Hi all, I've found the charging circuit from Tesla's patent "Electrical Igniter For Gas Engines" linked below, to be quite useful for improving the performance of pulse motors, firstly using the circuit as intended to get an increased charge into a capacitor (over the potential the supply can provide) for discharging through a coil, namely the motor coil or coils in a pulse motor, or other motor if applicable. I believe the nature of the sudden capacitor discharge through the coil is beneficial alone, and together with the increased potential serves a useful and practical purpose. This can be achieved by the charging circuit principal being applied to the pulse motor.
Secondly the magnetizing force produced by the charging coil when current flows through it can also be utilized to increase the torque of the rotor considerably with almost no appreciable extra cost in input power. I have not tested and quantified any benefits as yet but the increase in efficiency and torque for input (compared between when the charging circuit is used but the magnetizing force not utilized and when the magnetizing force is utilized) is obvious when done. And the pulse motor seems more efficient when a charging circuit is used compared to when one is not used as well. So I urge people to do some simple tests and see for themselves any possible benefits they can get from the principal as applied to pulse motors in this way. :)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=iAVhAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
I've made a set of fairly lengthy video's to explain the principal and how I use it and what I am doing with the prototype motor I built to see if it would actually work. Being that the prototype is made from wood and there are many compromises made, it's efficiency and usefulness at low power inputs has surprised me, as well the ability of the motor to run heavier loads (with adjustment) with more input is quite good as well.
Some video's are still uploading and I'll list them here when done.
This is an older video and I've made changes since, but it shows the effect of the charging coil being placed near the rotor and taken away, from 7:20 minutes in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_KlgJ09Bs
This is the first of the lengthy video's showing and trying :-[ to explain what I'm doing "at present" with Tesla's charging circuit in the motor and my control circuit ect.. My ability to explain things is poor.
Video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxFHPMa65A
This is the second part of the lengthy explanation.
Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpnSD_4wO4Q
Video 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSGBnX-wKE
Short demo with three outputs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BanKGAVa9SQ
They are lengthy but I don't know any other way to explain it than to just talk as if I'm explaining it to someone standing there with me and just nodding their head as I talk. hehehe, I'm not trying for presenter of the week that's for certain. ;D
The rotor in the prototype weighs 390 grams without the extra (squirrel cage pulley) on the shaft and about 580 with it on the shaft.
I'm quite happy to do specific tests if they can give some figures to consider. :)
Cheers
Farmhand, this is more about this ...Holy Grail of OU.... I'm working on solid state version but having problem with timings. Now look again at it and asnwer me where is reactive power now ?
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 05:39:16 AM
Hi all, I've found the charging circuit from Tesla's patent "Electrical Igniter For Gas Engines" linked below, to be quite useful for improving the performance of pulse motors, firstly using the circuit as intended to get an increased charge into a capacitor (over the potential the supply can provide) for discharging through a coil, namely the motor coil or coils in a pulse motor, or other motor if applicable. I believe the nature of the sudden capacitor discharge through the coil is beneficial alone, and together with the increased potential serves a useful and practical purpose. This can be achieved by the charging circuit principal being applied to the pulse motor.
Secondly the magnetizing force produced by the charging coil when current flows through it can also be utilized to increase the torque of the rotor considerably with almost no appreciable extra cost in input power. I have not tested and quantified any benefits as yet but the increase in efficiency and torque for input (compared between when the charging circuit is used but the magnetizing force not utilized and when the magnetizing force is utilized) is obvious when done. And the pulse motor seems more efficient when a charging circuit is used compared to when one is not used as well. So I urge people to do some simple tests and see for themselves any possible benefits they can get from the principal as applied to pulse motors in this way. :)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=iAVhAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=iAVhAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
I've made a set of fairly lengthy video's to explain the principal and how I use it and what I am doing with the prototype motor I built to see if it would actually work. Being that the prototype is made from wood and there are many compromises made, it's efficiency and usefulness at low power inputs has surprised me, as well the ability of the motor to run heavier loads (with adjustment) with more input is quite good as well.
