Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[MileHigh]

So the added losses from adding the rotor are less than the decrease in power In due to the increase in impedance for the same power Out.

I think this is in line with what the information shows.

Yes, that is more or less the essence of it.  Adding the rotor represents a "loss" because some of the power going into the coil is providing the power to make the rotor turn.  But adding the rotor is sort of "throwing a monkey wrench" at the setup because the overall impedance increases and the total power consumption goes down.  I use the term "overall impedance" in an abstract sense:  lower average input power = higher "overall impedance."

If you look at Brad's scope shot with the rotor in place, you can see that when the transistor switches off the AC voltage is about +/-4 volts.  So when the 12-volt power is applied across the coil, it dominates over the +/-4V AC induced in the coil.  Therefore, the current waveform still resembles an inverse exponential curve but there is a barely detectable (if you are not looking for it) "wiggle" superimposed on the inverse exponential current waveform due to the superimposed AC voltage from the induced EMF.  If you looked at Luc's current waveform you can see that the EMF from the passing rotor magnet in his setup actually dominates over the battery supply at one point and actually reverses the current flow.

[tinman]

Brad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c






MileHigh

Ar 1:11 in your second clip you say, "I've dropped the duty cycle down to 23%" in the configuration with the rotor in place.  I see you made one more clip but I haven't watched that clip.

Ar-please go and watch the clip again. Listen carefully from 10 min 30 seconds this time.
Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again.

What I can tell you is this:  Without the rotor in place and by trimming down the pulse with and keeping the pulse frequency the same (although the pulse frequency is not that relevant) then you will get better power-out to power-in performance than any configuration with the rotor in place and spinning.

This is why i dont just take your's or any other guru's word as gospel,as you are dead wrong,and i can prove that without a shadow of doubt-->and i already have,and i will do it again,only in the next video,i will show the trimming of the pulse width without the spinning rotor and magnets first.

Without the power drain of the spinning rotor the coil will perform better.

Wrong. The power drain is less with the spinning rotor and magnets,and after the next video,!! you MH !! will have to explain why.

The shorter the energizing pulse, the less final current in the coil, and the less the total i-squared-R losses will be.

Firstly,the energizing pulse remains a time constant--only an amplitude change is seen during that energizing pulse.

When you compare the case with the spinning rotor to the case with no rotor, the pulse width is simply too wide for the case with no rotor and you are losing efficiency by needlessly burning off power in the coil in the form of resistive losses in the wire - and seeing higher current consumption.

No. The coil is trimmed(pulse width adjusted) so as to get the maximum efficiency from that coil !before! the rotor is set in motion.

You look at the case with the rotor spinning and see less current consumption are you are deceiving yourself into thinking that the spinning rotor magnets are giving you more efficiency when in fact what is taking place is that the too-long pulse width without the rotor is giving you less efficiency.

No,the spinning rotor with magnets is defiantly raising the efficiency of the coil.

You are putting the rotor in place and thinking you are getting more efficiency because of the magnets when what you should be thinking is that you are losing efficiency when there is no rotor in place because of unnecessary resistive losses because of bad pulse timing (and associated higher current consumption) when you remove the rotor.  That is your big failure to see what's really taking place.

No,i am putting the rotor in place and i am seeing an increase in efficiency.
There is only one failure here MH,and that is you did not listen to what i said in the video. You are wrong--dead wrong,and i -along with anyone else can prove this,as it is a very easy experiment. Even TK will not find a !! red herring !! in this one.
It is time to throw the books away MH,and take not of reality.

You are confusing a decrease in efficiency for case "B" (no rotor) for an increase in efficiency with case "A" (with the rotor).  Adding the spinning rotor is not increasing your efficiency at all, it is decreasing your efficiency.

It is not me that is confused here MH--it is you.

I can flip it around for you:  You have an optimum power-out to power-in efficiency with just the coil only.  The pulse width is narrow and the resistive losses are minimized.  Then when you add the spinning rotor you are obligated to increase the pulse width to support the added load of the spinning rotor - which will also increase the current consumption.  You will have to put more power into the coil to get about the same amount of power out.  Therefore, adding the spinning rotor reduces the power-out to power-in efficiency.

What you describe above is exactly what i did,only the outcome is the opposite to what your !! book fueled !! conclusion is.

The above paragraph really describes what is happening in your tests.  A proper measurement without the rotor in place will give you a better power-out to power-in efficiency as compared to any spinning rotor configuration.  You can clearly see it in the timing diagrams.

