Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[MileHigh]

To obtain a voltage that is always of only one polarity across that coil,the flux would either 1-have to be forever increasing,or 2- forever decreasing. As we know this is not possible,how is it done?
How are your laws of induction looking now?.

That's a very very good start.  The law of induction is rock solid, so something must be amiss.

Where is the problem associated with that induced EMF waveform in a coil that is allegedly always above zero volts or always below zero volts.

You know that is impossible, and you know the law of induction works.  So between yourself and your peers I am sure you will be able to find the problem.

Incidentally, how is that offset setting on your scope doing?  Could it be as simple as that?

[tinman]

That's a very very good start.  The law of induction is rock solid, so something must be amiss.

Where is the problem associated with that induced EMF waveform in a coil that is allegedly always above zero volts or always below zero volts.
  So between yourself and your peers I am sure you will be able to find the problem.

Incidentally, how is that offset setting on your scope doing?  Could it be as simple as that?

What offset setting?

You know that is impossible, and you know the law of induction works.

Ah yes--i forgot about those laws there for a moment.
Must stick to those laws

[tinman]

Luc, why did you instantly agree with Brad when he said that the double camel hump waveform showed that there were allegedly problems with the law of induction?  Why?

Did you agree with him for technical reasons or did you just feel compelled to agree for the sake of agreeing?

It's shocking to read stuff like that after all this time.  When you say, "total flux linkage" I interpret that to mean the instant in time where a moving rotor magnet is directly lined up with the center axis of a coil.  As TK stated, that's when the voltage is zero, it's not when you see a peak voltage output by the coil.

No-it's me that stated that when the magnet is lined up directly with the center of the core ,is when there is a zero voltage.

TK's quote post 294--as the magnet approaches the coil it induces a voltage in the coil, that increases up to the nearest approach,

My reply to this was-post 317-->At(or very close to) the nearest approach,the voltage will be zero,
To me,the nearest approach is when the magnets is nearest to the core of the coil(TDC),so what i said is true,and you are once again trying to discredit me with posting false bullshit MH. Total flux linkage will occur before the nearest approach (TDC) is reached,and so the voltage has reached it's maximum value before the magnets reaches it's nearest approach point,and will not increase up to the nearest approach point as TK said--in fact,the voltage starts to decrease as the magnet gets close to the nearest approach point,and when total flux linkage has happened between the magnet and core(normally very close to TDC/Nearest approach),the voltage will be at the 0 volt value.

What's probably more predictable is you seeing a double camel hump in an EMF waveform from a coil and all of a sudden deciding that there are problems with the law of induction.  That is ridiculous and you seemingly want to arrive at a wrong conclusion without even trying to think things through.  I will echo Poynt's comments about spoon feeding answers being a problem.
Your rational mind has to tell you that there must be an explanation for seeing a double-hump in a waveform when it's nothing more than some guy on a bench passing magnets past a coil.  Nothing could be more mundane than that and yet you want to believe that when you see something unusual you are in uncharted territory that our current understanding can't explain.

I have been down this road MH,and i do know why the double hump occurs--do you?.
The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time.

I think if you guys brainstorm you can figure things out.  The catch is that you have to be able to disagree with each other and have differing opinions and have a real technical discussion.

!!US guys!! do not have to discus anything MH,as we know what is happening in the double hump wave,and we know how to create it with ease.

You guys are off on your own as far as at least I am concerned.  You need to explain the double camel hump instead of the cop-out where you believe the double camel hump shows that there are "problems" with the law of induction.  Spoon feeding you the answers is clearly not the right way to go.

We need no spoon feeding MH,and i have given you the reason for the double hump. But you seem to have missed the importance of this,so it is clear that you yourself did not know why the double hump was produced--The W wave.

Also,while we are on the subject of spoon feeding,did you see my reply to Poynts test he carried out in regards to my with and without rotor tests?-->post 327.
Once again,we see a test done that was suppose to show nothing out of the ordinary with my tests i carried out. But once again the test done to disprove my theory was wrong,and showed the exact opposite to what i showed in my test. This can be clearly seen in Poynts own scope shot's and results he posted. So the test carried out by Poynt did not in any way show what i showed using the rotor with the PM's-->his sim did not show real world result's.