Some video's are still uploading and I'll list them here when done.
This is an older video and I've made changes since, but it shows the effect of the charging coil being placed near the rotor and taken away, from 7:20 minutes in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_KlgJ09Bs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_KlgJ09Bs)
This is the first of the lengthy video's showing and trying :-[ to explain what I'm doing "at present" with Tesla's charging circuit in the motor and my control circuit ect.. My ability to explain things is poor.
Video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxFHPMa65A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxFHPMa65A)
This is the second part of the lengthy explanation.
Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpnSD_4wO4Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpnSD_4wO4Q)
Still more soon. They are lengthy but I don't know any other way to explain it than to just talk as if I'm explaining it to someone standing there with me and just nodding their head as I talk. hehehe, I'm not trying for presenter of the week that's for certain. ;D
The rotor in the prototype weighs 390 grams without the extra (squirrel cage pulley) on the shaft and about 580 with it on the shaft.
I'm quite happy to do specific tests if they can give some figures to consider. :)
Cheers
"Secondly the magnetizing force produced by the charging coil when current flows through it can also be utilized to increase the torque of the rotor considerably with almost no appreciable extra cost in input power."
There is a thread her on the Igniter that I started a while back.
Here is a motor that uses the 'large' inductance inductor as an orbo effect on the rotor that helps the rotor spin faster while charging the cap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2MwBg33D80
Mags
:-\
Second video is uploaded and linked in the first post. I''ll include a basic drawing showing as simple and correct a setup as I can draw, but I'll need to hand draw it to get the coil angles correct and whatnot. I'll make the drawing as a single motor coil and single charging coil with the component values that work for me and with just a 12 volt battery supply ect. The very basic setup. I won't post any other drawings here until I do that.
Forest, Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have no idea what you mean by
QuoteFarmhand, this is more about this ...Holy Grail of OU..
. Please elaborate ! Do you think I am showing OU ? That's an honest question. Not sarcasm.
I'm also unsure of the next part.
QuoteI'm working on solid state version but having problem with timings.
Do you mean you are working on a solid state version of something making use of a charging circuit setup for pulsing coils or for some other purpose ?
The last part as well is a bit confusing to me.
QuoteNow look again at it and answer me where is reactive power now ?
With my arrangement there is a blocking diode so no power can return to the supply, therefore the power factor (if there could be said there is a power factor for this type of setup) would in one kind of way be 1.0 or 0.98 maybe for my motor. All power taken from the supply is used.
I don't see the discharge of energy from the collapse of the magnetic field of a coil as "reactive power" as such. In a system where the energy can return to the supply then that energy which does return is represented as "reactive power" and quantified or described as the "power factor", as I see it anyhow. The utilization of the "de-q-ing" diode prevents any reactive power returning to the supply from the positive rail. However when the charge battery is connected in series with the supply battery some current does flow to the positive terminal, but my experiments indicate that it does not add to the supply, rather that energy is dissipated in the battery or otherwise. When I remove all of the energy discharged from the motor coils from the motor circuit (out of it's "system") and switch it through an external load (without the caps or anything being in series with the supply) then the setup seems to run very much the same except the energy seems to better utilized by taking it out of the system than it is when it is recycled. I think this is due to the motor coil being subjected to increasingly more and more current until equilibrium when the motor coil discharges are recycled in full with not much actual load.
Cheers
Yes Magluvin, That is the effect, If I remember correctly I mentioned the possibility during the RomeroUK thread. As far as I was aware nobody did anything with it, and that is the first I've seen of your video there. No offence but if that is as far as you took it then it needs to go further. I am describing the coil angles that work for me and showing the current phase differences and Intend to eventually do many tests and develop the principal and side benefits that it allows to be used with it.. Who came up with the idea first is not that important to me, but I did mention it, and it's possible use in the RomeroUK thread as best I can remember and several times since and before that time as well. I certainly don't discount that others have come up with the idea themselves, it does seem obvious. But I think it needs to be described and explained better, hopefully so more people can benefit from it.
