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

[MileHigh]

Great demo Luc,and once again seems to show the opposite to what the EE guys say should happen. I will have to give this a go myself today,but use a ferrite toroid to see if the effect is the same.

Brad

Nope, you have the same trait that Luc has where you do one experiment and believe that you have created a "rule" that applies to all other experiments and situations.  It doesn't work like that.

One more time, you think something might be amiss and the EE guys are stumped again but you apparently haven't put any serious thought into the whole thing before you made that statement.

For example, the magnet when placed in the tube could have been vibrating giving you motoring action just like in the JLN clip.  Is that increased inductance?  In a way it is, but not in the conventional sense that we are talking about.

You notice that there was a big piece of magnetic material attached to the back of the cylindrical magnet.  That may not have been saturated, just like the magnet itself may not have been saturated.  So it's possible that what was really going on was that the extra ferrite material was adding inductance through the "secondary magnetic field" path of the toroid.  That path is along the central axis of the toroid.  So you went from an "air core" to a "ferrite core" along the secondary magnetic path.  However, I think that unlikely because of the dramatic increase in measured inductance.  Nonetheless, it's still worth mentioning and putting under consideration.

For sure, the magnet may have increased the inductance because of the magnetic field influencing the domains in the crystalline core material.  However, from what I understand, "occupying" the domains in the core material normally decreases the effective inductance of the coil.  I am pretty sure that that subject has been discussed and covered three or four times over the past few years.  So, if what I am saying is indeed true, that seems to present a real problem and the mechanism would have to be properly understood and explained.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

As i said before,there is no work being done by the rotor during this !negative voltage! stage,as the circuit is open,and voltage alone is not power

Someone provided an explanation about this a little while back. Guess you missed it? The "work" being done by the rotor is during the ON portion of the cycle.

With or without the rotor,the voltage across the coil remains the same during the on time.

Someone already provided an explanation as to the reason the measured voltage is the same in both cases. Did you miss that one also? Just in case, I provided a link.

What needs to be looked at is what can the induced magnetic field do to or change in that inductor as a whole that would lower the current required to maintain that voltage across the coil during the on time.

Someone provided an explanation as to how and why the current is being reduced during the ON time. Surely you didn't miss that one too?

What i mean by this is,you now have to either believe in what you see on your bench,and work it out for your self--or you choose to believe in those that you deem apt in the art of  EEing.

Believe absolutely what you see on your bench. BUT! Don't just look at numbers_in_boxes and assume everything is as it seems, or try to make your observations or (mis)-interpretations fit into some esoteric pet theory of yours. Unfortunately, I see this happening more often than not here. Ask questions and figure things out. The only assumptions that you should be making about your results are that what you are observing is normal, and not extraordinary. This of course applies to observations that seem out of the ordinary. But keep your common sense and knowledge about you. For example, if the total measured capacitance of two parallel capacitors is not greater than the value of either one, then don't assume that is "normal".

1-how can the rotor in some way reduce the P/in by more than is required to drive it in the first place?

That is a false unfounded assumption. Where is your proof or evidence of this?

2-How can the open circuit voltage across the battery/coil combo reduce the P/in,when the voltage across the coil remains the same with and without the rotor in play?

Again, a false assumption or faulty analysis, particularly disappointing when it has already been explained.

3- Why dose Poynts sim not show the same effect as we see with our DUT's-in that while he can show a reduction in P/in,he also gets a reduction in P/out,where as we get a reduction in P/in while maintaining or increasing the P/out when the rotor is in play. What is the one thing his sim dose not have that we do have?.

Already explained. Do you read my posts? The sim requires tweaking to match the effect, which is often the case when dealing with non-linear cores. My sim has no magnets and no rotor, but provides a good emulation of both.

4- Why has no EE to date been able to recreate the effect without the use of PM's ?.

Why have you not attempted to recreate the effect using a non-rotor method already provided to you? Would that not be one way to "check" your theory about the magic being in the magnets?

Things to think about.

Indeed

[gotoluc]

Great demo Luc,and once again seems to show the opposite to what the EE guys say should happen. I will have to give this a go myself today,but use a ferrite toroid to see if the effect is the same.

Brad

Dear Brad,

to date Finemet tape cores are the only cores I've ever seen that inductance of a coil wound on them increases when a magnet approaches the core.

