Thane Heins Perepiteia Replications

[Nali2001]

Cogging is hardly a loss in a system.
Ok, it costs energy to get out of the gripping field of a magnet. But you get that spend energy back by the next cycle where the magnet attracts. Like cycling up a hill, it cost you much effort, but once over the top you enjoy an effortless ride downhill. So net losses due to cogging are minimal.

But if you want to reduce cogging you optimize your stator numbers to magnet numbers. Like 20 magnets and 21 cores. With the right layout it balances the cogging to nearly zero. Loot at the work of Muller:
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen01.jpg
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen02.jpg
http://fenykapu.free-energy.hu/pajert/index.htm?FoAblak=../pajert36/NeoGMagy.html

[wattsup]

In the specific case of @baroutologos, by offsetting the coils and removing that c core laminate connection, he will double the working frequency and half the cogging.

[CRANKYpants]

Cogging is hardly a loss in a system.
Ok, it costs energy to get out of the gripping field of a magnet. But you get that spend energy back by the next cycle where the magnet attracts. Like cycling up a hill, it cost you much effort, but once over the top you enjoy an effortless ride downhill. So net losses due to cogging are minimal.

But if you want to reduce cogging you optimize your stator numbers to magnet numbers. Like 20 magnets and 21 cores. With the right layout it balances the cogging to nearly zero. Loot at the work of Muller:
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen01.jpg
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen02.jpg
http://fenykapu.free-energy.hu/pajert/index.htm?FoAblak=../pajert36/NeoGMagy.html

THANK YOU STEVEN FOR THIS INFO...!
FINALLY SOME SENSE.

IN A CORECTLY DESIGNED SYSTEM COGGING TORQUE CAN BE REDUCED TO ZERO. 

@ MINDE...

IF YOU PLACE YOUR COIL(S) ON A RAIL AND THE CALIFORNIA DUDES ARE DOING AND THEY ARE IN ACCELERATING MODE AND WHEN YOUR ROTOR IS UP TO SPEED YOU GRADUALLY BRING YOUR COILS INTO POSITION - PRODUCING POWER AND ACCELERATION - YOU ARE DONE!

CHEERS
T

[i_ron]

@ I_Ron,

I am sorry I_ron.. Know that there is nothing personal, could not be anyway. We have an ocean bewteen us..

My apology is stated clearly for decent manner reasons.
Anyway, past is past.

Regards,
Baroutologos

I accept that and please accept my apologies for even mentioning it.

Regards,

Ron

[wattsup]

Cogging is hardly a loss in a system.
Ok, it costs energy to get out of the gripping field of a magnet. But you get that spend energy back by the next cycle where the magnet attracts. Like cycling up a hill, it cost you much effort, but once over the top you enjoy an effortless ride downhill. So net losses due to cogging are minimal.

But if you want to reduce cogging you optimize your stator numbers to magnet numbers. Like 20 magnets and 21 cores. With the right layout it balances the cogging to nearly zero. Loot at the work of Muller:
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen01.jpg
http://www.nrjrealiste.fr/elec/neogen02.jpg
http://fenykapu.free-energy.hu/pajert/index.htm?FoAblak=../pajert36/NeoGMagy.html

Yes very interesting 22.5 and 24 degrees doing an eclipse technique.
To bad there is no English link.

@all

Here is an observation on round or square laminates and magnets.

If you really consider them, the round core/magnet is very disadvantaged because all the laminates will be covered only for a fraction of the total travel through. There is only one moment when all the laminates are covered because of the round surface area. Like an eclipse. The TDC is the only time there is full coverage.

The square core/magnet will hit all laminates throughout the pass through. 100% coverage per pass. There is full coverage plus the TDC plus the greater surface area. Big difference.

Any thoughts?????????