Your video shows an increase in speed but I don't see any real time input power measurements or anything. Good stuff. Great to see you got a positive result doing it, Bit of a shame if not many people utilized the principal. It's run of the mill stuff for Tesla coils. :)
Regardless I intend show how I'm doing it and as many details as I can.
Also I must say what I'm doing has nothing to do with the "ORBO". Not that I am aware of, I didn't pay much attention to the orbo though.
As well depending on the frequency and the cap size ect. depends on what inductance can be used well, it's all relative. If too much inductance is used then there won't be enough time for the supply voltage to charge the capacitor amongst other things. If "de-q-ing" diode/s are used then the energy cannot return to the supply, many details to cover.
Cheers
P.S. I wish you had mentioned when I said I didn't know where to post about the motor using this principal. If you did I would have posted there as long as there was no insinuation of extra energy involved. :)
..
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 09:34:00 AM
Yes Magluvin, That is the effect, If I remember correctly I mentioned the possibility during the RomeroUK thread. As far as I was aware nobody did anything with it, and that is the first I've seen of your video there. No offence but if that is as far as you took it then it needs to go further. I am describing the coil angles that work for me and showing the current phase differences and Intend to eventually do many tests and develop the principal and side benefits that it allows to be used with it.. Who came up with the idea first is not that important to me, but I did mention it, and it's possible use in the RomeroUK thread as best I can remember and several times since and before that time as well. I certainly don't discount that others have come up with the idea themselves, it does seem obvious. But I think it needs to be described and explained better, hopefully so more people can benefit from it.
Your video shows an increase in speed but I don't see any real time input power measurements or anything. Good stuff. Great to see you got a positive result doing it, Bit of a shame if not many people utilized the principal. It's run of the mill stuff for Tesla coils. :)
Regardless I intend show how I'm doing it and as many details as I can.
Also I must say what I'm doing has nothing to do with the "ORBO". Not that I am aware of, I didn't pay much attention to the orbo though.
As well depending on the frequency and the cap size ect. depends on what inductance can be used well, it's all relative. If too much inductance is used then there won't be enough time for the supply voltage to charge the capacitor amongst other things. If "de-q-ing" diode/s are used then the energy cannot return to the supply, many details to cover.
Cheers
P.S. I wish you had mentioned when I said I didn't know where to post about the motor using this principal. If you did I would have posted there as long as there was no insinuation of extra energy involved. :)
..
"No offence but if that is as far as you took it then it needs to go further."
None taken. I was just showing an example of making use of the large inductor in a way that doesnt take anything from the system using the orbo effect of the large inductor while it is used for other things. So it shows that along with great efficiency, there is more efficiency to be had with this method. If others want to take it further, its open source info.
I still work with the igniter circuit in some projects. There is efficiency there. From what I have found, Tesla knew that 'holding' the 'points' together, for as long as they are, between ignition firings to energize the primary is a huge waste of energy, all just to eventually release the points to produce the spark. So it is a low freq situation, therefore the 'large inductance' in the patent. When the cap is discharged into the primary, there is oscillation producing multiple sparks instead of just a single snap. In 'standard' points ignition systems, there is the waste of the holding of the points, but there is a cap(condenser) across the points where when the points release, the cap is across the primary and oscillation happens producing a longer, high power spark time. With out that cap, or if it goes bad, the spark output as a whole is severely reduced.
The igniter is essentially a capacitive discharge charge circuit and is a basic form of MSD ignition.
So along with the efficiency gain of charging of the cap, one must take advantage of that oscillation properly in order to have optimum outputs. By dumping the cap into a coil that requires DC to motivate the rotor is not taking advantage of the oscillation of which there is another level of efficiency if applied properly. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 09:34:00 AM
P.S. I wish you had mentioned when I said I didn't know where to post about the motor using this principal. If you did I would have posted there as long as there was no insinuation of extra energy involved. :)
..
