Permanent magnet assisted motor coil designs

[captainpecan]

@gyulasun
Thanks for the info. I will check it all out this evening when I get back to better internet. Out in the country all day working.

[Floor]

Hi Captainpecan, 

You surely have heard or know about the Muller motor.  An efficiency report by a serious replication attempt is shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg   and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY  He has several other videos on his Muller motor activities and here is his forum http://www.alt-nrg.org/Muller.html   

In floodrod's earlier thread I included two links on measured efficiency on a replicated zero force motor, see the details there: https://overunity.com/19091/quad-reciprocator-motor-idea/msg565965/#msg565965 

IMHO, to receive much better efficiency i.e. to increase output torque for pulse motors, the number of input coils would need to be increased so that the distance a rotor magnet should travel between two coils would be a few cm only. So the number of coil and magnet interactions (either attract or repel force) is added together AND this addition is repeated say 15 or 20 times within a full 360° turn of the rotor, then you can expect higher torque.  Whether this would eventually bring a COP > 1 performance I am not sure:  supposing such pulse motor would reach say 80% efficiency without capturing the flyback pulse energy, then dioing so there might be some success towards the goal.   

Gyula

Also, increase in the radius of a rotor will increases torque ( greater leverage).

[Johnsmith]

Edited post... I found some math errors. I took down my efficiency test results until I get it figured out better.


I think I went from a possible 128% efficiency to 31% efficiency because i figured wrong.. that's pretty bad... lol. I think I will work a bit more on making sure my efficiency tests are as accurate as possible and start making some huge adjustments to design. The whole concept may end up very inefficient afterall. Hopefully I'm figuring something wrong. Time will tell.

  For something basic that might work, have 2 magnets attracted to each other on a wheel. I know, how simple. Then next you'll
have one magnet flip reversing its field. Then you have repulsion.
The question is, does increasing amperage or volts allow for overunity? Basically will stepping up the voltage of a coil allow such
a device to rotate more quickly generating more current? Basically instead of a flow of energy in the field of a coil, what if it was a
burst of energy instead?
Then since the rotating armature moving past the field coils at a higher rpm, will their be a net gain? The armature in a way is a
flywheel that will keep rotating with no magnetic field causing it to rotate. Simply put, if it rotates on its own momentum until exciter
coils cause it to rotate, how much will it slow?
And this also means that the coils powering it can not be the same one's that are generating electricity. And now you'll understand
why I stick to Bessler's Wheel. I can understand one side is heavier than the other but am confused on why a constant field is needed
when a rotating mass like Bessler's wheel has conserved energy.
Still, I find your thread interesting and it is thought provoking.

just an FYI, Chevrolet on its Corvette had a gas hungry engine. And then they realized that on the freeway, it maintained velocity at a
more efficient rate by running on 6 cylinders instead of 8. It dummied 2 cylinders. Turning off the power supply to a magnetic field
powering an electric motor to generate electricity might follow the same mechanical principals.
Basically when an armature is between coils, it's probably wasting energy. And yet if a coil can be timed to reverse polarity then a burst
of energy might be more efficient than a continuous power supply. The same would apply when fields are attracted to each other. As in
math, the inverse is always true. And yep, I like Bessler because gravity has no energy.

p.s.s., just to make sure if you consider this, don't make the rookie mistake of thinking an A.C. motor is an A.C. generator. Everyone knows
an A.C. generator has switching fields so the coils reverse polarity. With what I suggested you consider, the coils would reverse polarity when the
armature is moving past a coil, ie. motor. Pull/push.
Then the energy not used between coils would be the net gain for the generator which the motor powers.That would be D.C. and would need a
rectifier to feed the motor. And then you'll need to consider the drag creating electricity causes in a generator. A.C. is way more efficient than D.C.,
probably why a rectifier for the generator would help. D.C. can lose too much energy to the point what you're trying couldn't work. They seem to
miss this on hydrogen powered cars. They say about 20% of the energy is lost from the electricity generating membrane to the motor. A.C. current
doesn't have such losses. Why they use it to transmit energy thousands of miles. Okay, maybe only several hundred miles but you get the idea,
right?

[captainpecan]

Also, increase in the radius of a rotor will increases torque ( greater leverage).

Good point. But am I thinking backwards? On the same size rotor, if I moved the magnet in toward the shaft wouldn't it give more torque, and out towards the edge more speed? I am going to make some adjustments and actually since I have gone so far with it, I'm at a spot that I can maybe answer a few questions I don't want to bug me later. Like, what if I just added one more layer of coils that are fired offset from the first layer along with a 3rd rotor. Would the efficiency be about the same or would it jump up quite a bit? Now where it is at, more pulses into more coils will be even shorter pulses due to rotor speed making all the pulses a little more efficient. Not only that more magnetic field attraction for the entire rotation adding to the torque. And, I can do a ton of tests woth these coils in other applications anyway if this whole thing ends up being a massive turd... lol. Like switching these into a solid state configuration to try and pull some extra energy from that inner magnet flipping. Or, taking out the magnet and winding a very small coil of high guage wire I can slide inside the hollow core. Would there be Lenz drag from that tiny center coil since it will be surrounded by the metal bushing I have in it that should contain it??? There are a million ideas I have, and I see this seemingly small disappointing results as me being in a position to test more things that I have never seen anyone do before. I would like to know more about the problems @citfa had when he was working on something similar. He'll, I've even been kicking around the idea of using a joule thief concept to massively pulse and capture the flyback, but do it when the rotor magnets are in place to see if I still get a small degree of rotation as a bonus to use instead of it being what I'm looking for as the output.


I will be out of town for a few days this weekend so I won't have much to share. But I am keeping notes of things to try with these special coils. If any of you come up with some odd ball thing for me to try with them just to learn from it, let me know. I cannot seem to prove it, but I really feel there is SOMETHING to this concept. I just haven't figured it out yet. Maybe I'm wrong, but I will have to run out of things to try to admit it!!!

[captainpecan]

Hi Captainpecan, 

You surely have heard or know about the Muller motor.  An efficiency report by a serious replication attempt is shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYP2l3Y-NMg   and he details the measurements in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktCp7r7C_lY  He has several other videos on his Muller motor activities and here is his forum http://www.alt-nrg.org/Muller.html   

In floodrod's earlier thread I included two links on measured efficiency on a replicated zero force motor, see the details there: https://overunity.com/19091/quad-reciprocator-motor-idea/msg565965/#msg565965 

IMHO, to receive much better efficiency i.e. to increase output torque for pulse motors, the number of input coils would need to be increased so that the distance a rotor magnet should travel between two coils would be a few cm only. So the number of coil and magnet interactions (either attract or repel force) is added together AND this addition is repeated say 15 or 20 times within a full 360° turn of the rotor, then you can expect higher torque.  Whether this would eventually bring a COP > 1 performance I am not sure:  supposing such pulse motor would reach say 80% efficiency without capturing the flyback pulse energy, then dioing so there might be some success towards the goal.   

Gyula

Thanks for sharing this. It does make me look at my 39% as not to bad after all. I do think before I step away from this design entirely, I will be adding another layer of coils and a 3rd rotor. I just have to know what effect it will have. I could be at a place in efficiency that may really increase it with a little more work. May as well find out! Also, I noticed his huge performance difference with his gap being to small. I found that myself and it surprised me as well. I thought my gap was huge until I made it even worse and got better performance. Fun stuff! I'll keep plugging away. Thanks for all the little nuggets of info you drop, I appreciate different views and to learn from others successes and failures.