What i see here,is book worms that !!must!! make there laws stick.
I am yet to see any EE (or self proclaimed EE)here show the results i have shown without the use of PM's,and the one single attempt by Poynt showed results that were opposite to mine.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Okay, so we agree that there is zero volts across the coil when the magnet is lined up with the center of the coil.  I just have difficulty when you say this, "Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core."

What is that supposed to mean?  For me, "total (or maximum) flux linkage happens when a magnet is directly lined up with the ferrite core of a coil such that the maximum amount of magnetic flux will flow from the magnet through the core of the coil.  That's when you get zero voltage and in the above quote you state that you get peak voltage.  I think that the vast majority of people would share my interpretation of what your sentence means as well as agree with my description of the process.  But you seem to have a different definition.  Call it bait and switch or moving the goal posts or unexplained meanings and terms that only you use or whatever, but it makes it hard to effectively argue points or get information across.

You seem to be implying "total flux linkage" is when the maximum rate of change of flux is occurring between the magnet and the coil.  Why, prey tell, should that be called "total flux linkage" which implies an amount of flux and not a rate of change of flux?  If feels like you are just inventing terms and definitions and changing them on the fly when you need to do that.  In this case I put it to you that your terminology does not make sense and I have never heard it being used in the context that you are stating.

I have been down this road MH,and i do know why the double hump occurs--do you?.

When I saw the double hump I didn't even give it a second thought.  Then when you said, "What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?" I was shocked because here we are again saying that there is a "fail" in the law of induction when there is no issue at all.  Then later on you say this, "The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time."  So you just pulled off another bait and switch or moving the goal posts, or "Bradism."  How is anybody supposed to debate with you if you completely change your tune mid stream where at fist you state that something is amiss with the law of induction and then a few hours later you do a very decent job of explaining the waveform using the law of induction like all is normal?

i have given you the reason for the double hump. But you seem to have missed the importance of this,so it is clear that you yourself did not know why the double hump was produced--The W wave.

You must be a mind reader having an off day because I really saw no significance or importance to the double hump at all, and explaining it would have been trivial if I indeed wanted to explain it.

I am yet to see any EE (or self proclaimed EE)here show the results i have shown without the use of PM's,and the one single attempt by Poynt showed results that were opposite to mine.

I think it's fair to say what you observed was somewhat interesting but not noteworthy.  So in that sense there is no "challenge" to reproduce your results, plus I think that they have been satisfactorily explained.

What you missed is the real challenge.  That challenge would have been to do an experiment demonstrating what "should" have happened.  In other words, get a better performing coil with less losses, and then show that just pulsing the coil without the load of the spinning rotor would give you better efficiency numbers compared to pulsing the coil with the spinning rotor.  Demonstrate the relationship between the length of the pulse relative to the tau of the coil system and how that affects efficiency.  Show how if the coil discharges into a 48-volt battery array you get better discharge efficiency as compared to if the coil discharges into 24-volt battery array because the discharge time decreases.  That was the _real_ experiment that you should have recognized and challenged yourself to do for your own satisfaction.  You would have proven that everything made sense.

Instead, you studied an apparent anomaly and we tried to explain it.  That's all fair and well, but the real experiment that you can imagine doing in some physics or electronics lab is the one I describe in the above paragraph.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:




MileHigh

Okay, so we agree that there is zero volts across the coil when the magnet is lined up with the center of the coil.  I just have difficulty when you say this, "Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core."

What is that supposed to mean?  For me, "total (or maximum) flux linkage happens when a magnet is directly lined up with the ferrite core of a coil such that the maximum amount of magnetic flux will flow from the magnet through the core of the coil.  That's when you get zero voltage and in the above quote you state that you get peak voltage.