Yes, i understand. Some do not condone 'extra' energy. ::) But this site is suppose to be about extra energy, isnt it? ;) Thats what most are here for. Some not.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 01, 2013, 10:49:57 AM
So along with the efficiency gain of charging of the cap, one must take advantage of that oscillation properly in order to have optimum outputs. By dumping the cap into a coil that requires DC to motivate the rotor is not taking advantage of the oscillation of which there is another level of efficiency if applied properly. ;)
Mags
I disagree, that's baloney in my opinion, the oscillation does not happen when a de-q-ing diode is used. The oscillation you seen is the result of your setup alone and there is no evidence that it happens all the time. And I can tell you the oscillation is a result of the energy sloshing back and forth. An ignition coil in a car works at different frequencies and when the resonance frequency of the charging circuit's L/C is reached there is no back flow of energy, the oscillation is the result of the inductance of the charging coil and the capacitance not operating at the resonance frequency, it doesn't need to, It is not a good thing in my situation and is merely a consequence of Tesla having no diodes to use.
You ought to do some research on resonant charging circuits. Here- http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html find the part on extinction frequencies and the de-q-ing diode.
Some text on extinction frequencies.
QuoteHowever, we also discussed how the capacitor voltage continues to oscillate freely about the HVDC supply voltage, and returns to zero volts at regular intervals. It is clear that any attempt to fire the spark gap when the capacitor voltage is near zero volts will process little power ! These points are marked by RED arrows.
We can quickly see that the capacitor voltage returns to zero after every complete period of the resonant charging circuit. Therefore attempting to fire the gap at whole multiples of this period will achieve no power throughput. In fact the firings only serve to reinforce the natural oscillation of the charging circuit, but do not remove any energy from the system.
Any firing rate which is a factor of the resonant charging frequency forces the power throughput to zero. I refer to these firing rates as "extinction frequencies".
QuoteDe-Q-ing the charging circuit
The extinction frequencies occur because the capacitor voltage returns to zero after reaching its peak value. This occurs because current begins to flow from the tank capacitor back through the charging inductor after the capacitor has reached maximum voltage. We would very much like the capacitor voltage not to fall, and instead remain at its maximum voltage for two reasons. Firstly this ensures maximum power throughput, and secondly we have freedom in our choice of exactly when to fire the spark gap.
This can be achieved by placing a high voltage diode in series with the charging inductor as shown. The diode allows current to flow from left to right through the inductor, charging the capacitor as before. However, it prevents the inductor current from changing direction and halts the resonant process when the capacitor is at twice the supply voltage.
Honestly you make your own self look silly.
And I bet you only tried that setup after I mentioned it in the RomeroUk Muller thread. Makes sense since you didn't mention it during the entire time I posted about what I am doing. ;D
You show no evidence of the claim you make about the oscillation. And an oscillation in a charging circuit means very little.
You show some degree of wanting to dismiss what I am doing by what you say.
It won't work, The thing with the oscillation is pure rubbish. I have to say.
Now I have good reason to ignore you.
Go to Richie Burnett and tell him he is not utilizing the charging circuit in the best possible way for him. Sheez
It is my opinion that if Tesla had of had a semiconductor diode he would have used it in that circuit, and I think he would have done so because it is an improvement to the circuit.
And is an obvious one. However the circuit will still work without it, but not as well or as versatile.
Tesla's patent is about the ignition coil, but the resonant charging circuit can be used in many other ways, the best way to use it is the way it works best in the situation you use it in.
If we take hard evidence and apply logical thinking the possibilities are obvious.
