Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

[gotoluc]

Hi Luc, You said;

"There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike"

I have seen the spike also by shorting the coil ends together but when being used as a generating coil.
Have you seen this or am I off track?
If you use blocking diodes at the coil leads with capacitors you automatically catch the spike and it is now stored power you can use.
artv

Yes Shylo, I have experimented with coil shorting. The results are interesting and when you think of it mimics the similar effect of when a coil is powered and switched off, no?

Thanks

Luc

[Over Goat]

The best Electric motor can be up to 95% efficient. The established Science says it can never be 100% efficient since a motor, transformer or other electromagnetic device have a counter reactive force which build up (Lenz law) that opposes the initial action (input power). Call it action - reaction if you wish.

A very small number of us here at this forum do actual experiments to see if we can find a combination that may negate this counter opposing force.
It is well known in Science that when two poles (N_N or S-S) of the same polarity (aka bucking magnetic field) come together this counter opposing force is not present.  However, in this situation the established Science says no useful work can be achieved from such an arrangement.

My motor design is an attempt to see if this is correct or not.
The use of microwave oven transformer (MOT) is not because they are special in any way. They are used for convenience as they are easy to open and offer you the two extremes in coils. One of heavy wire which can take current and one with fine wire which can make a strong magnetic field with high voltage. Each have their own use.

There is something else that I'm trying to use to assist a motor known as Inductive kickback (aka flyback).
This is the reverse effect of what happens to a coil when you cut off (switch off) the power (input current)
Even though your coil input had much current, everything changes when the coil is switched off... the counter effect is it kicks back a super fast and super high voltage spike.
So coils are interesting creatures, they have the ability to transform high current to high voltage. It is this fast high voltage I'm also trying to use to assist the motor.
Here is how... DC motors are switched on and off and have been designed to cancel this flyback spike from the motor coils since it causes many issues, mainly arcing of the switch contacts. So motor designers have been taught to just short out this flyback spike and problem solved.
I'm proposing to use this flyback and send it to a coil which would be more suited to use this high voltage, hence the fine wire high voltage coil.
By placing this flyback coil at the appropriate position (timing) in the motor I believe it could further assist the motor at no cost to the input. So if a motor can be made to be up to 95% efficient without using flyback, we only need it to make up for a 5% additional assistance and now we have cacaos in the established Science
Keep in mind I'm not just looking to use flyback to assist a motor but to also use bucking fields. So my motor design would be considered quite controversial to Science as I'm proposing to use two things they say cannot do work.

Hope this helps explain it in a simple way?

Luc

yes, thanks, I know it must be frustrating to have to simplify it such, as 'lost in translation' is probably significant information, thank you for your willingness to do this.
This motor will re-use previously wasted energy, and also use the stored energy of magnets to push/pull or impel/propel itself and consume almost  no more energy than that which was used to set in motion to begin with.

I am very new to this, this is my true curiosity, I am not trying to restate this or put words into anyone's mouth, it is my interpretation of what is being done here and trying not to waste anyone's time

the combination of the two is the key to this, because Luc has finally found a way to have the extra energy needed to access  the stored energy of the magnets for mechanical work.

now the task at hand is to find the best magnets and the best coils or capacitors or any other way to capture, store and recycle the energy.

so do we google all the latest capacitor or transformer research and latest magnet research to try to find if someone already made new  things which could be applicable,  and try to get these things involved? I found new Cerium magnets which might be available relatively soon (they are light and cheap replacements of neodymium)

I hope this helps, the more people searching out what's already been recently done might help. Not to distract from Luc's concerted effort of course. thanks again for the reply, Luc

[verpies]

Would the second coil then not impede the current flow from the first

Yes, the connection of an empty second coil in series with the first, charged coil, would represent a huge current discontinuity, that that charged coil would not tolerate.
The EM pulse during the switch-over would radiate a lot of energy away and with practical components the resulting arcs would dissipate most of the energy stored in the first coil.  The stress on the switch would be extreme, leading to its breakdown

[verpies]

I am trying to avoid storing in capacitors as from what I understand this would represent a conversion loss.

I thought that you chose an Inductor --> Inductor energy transfer for other reasons than efficiency, because such transfer is less energy efficient than Inductor --> Capacitor.