Ferrites are the worse, complete opposite. Transformer steel laminations are not affected very much by a magnet.

If we can prove there's a benefit to a coils increasing in Inductance between the on and off time, then Finemet cores are the way to go.

Luc

[tinman]

Indeed

Someone provided an explanation about this a little while back. Guess you missed it? The "work" being done by the rotor is during the ON portion of the cycle.

The explanation provided has not been proven to be correct--and that is a fact.

Someone already provided an explanation[/url] as to the reason the measured voltage is the same in both cases. Did you miss that one also?

Once again,that explanation is not backed up with proof.

Someone provided an explanation as to how and why the current is being reduced during the ON time. Surely you didn't miss that one too?

No-once again i did not miss it,and no proof has been provided to back up the explanation.

Believe absolutely what you see on your bench. BUT! Don't just look at numbers_in_boxes and assume everything is as it seems, or try to make your observations or (mis)-interpretations fit into some esoteric pet theory of yours. Unfortunately, I see this happening more often than not here. Ask questions and figure things out. The only assumptions that you should be making about your results are that what you are observing is normal, and not extraordinary. Then figure out why.

I am yet to see this !normal! reproduced,and every explanation given has not been backed up with proof.

1-how can the rotor in some way reduce the P/in by more than is required to drive it in the first place?
That is a false unfounded assumption. Where is your proof or evidence of this?

Quote Poynt:

The "work" being done by the rotor is during the ON portion of the cycle.

So i ask once again--how can the rotor do more work,or return stored energy back to the coil during the ON portion of the cycle,when it is during the ON portion of the cycle that the rotor receives it's energy from the coil?. So my assumptions are not unfounded at all !thank you very much!. And this is the reason your explanations make no sense. You have clearly stated that the rotor is doing work,or returning energy back to the system during the ON part of the cycle. But it is during the ON part of the cycle that the rotor receives it's energy from the coil. So when i ask you to explain as to how (at the same time) the rotor returns more energy to the coil than it received from it,i mean exactly that. If it did not return more energy than it received,then we would see an increase in P/in,or a reduction in P/out.

Again, a false assumption or faulty analysis, particularly disappointing when it has already been explained.

There has been no explanation that fits what is happening,and when it is happening. Like your statement that the stored energy,or work being done by the rotor is during the ON time-->no it is not,as during the ON time is when the rotor receives it's energy to store,if it was not,then the rotor would not spin. When the rotor syncs up with the coil,the magnet on the rotor is at TDC when the coil switches off,so there is no point in time during the ON time that the rotor can return any of it's energy to the system,as at that ON time period is when the rotor is receiving energy--not giving it back.

Already explained. Do you read my posts? The sim requires tweaking to match the effect, which is often the case when dealing with non-linear cores. My sim has no magnets and no rotor, but provides a good emulation of both.

Once again-yes i read your post,but i guess you missed my reply to your post?. If you didnt miss my reply,then you would not be asking me if i read your post.

Why have you not attempted to recreate the effect using a non-rotor method already provided to you? Would that not be one way to "check" your theory about the magic being in the magnets?

Why would i waste my time doing that,when you your self have been unable to recreate the effect without the use of PM's. So the method provided dose not resemble or show the same effect as seen with the rotor and PM's.

If you are going to post !! theories !! about what is happening and why,then have the evidence to back it up. At this point in time,my theory of the magnets doing the work to align the magnetic domains within the core is more credible than what you have provided so far.


Brad

[poynt99]

There has been no explanation that fits what is happening,and when it is happening. Like your statement that the stored energy,or work being done by the rotor is during the ON time-->no it is not,as during the ON time is when the rotor receives it's energy to store,if it was not,then the rotor would not spin. When the rotor syncs up with the coil,the magnet on the rotor is at TDC when the coil switches off,so there is no point in time during the ON time that the rotor can return any of it's energy to the system,as at that ON time period is when the rotor is receiving energy--not giving it back.

For a fellow that supposedly has an open mind to possibilities, you appear to be having problems thinking outside the box.

Has it occurred to you that the rotor and coil are exchanging energy at the same time? Apparently not.

Wish there was, but I see no reason to continue my discussion here.