This thread is in the Tesla Technology section where there is no overtone of needing to be about free energy or OU. But to be technical, the motor only uses free energy form the sun it cost nothing for the electricity to run it. So it's a machine that runs on free energy because that is all I've supplied it so far. Free solar energy. I see no reason to try to make free energy from free energy. I want to find efficient ways to use my free energy. :o
Cheers
There are now 5 video's in the first post. I'll start on the basic simplified drawing today.
For those interested that is, those not interested should refrain from posting. There is no reason or need to make this any more complicated or confuse the subject. It's a simple principal and the way I apply it to the motor is just one way. It can be done in any way that it works.
The basic purpose is to provide an increased voltage into the charge capacitors for powering the motor coil/s, the secondary purpose is to help drive the rotor as any normal coil does, by magnetizing force due to current flow. The rest is details. It works and is efficient but it isn't free energy and I see no way it can be, it's just better use of the energy.
Once again seeing just a rotor spin and/or speed up does not impress me much. I will be using the motor to drive loads of different kinds. As I am already doing, the motor has many hours of continuous work done already and is almost constantly running. This is called utilizing energy with a machine to do useful work effciently.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
I disagree, that's baloney in my opinion, the oscillation does not happen when a de-q-ing diode is used. The oscillation you seen is the result of your setup alone and there is no evidence that it happens all the time. And I can tell you the oscillation is a result of the energy sloshing back and forth. An ignition coil in a car works at different frequencies and when the resonance frequency of the charging circuit's L/C is reached there is no back flow of energy, the oscillation is the result of the inductance of the charging coil and the capacitance not operating at the resonance frequency, it doesn't need to, It is not a good thing in my situation and is merely a consequence of Tesla having no diodes to use.
You ought to do some research on resonant charging circuits. Here- http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html) find the part on extinction frequencies and the de-q-ing diode.
Some text on extinction frequencies.
Honestly you make your own self look silly.
And I bet you only tried that setup after I mentioned it in the RomeroUk Muller thread. Makes sense since you didn't mention it during the entire time I posted about what I am doing. ;D
You show no evidence of the claim you make about the oscillation. And an oscillation in a charging circuit means very little.
You show some degree of wanting to dismiss what I am doing by what you say.
It won't work, The thing with the oscillation is pure rubbish. I have to say.
Now I have good reason to ignore you.
Go to Richie Burnett and tell him he is not utilizing the charging circuit in the best possible way for him. Sheez
Cheers
"I disagree, that's baloney in my opinion, the oscillation does not happen when a de-q-ing diode is used."
What Tesla charging circuit are you referring to? I thought this was about the igniter for gas engines circuit. :o There are no diodes in that circuit. ;) If you have them in your circuit, then it is not the same circuit.
"The oscillation you seen is the result of your setup alone and there is no evidence that it happens all the time." ::)
I have bench tested so many car coils, I cannot count. Test an ign coil on the bench, at freq of 400hz or less. This is the freq of an 8 cyl engine running max 6000rpm, just for an average reference, and dont use a cap across the points(switching) and put a scope across the primary winding of the coil. Then put a .47uf 100v cap across the points and then tell me what you see. The oscillation happens through the car battery while were at it, because it is in series with the primary coil, cap and the battery when the points open for ignition.
In 'the' igniter patent, when that cap after being charged by the previous points connection, is put across the primary of the spark transformer at the upper left of the diagram. You are telling me that when that cap is discharging into that primary we get no oscillation within that LC while the points are closed? ??? Have you built the actual circuit as shown??? You better check again. Im not saying the oscillation lasts for ever. Heck, put it on a sim. Same thing. ;)
"It is not a good thing in my situation and is merely a consequence of Tesla having no diodes to use."
