F.B.D.I.S.S.M - Flux.Boosted.Dual.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor.

[Honk]

Thank you for your input.

I have tested various distances between the rotor magnet to both the stator magnet and solenoid.
If have noticed that placing the solenoid to close will cause to strong attraction to the rotor magnet
and this is hard to break. If I increase the distance by a couple of millimeters then it still have good
attracting and also good repel force.
I did another test as well where I placed a strong NdFeb on the back of the solenoid to increase the
attraction mode. This boosted attraction a lot but the nessecry repel mode was weakened at the same time.
But it wasn't to weak. It was more like an equilibrium state where the repel let the rotor pass freely without force.
These tests was performed using smaller neo magnets than inside the final motor and the solenoid power was only 140W.
But I get a good feeling on how to design the most optimal solution. The research and evaluating tests will continue.

[Gregory]

have noticed that placing the solenoid to close will cause to strong attraction to the rotor magnet

True, indeed!

I did another test as well where I placed a strong NdFeb on the back of the solenoid to increase the
attraction mode. Doing this boosted the attraction but requried the repel was weakened at the same time.

Good idea. What about trying the opposite, and boosting the repulsion instead of the attraction? I think I would also tried this. When the motor is running let's say at 1000 Rpm, the rotor can pass the last stator by its own momentum. So giving it a stronger repulsion may be more effective than the attraction. Not sure of course, just an idea to test once you have the motor completed!

[Paul-R]

I haven't really thought about Paul Sprain stealing my idea. I don't believe he can do that because of this openly ongoing discussion.
If he want's to use this feature in his machine then it's OK for me as long as he doesn't .....

Honestly, folks, don't worry about Paul Sprain. Here are his claims:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. An apparatus for generating energy, wherein the apparatus comprises:

A. a rotor movable in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction and having
    at least one magnet affixed to the rotor;

B. a plate located adjacent to but spaced apart from the rotor;

C. one or more magnets affixed to and around an upper side of the plate and having
   a polarity which is opposite to the magnet affixed to the rotor;

D. a magnetic field of increasing magnetic field strength which is provided by the one or more
    magnets affixed to the plate, wherein the magnetic field is continuous except for a defined space;

E. an electromagnet capable of delivering an magnetic field and located adjacent to but not within
    the defined space, wherein the device is in sequence with movement of a magnet affixed to the rotor.


2. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein the rotor is attached to a direct drive assembly.

3. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein a single magnet is affixed to the plate.

4. An apparatus as defined by claim 1 wherein a series of magnets is affixed to the plate.

5. A process for generating energy in which a rotor is moved through a magnetic field in a generally
    circular direction, thereby turning a shaft attached to the rotor.

6. A process as defined by claim 5 wherein magnetic energy is converted into mechanical force or kinetic energy.

7. A process as defined by claim 5 wherein magnetic energy is converted into electrical energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me which claims mean anything. Which claims have been
done before? It is all excrement.
Paul.

[Honk]

I don't worry about the patent unless I get prohibited in my goals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now some new sticky spot force info:

I have measured the force need to overcome the back pull from the last magnet.
You can interpret the numbers yourselves.

Test device: 1pcs of neo N45 at 40x18x10mm representing the last stator magnet.
                  1pcs of N45 40x18x20mm representing the larger rotor magnet.Twice the size of the stator magnet in depth.
                  One Solenoid using oriented steel core.
                  Core size at 40x20x25mm using 532 turns of 0.6mm wire, 9mm deep. Res 4.4 ohms at 6amps equal to 160W.
                  In some tests I placed a N45 neo on the back of the Solenoid core to enhance the electromagnetic performance.

I'd like to clarify that this setup uses 2 rotor magnets on top of each other. It's not the same rotor as the earlier picture.

Test results when moving the lever from the Neo into the Solenoid area:
No power and no added backing neo     = 6.5kg force.
No power but added one backing neo    = 5.5kg force.
160W input and no added backing neo  = 3.2kg force.
160W input but added one backing neo = 1.5kg force.

Using an extra Solenoid neo magnet and feeding 160W into the solenoid will decrease the sticky spot force from 6.5 to 1.5Kg.
Pretty good results from this simple setup.
If I had used a high permeability core and used twice the current at 12 amps (600W) then it would probably drop less than 0.5Kg or better.
Ones the rotor have entered the solenoid area there is no back pull at all while the solenoid is active.

600W might sound a lot to you guys, but it is really not as bad as it sounds.
One must consider that every passing across the solenoid just take a couple of milliseconds.
At 500 rpm each rotor magnet will pass in approx 3.6ms. This is equal to 600W x 0.0036 = 2.16 watts to soften the sticky spot.
When I sum up all six rotor magnets I get an average power of 108W going into the solenoid continuously.
At 500 rpm: 2.16W x six heads = 12,96 watts. And 8.33 Revolutions per Sec x 12.96W = 108 watts.

[Schpankme]

Honk if you like progress!   

- Schpankme