Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[tinman]

Brad:

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



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



MileHigh

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

The scope shot taken without the rotor. But why do you think that is MH-->it's because there was a higher current draw with the rotor removed.

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.

When some one tells me just to assume they are right,when i see the exact opposite,then i will most certainly refuse. Even Verpies stepped in and said-Quote this is not the scientific method.

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.

No,no,no MH.
You need to listen more carefully. I said in the video that i trimmed the duty cycle until i got no more P/out,but the P/in still rose-->without the rotor in play. I then dropped the duty cycle down 1%,so as the inductors P/in to P/out ratio was at it optimum.

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.

No MH,you have that ass about. As the pulse duration is set,that only means more current flows through the CVR if that current risses faster as seen in the trace on the scope.

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.

Once again,you have it ass about. Did you not see this in the scopes mean calculations?.

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.

No,the current rises slower because the spinning magnets have already started to create a current flow in the inductor before the transistor switches on.

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.

As above--this is what i did before the second video MH. The duty cycle was trimmed to obtain maximum efficiency from the coil before the spinning rotor was set in to play.

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.

No MH,not this time. I afraid you lead your self down your own garden path,and got lost.
You didnt listen to the video(edit 1.18 to 1.25 in the video in question--with or !without! the rotor in play),and you jumped to conclusions due to your inability to accept change that go's against your beliefs.

Now that you know that you messed it all up,and you know the duty cycle was trimmed so as the coil gained maximum efficiency without the rotor in play,can you now tell us all what it was that increased the efficiency of the DUT--if not the rotating magnets.


Brad

[tinman]

you better be nice to me milehigh otherwise i will tell my mother
in law about you.ok

Please do NOT fill this thread with rubbish seychelles.

A one of request.


Brad

[tinman]

sorry

Thank you seychelles 

[seychelles]

TINMAN for a great improvement of your pulse motor ,
1 Make all the magnets on the rotor N  and then place two ceramic
magnets on the sides of the coil facing facing NORTH to each other..

[MileHigh]

Brad:

No,no,no MH.
You need to listen more carefully. I said in the video that i trimmed the duty cycle until i got no more P/out,but the P/in still rose-->without the rotor in play. I then dropped the duty cycle down 1%,so as the inductors P/in to P/out ratio was at it optimum.

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

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.

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.  Without the power drain of the spinning rotor the coil will perform better.  The shorter the energizing pulse, the less final current in the coil, and the less the total i-squared-R losses will be.  That's why DC-to-DC converters use a high frequency pulsing technique - it's to keep the current in the coil to a minimum in order to reduce the useless resistive losses in the wire.

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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Look, higher efficiency to the left, poorer efficiency to the right:

Lousy pulse timing:                                           <poor eff. with rotor>        <even worse eff. without rotor>
Good pulse timing:    <good eff. without rotor>   <poor eff. with rotor>

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.

MileHigh