Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power

[gotoluc]

Quote from Gotoluc:


"The 8 inch Super build single coil one stand gave a result of 2Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts, and now the 8 inch Super build single coil 2 series stands gave a result of 2.5Kg Pull for 0.43 Watts"!


Luc's test results prove conclusively that the value of Tesla's "Coil for Electromagnets" is genuine and not imaginary as falsely claimed by some. 

Not really Synchro,

all this proves is if you double the amount of turns you get 25% more pull force.
It may not even prove that as if I would of wound the coil with one wire the magnetic field would be more concentrated since the coil would half the size and weight.

The reason I wound the coils bifilar was not to prove this kind of thing. It's to give me some flexibility and more test options.

You'll see as more tests come

Luc

[gotoluc]

Here is a Solenoid with a magnet built into it for better holding force
See chart as it has a better score but nothing close yet
Hopefully you're all getting the point and the advantage the Triple M has. If not, please post your questions or concerns.

http://www.solenoids-mfg.com/index.php?_m=mod_product&_a=view&p_id=100

[MileHigh]

I'll post some questions and concerns to the collective group.

For starters, the classic error is being made by discussing "efficiency" without defining what it is.   Take the example of pulse motors.  You read comments all the time that say, "Wow, your pulse motor is really efficient."  When you are watching a pulse motor spinning in a YouTube clip and you don't define your parameters for "efficiency" that is a totally meaningless statement.  So if you are going to discuss "efficiency" then you have to define what it means and then show measurements to demonstrate the efficiency.

The major problem is with the variables that you are tracking as you do these experiments because in the strictest terms they don't actually make sense.  This is a place to discuss energy and related matters and you live and die by the data that you generate.  So this should be resolved before you go further.  Right now as it stands the data generated would have to be reverse-engineered to turn it into proper data.  This is research and you should be presenting proper data on paper (like in this thread and not on a YouTube clip) that has true meaning.  If you were missing the information that you would need to reverse-engineer the data as being presented right now, then the data would be meaningless.

So the choice for the group is to ignore these comments and sleepwalk through the rest of the experiments, or discuss the issues and brainstorm and figure it out for yourselves and then take the proper corrective measures so as you go forward you generate valid data.

Spoon-feeding you all the answers is not the route I will take for this one.  I suggest that you discuss these issues in this thread amongst yourselves and resolve them.

[synchro1]

I'll post some questions and concerns to the collective group.

For starters, the classic error is being made by discussing "efficiency" without defining what it is.   Take the example of pulse motors.  You read comments all the time that say, "Wow, your pulse motor is really efficient."  When you are watching a pulse motor spinning in a YouTube clip and you don't define your parameters for "efficiency" that is a totally meaningless statement.  So if you are going to discuss "efficiency" then you have to define what it means and then show measurements to demonstrate the efficiency.

The major problem is with the variables that you are tracking as you do these experiments because in the strictest terms they don't actually make sense.  This is a place to discuss energy and related matters and you live and die by the data that you generate.  So this should be resolved before you go further.  Right now as it stands the data generated would have to be reverse-engineered to turn it into proper data.  This is research and you should be presenting proper data on paper (like in this thread and not on a YouTube clip) that has true meaning.  If you were missing the information that you would need to reverse-engineer the data as being presented right now, then the data would be meaningless.

So the choice for the group is to ignore these comments and sleepwalk through the rest of the experiments, or discuss the issues and brainstorm and figure it out for yourselves and then take the proper corrective measures so as you go forward you generate valid data.

Spoon-feeding you all the answers is not the route I will take for this one.  I suggest that you discuss these issues in this thread amongst yourselves and resolve them.

That's nothing but a STEAMING HOT CROCK OF UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT!

[MileHigh]

That's nothing but a STEAMING HOT CROCK OF UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT!

Synchro1, if you are interested in this thread and the experiments then put your brain in gear and say something productive instead of acting like a 49-year-old idiot that has bipolar bifilar coil fantasies.  If you don't have something productive to say then STFU.