Tim's Magnet-Piston Engine Design

[tim123]

Hi Luc, thanks for taking the time to explain. Interesting results.

I've been thinking about this whole approach, and I think I've realised that it can't go OU, the reason being Faraday's law, which I learned about recently, and now I get it...

This design is a motor / generator. As the magnets move to & from the center of the coil - it'll induce a voltage in the coil in opposition - so it'll take more power... This has to apply to a plain solenoid too. Live and learn eh!

However, the rotary version - I'm not so sure about...

Given a simpler version, without the coiled sections - i.e. just the plain steel, repelling sections - In that case, the magnetic field doesn't move relative to the center of the coil, but I'm not sure if moving the rotor relative to the stator would still cause the coil to see a change in field.

I'm going to have to think about it some more.

Gyula, thanks for all the info on the previous page - I'm going to read it thoroughly, and include it in my calculator. Your suggestion on testing the saturation point of the core is a really good one. Thanks.

[Liberty]

Hi Luc, thanks for taking the time to explain. Interesting results.

I've been thinking about this whole approach, and I think I've realised that it can't go OU, the reason being Faraday's law, which I learned about recently, and now I get it...

This design is a motor / generator. As the magnets move to & from the center of the coil - it'll induce a voltage in the coil in opposition - so it'll take more power... This has to apply to a plain solenoid too. Live and learn eh!

However, the rotary version - I'm not so sure about...

Given a simpler version, without the coiled sections - i.e. just the plain steel, repelling sections - In that case, the magnetic field doesn't move relative to the center of the coil, but I'm not sure if moving the rotor relative to the stator would still cause the coil to see a change in field.

I'm going to have to think about it some more.

Gyula, thanks for all the info on the previous page - I'm going to read it thoroughly, and include it in my calculator. Your suggestion on testing the saturation point of the core is a really good one. Thanks.

"This design is a motor / generator. As the magnets move to & from the center of the coil - it'll induce a voltage in the coil in opposition - so it'll take more power... This has to apply to a plain solenoid too. Live and learn eh!"

Exactly.  That law is what makes it merely an "energy conversion device".  In order for higher efficiency, you must separate the generator from the motor.

Liberty

[gotoluc]

Hi Luc, thanks for taking the time to explain. Interesting results.

I've been thinking about this whole approach, and I think I've realised that it can't go OU, the reason being Faraday's law, which I learned about recently, and now I get it...

This design is a motor / generator. As the magnets move to & from the center of the coil - it'll induce a voltage in the coil in opposition - so it'll take more power... This has to apply to a plain solenoid too. Live and learn eh!

However, the rotary version - I'm not so sure about...

Given a simpler version, without the coiled sections - i.e. just the plain steel, repelling sections - In that case, the magnetic field doesn't move relative to the center of the coil, but I'm not sure if moving the rotor relative to the stator would still cause the coil to see a change in field.

I'm going to have to think about it some more.

Gyula, thanks for all the info on the previous page - I'm going to read it thoroughly, and include it in my calculator. Your suggestion on testing the saturation point of the core is a really good one. Thanks.

Hi Tim,

yes, I agree! ... it has a generator effect and if you remember I said that at the end of my video.

I will be experimenting with trying to find ways to reduce the generator effect.
One way could be with high voltage capacitive discharge, as voltage travels very fast in a coil and once the coil is disconnected it has no generator effect to speak of, compared to being continuously  connected to a low impedance source like a battery or power supply.
I think this is what Ed Gray was doing but he had some kind of a circuit that we don't seem to have all the details on.

Keep up the research

Luc

[tim123]

Gyula, just wanted to thank you again for explaining that so well. I've added inductance, time-constant & transient-time to my calculator, and a lot of things I didn't get before now make sense. :-)

Liberty - Thanks for contributing. This is suggesting to me that any motor that's also a generator is - by it's nature - under-unity. I was just wondering if part of the key was to separate the two. Perhaps only a pure motor or generator has the possibility of OU...

[tim123]

Guys, can I ask you to help one more time?

Going back to the rotary version... That one is, I think, a pure motor. Remove the coil sections - so it's just repulsion between the iron rotor, and iron stator, then when the coil is powered, the two repel.

If the rotary version had a perm-magnetic rotor & stator - it wouldn't work as a generator - because the apparent flux to the coil would be constant. I think.

If the rotor was a PM, and the stator was iron, it would work as a generator, due to the iron stator being magnetised & demagnetised as the PMs rotate. However, in this design both are magnetised / demagnetised at the same time...

There's no movement of the flux axially in the coil, the question is does the rotation of the rotor inside the core, away from the stator bars somehow cause a generator effect in the coil? I'm struggling to see how it could.

New diagram attached for clarity :-)

So - can anyone tell me - If the coil's powered up, and the rotor is turned - does it cause any change in inductance / flux - does it cause any faraday-law generator effect - in the coil?