Pulse coil and wheel travel

[capthook]

Why is the travel LESS with the pulse coil?

(See attached pics)

When the coil is energized in repulsion, it produces a noticeable and decent force.  Yet the wheel travels a shorter distance than without the coil.
My thought would be the coil core is still attracted to the magnet and thus retarding the wheels rotation.
But again, I can feel a sizable kick against the magnet from the coil.

Why wouldn't this kick add, rather than subtract, to the wheels rotation?

[gyulasun]

Hi,

Have you tried the same test with the core removed from the coil?
Wheel travel should increase then...

The only answer I can give for the less travel is:  the core - magnet attraction force is not fully overcome by the push. Distance between the core - magnet and the current strenght : these seem to be the crucial factors.

Gyula

[innovation_station]

PLOP A MAGNET ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE CORE IN BUCKING CONFIG .. 

NOW IT WILL REPELL...

AND IF YOU SET THIS UP IN A MANY COIL CONFIG ...

IT DONT TAKE MUCH TO PUSH THE WHEEL ..

AND IF IT IS SET UP TO SELF POWER ... THEN ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS PUSH IT PAST 1 MAGNET TO START IT AS IT WILL OSCOLATE .. AND IF YOU COLLECTED THE OSCOLATION FROM THE ROTOR UPON START UP IT WILL INFACT CHARGE UP THE CAP TO SELF RUN ..



OR GO AIR CORE AND COLLECT ONLY THE COLAPSE FROM EACH COIL ..

BESIDES AFTER THE RPM GETS TOO HIGH THE IRON WILL NOT RESPOND FAST ENOUGH FOR THE SPEED OF THE ROTOR ..

HENCE WHY MULLER MADE CRYSTALINE CORES... 

IST!

JUST BEING ME ..

[capthook]

Thanks Gyula and IST for the replies.

Yes, it does appear the core/magnet attraction is not sufficiently negated.  It just seems the sizeable 'kick' would indicate a net gain.

I have tried countless combinations of airgap, core size, magnet size/strength, # of turns, wire size, voltage, amperage, drop heights and adding both attracting and repulsing backing magnets - all with poor results.

Some things I've considered: Thoughts, opinions, suggestions on these or anything else?

1. reducing core length by 50% from 3" to 1-1/2" as this may reduce the power input required?
2. presently, 3/4" of core is unwound at the far end to assist in coil mounting.  Using a different mounting method and eliminating this section of core might help?
3. different wire size, winding dimensions.  I'm of the notion that the current wind is good - but I'm open to suggestions.
4. exotic/annealed (expensive) core materials
5. different pulse coil construction.  See the attached 2 pics. This would make use of both ends of the pulse coil.  This seems the best option to proceed with next.  Thoughts/suggestions on this?

The problem has always been:
Design a device with decent torque/horsepower using a pulse coil with a large enough ferromagnetic core to attract a large permanent magnet from a modest distance and then release it without requiring a large input of like 10 amps.

Aaarrgh!!

[gyulasun]

...
I have tried countless combinations of airgap, core size, magnet size/strength, # of turns, wire size, voltage, amperage, drop heights and adding both attracting and repulsing backing magnets - all with poor results.

Hi,

What do you mean by poor results? A COP between ,say, 0.2 to 0.6 or a COP between 0.6 to 0.9? 

Some things I've considered: Thoughts, opinions, suggestions on these or anything else?

1. reducing core length by 50% from 3" to 1-1/2" as this may reduce the power input required?
2. presently, 3/4" of core is unwound at the far end to assist in coil mounting.  Using a different mounting method and eliminating this section of core might help?
3. different wire size, winding dimensions.  I'm of the notion that the current wind is good - but I'm open to suggestions.
4. exotic/annealed (expensive) core materials
5. different pulse coil construction.  See the attached 2 pics. This would make use of both ends of the pulse coil.  This seems the best option to proceed with next.  Thoughts/suggestions on this?

Point 1:  I do not think the length reducement would bring significant improvement in your shown setup  (in certain other setups such a length may prove long but then you have to examine the possible affect of the other magnet pole getting closer to the setup if you reduce the length)

Point 2:  I guess the best place for the coil would be in the geometrical center of the core, shifting it towards either end may have effects on the strength of such electromagnet, tests are needed (I do not think this significant either)

Point 3:  What counts is Amper*turns and this involves many turns, however it involves long wire, hence ohmic losses, so the thicker wire you can fit into a given winding space the better, this is always a tradeoff

Point 4: No need for exotic core material, your enemy here is saturation and eddy current loss. Saturation can be 'controlled' by cross section area in case of lamination or ferrite cores, these two meet eddy losses too.

Point 5: YES!  Using both poles of BOTH the electromagnet(s) and the permanent magnet(s) is a 'free'  repel or attract force multiplier. Both your drawings are good in this respect, perhaps the first one is preferred because it needs one coil only.

The problem has always been:
Design a device with decent torque/horsepower using a pulse coil with a large enough ferromagnetic core to attract a large permanent magnet from a modest distance and then release it without requiring a large input of like 10 amps.

Aaarrgh!!

Yes, I agree but first I suggest building a setup which differs from the setup shown in your first post in that it has the electro and permanent magnets like you show in your second post, first drawing, I referred  to at Point 5.

AND what is important at this stage: as long as you cannot measure a COP of 0.8-0.9 at least (but I do not mean COP>1) you should improve the setup! You have to achieve it by all means, otherwise you have a poorer setup than a normal electric motor.

IN CASE you have managed to build your setup envisioned above , then and only then I think you can include so called 'improvements'... 
I mean using the parallel path principle for example (it is shown to multiply electromagnet force 3 times in practice (4 times in theory), using the same input power
or see this link: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4624.msg96814#msg96814
where member DMMPOWER uploaded a 'super electromagnet' drawing. I embedded a permanent magnet into your drawing ala DMMPOWER, see the uploaded picture below.

Also you can use Jack Hildebrand's magnetic valve too, you surely familiar with it.

I do not claim you will surely get COP>1 with my suggestions (I have not tried them) but the possibility is open for it. Especially in case you really achive a COP of 0.8-0.9 first without the permanent magnets embedded, this is one important rule to observe. (At this stage you can include the electric energy captured from the flyback pulse at switching of the coil, the point is to get a decent efficiency like a conventional electric motor has, and I think of the 80-90% efficiency range;  I know there are conventional motors with much poorer efficiency.)

Use a rotor disk with a 20cm OD at least (or higher) and mount on it (vertically) at least 10 yokes with 2 magnets on their ends each. For the yokes you could use AM radio ferrite rods or a pile of laminations.  Regarding the stator yokes, it is more problematic because normally it is difficult to make a hole i.e. an empty space into a core for inserting later a permanent magnet. Probably this is the most problematic part in my suggestion.  Will ponder on it too. Wonder how DMMPOWER solved this? This same problem was to face Jack Hildebrand in his valve too.

rgds, Gyula

EDIT: see this patent too: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=2002175580A1&KC=B2&FT=D&date=20030211&DB=&locale=