Gyroscopic Inertia Generator

[TinselKoala]

@MH, some things for you (and others) to consider:

1. As you may recall the MHOP has, by virtue of the Secret of DPDT, the ability to run in either attractive or repulsive mode by simply flicking a switch, then easily adjusting timing and dwell for optimum performance in either mode. In either mode, though, as with most Pulse Motors, half the coil and magnet fields are still "wasted", not doing much if anything to help drive the rotor. Only "repultraction" PMs, using both ends of the rotor magnet and both ends of the coil's field, are making efficient use of the fields; they can be nearly twice as efficient electrically than single-polarity motors but are much harder to make from a mechanical viewpoint. My Marinov Slab is one such  "repultraction" motor and is very efficient in that regard. In my own experience with single-polarity motors I find that repulsive-mode operation gives easier self-starting (slightly) and so I generally prefer that mode. The PerPenduPetulum, operating on room light hitting a solar cell, is one such self-starting repulsive pulse motor that also works well in attractive mode but doesn't self-start as easily in that mode. With cored coils, it should be obvious that an attractive mode motor will just sit there at the "cogging point" when a pulse is applied to the coil and will need an external spin to get started, whereas a repulsive mode motor will be pushed away from the potential well formed by the core-magnet attraction, and may selfstart. (coil-rotor numbers that are relatively prime may self-start in either polarity (example 5 and 6 or 3 and 4)  but most Pulse Motors have equal or non-relatively-prime numbers of coils and magnets (example 2 and 4 or 4 and 4.)

2. There is a difference between behaviours of magnetic systems that are dominated by North Poles, and those dominated by South Poles. It takes sensitive testing to reveal this difference, and such testing (in an apparatus using Helmholz coils to null the Earth's field) has revealed to my satisfaction that it is NOT something inherent in the magnets... but rather it is an effect of the Earth's magnetic field in the locality where the testing is conducted. This effect is most easily demonstrated in one's own laboratory by the "sliding magnet" phenomenon: When a flat NdBFe magnet is allowed to slide down a slope or ramp made of a conductive, nonmagnetic material like thick aluminum or copper or brass, the magnet will slide stably with one pole facing the ramp metal, but will "jump off" or levitate if the other pole is facing the ramp. This effect has been demonstrated several times, is easy to repeat... and depends on your orientation wrt the Earth's field.  For a given magnetic latitude the "lifting pole" is opposite, in the opposite hemisphere. And in locations where the "dip angle" of the Earth's field is large, the effect is correspondingly great, so it seems to work better at high latitudes.

3. The effect noted above is small and will not be noticed in most builds of magnet motors. I seriously doubt if Bedini's large motors would show it... but it may be possible that the big "windmill" motor was so very _inefficient_ that changes in orientation wrt the Earth's field would have made a perceptible difference. This of course is an empirical question that could (relatively easily) be answered by some _real scientist_ who could make some _true experiments_ with the system. However, the very idea of the True Experiment seems to be completely lost on the pretend-scientists Murakami, Lindemann, Bedini, and the rest of that ilk.


Just what is a True Experiment, one may well ask? Just put the term into a Google search window and read the links that come up. I am not making this stuff up.
The basic idea (leaving out random assortment, blinding, null hypothesis testing, etc.) is that an Independent Variable (IV) is controlled and varied in a rational way by the experimenter, and one or more Dependent Variables (DVs) are monitored for changes that _truly depend_ on the variations of the IV. All other experimental variables or conditions are either held strictly constant, or are varied in such a random fashion (Latin Squares design, etc) that their effects can be expected to cancel out and not affect the overall statistically analyzed results. In the case of the sliding magnet down a ramp, for example, the experimenter might vary the azimuthal angle of the apparatus (the IV) and monitor the behaviour of the sliding magnet as it slides down the ramp with either polarity facing the ramp (the DVs). Plotting results like this, one very quickly finds a strong azimuthal dependence on the behaviour. This fact then suggests explanations... testable explanations.... as to the relationship between the azimuthal angle and the behaviour of the magnet, the most reasonable and easily testable one being the effect of the environment. Some possibilities include lumps of stuff in the laboratory, drafts from the air conditioner/heater ducts... and the Earth's field. Further True Experiments can then be designed in an effort to _rule out_ these possibilities one by one, such as testing in a different location, testing within an open Helmholz Coil mag compass calibration fixture, getting on an airplane and flying to the other hemisphere, etc etc. Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.

