Simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor

[i_ron]

Great work. I like your build.

I have a question regarding efficiency. (The shaft torque seems kind of low)
Have you considered that using no magnets the efficiency is e'g 50% and adding the magnets gives you a slight efficiency increase.
In that case it's an improvement but not OU.

Don't forget that the needed coil firing voltage increases by speed. This happens in all moving fields, using magnets or not.
Can you measure the voltage increase as RPM increases? That will determine the final outcome of the motor as input = I x V.

It will also be interesting to see the measured shaft output vs electrical input when you have completed the motor.
I can send you an efficient three phase 750W generator when you have a fully working prototype motor.

Keep up the good work.

Honk, Good to see you back, also. It was two years ago that we last corresponded. Yes you could be quite right as to the efficiency. It was so weak last time that I abandoned it for all this time.

Just sort of regained interest since JB's ferris wheel at the convention last fall and the renewed interest in the Radus Boot mechanism. Flynn is over cop 1 I would guess but that avenue is pretty well closed off to the home experimenter. Genesis seems to be near or over cop 1 and have product on the market. Is it possible for the home experimenter? I don't know.

I make lots of mistakes so like a friendly forum, such as this, to keep my thinking on the straight and narrow. It is only a 5 watt motor at the moment, so even with 4 coils it would only be a 20 watt motor, so only a tiny build in the scheme of things.

I have a 500 watt three phase generator... just need the "efficient" motor to drive it. If this doesn't work out then the RV, belted flywheel is another option I would like to look at...

Ron

[i_ron]

Ron,

its interesting that sending the spike to the RG coils produces an improvement, it reminds me of gotoluc's tests where he used a diode to send the spike back into the coil that made the spike in the first place, using a magnet on top of the coil to "measure" the strength of the field he got a significant increase when sending the spike back into the coil

Thanks Rave, this prompted me to drill a pocket in the core and get out the gauss meter.

I was wrong. The RG coils do nothing, they are not needed, not working.

Here is a gauss pic (first) obtained with moving the opto... it shows that the flux (gauss) builds at the start of the pulse and only overshoots by a few mS at the end of the pulse.The flux field then goes opposite until the start of the next pulse. Why it does this I haven't figured out but it does.

(second pic) when I tune the opto for maximum speed then a positive going hump appears. The same thing happens with using the spike to the RG coils or pulsing the RG coils there is a rebound and a major hump. With the RG coils reversed the spike extends the pulse.

A word of explanation: the gauss meter reads positive for north and negative for south. I have the probe on the south extension but reversed so that it reads positive for power on. So with the power off and just the residual flux attraction it reads positive. With the RG coils connected to the PS it reads negative. No recovery diode on these two pics. 20mS per square, like the power pulse is 35 mS long....overshoot, 5 mS? Edit: while the sharp saw tooth might be tempting to put down as lack of current a more prosaic explanation is ... on a static test with the core and rotor bar only 25% in alignment the meter only reads 1G, and so on as the core is brought further into alignment the reading continues to rise to say 4G... so the saw tooth is a picture of the alignment!

So as they say, regarding the RG coils... "nothing to see here folks, move on"

What shows more promise is back spike collection... up to 80 mA before it starts extending the power pulse...

Ron

[rave154]

veryyyyyy interesting results there Ron

[yssuraxu_697]

Hi, I've been watching your progress. Since you are already moving in the right direction... maybe this will kick things to the higher gear:

In your present physical configuration of device you will likely not reach OU. This is because present configuration gives you rather low theoretical force amplification, which means even lower real world amplification.

On the other hand Radus/Flynn style configuration gives theoretical maximum of around 4x force amplification. With around 3,5x real world figures.

Especially important is placement of the coils in Flynn configuration at the "flux crossroads" which radically reduces total consumption when rotor is moving AND there is collection of backspike.

Collecting backspike is a must! It may be deciding factor OU vs no OU. Also when motor has more than one "thruster" they can be arranged in such way that at each moment one thruster is giving a "kick" while others are busy sending backspike back to run capacitors. So all the electricity you are using is alaways used in "full power" 4x amp mode and there is never switching coils' polarity. "Regauging" is done by physical removal of flux path via rotor inertia.

This will likely give OU in relation to direct input (when utilizing rotor torque also), but of course not in relation to ability of the system to do physical work (4x vs 3.5x = <90% efficenty). There is no violation of any laws - whitch is the reason for fact that systems like this can be simulated on ordinary magnetic field simulators.

There is fair amount of theoretical information about this here:

http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1406.0

Comments are in Russian, so use Google Translate.

Good luck! ...and excuse typos I'm from Russia

[i_ron]

Hi, I've been watching your progress. Since you are already moving in the right direction... maybe this will kick things to the higher gear:

In your present physical configuration of device you will likely not reach OU. This is because present configuration gives you rather low theoretical force amplification, which means even lower real world amplification.

On the other hand Radus/Flynn style configuration gives theoretical maximum of around 4x force amplification. With around 3,5x real world figures.

Especially important is placement of the coils in Flynn configuration at the "flux crossroads" which radically reduces total consumption when rotor is moving AND there is collection of backspike.

Collecting backspike is a must! It may be deciding factor OU vs no OU. Also when motor has more than one "thruster" they can be arranged in such way that at each moment one thruster is giving a "kick" while others are busy sending backspike back to run capacitors. So all the electricity you are using is alaways used in "full power" 4x amp mode and there is never switching coils' polarity. "Regauging" is done by physical removal of flux path via rotor inertia.

This will likely give OU in relation to direct input (when utilizing rotor torque also), but of course not in relation to ability of the system to do physical work (4x vs 3.5x = <90% efficenty). There is no violation of any laws - whitch is the reason for fact that systems like this can be simulated on ordinary magnetic field simulators.

There is fair amount of theoretical information about this here:

http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1406.0

Comments are in Russian, so use Google Translate.

Good luck! ...and excuse typos I'm from Russia

Excellent post yssurax, the type of feedback I am looking for.

No problem with your english but I am not clear at this time as to the direction this should take.

You do understand that the hildenbrand/genesis style of device uses a coil input as the second magnet?  So this is what I don't understand at the moment as to why you would say this configuration is not equivalent?

Interesting to see my video at the end of that list! But in my two previous videos I show this HBG setup as a "four times" possibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYcskBvSg6Q

Anyway welcome to the list and I hope you will continue to post your very informative information.

rgds, Ron

PS: thanks for the confirmation on back spike collection. Late in the day yesterday I was playing with a Phil Wood's collection scheme, trying different collection coils and sending the output to a separate battery.
Well I was only 20 minutes or so, the  fully charged battery (at start) stood at 15 volts when I thought measure it!