No kidding, didnt I say that in my previous post. ;)
" Honestly you make your own self look silly. " ::)
"And I bet you only tried that setup after I mentioned it in the RomeroUk Muller thread. Makes sense since you didn't mention it during the entire time I posted about what I am doing. ;D "
Oh really? ??? ::) Did you see the date on that video??? How about this thread link below???
http://www.overunity.com/8841/electrical-igniter-for-gas-engines-a-keystone-to-understanding-by-magluvin/msg230598/#msg230598 (http://www.overunity.com/8841/electrical-igniter-for-gas-engines-a-keystone-to-understanding-by-magluvin/msg230598/#msg230598)
Tisk tisk. Yep, thats 'my' thread. :P Im not feeling silly. How bout you??? ;) What is your problem? Like YOU DISCOVERED IT FIRST. WELL WHO CARES?? ;) Gimme a break. Were not in grade school here. ::)
"You show no evidence of the claim you make about the oscillation. And an oscillation in a charging circuit means very little."
The Igniter circuit is an AC circuit while the cap and the primary are together and oscillating. Its not a DC output device. And further more, if the points were connected for a long period of time, the cap, battery, and the large inductance will oscillate,, sloshing as you call it at low freq. Thats why the Large inductance value is chosen for the particular range of freq that the points will be closed, and choosen large enough to not have time for reversal before the contacts are open again.
"You show some degree of wanting to dismiss what I am doing by what you say.
"
Not in the least. I use the igniter(modified or not) with many of my projects.
"It won't work, The thing with the oscillation is pure rubbish. I have to say.
Now I have good reason to ignore you."
Ignor me. Fine. If you cannot nor have ever seen oscillation in 'Teslas igniter circuit', I dont know what to say. There are others that have, I can assure you. Ask Forest, Tito, Gyula. Ask Point to run a sim.
Maybe your large inductance isnt so large. Maybe your caps are not small enough in value for oscillation to occur at your particular freq of operation. But I can tell you, that oscillation between the cap and the primary of the spark coil does happen when the switch is closed, and the larger and longer lasting spark is evidence of what works better for making 'igniter' sparks as the patent shows it used for the purpose of 'ignition'. This is a capacitive discharge ignition system. It sparks when the switch is closed, vs the standard ign systems that spark when the switch is opened. But both provide oscillation of the primary of the spark coil.
"Go to Richie Burnett and tell him he is not utilizing the charging circuit in the best possible way for him. Sheez"
Na. Dont know the guy and dont care.
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
I disagree, that's baloney in my opinion, the oscillation does not happen when a de-q-ing diode is used. The oscillation you seen is the result of your setup alone and there is no evidence that it happens all the time. And I can tell you the oscillation is a result of the energy sloshing back and forth. An ignition coil in a car works at different frequencies and when the resonance frequency of the charging circuit's L/C is reached there is no back flow of energy, the oscillation is the result of the inductance of the charging coil and the capacitance not operating at the resonance frequency, it doesn't need to, It is not a good thing in my situation and is merely a consequence of Tesla having no diodes to use.
You ought to do some research on resonant charging circuits. Here- http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html) find the part on extinction frequencies and the de-q-ing diode.
Some text on extinction frequencies.
Honestly you make your own self look silly.
And I bet you only tried that setup after I mentioned it in the RomeroUk Muller thread. Makes sense since you didn't mention it during the entire time I posted about what I am doing. ;D
You show no evidence of the claim you make about the oscillation. And an oscillation in a charging circuit means very little.
You show some degree of wanting to dismiss what I am doing by what you say.
It won't work, The thing with the oscillation is pure rubbish. I have to say.
Now I have good reason to ignore you.
Go to Richie Burnett and tell him he is not utilizing the charging circuit in the best possible way for him. Sheez
It is my opinion that if Tesla had of had a semiconductor diode he would have used it in that circuit, and I think he would have done so because it is an improvement to the circuit.
And is an obvious one. However the circuit will still work without it, but not as well or as versatile.
Tesla's patent is about the ignition coil, but the resonant charging circuit can be used in many other ways, the best way to use it is the way it works best in the situation you use it in.
If we take hard evidence and apply logical thinking the possibilities are obvious.
