Muller Dynamo

[konehead]

hi Chal
Thats what I did last night, used scope to really see where the best points to short are at, (its the very peak of the sinewave) and also with the new pulsewidth adjsut circuit, also played around with pulse width too, using the scope. all the while watched the ammeter, and checked rpms with rpm meter.
What happens is if the pulse width is too wide, (or doubled -up) then you have "no choice" but to short down there at zero-line area, and leave the peaks "blank" as you describe... and yes, this will make it no-lugging but I didnt get the immediate huge voltage increase, and eventually voltage around 300V - from a "base" voltage of 10V.
Shorting coils down there in non-peak areas is around 6 times less voltage increase into cap - so there is some, and its slow to fill cap too...
I dont agree with your idea to short the peak as it descends or ascends, and to cutoff one-half of the wave....you posted a few days ago about this and that is why I did all this - to confirm its the PEAKS where you want to short and I havent been leading everyone astray down road to ruin and lugging of rotor too......
I will suspect that your reed switches have a duoble-pulse from the front and back edge of magnet tripping them - this especially happens if using  farily large rotor magnets to trip reed switches, and becasue you cant really nail the peak-period right in the midde, with a single quick very narrow pulse -  that is why your theory of shorting at the rise and fall and not the peak works best for you - thats all I can think of...
HOWEVER,  all this said, why not pulse sinewave  at the "ascension", and the "descension" and fill seperate caps (maybe) with those and at same time hit that peak period with the very short pulse width too....Ismael Aviso always talks about shorting five times per peak period - so combining your method, with mine, it would then be: twice at ascension, once at top of peak and antoher two times at descenision - this might really be something...just as long as it doesnt lug it could be great.
I agree with you that you wont be able to put this into one big UF cap - that big cap will have too much resistance and block most of the ringing (unless it is already 3/4 full or something like that) so better to do it into smaller caps....also once a cap reaches a level of volts, it does no good to put "lesser" jolts of voltage into it - its not going to fill any higher if the cap is already at 100V and you inject a pulse of 95V into it as example...

[Magluvin]

On reed switches

If you only apply the magnet to 1 end of the reed, it wont double latch.

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

And you can bias the reed with a small magnet or even adjust the sesitivity using magnetic objects

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYgs7dvyZqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR7P-JSF6i4

Mags

[chalamadad]

hi Chal
Thats what I did last night, used scope to really see where the best points to short are at, (its the very peak of the sinewave) and also with the new pulsewidth adjsut circuit, also played around with pulse width too, using the scope. all the while watched the ammeter, and checked rpms with rpm meter.
What happens is if the pulse width is too wide, (or doubled -up) then you have "no choice" but to short down there at zero-line area, and leave the peaks "blank" as you describe... and yes, this will make it no-lugging but I didnt get the immediate huge voltage increase, and eventually voltage around 300V - from a "base" voltage of 10V.
Shorting coils down there in non-peak areas is around 6 times less voltage increase into cap - so there is some, and its slow to fill cap too...
I dont agree with your idea to short the peak as it descends or ascends, and to cutoff one-half of the wave....you posted a few days ago about this and that is why I did all this - to confirm its the PEAKS where you want to short and I havent been leading everyone astray down road to ruin and lugging of rotor too......
I will suspect that your reed switches have a duoble-pulse from the front and back edge of magnet tripping them - this especially happens if using  farily large rotor magnets to trip reed switches, and becasue you cant really nail the peak-period right in the midde, with a single quick very narrow pulse -  that is why your theory of shorting at the rise and fall and not the peak works best for you - thats all I can think of...
HOWEVER,  all this said, why not pulse sinewave  at the "ascension", and the "descension" and fill seperate caps (maybe) with those and at same time hit that peak period with the very short pulse width too....Ismael Aviso always talks about shorting five times per peak period - so combining your method, with mine, it would then be: twice at ascension, once at top of peak and antoher two times at descenision - this might really be something...just as long as it doesnt lug it could be great.
I agree with you that you wont be able to put this into one big UF cap - that big cap will have too much resistance and block most of the ringing (unless it is already 3/4 full or something like that) so better to do it into smaller caps....also once a cap reaches a level of volts, it does no good to put "lesser" jolts of voltage into it - its not going to fill any higher if the cap is already at 100V and you inject a pulse of 95V into it as example...

Hey Kone,

I think you misunderstood me or maybe I did not make myself clear enough. I agree the shorting must happen at the peaks of the wave and NOT when the wave is ascending or descending. Only this will give highest voltage spikes. My idea is to leave the waveform intact only when it either ascends or when it descends. I made a drawing to make it clearer what I said about cutting off one half of the wave. See below.

About the reeds: I think it is not shorting twice. It is shorting at one peak and unshorting at the other peak. Both shorting and unshorting at the peaks of the wave will create high voltage spikes.

[mariuscivic]

Hi guys!
Just a small video with shorting at both peaks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRXmAsEUF0

[konehead]

Hi Mariu

Really nice simple video to see again -

If you put another coil spaced on stator plate exactly "in between" the rotor magnets, with your existing coil right underneath one of the rotor magnets as the spacing of the two coils, you will get a perfect AC sinewave if you want to try it.

If the coils is wound LeftHandRule, for example, then have the 2nd coil also LHR, but connect the OUT of coil A to the OUT of coil B - and connect in series too...so "ADJACENT PAIRS OF COIL CONNECTED IN BACKWARDS SERIES" is what I call it... the AC signal comes from the two leads of the IN of coil A and the IN of coil B...sort of treats the two coils liek one big long one sort of...

So if 8 magnet rotor, you could eventually pack the stator plates with 16 coils in the same spacing as described above too...but they better be aricores, since everythign is "inphase" and ferrous cores will cause bad rotational-lugging.... unless you did the odd number of coils vs even number of magnets Muller-thing....

Doing these two coils in backwards sereis, should double yoru power, since now you have twice as many peaks to short at...its what I am doing now in thing working on - I have 32 peaks to short per revolution since 16 coil -postions on stator plate in mine...

I got my pulse widht down to only .75 millisecond and cap fills just as fast as if it was 2 or 3 milliseconds - but you get rotor-lugging at 2 or 3 milliseconds, but none at all at .75 millisecond short