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

[Honk]

I tried some metglass alloy but the material was to thin to work with.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg61540.html#msg61540

I already got the vacuumschmelze PDF. This is were I look to find the alloys I try out.

[Gregory]

I tried some metglass alloy but the material was to thin to work with.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg61540.html#msg61540

Yes, I remember and read that. Just thought you may worked with metglas in another application in the past...

[Honk]

Updated test results:

I have continued the Solenoid vs Neodymium magnet test configurations.

While waiting on the heat threated Permenorm to arrive I have built an ordinary oriented steel core 43mm long
compared to the earlier 25mm short core. I winded 648 turns of 0.7mm CU wire onto the new core.
This configuration gives the same resistance as the 25mm Solenoid, e.g 4.4 ohms.
And running 6 amps through the coil equals 160W, the same as earlier tests.
I used grade N45 as backing neos, the same grade as the stator and rotor magnet.
As you can see I have added the repel results when reversing the fields of the Solenoid.
The earlier 25mm Solenoid test results is added for comparison.
Onto the results.

Test results when moving the lever from the Neo into the Solenoid area:
No power and no added backing neo        = 6.5kg          (25mm Solenoid = 6.5kg)
No power but added one backing neo       = 5.6kg          (25mm Solenoid = 5.5kg)
No power but added two backing neos     = 4.9kg           (25mm Solenoid = 4.5kg)
No power but added three backing neos   = 4.7kg           (Not tested)
160W input and no added backing neo     = 1.0kg           (25mm Solenoid = 3.2kg)
160W input but added one backing neo    = 0.05kg         (25mm Solenoid = 1.5kg)
160W input but added two backing neos   = Sucked in    (25mm Solenoid = 0.8kg)
160W input but added three backing neos = Sucked in    (Not tested)

Test results when moving the lever out from Solenoid area at reversed Solenoid field:
160W input and no added backing neo     =  Thrown out   (25mm Solenoid = 1.3kg)
160W input but added one backing neo    =  0.05kg         (25mm Solenoid = 1.4kg)
160W input but added two backing neos   = 1.2kg           (25mm Solenoid = 2.4kg)
160W input but added three backing neos = 1.8kg           (Not tested)

The sweet spot is marked in red. This small force of 0.05kg is very easily passed by the momentum of the rotor.
Durings these tests I have noticed that any tiny change in angles or distance will affect the results approx +/- 25%.
I have been very cautious when mounting the solenoid to make sure it gets placed as accurate as possible.

In the finished motor I can balance the attract vs repel force by slapping on various numbers av backing neos.
The sweet spot is found when the attract and repel force is equal in strength, thus making the Solenoid input power
equal at both negative and positive flux fields. This simplifies the controller design a lot.
The finished motor will also have access to 800W per coil if needed. The test rig just use 160W. And I do think I'll need
some more power in the big motor that is using really big magnets compared to the small magnets I use in the test rig.
But the motor Solenoid will be a lot bigger as well and this evens out the power required. Hopefully more than I hope for.

[Honk]

Some calculations and observation notes:

I'd like to add that the rotor magnet have a totaly free pass at 165W input per Solenoid in the latest set of tests.
The activated Solenoid on-time is approx 0.25% of each full rotor turn and this equals 82.5 watts going into the motor.
The on-time is not dependent on the speed, e.g it will remain 0.25% regardless of the RPM while running, with or without load.
But the calculated torque/rpm output from a motor using this size of magnets is most probably higher than the input.
The average torque under load is calculated to 3,13 ft-lbs

At 100 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*100)/33000 = 0,059 Hp = 44  watt output from the shaft.
At 200 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*200)/33000 = 0,119 Hp = 88  watt output from the shaft.
At 300 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*300)/33000 = 0,178 Hp = 132 watt output from the shaft.
At 400 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*400)/33000 = 0,238 Hp = 177 watt output from the shaft.
At 500 RPM under load I get = (3,13*2*3,14*500)/33000 = 0,297 Hp = 222 watt output from the shaft.

You can see for yourselves. Already at 200 RPM I've got more out than in.
Don't forget how torque behaves in an electrical motor.
At No Load I get Maximum RPM at Zero Torque and I'll get Maximum Torque when stalled at Zero RPM.
And there is a linear relationship between these two points.
Meaning that I'll get Half the Torque when the Maximum Free Spinning RPM is loaded to Half the RPM by a generator connected to the shaft.
And I do expect to hit a lot more than 400 RPM at no load when the Sticky Spot is passed without loosing any momentum at all.
If I'll hit 1000 RPM at free spinning I'll get 222 watt output on the shaft when loaded down to 500 RPM.

But this is just some calculations on a small motor.
The big one I'm building is calculated to deliver approx 4500W output at 200W input.

[nfeijo]

                      Honk,

                      It sure looks very promising. I never saw a so technical project like yours.

                      I can't wait for the news.

                       Ney