Let me explain. Please correct me if I am wrong but the way I see and understand it is,  a coil (inductor) is truly a voltage device but current is needed to create a magnetic field.  Capacitors are the opposite, they are current devices and are not known to create a magnetic field.

I can't agree with that.
Capacitors store energy as electric field, which is proportional to the voltage across them.
Inductors store energy as magnetic field, which is proportional to the electric current flowing through them.

This is not to be confused with what happens when their energy levels are changed:

- An electric current must flow through a capacitor when it is charged (or discharged).
- A voltage must appear across an inductor when it is charged (or discharged).

So if you want to make a motor  you first have to start supplying current in your coil to build a strong magnetic field for the motor to do work.

Yes

Then once the current is switched off the coil does something rather interesting as we all have observed, it naturally converted the current to a very fast and high voltage spike.

That voltage spike represents a rapid discharge of energy that was stored in the coil in the form of magnetic field. 
That discharge does not have to be quick, but it can be when a high resistance, e.g. 100MΩ, is switched in series with the coil.  With lower resistance the discharge will be slower and voltage will be lower, too.
While the coil is discharging, it acts as a current source.

Conversely, if a low resistance, e.g. 0.01Ω, is switched in parallel with a charged capacitor, then an analogous effect happens - the energy is quickly discharged as a high current spike.
While the capacitor is discharging, it acts as a voltage source.
If I were you, in case of the  discharging capacitor, I would have written: "it naturally converted the voltage to a very fast and high current spike"

Now if you try to capture that fast high voltage spike in a capacitor, will there not be a fight (delay) = heat losses? 

There will be a delay proportional to the capacitance, but this delay will be negligible for small capacitances.

...as capacitors don't accept fast high voltage spikes, so why try to do this, is it not a waste?

Yes, capacitors don't tolerate voltage discontinuities across them, but that is not applicable in this situation.
You seem to be assuming that an empty capacitor will experience a high voltage spike from a charged inductor, while the opposite is true, since the initial impedance of an empty capacitor presented to an inductor  is 0Ω (short circuit) and that means that at the moment the cap is connected, the current flowing through it will be at maximum and the voltage across it will be at the minimum (zero).

why not send it to another coil which would perfectly accept this high voltage spike without any fight (losses) .

Because switching an empty inductor, in series with a charged inductor represents a huge current discontinuity, which inductors don't tolerate...just like capacitors don't tolerate voltage discontinuities.
The resulting EM radiation would prevent a 100% efficient energy transfer even in theory with ideal components, while a 100% energy transfer is possible with an ideal coil and capacitor.
Also, the current in high inductance coil (many turns) changes much slower than current in low-inductance coil when all other conditions are being equal.

...other then the coils wire resistance

Resistive losses exist in both the Inductor --> Inductor energy transfer and Inductor --> Capacitor energy transfer.  Actually, the former has higher resistive losses when non-ideal contemporary components are considered.

The idea here is, the flyback is only a portion of the power we first imputed to the coil. Let's say we can get 50% of the power back from the flyback and we chose to send it to another coil which has double the inductance of the the first coil and this coil is strategically placed in the motor to further assist the rotor. Do you not think this would be a more efficient way to use flyback then to try to store it in a capacitor or a battery?

No.
You seem to be under the impression that an inductor is better suited to receive energy from another inductor, compared to  a capacitor, while the opposite is true.  In fact Inductor --> Inductor, as well as, Capacitor --> Capacitor are the worst combinations for efficient energy transfers.
The mechanical analogy would be two coaxial flywheels (one spinning and the other stationary) suddenly slammed together ...such as in "dumping the clutch".

The best efficiencies are achieved by conjugate components, such as Inductor --> Capacitor, as well as, Capacitor --> Inductor.
The mechanical analogy would be a spinning flywheel being stopped by a suddenly connected (but relaxed) spiral torsion spring.

This preference for conjugacy manifests itself in the common life, too, ...such as: male & female pipe fittings

[gotoluc]

Yes, the connection of an empty second coil in series with the first, charged coil, would represent a huge current discontinuity, that that charged coil would not tolerate.
The EM pulse during the switch-over would radiate a lot of energy away and with practical components the resulting arcs would dissipate most of the energy stored in the first coil.  The stress on the switch would be extreme, leading to its breakdown

Do you think this would happen with a diode is between the two coils so only the flyback (collapsing field) can go through?

Luc