Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

[MileHigh]

Farmhand:

I think that you are doing an amazing job in advancing the art of reusing pulse motor inductive energy to get better performance.  I apologize in the sense that I can't get totally "plugged in" to what you are doing.  It takes time and energy and full commitment to do that.  If I was a builder I would try to replicate what you are doing myself.

I will comment briefly on your posting #1319 and the waveform captures and associated schematic.

I think that you are on the right track and what I have to say will hopefully be in accord with what you are saying but I will put it in my own terms.  Nor am I necessarily going to be correct in my analysis.  When the MOSFET switches on the motor coil starts to conduct current.  Like you state, that current is supplied by C2, so we see the voltage on C2 drop.  If the MOSFET was on for a very long time, then the charging coil would have to start to conduct.  In looking at your current waveforms, it looks to me like the MOSFET switches off when current in the motor coil reaches its peak.  Then the motor coil current starts to decrease.  When it's doing this it's charging B2 and working in tandem with B1 to get the current flowing through the charging coil.  Then it looks like the inductive energy in the charging coil keeps the current flowing to charge up C2 back to 20 volts after the current has stopped flowing through the motor coil.

Something like that.  So it looks like the pulse width on the MOSFET is narrow enough to turn C2 into a major agent with respect to where the currents flow.  I could probably explain the voltage spike on the charging coil if I did more analysis and I had my own setup.

You are coming up with some great little circuits.  Even though they are fairly simple looking circuits the analysis is not trivial at all and the diodes can complicate the analysis because of their switching capabilities.  I will just repeat what I said before but put a different spin on it.  The low-tech way to document the analysis of the circuit would be to get a notebook that has graph paper.  Start with the pulse waveform that drives the MOSFET switch and sketch it in pencil.  Then probe around the circuit and document all of the voltages and currents that you think need to be documented relative to the initial pulse waveform.  Just sketch them in in pencil lined up below the pulse waveform and develop a picture of what is going on.  In your circuit the width of the pulse is critical in determining how it behaves.

When you are a digital or analog design engineer you are supposed to record every single signal on your board design and put it into a test log book.  In the modern era you have application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) which are basically custom silicon so you can't see what going on on the die itself.  So all of the waveforms inside the integrated circuit are simulated with Spice software and the models for the gates and propagation delays, etc.  A software design rule checker can check to make sure that the signals inside the integrated circuit are respecting the requirements for the design.  Nonetheless, engineers will have long meetings where they look at the various signal plots for what's going on on the silicon die and verify for themselves that they are comfortable with what the software simulation is saying.  So they effectively do a "virtual test log" and look at all of the critical signals to make sure they are okay.

Great job!

MileHigh

[Farmhand]

Yes Milehigh, That is how it works.    I was beginning to think no one got it, but you nailed it pretty much.  Thanks
I could see it working in my head no problem. The uses of "resonance" in time delays is actually quite simple.
Well what I call resonant effects anyway, that is coils take time to charge and so do capacitors, they shift phase ect.

The last drawing with the inductive return is a thing many people have been trying to do, the answer was simple,
usually the answer is a capacitor, a coil a diode or all three.  With all the complicated circuits I've seen to do it I must say
I don't see why it needed to be difficult. Doing the hard yards to understand resonance in Tesla coils has taught me much.

The motor is working very well now and I've learned to use it fairly well so as to keep the phases correct for the rotational speed.
I'm beginning to be able to hear when the motor is "singing" and running efficiently. The torque is impressive for what was originally
a single coil motor with a charging circuit now it is much more efficient, faster and has a lot more torque, with another set of coils on
the opposite side of the rotor it would be faster and more powerful because the "on" times can be shorter if desired due to the
greater forces exerted on the rotor, the two charging coils could swing on an see saw arrangement to adjust the angle of both
charging coils in unison in a "four" coil setup. And it could be done by mechanical or manual or controlled by a servo and the picaxe.
Same with the pulse timing that can also be varied by a servo and picaxe to move the photo reflector or by software in the picaxe
I don't like the software approach to the pulse timing because of the code required and using hardware pulse processing it's much quicker.
For low frequency motor coils that's ok but my micro's are only the beginner ones and I have to teach myself how to code from scratch by
using the picaxe manual and intuition.

Here is sample of some some code I wrote for a 10 power level boost converter the battery alone and 9 levels of boost, the levels can be voltage controlled levels or current control levels for input power control. if the boost is controlled by the voltage level of C2 then the picaxe can work to keep the motor at a constant speed under load so that the pulse width and timing need not be changed when a load is added. The voltage is sensed from a voltage divider and the PWM switched off to limit voltage, I'm working on the automatic down or up staging to change levels based on the sensed voltage.

I's all open source the code the circuit and the idea. For those wanting others not to use their idea's or the idea's of others without giving credit, they now must give credit to me if they use my idea's. the others need not  .  As far as I am aware no one is doing just what I am doing here. The "two phases from one motor" is my design and the "inductive energy return" method I just showed is my idea as well. 

Innovation won't come from copying other people's work and thinking.

