Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

[conradelektro]

So I think the real torque happens when events go like this--  the motor coils repulse a north magnet in the "on" time then the prolonged currents through the motor coils during the "off" time attracts the next opposite polarity magnet, the same happens with the charging coil just a tad later and when the motor coils push the rotor so fast that the charging coil phase is too late to push a south it must then attract the next north if anything. The extra attraction of the motor coils to the next magnet by the prolonged currents would neutralize the drag and the drag of the south magnet leaving the motor coils can only force more current through the charging coil. I must end the theory of operation with a big I think because I can only say what I think. The currents also become sinusoidal looking at some points I'll include a shot here shortly if you check back.

Basically it looks like the magnets do interfere at times. But it should be all cancelling, the south pole leaving the motor coil would force current through the charging coil to push it away and that also adds to the charging cap voltage level to increase the bang of the next switch on. If I just cut the power to the coils from the supply it seems to want to keep running, it runs on for a while with no generator attached.

@Farmhand: I agree with your analysis concerning the S-poles. Somehow the S poles even help (although one would think that they introduce problems).

I made the same observations with my very simple and crude ring magnet spinner, see:

http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg359314/#msg359314  (trigger coil, single transistor)
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg359277/#msg359277  (single transistor driver)
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg359078/#msg359078 (only one drive coil, single transistor) 
http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg358967/#msg358967  (H-bridge driver)

I built an H-bridge driver to push N-pole and S-pole, but the simple one transistor driver (only pushing the N-pole) was more efficient (it used less power to reach the same rpm).

When I find the time I will try variable pulse timing with an Arduino (I have the Arduino Due) using the same simple and crude ring magnet spinner (in order to have a comparison with the simple one transistor driver and the H-bridge driver).

Efficiency can be gained by getting the pulse timing just right. But that could mean, that pulsing N and S could be an advantage in case the pulse timing is right?

a) Push 1: push N-pole away (sending current through the coil, exactly timed pulse)

b) the back EMF from Push 1 will attract the coming S-pole

c) Push 2: push S-pole away (sending reverse current through the coil, exactly timed pulse)

d) the back EMF from Push 2 will attract the coming N-pole

- repeat the steps a) through d)

I attach the planned Arduino set up. A man skilled in the art will be able to expand this circuit to an H-bridge (using two opto couplers).

Greetings, Conrad

[Farmhand]

Yep it should work the same both ways and alternating pulses should be both more efficient and more powerful, whichever depending on the objective. Prolonging the currents after the switch off helps rather than hinders if we make our circuits to do it. For sure. We can do anything we want if it works my friend.  Even moreso if it's fun.

It's very similar to driving a Tesla coil, we use sharp edged pulses to keep a nice sine wave standing up and use the power of the sinusoidal currents driven by resonant rise. The impedance facing the recirculating currents is overcome by the way the magnetic field collapses and tries to short the coil by building potential.

In the video this time I show the charge capacitor on the yellow trace and the mosfet drain on the blue trace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLiNk6yBWyY&feature=youtu.be

It's good to get confirmation of the efficiency you seen with one way pulses, but two way pulses can be just as efficient I think, the thing is there needs to be enough off time for the prolonged currents or wasting happens where more pulse width means less speed, prolonging the currents means the on time needs to be at least only 50% of the entire cycle so for one way DC pulses that is one pulse of 50% or less but for two way pulses that is two pulses of 25% or less. So the pulse width could get too short for the inductance maybe, something to consider.

At first I wanted to stop the currents quicker but then I figured why not let them do what they want and try to use it.

Cheers

[TinselKoala]

@Conrad.....what is it with you and your P-channel mosfets? Do you just happen to have a box of them that you are trying to use up?


Flip that mosfet symbol over, put the Source to the negative rail and the Drain to the low side of the load, and use something like IRFP260 or IRFP460. N-channel mosfets are cheaper and perform better than the equivalent P-channel mosfets.

[conradelektro]

@Conrad.....what is it with you and your P-channel mosfets? Do you just happen to have a box of them that you are trying to use up?


Flip that mosfet symbol over, put the Source to the negative rail and the Drain to the low side of the load, and use something like IRFP260 or IRFP460. N-channel mosfets are cheaper and perform better than the equivalent P-channel mosfets.

@TinselKoala: I hope I got it right with the N-Channel MOSFET. Note the difference in the connection of the Gate to the opto coupler and the reversed role of R1 and R2.

The intention is to bring the MOSFET (which drives the coil) in the on state whenever the LED in the opto coupler is shining.

I am a bit slow at electronics.

Greetings, Conrad

[Farmhand]

Hi Conrad, I've been thinking about your questions, and now I am wondering if I should do a test to see the effect of making the rotor all north out again and return the charging coil polarity back to normal but without moving the coils, that should work the same kind of way but would rule out the attraction to the next magnet of opposite polarity. I'll just turn the "S" magnets from out to in and change the MC2 polarity back to normal, and try it. Not sure why I haven't already tried that to rule it out.

Cheers