Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[polarbreeze]

It's not important if there's voltage drop across the ammeter because you can measure the actual voltage entering the transformer with your voltmeter. PB

THE INLINE INPUT AMP METER CAUSES AN OUTPUT VOLTAGE DROP ON THE OUTPUT VOLTAGE ACROSS THE RESISTOR - WHICH DOES NOT OCCUR WITH THE CLAMP ON.

Thane

The only way an ammeter on the input can cause an output voltage drop is if it is causing an input voltage drop, since for any given turns ratio the output voltage is exactly proportional to the input voltage. This is true from theory and also confirmed by your own voltage measurements so far - for example, the 3.84 turns ratio predicts the voltage ratio to within 0.6% every time, over multiple different tests, which is consistent with the accuracy and resolution of your voltmeters.

The inline ammeter will of course cause some small voltage drop at the input (but 30% - 40% would be surprising). This actually doesn't matter at all to the measurements (even if it's very large) because the input voltage you need to use in your calculations is the voltage at the input terminal to the transformer. You can measure this precisely with your voltmeter regardless of what the voltage drop is across the ammeter.

PB

[polarbreeze]

... LUC INTENDS TO MAKE THE MOST OF WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE...

Thane

I noticed there was a grey bench meter in one of the pictures, just caught the side of it, maybe a Keithley or something? What does that have for AC current ranges? Maybe it would do as a stopgap for an inline ammeter until you find a better one. It seems such a waste for Luc to be spending a lot of time making measurements with an ammeter that's not telling us anything useful at all. The voltage measurements are OK but the information about current is of no value.

PB

[polarbreeze]

...I really think you should use a proper in-circuit meter for these tests, as also recommended by Mr Megger and others. It's important to remove the ambiguity in the readings... It's not important if there's voltage drop across the ammeter because you can measure the actual voltage entering the transformer with your voltmeter...

PB

It sounded to me like he was saying the actual voltage ultimately output was changed by the presence of some devices at some settings, not that he had measurement problems with the voltage on the way in...?

Yes, he was saying that but the output voltage drop is caused by the input voltage dropping (understandably). Neither one matters at all provided they measure the actual voltage at the transformer input and output terminals to use in their calculations. I posted more details explaining that to Thane a couple of posts up...

PB

[LarryC]

Hi Thane,

I have a proposed addition to your theory and would appreciate your opinion and the opinions of the other motor testers.


Quote from Thane:

At a certain low RPM the system decelerates to a DEAD STOP when the coils are shorted. Indicating Back EMF in the air gap and Lenz?s Law effect.

At a certain higher RPM the system accelerates ? the greater the generator output the greater the acceleration. My explanation for this is the higher RPM state produces more generator MMF (magnemotive force H) ? enough to overcome the reluctance of the (hard) steel rotor and motor drive shaft to make it?s way into the motor rather than remaining in the air gap as per the lower RPM state.


Quote from Aether22:

It really is quite astounding that the 'back EMF' magnetic field from an electromagnet (which is drawing I believe an unknown but possibly not awfully impressive current) can travel into a repelling Neo, through the spokes of a steel rotor (not a steel chosen by the manufactures to be highly permeable), through a steel shaft (ditto), spread out into a rotor and return through the air many feet to the back end of the generator coil while having the dramatic effects it has.


I was pretty much convinced that most of your theory was correct even though I agreed with Aether22 about the electromagnet being able to produce the effect.
But I was thrown for a loop with the announcement that it also worked with an acrylic rotor. I didn?t see the acrylic rotor until it exploded. Luc stated that he used 2? X 1? N50 (need superman to pull them apart).

I picture the acrylic rotor working this way: When the coil is open both Neo S and N can use the flux path thru the long iron bar of the coil. When the coil is closed whichever pole is closes (lets say S) will end up winning the flux battle and charge the electromagnet while tying up most of the S flux. N then has to look for the path of least reluctance. The choices are to jump to the opposite end of the long electromagnet or to the motor rotor/stator, since the other Neo N S flux is occupied. Obviously it was the motor rotor/stator. However the flux from N along would not be enough to create a significant speed increase, unless a major portion of it was released at one time and slapped the motor at near the speed of light producing much greater power. The flux release is probably not a slow time varied process. There must be a dynamic interaction between the forces, for instance how long can N hang on to the core? Does it wait until the coil current and S flux reaches certain values, which would cut off the cores attraction as least reluctance?



Now, is a similar effect occurring in the iron rotors? That it is not the electromagnet flux, but the fact that the opposite pole has to find a new path and a similar dynamic occurs.   

Is this a new easy build advanced magnet switching motor? Easy build, because all the other ones require special equipment to build the laminations. These are already built!!!

I could have tested this out in a month or so, but why waste Thanes and others, valuable experience. I?m sure those testers with non-magnetic rotors available or equipment to build, can figure out a flux block to check part of the additional theory proposed, of course if it makes it pass Thane and the other testors. Time is short. Sadly, JackH just announced that he has ALS and he will be turning over the development of his magnet switching motor to Ohio State.

Regards,
Larry           

[OilBarren]

Hi Thane,

I have a proposed addition to your theory and would appreciate your opinion and the opinions of the other motor testers.

Now, is a similar effect occurring in the iron rotors? That it is not the electromagnet flux, but the fact that the opposite pole has to find a new path and a similar dynamic occurs.   

Is this a new easy build advance magnet switching motor? Easy build because all the other ones require special equipment to build the laminations. These are already built!!!

I could have tested this out in a month or so, but why waste Thanes and others, valuable experience. I?m sure those testers with non-magnetic rotors available or equipment to build, can figure out a flux block to check part of the additional theory proposed, of course if it make it pass Thane. Time is short. Sadly, JackH just announced that he has ALS and he will be turning over the development of his magnet switching motor to Ohio State.

Regards,
Larry           

DEAR LARRY,

THE PLEXIGLASS WHEEL ONLY WORKS WITH THE 8 COIL SET UP NOT WHEN ONLY A SINGLE COIL IS EMPLOYED. ACCELERATION IS THERE BUT IT IS SLIGHT.

ALSO LUC AND I DISCOVERED RECENTLY THAT LOW GAUGE WIRE PRODUCING HIGH CURRENT SLOWS DOWN THE MAGNETICALLY COUPLED STEEL ROTOR BUT HIGH GAUGE WIRE PRODUCING HIGH VOLTAGE ACCELERATES THE ROTOR.

WE ARE DESIGNING OUR DUNE BUGGY GENERATOR WITH LOW GAUGE, HIGH CURRENT WIRE FOR REGENERATIVE BRAKING AND HIGH GAUGE, HIGH VOLTAGE FOR REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION.

CHEERS
Thane