Code Select Expand


main0:
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 120 then boost4
if b5 => 40 and b5 < 120 then boost3
if b5 < 40 then boost0
goto main0
boost0:
do
pwmout B.2, off
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 40 then boost1
pauseus 20
loop
boost1:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 46 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 45 then pwmout B.2, 49, 20 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 < 40 then boost0
if b5 => 60 then boost2
loop
boost2:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 48 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 47 then pwmout B.2, 49, 30 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 90 then boost3
if b5 < 60 then boost1
loop
boost3:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 50 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 49 then pwmout B.2, 49, 40 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 120 then boost4
if b5 < 90 then boost2
loop
boost4:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 52 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 51 then pwmout B.2, 49, 50 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 150 then boost5
if b5 < 120 then boost3
loop
boost5:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 54 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 53 then pwmout B.2, 49, 60 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 170 then boost6
if b5 < 150 then boost4
loop
boost6:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 55 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 54 then pwmout B.2, 49, 70 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 190 then boost7
if b5 < 170 then boost5
loop
boost7:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 56 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 55 then pwmout B.2, 49, 80 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 210 then boost8
if b5 < 190 then boost6
loop
boost8:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 58 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 57 then pwmout B.2, 49, 90 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 => 230 then boost9
if b5 < 190 then boost7
loop
boost9:
do
readadc C.4,b4
if b4 => 59 then pwmout B.2, 49, 0 endif
if b4 < 58 then pwmout B.2, 49, 100 endif
readadc B.5,b5
if b5 < 230 then boost8
loop

If we all ignore the fake OU claiming "Guru's" with agenda's and work together, we could advance in leaps and bounds. But I am always trying to explain that I do not care what Thane says or Utkin or Don Smith, what they say is obviously not true if we investigate properly.  The argument I get at times is madness, people talk at me in a condescending way like I know nothing.
We are all capable of the same things if we use our own hard work to do the experiments it will pay off in the end.

When I get a generator coil set up it should be a piece of cake to get an accelerating rotor under load using resonance principals
and load switching.

Thanks for the compliment MH, appreciated. 

Cheers

P.S. Milehigh, With this arrangement I think I can actually show that when the rotor is loaded or accelerating  under certain
conditions the inductive energy voltage spike completely disappears because the energy is all given to the rotor. I see it on the scope. The statement made by some that the mechanical energy is free and all the energy put into the coil can be recovered
without loss due to driving the rotor is a flat out lie in my opinion. the people making these statements are either misinformed
deceptive, or just lying to forward their own agenda's, likely hype and money. Time for them to fess up, prove it or risk their reputations. Well that's my opinion anyway.

As far as all the diodes go with respect to power dissipation, the 1N5822 Shottkey diodes are great, three 1N5822 diodes should dissipate less power than just one FR307 fast recovery diode, the flyback diode sees too much voltage to use a 1N5822 there I think they are rated at 40 volts from memory, I could use a better diode there though it only needs to handle 1 Ampere or so.

..

[hoptoad]

snip...
If we all ignore the fake OU claiming "Guru's" with agenda's and work together, we could advance in leaps and bounds. But I am always trying to explain that I do not care what Thane says or Utkin or Don Smith, what they say is obviously not true if we investigate properly.
snip...

If by leaping and bounding you mean the enabling of simple, cheap and easy to build, highly efficient motors and or generators, then I agree wholeheartedly. If however you mean O/U, then I simply wish you luck.

The Gurus want to mystify things that are easily explained to maintain their Guru status and further their own agendas, such as touting for "research funds".

I've never made it a secret that I don't believe O/U can be found in simple pulse motors and or generators. But high efficiencies are always something to strive for. Higher efficiencies using cheap abundant materials and simple production methods are needed everywhere.

It is not enough to seek out new energy sources, while existing ones dwindle. In the meantime we must redesign our existing infrastructures and consumer goods with more efficient energy saving ones. We also need to "redesign" our consumerist mentality.

One day the great pie in the sky "O/U" may happen, but in the meantime we all need to consume less instead of dreaming big about all the wonderful things we could do with limitless energy. By all means dream, but also do something practical to lessen energy expenditure.

Any research which endevours to improve on things, O/U or not, is a good thing.  For those who seek O/U, good luck.
In the meantime, consume less and continue to improve on things.

Good work Farmhand, keep on keepin on ....... KneeDeep .... Nature is a minimalist.

[Farmhand]

Back to coils, I have a question. What happens if we take a pancake coil bifilar or not and place it in close proximity to the rotor magnets, so that the spiral windings are in the same "plane" as the rotor (circle to circle) and the spiral coil is a band of windings right next to the side of the diametrically magnetized tube magnets, so that the magnets rotate right next to the spiral coil windings continuously ? Nothing ? What if I shield part of the coil  from the magnetism ? So that the coil gets pulses of magnet flux in the windings ? I might try that.  That will be my idea as well, I'll call it "PLANAR FLUX GATING". If it works that is. hehehe,  I'll make a drawing.  Maybe it has already been done.

Cheers

[gyulasun]

Hi Farmhand,

Well, a drawing could help indeed. If I understand your proposed setup correctly the pancake coil and the rotor disk would look like a figure of 8 from the side (or putting it otherwise like two normal bicycle wheel) i.e. they both are in the same plane, right?
Now my understanding is that a pancake coil (which has just the thickness of the wire diameter it is wound from) has one of its magnetic poles in the middle center and the other at the outside circumference all around and you swap them by changing the current direction.
This would mean that if the outside circular edge of a pancake is say N all around then a diametrically magnetized ring or tube magnet will either attract or repel the pancake edge, depending on just which pole the diametrical magnet faces the edge. Nevertheless, an interesting setup it would look for sure.

Hi Conrad,

I have just gone through your recent tests and sorry to hear the mechanical problems the high rpm (>10000) cause. I tend to think that using magnetic bearing instead of the normal good quality ones would help solving the problem but it would involve more cost for the 'bearing' magnets from one hand and it would not really solve the uneven mass problem of the ring magnet.
Thanks for diong those tests.

Greetings,
Gyula