[tinman]

Scorch:





Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

Note the coils are fairly wide and narrow, and note that the coils are in fairly close proximity to each other since the rotor disk is relatively thin.  When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

So here is what you get for each coil:  100 units of torque energy minus 70 units of torque energy due to magnetic field self-cancellation for a net 30 units of torque energy.

Single coil pulsing:  100 units of torque energy
Both coils pulsing:  60 units of torque energy.

Mike Kantz probably thought that he would be getting about 200 units of torque energy per pulse, but in fact he is only getting about 60 units of torque energy per pulse.  Therefore, it's highly likely that the pulse motor will perform better if you only pulse with one set of coils and not both sets.  You pay a price for all of that magnetic field self-cancellation also.  You have battery energy expended that goes "nowhere" due to the self-cancellation of the magnetic field.  It just becomes waste heat resistive losses in the coils, i.e.; battery energy poured down the drain.

Please see the attached graphic.  The orange area represents where there will be lots of self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

MileHigh

MileHigh

This is totally incorrect.
By useing a coil on either side of the magnet as you depicted,you can almost halve the P/in for the same amount of pull force on the magnet-rotor torque remains the same for half the P/in.The apposing coils do NOT cancel out any magnetic field,in fact,the opposite is true.The field between the two coils is very concentrated,and thus the strongest part of the field.

I am supprised that you made such an incorrect statement

EDIT-In fact i believe that useing a coil either side of a magnet should increase torque,while reducing the P/in by half.The reason is because insted of only having two magnetic fields acting apon one another,we would have four magnetic fields acting apon one another-while creating a concentrated field between the two coils.This concentration of the magnetic field should also add to the pull force(torque)on top of the four interacting magnetic fields.

Quote TK: Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.

@MH
Have you actually tried said experiment regarding your statement
Quote: When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

NO NO NO
If we are to teach or help those in need MH,we must make sure we are correct with the information given to those that ask for it.

Having a coil either side of a magnet(in this case ,a rotor magnet)is by far more efficient per watts of P/in than a single coil on one side of the rotor magnet. There is no cancelation of magnetic fields between two coils in this situation,but an increase in magnetic field strength.

[MileHigh]

TK:

Interesting discussion.  I was thinking along purer lines.  Something like a spinning rotor and a single drive coil, no external magnetic field.  When you flip the polarity of the energizing of the coil, will the ability to impart energy on the rotor be different?  For either polarity it's an integral of a force vs. angle curve and there is no reason to believe that they will be different because the system has symmetry whether you are pulling or pushing.

Ha ha I just had a great idea.  This idea is fair game for anybody in the pulse motor build-off.  Coils are always energized with DC, typically from a 12-volt battery.  With a microcontroller you could drive the coil with a custom waveform.  Perhaps driving the coil with an initial  voltage over-shoot spike will give you faster repulsion force in place to meet the spinning rotor magnet.  The voltage spike gets the current flowing in the coil more quickly.  You can imagine a simple program where the microcontroler is triggered and then it just reads out a look-up table in memory to playback the waveform on an analog output pin.  Then you connect that to a beefy voltage servo-amplifier to drive the coil.  You could do one from scratch using an op-amp connected to a big pair of transistors.  The app note for that is floating around.  Or perhaps you could cheat and use a car audio amplifier.

So instead of powering the coil from a straight 12-volt battery, you are powering it from a high-current voltage servo-amplifier connected to a +/-36 volt power supply (as an example).  You can jolt the coil with a custom waveform and see how high you can push the RPM while monitoring the power consumption.  You could literally start to cook your coil if you were not careful.

You have the microcontroller reading ticks from the rotor so that the software could measure the rotor frequency.  It could then multiply the rotor frequency by 'x' to generate the clock for the outputting of the waveform.  That way the length of the customizable pulse would track the rotor RPM.

So there you have it:  A background interrupt-driven programmable timer function that outputs the waveform in memory (triggered by a pick-up coil on the motor) and in the foreground code you measure the rotor frequency and then multiply it by a variable 'x' to generate the output waveform clock.  If your Arduino board has an LCD display you could display the RPM also.

MileHigh

[tinman]

P.S

My last post is for attraction and repulsion modes,as i only wrote repulsion mode in there-and cant seem to edit post now?.

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

This effect is dependent on geometry.  The more the coils resemble thin disks, and if the rotor magnet is also a thin disk, then the effect will be more pronounced.

You may have tried taking two equal bar magnets and pushing opposite poles together.  Have you every noticed that the repulsion force sometimes disappears when you push them all the way together?

Please look carefully at the attached diagram.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/

MileHigh