Simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor

[yssuraxu_697]

Hi, to be 100% honest with you, I do not fully understand the reasons why two magnet design is more efficent. This is very hard thing to dig in. One of the reasons may be that in reality magnetic fields do not interact. What takes place is interference, like in waves. Thus giving 4x of physical force when you double the flux lines. E(nergy)=A(rea)^2 meaning twice the amplitude (flux lines), four times energy (physical force). So we have fact (at least for me) that fields do not interact, what we see is interference picture projected on the matter.

And now, when we analyze interference pictures of two designs in simulator we see that they are quite different, angles and staturation in the matter are different. In one magnet design coil sits in area with unidirectional field (with power off) and in two magnet design coils sit in inteference sweetspot with no apparent field projection on matter (with power off)... althrough in reality those fields exist, just their interference result is zero, so no visible projection on matter.
Lets compare this to a road and truck. One magnet thing - you stop the truck head on or push it, directly. On two magnet design you have Y shaped crossroad and you merely redirect the truck where you need it.

But this can cook brains pretty quickly... so I have gone the practical way and tested various designs on simulator and in steel. I strongy suggest to do the same - ViziMag is one of the easeisest to use. The picture above is not just the picture - it is exact simulation celarly showing that for some reason static performance of designs differ radically with equal electrical input.

In steel I have achieved over 6 times of amplification in static mode (with two magnet design). You achieved 4 times with one magnet design. Those numbers are way higher than in dynamics because of remnance effects. I would divide those numbers at least by 2 for dynamic application.

You can confirm "interference theory" in simulator very easily. Just put 2 magnets in free space. Measure field direction and strength (in gauss) in point X. Remove one magnet, measure again. Remove second magnet, measure again. Then calculate vector and strength sum in X for two last tests - you will discover 100% match with first test. Same can be done in steel with some measuring equipment, with not forgetting the fact that twice gauss equals four times force.

So I would do direct comparison with light. Just like on beam of light does no see another beam and passes thru and form interference pictures on the screen... Same way magnetic flux does not see another flux and only matter sees the interference picture. Also we see refraction of flux in matter just like the light does.

http://www.genesis-corp.co.jp/e/e502.html
"In the case of a reluctance motor in the form of "A" above, the energy conversion rate is usually about 30%. If a reluctance motor produced in the form of "B" above requires 30% or less of electric power input compared to a motor produced in the form of 1 above, electric output greater than input can be theoretically expected. This proves that energy of a permanent magnet is converted into dynamic power."
So you'll be indeed seeing hard times in trying to get Genesis inspired design to go OU. Margin is pretty small.

That's all the input I can give right now. Keep up the good work and if you hit the dead end there may still be ways out...

[i_ron]

snip

That's all the input I can give right now. Keep up the good work and if you hit the dead end there may still be ways out...

Thanks!

Before you go... are you saying that Parallel path in this form would have a better chance of OU?

Ron

[yssuraxu_697]

Actuator coils/magnets arrangement part yes. You can even finetune one coil for pushing (low inductance!) and one coil for collecting flyback. Or make both coils with dual or bifilar windings, some sort of double coil flyback. As for rotor your current design is better because there is simpler to finetune airgap. Minimal airgap is absolutely critical. Aim should be 0.1-0.2mm. Over air power falls in distance^3...

So you should be able to modify your current design with thin magnets and coils like your regauging coils were. All the extra space will be freed if you decide to remove current "main coil". On the picture is just rough example. Overall length of actuator can be much shorter-squarer, like your current design, and this disk shaped rotor on the picture is notorious to make and finetune - your is better.

Also like someone else pointed out, do not overshoot with power of magnets. It needs exact matching to coil(s) power and material saturation point.

Before doing anything I kindly ask to verify my words with some small test rig and volts/amps tunable power supply. On russian thread 24kg was pulled using 4.5V and 100mA (with static 6x amplification).

Bye!

[i_ron]

Actuator coils/magnets arrangement part yes. You can even finetune one coil for pushing (low inductance!) and one coil for collecting flyback. Or make both coils with dual or bifilar windings, some sort of double coil flyback. As for rotor your current design is better because there is simpler to finetune airgap. Minimal airgap is absolutely critical. Aim should be 0.1-0.2mm. Over air power falls in distance^3...

So you should be able to modify your current design with thin magnets and coils like your regauging coils were. All the extra space will be freed if you decide to remove current "main coil". On the picture is just rough example. Overall length of actuator can be much shorter-squarer, like your current design, and this disk shaped rotor on the picture is notorious to make and finetune - your is better.

Also like someone else pointed out, do not overshoot with power of magnets. It needs exact matching to coil(s) power and material saturation point.

Before doing anything I kindly ask to verify my words with some small test rig and volts/amps tunable power supply. On russian thread 24kg was pulled using 4.5V and 100mA (with static 6x amplification).

Bye!

Thanks again yssuraxu!

What you say makes sense.

Jack's version had a much greater pole contact area which I think is better than the very narrow pole area of the Genesis. But neither have the same flux switching dynamics as the Radus or Flynn. I have stayed away from the Parallel Path version because it requires special cut laminates which puts it beyond my budget. This style though could be built at home.

The archiles heel of all these is that their power curve is not unlike a solenoid where full power is not developed until the last minute, on full penetration. (or in this case until full coverage)

Bye (for now)

Ron

[Nali2001]

Looking very good Ron, great to see so much effort and reporting back to the community. I should do that as well...
One thing I also wonder, is what amperage is doing. Meaning how fast does it reach "maximum draw" or saturation. With them reluctance motors you are in between a rock and a hared place. You want hard attraction to attract the distant pole in. And once the alignment is getting more and more in line you can in essence drop off much of the strong input.

You are right about many motors and solenoids. The strongest alignment is also the moment of worse mechanical transfer. I wonder if that can be fixed at all. Since it is a problem is next to all motors, electro or combustion...

One other difficulty with the Hildenbrand and genesis valve it that, as long as there is not yet a good pole alignment, the 'resistance' to switch the magnet is incredibly high. The magnet does not like to be switched into an huge air gap and would much rather stay in the core. So in order to force it to switch out, you need much power. This required power decreases squared with pole alignment. This also is not easily fixed I think.

You mentioned the long pole pieces of the Jacks rotors as being an advantage.
Well I think it depends how you look at it. Yes it gives you a longer attraction period. But since the 'on' time of such long poles is so long you will only be able to capture a traction of your input back. Since pole saturation in reluctance motors is reached very fast (and wanted) you are very likely to have reached maximum amp input long before the pole has reached full alignment. So this is all good for the motoring properties but not so good for spike recapturing. Since all past saturation is not recoverable. Personalty I prefer many narrow rotor poles and multiple overlapping http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/ref/sw_rel_mot1.gif stator poles.

Flynn is also very interesting I have no experience with it in a dynamic (fast switching) environment. It does seem interesting though since it works a bit different. It couples with 1 magnet and pushes another. And Jacks valves only pushes.