Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

[wattsup]

@guys

Thanks for your comments. My EE as you know is the pitts. I thought the Zener would stay closed until voltage would reach a certain level on the cap, then open to discharge the cap into the impulse coil. Dammit. Then the only alternative is to replace it with a reed as @gyulasun says and just position it physically so the rotating magnet hits it at the right time.

The coil should discharge a North polarity when the magnet has passed above the impulse coil and its trailing North polarity is right above it, or better if halfway.

Yes my thinking is if the pick-up can load enough and then get dumped, it could not stay under Lenz's law. It basically took the charge and ran with it right away leaving the pickup dry and the magnet free to continue to the next dry pickup coil.

And having the circuit on each quadrant being independent all would only rely on the magnet passage to give it the charge and discharge. The Magnet is the flux and timing provider. I'd call it the boss.

So take away the zener and replace with a positioned reed.

Does this make sense. Hmmmmm.
I think this idea could have some merit to go to the next level.

[gyulasun]

Hi folks, hi gyulasun. Ok thats interesting, all the other information and obvious advantages of the motor design get thrown out the window just because of one post and then the man falls off the face of the earth, how very interesting. Lets not forget this motor design uses both poles of coil directly with the flux compression, that alone makes this motor superior to anything else ive ever built, i dont know about anyone else. So even if there is no cemf reduction it doesnt really matter because this design makes practical use of air core coils by the flux compression and dual poles being used and by design no drag back to coils and all other benefits of not using cores.

peace, love, light

Hi Skywatcher,

Yes I fully agree, Garry's motor setup is not an average pulse motor, and it surely is worth testing.  This is why a real mechanical  output power measurement is needed on it. Years ago I also built it with only 4 magnet pairs and 1 coil pair to see and experience and I was also impressed. (My limited mechanical skills did not let a robust rotor to be built so did not increase the number of coils and magnets to get higher RPM.)
Both Ben Thomas and David Squires suggested an improvement to this motor, namely to use a small piece of soft iron in the middle of each coil pair because the flux gets even more focused towards the center point. (And the additional drag this small iron piece would cause will be also small.)  Maybe it would be also worth trying.

Regards and good testing,
Gyula

[BEP]

@Wattsup

I won’t say much more about this idea except the following:

This generator cannot be used as a motor. Dimensions and material are up to you.

The basic concept is rotor cogging and the majority of magnetic drag is avoided. The reason is at any rotor radial position the magnetic flux density or ‘flow’ (not appropriate) from the magnet remains the same.

The normal negative Lenz issues are simply circumvented.

No laminated metals should be used. Since there is little variation in flux between the magnet, rotor and stator there is no reason for eddy currents between those three. But some will occurr between the rotor and stator.

I suggest that ‘grained’ metal be used, if possible. A good alternative is molded ferrite material or annealed iron.

You can have pulsed DC or AC output depending upon the coil design and connections.

When spun by hand and open coils you should feel no drag. If you feel substantial drag with load then check the area where the rotor meets the stator in all positions. Since there is more distance to the far coil there is a bit more reluctance for that coil. In that case the rotor should present more surface area to the stator for that coil alone.

My first one was the summer of ’82. It is an interesting experiment that all should try.

Warning….  Any (usual and expected from most OU researchers) variation from the basic concept is guaranteed to fail. I make absolutely no claims or guarantees for what this thing can do. If you want to know more â€" build one yourself.

Yes, end to end balancing becomes an issue but who cares?

Merry Christmas!

BEP

[BEP]

What?

No slamming comments?

No claims of 'I did it first'?

And really surprising: No religious fanatics sending threatening email?

Oh well, I haven't checked all my email boxes yet. I supposed there will be some there 

And no phone calls? Must of had their hours cut. Maybe they only work 8 - 5 now 

[wattsup]

@BEP

Bam, slam, boom, boing, blump, nay say, no no, never never. Hope you're happy now. lol

Now that we have dispensed with the formalities, let's talk shop.

Basically, my above design is just a design starting point and my initial goal was to see if a design such as this could actually rotate on its own, not to produce any real torque but to produce a continuous rotation without exterior assistance. If the device was made and well balanced, and it the impulse coil was distanced far enough from the mag rotation to not get attracted to the impulse coil core, then upon impulse of the coil field can push just the trailing North end, I think it will work. Again depending on the pick-up coil winding configuration. I will put this on my to-do list but right now I am "overloaded" as is with current experiments plus I am spending some time giving the FTPU some more time.

Regarding your design using that inclined rotor (armature) here is what I am worried about, and this is not being a naysayer but more of a coulditbesayer. lol

That incline when turning will move the rotor armature from left to right, right to left over the coils making the shifting field above the coils. I just don't know if that shift will be enough to induce current power into the coils because I have nothing to base it on. Usually an energized armature will want to rub against the coil armature as close as possible and over the total exposed surface area, whereas in your design, the armature will cover maybe 20% of the surface area and slide left to right, right to left. The slide part is good since this is moving a magnet over a wire but I would imagine that you will need 3 to 4 times the rotational speed to equal the output of a standard full surface exposed system. The main main main and again main (to not be too much of a naysayer) good point of your design is the way the rotor is shown, it will be able to counter a higher level of drag because the rotor is more "cutting through" and not the conventional "gliding over" any potential drag condition.

So sorry to say but you DO have a good idea there. lol