

I do not know whether half Lenz effect exists but it must be true that the flux from the coming magnet pair surely penetrates into the stator coil and because this coil has a closed electric circuit (via the switch and the battery), motional induction must also happen that works against the attract flux, this sounds Lenz.

So i made a test today  See pix

I tried to get attraction and repulsion of the rotor on a single pulse. And i placed the magnets to be slighty wider than the diameter coil  and the sandwitch magnets are inverted (one for attraction and one for repulsion) There is now 4 magnets acting together. And it works very well. I have to hold the coil with my hand or it slide away at start.

So in my previous config  (with only 1 active coil and sandwith rotor with each 4 magnets at 90 degrees)  i got  4 pulses per RPM per coil and 4 time the half CEMF = 2 full CEMF  (is it correct ?) per coil.

And now i get 2 pulses per RPM and also 4 half CEMF,   so this config ought to be much better efficiency as it is not the double torque per pulse but perhaps 1.5 more I don't know.

I think this config will not work correctly with reed switch. The hall sensor swithes only on south pole so it does not pulse when the second magnet passes.

Very good idea to use a second rotor magnet pair near to the first one and with opposite poles wrt the first one, so that with one pulse at the correct time, you get attraction and repulsion at the same time. 
Let's consider this link where member DMMPOWER states that electromagnets facing in repulse mode do not have back emf (he surely means cemf that comes about the motional induction) because the flux lines of one coil cannot enter the other coil due to the repel mode: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5890.0
If this is true, it probably true for an electromagnet-permanent magnet interaction when they are also in repel mode: flux lines from the permanent magnets would not penetrate into the coil that is excited from the battery to also create a like pole.
This would mean that for the repel coil-second magnet interaction for your case here you would not have to consider any cemf due to Lenz, right?  I hope this is so,     Then this setup you devised should be even better than just one attract or just one repel magnet pair.  And considering Garry used 12 magnet pairs in attract mode to his coil pairs, just imagine the torque gained in your present attract-repel setup with ,say, 16 magnets, 8 for attract and 8 for repel, just quadruple your present 4 magnet case.

Thanks,   
Gyula

EDIT:  What is the distance between the facing magnets now and what is the coil's hight, I wonder. Also the coil data like DC res, maybe L?