This thread is in the Tesla Technology section where there is no overtone of needing to be about free energy or OU. But to be technical, the motor only uses free energy form the sun it cost nothing for the electricity to run it. So it's a machine that runs on free energy because that is all I've supplied it so far. Free solar energy. I see no reason to try to make free energy from free energy. I want to find efficient ways to use my free energy. :o
Cheers
Uggg, now after I have replied to your post in my last post, you have added to it. ::) Ill cover that here.
"It is my opinion that if Tesla had of had a semiconductor diode he would have used it in that circuit, and I think he would have done so because it is an improvement to the circuit.
And is an obvious one. However the circuit will still work without it, but not as well or as versatile."
I dont completely disagree. Ill leave it at that.
"This thread is in the Tesla Technology section where there is no overtone of needing to be about free energy or OU. But to be technical, the motor only uses free energy form the sun it cost nothing for the electricity to run it. So it's a machine that runs on free energy because that is all I've supplied it so far. Free solar energy. I see no reason to try to make free energy from free energy. I want to find efficient ways to use my free energy. :o "
Yes I am getting it. You are allergic to the words Free Energy. I get it. Just the inkling of the mention make you cringe it would seem. Heck you just might melt if I say it. I wonder if that is in the rules here at 'OU' that threads can be moderated to prevent others from talking about free energy? I would find that ironic. ;) Are there not forums that deal strictly with just under COP motors and devices, being that is what you are concentrating on and nothing more, according to your statement above? ;)
Mags
Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2013, 09:34:00 AM
Also I must say what I'm doing has nothing to do with the "ORBO". Not that I am aware of, I didn't pay much attention to the orbo though.
.
Instead of using the 'large' inductance from the Tesla circuits actual magnetic field applied to the rotor directly, my large inductor has an ecore to raise the inductance. The ecore inductor doesnt affect the rotor in the normal motoring way. The rotor magnet is attracted to the core. And then when the magnet is right up on the core, the circuit is timed for the inductor to conduct and the field in the core from the coil lessens the attraction of the rotor magnet allowing the magnet to pass, providing motor action.
It was shown that the magnet passing the core/coil did not affect the input to the coil. So that is why I said the rotor does not affect my coil. It does affect yours because your coil has an open magnetic circuit, where my ecore, or even a toroid are not. Steorn used toroid cores, and I used an ecore because it would have taken way to long to wind all that wire on a toroid. ;)
Mags
Well... I think Tito way would be the best for recovery and when you add two magnets around you would have R.Willis schematic ;) However in my case I'm trying to eliminate as much of electronics as possible. Maybe not soon but someday I will ....
Simple advice is to learn again what Tom Bearden descibed : don't kill the dipole. Eliminate reactive power completely or in other words you have to have only DIPOLE when something important is to be done ::) Have you ever thought what is the dipole ?
It's encoded in Bearden moving picture Tito mentioned...or in Don Smith show...
I'm not asking for help I'm showing what I'm doing. I have no desire to discuss Bearden or the Orbo. I'm not here to answer vague questions either.
A perfect example of what annoys me is when I mentioned to Mags that a possible good use for a pulse motor is for a fan and a water pump to raise water from a ground level tank to a raised tank. Then Mags starts to try to tell me what I will need too do, what a joke. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I need to do, he spoke of this and that with no idea of my needs ( which is nil in that area ). It wouldn't matter if it took two days or more to move the water, so the pump need not be any particular rating or type, I could use gearing/pulley ratio's to make the work easier for the motor, the time it takes means nothing, there is no hurry, there is nothing to say I even need to use a conventional pump as long as the water is moved then that is all that matters. I was simply stating what a possible good use for a pulse motor could be, and I get sprayed with how I should do it, I never even said I was going to, just that it was a possible use. Jebus.
As far as dipoles go, to transfer energy from a supply to a load then emf must be applied and that comes from a dipole. Bearden was full of it. I pay no attention to him and have no need to. I also have no desire to speak of Tito or Don Smith here, they are full of it as well.
