Simple to make Hilden-Brand style motor

[i_ron]

Do you have Italian guys patent? I haven't found it yet. But found their website:
http://newmagneticengine.blogspot.com/

Myself I'm working on the first one in series of posts describing key problems in designs seen so far. There are surprisingly many of them. Of course solutions will be offered.
But I'm not professional electric motor engineer so everyone interested should do the same, together we have better chances to pinpoint all the problems.
Some key areas: material properties and strength of magnets, relative dimensions and proportions of various parts, absolute dimensions, rotation speed, winding type, airgap, controller, various other sources of losses.
With little digging you'd be surprised how far technology has actually moved from ordinary electric motors with high inductance round wire coils. Now is time to apply all that technology to PP motor.

Well before we get to carried away with the rotary version, I think that the
first link you posted to the reciprocating model would make a good test bed.

I would like to do that first, OK?

I see one or two places where an improvement in design should make an improvement, for example their tiny crank off set is a major friction producer. If they can have this thing run, driving that large fan, then there must be some power in the design. I realize this is a dead end for commercial purposes but that in itself is an inducement.

Edit:  another sticky point is their use of voltage from 4 volts to 30 volts.
Why? I find with a very small coil the thing will switch at say 9 volts. To my mind then they are ... with the huge coil... voltage diving it like a motor.

The switching speed should control the RPM, not the voltage.
Any voltage under that required to switch cleanly is not fully switching and any voltage over that required to switch is a waste. Admittedly postulating from a static test and a higher switching speed requires a higher voltage but then they also seem to be switching full time, that is 50% left 50% right.

Ron

[yssuraxu_697]

Hi, as mentioned, I have identified various problems with PP designs seen so far. This is first post in series.

Problem #1: AIRGAP

I have "regular" PP demonstrator made from MOT. Works impressively w/o airgaps. Full control over 25kg. But since we need motor not magnetic boots... can't do w/o airgaps. So I conducted some tests:

TESTS

1.5MM SPACERS: -------------------------------------------------

Did not bother to test, force was almost non existent.

0.75MM SPACERS: -------------------------------------------------

Test 1, w magnets: ----------------

Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 0.1kg
Power RIGHT - left side pulls 0kg
Power LEFT - left side pulls 1.8kg

Comments: We have non existent force at power off and right, force "likes" right side. This can be used, but likely only with zero remnance materials. Overally miserable performance compared to w/o airgaps tests (25kg pull).

Test 2, w magnets: ----------------

Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0.75mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 2.6kg
Power RIGHT - left side pulls 0.4kg
Power LEFT - left side pulls 4.5kg

Comments: Now we have symmetrical system with same behaviour like w/o airgaps setup. In power off state flux aligns evenly between both sides. Maximal pull is 2.5 times better than in Test 1, but we must use "power right" to free the rotor.

Test 3, control, w/o magnets: ----------------

Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0mm (right)
Power OFF - left side pulls 0kg
Power ON - left side pulls 0.7kg

Comments: Power consumption is same as in other tests, so force gain in Tests 1 vs 3 is only 2.5x, far from 4x that PP should deliver.

Test 4, control, w/o magnets: ----------------

Airgap 0.75mm (left) / 0.75mm (right)

Too weak to test despite same consumption as in other tests. Enormous gain in Tests 2 vs 4, over 4x for sure.

CONCLUSIONS: -----------------------------------------------------

- too big of an airgap will dramatically reduce power of the PP motor, of course this varies with size of the motor but for desktop versions anyting above 0.5mm is likely hopeless in terms of OU. Aim should be about 0.1...0.2mm.
- when using materials w remnance one airgap system will likely not reach OU because we have only 2x gain, but must waste energy for releasing rotor or face drag. When material has zero remnance picture is much better. We still have only 2x gain but flux is "auto switching" to right side and releasing rotor.
- perfect PP system is symmetrical, this calls for twin rotors or pivoting end pieces like in recently given Italian video
- in PP system with twin airgaps but only one rotor, size of the actuator inner airgap must be adjustable, it will need matching to all other variables

