Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

[pmgr]

I've found it the easiest to use two "wait" or "pause" commands.  So we can always adjust overlap and hold times.  You are correct, the more overlap, the more demand.  Not good. We've found that most of the overlap is not needed.  It's waisted. 

Higher freq...provides less current, so you have to input more voltage.  Nothing unusual.

This is what I have been saying all along. The iron will cut the frequency off. So everything is following normal EM theory.

Our mains focus at this moment is getting as much of the rotating magnetic field as possible.  We are both in agreement that isolation of the pole fields are needed.

This is incorrect. Pole isolation is not required as long as you drive all poles with the same current. Your experiments are further proof that your thick stator is shorting poles and thus reducing the output coil voltage. Your thin rotor is most likely too thin and its reluctance is too high, also limiting output voltage. So go for a rotor thickness somewhere in between and use a laminated rotor.

Yes, this makes sense.  This requires the slot arrangment to be reconfigured.  Not 5 slots, but 15 slots.  Also this currently requires 15 times 3 pins from MCU.  Sadly we can't do this yet.  Our gates came in today.  So we have more pinout control from MCU.  Otherwise we run out quickly in pin control from MCU.  I do not think we need to go to higher pin out from MCU to get this device to work.  We are going to be using XOR gates to drop our pin control down by one third. You can run multipled poles in parallel, and save pin count as well.

You don't need to change anything on the stator. Leave the coilspan as 5 slots as you currently have.
How many pins do you have on your MCU? You should be able to do this with your current arrangement with 30pins only (two bridges are always on; one high side and one low side). For each bridge, simply hook up the high side switch pin to +5V, the low switch pin to GND and connect the enable pins to the Arduino.

Isolation of the pole fields is key.   If you can't get the flux to "re-connect" in the armature...you have little results.  This is how I see it at this point.
Jerdee

I disagree. If you properly bias all poles with equal current, no pole isolation is required. I have simulated this in FEMM and there is no problem if the pole currents are all equal and properly phased as I have described before. However, with the original schematic Pierre that showed, this is not possible.


PmgR

[AlienGrey]

Err will you be doing a hardware kit for this device or where to get the parts in your location    

[gotoluc]

36 bobine peuvent être relier avec une autre et vous pouvez isoler chaque bobine avec un relais

En. 36 coils can be connected with another and you can isolate each coil with a relay

Une question pour toi Pierre.
Les 36 bobines de ton DZ fonctionnel, était-elle individuellement isolées?

Cordialement
Luc

En. A question for you Pierre.
The 36 coils of your functional DZ,  were they individually isolated?

Regards
Luc

[seaad]

Une question pour toi Pierre.
Les 36 bobines de ton DZ fonctionnel, était-elle individuellement isolées?

En. A question for you Pierre.
The 36 coils of your functional DZ,  were they individually isolated?

Regards
Luc

Maybe to few wires (36, + some more?) from the stator to manage that?

--  Why then make/ show the fifth DZ film?
--  And this? https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522229/#msg522229

Regards Arne

[jerdee]

First, thanks for your help PmgR

How many pins do you have on your MCU? You should be able to do this with your current arrangement with 30pins only (two bridges are always on; one high side and one low side). For each bridge, simply hook up the high side switch pin to +5V, the low switch pin to GND and connect the enable pins to the Arduino.

Yes, we are thinking in the same direction .  We are doing this moving forward. We still need the logic chips to save pin count considerably.

if the pole currents are all equal and properly phased

Yes, without a doubt.   

This development requires more indivdual bridge control.

Again, thanks for your help.

Jerdee