Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[tinman]

Here you go mate, a second party confirmation with a suggestion how to further boost your results.

Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8

Enjoy

Luc

Good demo Luc,thanks for looking into that.

In regards to the magnets laying on there side(if we can describe it like that). If you have a look at how my rotor is configured (as verpies posted above),then the fields created will be the same as a long magnet lying on it's side. The rotor was designed to give a true AC sine wave when spun past an inductor. After years of testing,i found this is the best configuration for pulse motor applications. You will even see that not long after,JB went from his !!all north out!! configuration to an alternating magnetic field for pulse motors--not to long after i posted my comparison video.

As you now have seen your self,the inductor provides the energy to cause the rotation of the magnet's,!BUT! the P/in go's down,while the P/out remains the same(my last video using the FG to trigger the transistor) Regardless of what MH says ,the magnets returned a higher value in efficiency than the energy required from the inductor to spin the rotor in the first place--it's that simple. The alternating magnetic fields get the current flowing in the inductor before the transistor switches on,so it's not hard to work out that less current flow from the supply is going to be needed to reach the maximum current flow amplitude in the DUT. We can look at current flow as something that needs a push from an energy source-say like a motor vehicle that needs a push start,where as we have to reach a vehicle speed of 20KPH. So are you your self going to have to supply more energy to get that vehicle up to that 20KPH from a standing start,or more energy if the vehicle is already moving at say 5kph?.

The only opposition you will meet in this sort of research is those that are fixed in there way's,and have no room for change. These guys will also be the one's that will not be able to back up there claim that your information is wrong. They will give you no other means of showing the same effect that we have,but they will still argue the point with you--> !! PERMANENT MAGNETS CANNOT DO USEFUL WORK !!. Even when providing controlled experiment's,they will still argue against you. No matter what we do,it will never agree with these guy's-->that much has become painfully obvious in this thread.

My attitude toward those that argue against our findings with our experiments,and cannot provide proof that what we are seeing is not what is happening,is to simply ignore them.

I am going back to the old me,as i have seen nothing wonderful from those that think they know best--nothing but word's. The only time i ever get anywhere,is when i ignore what they deem to be possible,and carry on with effects i know are real-->the one's you will not find in book's,but only on your bench.


Brad.

[citfta]

MH,

You are not helping anyone by just repeating your mantra that magnets can't do work.  If you really have a technical explanation for why the efficiency went down when the magnets were removed then please explain how that is possible without the magnets being part of the equation.

I also strongly disagree that magnets don't or can't do work.  I worked for over 30 years as an industrial maintenance electrician.  During that time I saw the change from conventional DC motors to motors that had PERMANENT MAGNETS in them that made them much more efficient than the conventional DC motors.  I saw with my own eyes and meters that the PM motors were more efficient and ran cooler than the conventional motors.  I have some very small RC 3 phase motors used to power my RC planes.  These little tiny motors have an unbelievable amount of power because they have very strong and tiny magnets in them.

Having a strong background in electronics should not make a person so narrow minded they can't look at the possibility there may be more than we have been taught.

Carroll

[tinman]

MH,

You are not helping anyone by just repeating your mantra that magnets can't do work.  If you really have a technical explanation for why the efficiency went down when the magnets were removed then please explain how that is possible without the magnets being part of the equation.

I also strongly disagree that magnets don't or can't do work.  I worked for over 30 years as an industrial maintenance electrician.  During that time I saw the change from conventional DC motors to motors that had PERMANENT MAGNETS in them that made them much more efficient than the conventional DC motors.  I saw with my own eyes and meters that the PM motors were more efficient and ran cooler than the conventional motors.  I have some very small RC 3 phase motors used to power my RC planes.  These little tiny motors have an unbelievable amount of power because they have very strong and tiny magnets in them.

Having a strong background in electronics should not make a person so narrow minded they can't look at the possibility there may be more than we have been taught.

Carroll

That is correct Carroll.
There is no electric motor on this planet that is more efficient than the permanent magnet DC motor-none. And what dose a Permanent magnet motor have that no other motor have--Yes,permanent magnets.

[gotoluc]

Additional information that was not included in my demo video

[MileHigh]

Brad:

When your scope shows the average current consumption from the CVR it's basically showing you the area under the current pulse, right?

Take a look at the two attached scope shots that I modified, which one has the larger area under the curve?

Holy crap, it's the scope shot of the coil without the rotor in place.

I simply asked you to assume that I was right as an exercise for yourself, to try to get you to think instead of gobbling up the first thing that comes into your mind, and you flat-out refused.

The ironic thing is that you even know this stuff and you even stated it.  You stated that you knew the coil without the rotor in place was burning off energy needlessly because it had hit its V/R limit.  Then in your second clip you trimmed back on the pulse width for the coil + rotor configuration to make it more efficient.  Yet you look at your setup with the rotor spinning and it does not occur to you to trim back on the pulse width for the setup with the coil only because you already have decided that "adding the spinning rotor magnets increases the efficiency."  Your desire to believe blinds you and you refuse to think.

The two attached images put both setups on an equal playing field.  Both current pulses have been shaved off so that the current rises approximately three divisions on your scope display.  In the case without the rotor the current rises faster and therefore it tales less energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy.   In the case with the rotor the current rises slower and therefore it takes more energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy.  The current rises slower in the case with the rotor because the coil has to do more work per pulse because it has to keep the rotor spinning.  Part of the voltage applied to the coil does not increase the current in the coil, rather, it is used to push on the rotor.  Hence the current rises more slowly in the case with the spinning rotor.

Just go on your bench and trim the pulse width back and keep the same pulse frequency for the case without the rotor.  You will see that the efficiency in this case will be better than the case with the rotor in place.

You don't even need to mark up the timing diagrams like I did, it is as plain as day just like I said to you in my first posting - look at the timing diagrams.

You simply refused to analyze this situation properly even though you knew the coil was burning power needlessly in the case without the rotor and even though you knew that trimming the width of the pulse can increase efficiency.  You had all the pieces to the puzzle in your hands but you refused to put them together.  You led yourself down a garden path one more time.

MileHigh