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

[gotoluc]

Luc, we discussed this before. Based on the measurements you did, your coils have a resistance of 0.53ohm and an inductance of about 0.56mH. When in registration with the rotor, this increases with about a factor of 4, so about 2.1mH.

The time constant of a coil is L/R and cut-off frequency (3dB point) is fc=R/(2*pi*L). Filling in the above values gives fc=0.53/(2*pi*2.1e-3)=40Hz.

It doesn't matter what calculations come to. What matters is the real world tests and what I was trying to find before moving forward. For me, the time constant is right when you get to the frequency just before the inductive discharge drops in output. If you lower the frequency and your input goes up but your inductive discharge does not then your time constant is too long and you're just wasting input power. So at what frequency did you observe this to happen in my video demo?

Considering your stator steel was probably designed for 50-60Hz, the fc of 40Hz that you have for your coils is not bad. In fact it is in the correct ballpark.

I agree the stator laminations are suited for 50 to 60Hz but you can clearly see your calculations did not work out with the low frequency tests.
I'm not criticizing you but I don't understand how you can not see that from the video demo I made for you?

The questions is why we are not seeing more voltage on the output coil. There can be two answers to that:
1. You don't have enough windings on the output coil. Solution: try and output coil with more windings, like a factor of 5 or so.

You're saying the same thing again even after I added a 600 turn coil which made no difference. You think adding another 600 turns will output more current? ... There's a huge amount of flux in the stator, that's not the problem. The problem is and I've said it before there's NO CHANGE!... the flux is all equal and keeps rotating around evenly. We need something to make a change to create a dis-balance, maybe then the flux will move from one side to the other to re-balance and hopefully it will go through the rotor to do so. Then we may have a chance of more output. I will be testing this and many other variations. However, (as is)  it's not going to do anything more then what I demonstrated no matter how many winding turns I add on the rotor core. That's a fact.

-2. The output rotor is too thick and shorting part of the two neighboring poles when they pass the rotor. Solution: use a thinner rotor.

Did you not see these tests:  https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522156/#msg522156

Regards
Luc

[pmgr]

Made a new center rotor core yesterday but only posting the results today.

Video Part 1:  https://youtu.be/Y4oJ0e9BcZc

Video Part 2:  https://youtu.be/PSGs6xbah00

Video Part 3:  https://youtu.be/8hrBa8qRhY4

Luc, these are very interesting results, especially the last video.

Regarding the two different rotors that you have tried, probably the ideal thickness of the rotor is something in between, so maybe half the original thickness, maybe double/triple the the thickness of the thin rotor.

What is clear is that we need to go to higher voltage on the output coil by increasing the number of turns on the output coil (not the input coils).

How many windings did you have on the first rotor and how many on the second thin rotor (400turns on second thin rotor I believe recalling the video?)

Since your original coil has a double winding, you can try and put those two windings in series instead of parallel. That should give you double the voltage and will be a good datapoint, but probably still not enough voltage. It would be even better if you could increase it to a factor of 5 so you can get 100-150V on the output coil.

It might be easier to get more windings on the thinner second rotor to try it, so try that first before increase the thickness of that thin rotor. It should be easy to add another 400 turns, then repeat your measurements, then add another 400 turns and repeat your measurements.

Make sure to be safe going forward though: the output coil will have higher voltage that you can't just touch with your hands.

Lastly, regarding your last video, these are your power consumptions:

1. Power supply in: 750mA rms at 7.16V or 5.35W (versus your math trace of 4.74VA)

2. Recovered power: 840mA rms at 7.13V or 5.99W (versus your math trace of 4.35VA)

3. Power consumed in load resistor: 5.4V rms over 100ohms or 0.3W

4. Power consumed in input coils: each single coil is 0.53ohm. You have six coils in series and six of these series coilsets in parallel, so 0.53ohm overall resistance.