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: -----------------------------------------------

As shown, PP system w/o airgaps vs system with airgaps differ big time in their pulling power. So question arises, can we get rid of an airgap in motor? Luckily yes - answer is the ferrofluid. It cools the machine much better than air and provides path for flux. Only problem is that currently widespread ferrofluid saturates in 100...400 gauss range. This results in sub 10% gains in big motors but radical gains in small motors and acutators. So there are good chances that even ordinary low power permament magnet motor will go OU, when converted to ferrofluid in "airgap". This can be also life-saver for small homemade PP motor on ceramic magnets where needed <=0.2mm airgap cant be achieved.

Ferrofluid boosted motors must be low-speed, in sub 1000rpm range to see big gains.

If we should see an arrival of ferrofluids with saturation in thousands of gauss... well... you can guess what happends then...

Some materials about ferrofluid boosted mechanisms are in attachment.

SUMMARY: -----------------------------------------------------------

I would bet on:
- small, weak ferrofluid-boosted motor
- medium sized motor from material without remnance and single airgap
- medium sized motor from material with/without remnance and twin airgaps (one adjustable)
- big motor where airgap is not that critical and symmetry comes "for free"
- non-rotary (ferrofluid-boosted) symmetrical design

NB! Picture below is illustrative, in Test 1 some flux goes to the right also, it is not shown here.

[yssuraxu_697]

Well before we get to carried away with the rotary version, I think that the
first link you posted to the reciprocating model would make a good test bed.

Of course. This is perfect testbed. You fill find reasons in my previous post, also it is cheap to make and even cheaper to tweak and modify. No sense to move to rotary designs before fully understanding all aspects of the problem.

Why? I find with a very small coil the thing will switch at say 9 volts. To my mind then they are ... with the huge coil... voltage diving it like a motor.

I have not yet started tests on this but yes, preliminary data points out that PP drive coil should be:
- low to none inductance
- low voltage
- low resistace
- backspike collection from separate coil
- there is interesting proposal to make bifilar coil and short second strand for drive pulse (kills inductance, instant rise of drive current) and collect backspike from it after that:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8796.msg229608#msg229608

I have not yet done physical expirments with "clever" coils but I will soon. Focus will be low / variable inductance solutions.

Good luck!

[Nali2001]

Nice to see interest in this design.
Well to me the major advantage of the Flynn motor over the Genesis and Hildenbrand valve is that the fields of the magnets do not have to be forced out the core loop > over the air gap > into the rotor. In the Flynn motor the fields of the magnets naturally go outside the core and interact with the rotor. The coils only control WHERE the fields of the magnets interact with the rotor.

See the first image below. This is with the coils off and since the magnets are repelling they exit the core and interact with the rotor. In image 2 you see what happens with the coils on, and image 3 is with the coils on in the reversed polarity. So the coils only steer the fields. This is not so with the Hildebrand valve, there you first need to force the fields out of the valve, which takes plenty of power, especially when the alignment is not yet good enough.

You will also notice in the last image, that at position 3 you don't need to power the coils at all to do that cycle. It's only a short period but the input can be turned off at that point.

Flynn said that the coils should be controlled with Pwm and not voltage.

Regards,
Steven

[i_ron]

I have not yet started tests on this but yes, preliminary data points out that PP drive coil should be:
- low to none inductance
- low voltage
- low resistace
- backspike collection from separate coil
- there is interesting proposal to make bifilar coil and short second strand for drive pulse (kills inductance, instant rise of drive current) and collect backspike from it after that:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8796.msg229608#msg229608

I
Good luck!

This has come up with the Bedini Ferris Wheel experiment also. JB has separate windings on this wheel doing the same thing. Ties in with mag amp technology I believe. Yes, this is a very interesting development that
needs to be investigated. (for any motor/generator)

Ron