No it dose not,as the opposite is true.
The alternating external magnetic fields increase the efficiency of the coil.
You can hold me to those word's MH. write down the number of this post,and hold it close to you-->this is your ammunition against me in the future.

You are looking at the lousy pulse timing and thinking <poor efficiency with the rotor> is "magnet magic" because it's better than <even worse efficiency without the rotor>.  That is dead wrong.

What is dead wrong in this case MH is you.

My time will now be spent proving you wrong MH,(and it will be easy to do),-->as a lesson to every experimenter out there-->!! Always believe in your self,and look at what you are seeing on your bench. Never take the word of those that !think! they know better,or believe that there knowledge is far greater than your own gained on the bench.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Ar-please go and watch the clip again. Listen carefully from 10 min 30 seconds this time.
Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again.

Okay, so you trimmed back the pulse width on the setup with the spinning rotor in place so you get 74 mA @ 12.49 volts going into charging battery.  In other words, the output from the coil is 74 mA @ 12.49 volts and that's the narrowest pulse that gives you that power output.  You "trimmed up" the pulse for the narrowest pulse that will give you the maximum output.  The duty cycle ON time is 23%.  The pulse is so narrow that you had to use a motorized rubber wheel to spin up the rotor to get it to sync up with the function generator pulse.

Then you stop your rotor and measure the power input which is 240 mA @ 12.47 V.   The output is the same, 74 mA @ 12.49V.

However, with the rotor spinning, the input power is 180 mA @ 12.47 volts.   That is less than the case with the rotor stopped or removed.

WOW.

And you have the gall to say this, "Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again," trying to pretend that I didn't catch that or see that or whatever.

Everything I have posted in this thread has fully acknowledged your measurements so stop playing that game.  In addition, I have explained your real-world measurements and what they mean between something like three and five times in this thread already.

If you are not understanding what I am saying, just ask me.  Lay your cards on the table, don't bluff if you are not understanding something.  Don't zone out or feign that I am not seeing what you are presenting in your clips because I saw what you said and I fully acknowledged what you said and acknowledged your measurements in this very thread about 10 times.

To me it looks like you are doing nothing more than saying, "You are not seeing my numbers so you must be daft."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I saw and acknowledged your numbers and explained it all - several times already.

The bottom line is this:  It's not me that has to look at your clips because "I am not catching something" - It's you that has to reread this thread and try to understand it and come back if you have any comments or questions and I will be pleased to respond.  It's time for you to stop this "revolving door" where you say "look at my clips" because I have looked at your clips.  Just read the thread and that will be readily apparent.

MileHigh

[shylo]

Adding magnets if timed right might help, I never tried that yet.
I'm inducing The same polarity permanent magnetic field at the collapsing field of an electro-magnet.
Which was used for drive.
The kick back increases when you do this.
More bang for your buck.
I think it's just a matter of timing?
artv

[Magluvin]

Below is 2 scope shots of my version of the Lasersaber ez spin motor and the simple circuit. All 24 coils in series is 15kohm. 1000uf cap and 24 alternating magnets on the rotor.  The first shot is of me spinning up the rotor and it is charging the cap when the reed switch closes where you can see the motor is generating then gets clamped down to the cap voltage when the reed closes, and back up again when the reed opens. The second shot is of the motor running down with the cap as the source. The motor runs for quite some time on that cap.  The reason it does is that the motor is generating, while running, almost as much voltage as what is in the cap. so being very little difference there, the motor doesnt draw much at all from the cap. Under 500ua at the rpm providing the scope shots.

So this is where the efficiency of brads claim lies.  When his coil is pulsed without the rotor, he gets a measured Pin and Pout. When he adds the rotor, the rotor mags generate voltage potential in the coil before the pulse happens. So the motor generating gives the coil a head start before the pulse and the pulse doesnt have to do all the work it was doing without the rotor.

Been fiddling with the ez spin while getting used to the new scope.  Yesterday was spinning and watching and thinking. Thinking that the motor only needs a smidgen more voltage out to the cap while running to get what we all would like to see here. Been bangin my head around it. How do I get more voltage from the motor? While looking at the scope something came to me.  The negative (below center) part of the trace is doing nothing when it comes  to the motor. So I thought, what if I could charge another cap with that part of the wave form cycle and configure those caps in series when pulsing the motor.  That would be twice what is being generated by the motor, not just a smidgen.

I have a couple ideas on how to do it but I gota run them on sim or on the bench to see if they work out.

Mags