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

[gotoluc]

Instead of adding the rotor to reduce the power draw, why not forget about the rotor completely and just reduce the drive voltage for the coil?  So that also gives you reduced power draw without adding a rotor.  The back spike might still output the same amount or power.  Do you see what I mean?  This is highly academic because what can you do with a pulsing coil if you don't have a rotor?

That's a good suggestion MH
I will give it a try once my new smaller setup is ready for testing.
Itsu could beat me to it.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

[tinman]

Excellent test itsu

thanks for also making a video.

Well, for those who have done the tests we are all getting same results. The magnet rotor reduces the input and increases the output.

I like the explanation user citfta posted at Brad's topic:

Are the magnets acting like a trubo?... maybe and who cares as long as we know the magnets can boost the efficiency like a turbo does to a ICE, then I say lets use it and move on and lets find a way to use it to our advantage.

I have some ideas, what about you guys?

Luc

ADDED: here is a video Lidmotor did back in 2009 which he just posted in Brad's topic that demonstrates the same effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afEWXadfpqY

Being a mechanic by trade,i can answer this one very accurately.
The problem with the turbo analogy is that when boost kicks in from the turbo,you also raise the fuel consumption of the motor,where as with the rotating magnet's,we actually decrease the fuel consumption of the motor--the fuel being of course our electrical P/in.

So i dont think the turbo analogy is right here.

Brad

[gotoluc]

Being a mechanic by trade,i can answer this one very accurately.
The problem with the turbo analogy is that when boost kicks in from the turbo,you also raise the fuel consumption of the motor,where as with the rotating magnet's,we actually decrease the fuel consumption of the motor--the fuel being of course our electrical P/in.

So i dont think the turbo analogy is right here.

Brad

That's also a good point Brad... somehow I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone no matter how many tests we do. It's a little like religion, each will have their own take on it.

I've got a new build and should have the video up tomorrow.

Stay tuned

Luc

[tinman]

That's also a good point Brad... somehow I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone no matter how many tests we do. It's a little like religion, each will have their own take on it.

I've got a new build and should have the video up tomorrow.

Stay tuned

Luc

This whole thing could be put to bed very easily Luc. All the EE guys have to do is tell me how to increase the P/in to P/out efficiency of my setup without the external alternating magnetic fields. It would then be game,set ,and match for them. But that will not happen. What will happen is they will want you to build a brand new coil,that in no way resembles the DUTs coil. And then who is to say that the same thing would not apply to that coil?.

We are being told this-
1-the P/in is providing the energy to spin the rotor
2-the rotor is inducing a CEMF in the coil
3-This CEMF is what is reducing the P/in-and increasing the overall P/in to P/out efficiency of the coil.
4- But the magnets are doing no useful work- 

It is good to see that the bench work being done here is dismissing all there claim's so far against what we see.


Brad

[citfta]

Being a mechanic by trade,i can answer this one very accurately.
The problem with the turbo analogy is that when boost kicks in from the turbo,you also raise the fuel consumption of the motor,where as with the rotating magnet's,we actually decrease the fuel consumption of the motor--the fuel being of course our electrical P/in.

So i dont think the turbo analogy is right here.

Brad

Hi Brad,

What you are saying is true.  However, that is not all there is to it.  Even when lightly spooled up the turbo helps the engine to burn the fuel more efficiently.  It is well documented by Mercedes Benz and verified by Mercedes owners that the 5 cylinder diesel engine sold from the late 1970s until the mid 1980s got better overall fuel economy with the turbo.  The non-turbo engine cars got on average 27-28 mpg on the open road and the turbo versions got 30-31 mpg on the open road.  I probably could find a better analogy but I'll stand with my assertion that a turbo does improve efficiency.

Respectfully,
Carroll