When dealing with pulse motors,and my DUT,then 9 times out of 10 the magnets are smaller than the core of the coil. Lets say(like as with my DUT)that the magnets are 1/2 the diameter of the coil. This would mean that the maximum flux is reached within the core before the magnet reaches the TDC position. In this case,you would see a very sharp rise and fall in the voltage wave form. If the magnet is the same size as the core,then maximum flux in the core would be reached very close to TDC,and the wave form would not show as sharp as rise and fall as the smaller magnet did-if the magnet is traveling past the core at the same speed as the smaller one did. So it depends not only on the maximum flux value being reached(which i call maximum flux linkage),but also the rate of change of that flux within the core. The rate of change starts to decrease just before the magnet reaches TDC,and continues to decrease until there is no change in flux (TDC=0 volts). Some where i have a setup that i built a couple of years ago that has a TDC sensor that can be displayed as a wave form on a scope,and the other channel of the scope can be used to view the wave form acros the coil. From this setup you can see just how far the maximum voltage is reached across the coil before TDC,and this allows you to map exactly where the magnet is in relation to both the core of the coil,and the voltage trace across it.

I think that the vast majority of people would share my interpretation of what your sentence means as well as agree with my description of the process.  But you seem to have a different definition.  Call it bait and switch or moving the goal posts or unexplained meanings and terms that only you use or whatever, but it makes it hard to effectively argue points or get information across.

Maximum flux linkage is the maximum induced flux into the core of the coil at the highest rate of change over time-->this is the peak voltage reached across the coil,and as i explained above,dose not mean at TDC,as at TDC there will be zero volts across the coil

You seem to be implying "total flux linkage" is when the maximum rate of change of flux is occurring between the magnet and the coil.

No--total flux linkage would show zero volts across the coil.

Why, prey tell, should that be called "total flux linkage" which implies an amount of flux and not a rate of change of flux?  If feels like you are just inventing terms and definitions and changing them on the fly when you need to do that.  In this case I put it to you that your terminology does not make sense and I have never heard it being used in the context that you are stating.

Yes-it dosnt make sense when you go and mix the two up,and call them one in the same.

When I saw the double hump I didn't even give it a second thought.  Then when you said, "What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?" I was shocked because here we are again saying that there is a "fail" in the law of induction when there is no issue at all.  Then later on you say this, "The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time."  So you just pulled off another bait and switch or moving the goal posts, or "Bradism."  How is anybody supposed to debate with you if you completely change your tune mid stream where at fist you state that something is amiss with the law of induction and then a few hours later you do a very decent job of explaining the waveform using the law of induction like all is normal?

Like i said MH,i have been experimenting with pulse motors,magnets and rotors for many years-as have many others. I have known for a long time how to produce the W wave,and that part in itself has no real magic to it. But what you dont see,or have failed to see is the fact that that wave,and how it was produced leads to the wave form i showed a few post back. Im not sure what you mean by DC offset on the scope shot,but nothing was altered on the scope-if that is what you mean. You say that that wave form is impossible to produce due to the laws of induction,and im saying that it is not impossible at all. All you need is a long coil,and a double pole rotor with the correctly timed magnets and fields.

You must be a mind reader having an off day because I really saw no significance or importance to the double hump at all, and explaining it would have been trivial if I indeed wanted to explain it.

This much is apparent.

I think it's fair to say what you observed was somewhat interesting but not noteworthy.  So in that sense there is no "challenge" to reproduce your results, plus I think that they have been satisfactorily explained.

They have not been explained at all. Even Poynts experiment failed to show the same results as i(and others)have shown.

What you missed is the real challenge.  That challenge would have been to do an experiment demonstrating what "should" have happened.  In other words, get a better performing coil with less losses, and then show that just pulsing the coil without the load of the spinning rotor would give you better efficiency numbers.  Then add a spinning rotor and show that the efficiency numbers went down.  That was the _real_ experiment that you should have recognized and challenged yourself to do for your own satisfaction.  You would have proven that everything made sense.

I plan on doing just that tomorrow,as i now have a much more efficient/better performing coil with less losses.

Instead, you studied an apparent anomaly and we tried to explain it.  That's all fair and well, but the real experiment that you can imagine doing in some physics or electronics lab is the one I describe in the above paragraph.

There have been no satisfactory explanations given or shown so far.
I will get to the next test with the more efficient coil MH,but it was just xmas and new years you know,and much time has been spent with the family-as it should be.


Brad