Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor

[z_p_e]

Thr Flynn design utilizes the flux 100% of the time, yes, but he also must pay for that. The Flynn design must switch the flux twice, meaning that two power pulses are used, one for each direction. The Hildenbrand concept pays only once.

So, on a per armature basis, both systems require roughly the same amount of power. If Jack set up a second unit opposite the first, and switched it appropriately, he would have something similar to the Flynn design...i.e. 2 coils, 2 magnets, 2 armatures.

Again, once I complete my simulations, I will hopefully have more definitive data to offer.

z_p_e

[jake]

So, on a per armature basis, both systems require roughly the same amount of power.

But which one does more with that power?  That is the issue.  I don't know, but I'm guessing that shorting the magnet through a non-working path severly decreases the output torque as compared to directing that flux through the rotor in a torque producing path.

The goal of any pm motor must be to actually USE the pm flux.  When the flux is shorted through the sleeve around the magnets, it is doing nothing.  This is a waste of flux for whatever duty cycle the coil is off.  Period.  In the flynn design, when the coil relaxes the flux transitions to a position where it is acting on the rotor.

[MeggerMan]

Hi Jake,
I hear what you are saying but you may have a few things wrong/misunderstanding as I see it:

1. The power is only ON during the time the rotor first starts to make the path at the stator poles until the mid point is reached, this is a small duration/angle of rotation.
2. You apply just enough current to route ALL of the flux through the stator poles/rotor arm.
3. Both use the flux from the pm, just that Jack has "adopted" (from Nasa's boots) a tighter method (you can using a neo 40 pm, with same current I was driving cermic 8 pm of the same size).

Use the Femm software (free) to show me your idea, it only takes a couple of hours to get to grips with:
http://femm.foster-miller.net

I will setup a side by side simulation and show the results of each.

Regards

Rob

[Liberty]

I can see both sides of the discussion here.  Jake's desire is to make the most efficient use of flux and motor, but at the cost of possibly more power consumption.

ZPE is concerned about excess power consumption, while taking the view that magnet flux costs little or nothing to produce, so have the sacrifice there. 

So apparently, the only way to have the best of both worlds is to make a motor that uses magnet to magnet construction (for top efficiency).  This way permanent magnet flux is not wasted, and power for a coil is not consumed for switching flux (which takes considerable power to switch flux or equal the power of a magnet with an electromagnet, and the magnetic balance is delicate). 

You must primarily take power consumption into account when working to find a device that is capable of ultra low power consumption so that electrical free excess energy may be possible in the end.  This would make the most electrically efficient and flux efficient motor; a pure magnet to magnet motor.  The ultimate device to conserve power consumption and for over all motor efficiency.

But can it be done???  Yes. But as in everything, there are certain sacrifices and tradeoffs just like the above discussion.  You can't have the best of all worlds.  Each flavor of motor has it's advantages and disadvantages.  An all electric motor may be more powerful and of smaller size, but not the best on power consumption.

For instance, in a Yagi antenna design, you can adjust for the best beam width and side rejection, or the best gain, or maximize in between for both, sacrificing some of both gain and beam concentration, for a balance.  You just have to decide what is the most important goal and make it for that purpose.  Power efficiency, or motor efficiency?  Cost and machining, or simplicity and cost effectivness?  Speed or strength, etc.  Large size, or small size?  Matching the motor's capability to the task is important to come out the best for what you want to do.

There will always be some give and take to every design, along with design constraints for the type of device.  That is why some motor's are better at some tasks and others are better suited for another application.  I would think that a magnet to magnet motor would be the best suited for excess power generation capability, because it has the possiblity of using the least amount of power to run, while not being best suited for say, speed or running a truck.  While other motors (magnet or electric) would be best suited for speed, strength and size efficiency to power a vehicle, or a hand power saw, or a disk drive and so on...  Match the job to do with the motor that has the strengths to fit that task the best.  They all have their place.

[z_p_e]

In order to keep things straight, we need to take a moment and make sure we are all talking about and comparing apples to apples.

I am talking about the fundamental principal...the back to basics method of pulling in an armature through a flux conducting path such as shown in Jacks diagram. To compare this apple with Flynn's apple, one must go back to the web page where Flynn compares the parallel path method, with Bearden's method.

Using Flynn's diagram and Jack's diagram, we can put both units in their own black box, with the excption of the two armatures for each. Now, with only the coil wires leading into each respective black box, we can drive each unit appropriately, and compare the power requirements. Of course it goes without saying that the same strength magnets (2 each) are used in both.

z_p_e