Assuming total input current to coils is what comes from the power supply plus what comes from the recovery (assuming the capacitor voltage remains constant): 750mA rms + 840mA rms, or 1.59A rms (btw it would be good to check what the current is that actually goes into the coils together; not sure if you can do that with your current configuration).

So total power absorbed in input coils is: 0.84W.

Let's see the balance (let's take the math trace numbers): out/in = (0.3 + 0.84)/4.74 = 24% efficiency


PmgR

[pmgr]

Luc,

As you state it, you want the output coil to have more current. The way physics works, this is not something you can do directly. The only way to do this is by making sure the output coil has enough voltage to support a low resistance load which will then give a high current.

Voltage on the output coil is proportional to -Nout*dflux/dt where Nout is the number of windings on the output coil. The flux is generated by the input coils and the flux captured by the output coil is proportional to M*Iin where M is the coupling from input coil to output coil and Iin is the input current.

The coupling M between input and output is proportional to k*sqrt(Lin*Lout) where Lin is the input inductance and Lout the output inductance and k a constant related to the stator and rotor coupling.

So you can increase the output voltage by either increasing Iin, Lin or Lout, k or a combination.

Lin is proportional to Nin*Nin, Lout is proportional to Nout*Nout and just as in a transformer, output voltage divided by input voltage is proportional to Nout/Nin, just like in a regular transformer.

So if you want to increase the output voltage, you will either need to increase Nin, Nout, k or Iin. Since you don't want to increase your input voltage, the only options left over are increasing Nout, k or Iin.

You can maximize k for better coupling between stator and rotor by adjusting its thickness. This is what you have already done. Just find the optimum rotor thickness.

You have already changed the amount of current as well with still no good results for increased output voltage.

So the only thing left is to increase the number of turns on the output coil. You can increase the input inductance as well, but in that case you still need to increase the output inductance as well, otherwise your voltage is still not going up. If you want the output voltage to increase, you need to put more turns on the output than you are putting on the input.

Lasty, if you go to a higher frequency, that will increase your voltage as well, but if you are moving past the frequency limit of the stator iron, that will decrease the voltage, so these work against each other.

That's why I say to leave the input coils the same so they are in the ballpark of the stator frequency, but increase the number of turns on the output coil and find the best width for the rotor.

PmgR

[konehead]

Hi gotoluc and everyone
To increase volages from the output coil it would be nice if the inductive spikes would manifest themselves in its output too.
But now the cap bank seems to be absorbing them all
In dc pulse motor, if  I wrap a large pickup wind around and behind a motor coil,  both coils sharing same core, the inductive kickback spikes will manifest in the pickup winds quite strong and will help to fill cap faster and higher in voltage
But seems the inductive spikes do not "ride on top" of the output coil in the video tests  for some reason.
Maybe pre charge caps first like Pierre does and the fact caps are fuly filled up will prevent spikes from entering and so spikes will enter instead  the output coil and help with seeing some higher volages there (just idea)
Also all this said there is question about just what is the recovered power?
How can it be inductive spikes if stator coils never turn off and only rotate around?
Maybe the crawling motion dynamics of coil A on them coil A and B on  them coil B for stator field rotation does create the inductive spikes energy shown on scope...??
Two other questions:
Inductive spikes seen  on scope are at least x20 higher voltage than input  voltage so when filling up super caps around 20v seems like almost all is lost?
(But is the recovered energy shown in scope ireally inductive spikes?)
Finally the watts output is calculation of when voltage is over, or on "top of" of the current...so if no overlapping in time of current form with voltage form, how can scope show anything but "volts amps" but never watts as far as the recovered energy goes ...so you see only currents by themselves and voltage by itself....
Also maybe separate independent cap bank being filled by "recovered energy" would be better than filling up same cap bank that is also running the show as this causes a lot of clashing and  butted  heads in current flows so lots will be cancelled out and you don't get full picture

[listener192]

Hi Gotoluc,


Jerdee indicates he has the missing component, so have you tried adding that yet?


Regards


L192