I also have no requirement for others opinions of what I should do, I am open to suggestions but I don't take directions.
I understand how the charging circuit works and how I am using it and why. If anyone see's anything I say as false then speak up and quote me in context with the complaint.
I'm not here to make friends and I didn't start the thread to continuously explain myself in posts. I made this thread to document the principal so that the people who are interested to use it or try it can do so with some help and info. And I'm here to develop novel and useful ways of using my free solar energy, My motor has been running for many hours already and I have not paid one cent for the input energy. That's free energy being used efficiently, I'm happy with that, I don't require any miracles.
When I am ready I'll post a basic drawing as I said I would.
The operation of the charging circuit is clearly defined although many people still do not understand it fully so that they can use it efectively. There is no need for any special oscillation ect. it works as it does and that is that a "de-q-ing" diode is a big improvement to the resonant charging circuit but in some cases where people may want some energy to return to the supply at certain frequencies the "de-q-ing" diode might be not wanted, also in some cases where the input current may not be compatible with a semiconductor diode it might be better left out. The basic purpose of the charging circuit is to provide an increased charge for better effect, all else is gravy.
I use a resonant charging circuit for my Tesla coil primary circuit, it has a large inductance because it is needed (due to the high voltage). I understand what I am doing Mags I explained the benefits of the large inductance for the charging circuit in the Tesla coil primary in the one or two of the Threads about Tesla coils.
I will use as much inductance as I need or want, this prototype has compromises made in several area's, one of them is the coils. I already explained that. It's not time to go into the inductance of the coils for my motor as yet or calculate what would be a suitable inductance for a given setup, other parameters need to be decided first such as the operating electrical frequency and the capacitance used ect. Everything is relative to what we want to achieve not what others think or assume we want to achieve.
This thread is not about the ignition coil patent itself or the ignition coil application of the charging circuit, the patent just explains the charging circuit principal and shows where the idea was patented. Nothing more. I'll use the charging circuit however I please and unless I speak what you see as lies then there is no need to argue about it. IF you have a problem with something I say quote me in context and say so clearly what the problem is, then I will address the issue in whatever way is applicable.
Why fill up the tread with pointless argument and misunderstanding ? That is a kind of suppression, be it intentional or not.
Cheers
P.S. Here's a suggestion guys, go work on your own projects and report on your progress where ever it is you are reporting on your progress.
To reiterate I am open to suggestions but I don't take directions. I am open to valid discussion but have no desire for people to try to tell me what I want to do. When I want help I'll ask for it, but I don't mind something in particular being pointed out to me if it is relative to what I'm doing. If I feel people are being underhanded and casting aspersions or making vague statements of a false or confusing nature I will speak out. And I will usually do so with quotes and links to references.
I expect the same, quotes and references please or it didn't happen.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on June 02, 2013, 07:14:06 PM
I'm not asking for help I'm showing what I'm doing. I have no desire to discuss Bearden or the Orbo. I'm not here to answer vague questions either.
A perfect example of what annoys me is when I mentioned to Mags that a possible good use for a pulse motor is for a fan and a water pump to raise water from a ground level tank to a raised tank. Then Mags starts to try to tell me what I will need too do, what a joke. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I need to do, he spoke of this and that with no idea of my needs ( which is nil in that area ). It wouldn't matter if it took two days or more to mover the water so the pump need not be any particular rating or type, I could use gearing pulley ratio's to make the work easier for the motor, the time it takes means nothing, there is no hurry, there is nothing to say I even need to use a conventional pump as long as the water is moved then that is all that matters. I was simply stating what a possible good use for a pulse motor could be, and I get sprayed with how I should do it, I never even said I was going to, just that it was a possible use. Jebus.
As far as dipoles go, to transfer energy from a supply to a load then emf must be applied and that comes from a dipole. Bearden was full of it. I pay no attention to him and have no need to. I also have no desire to speak of Tito or Don Smith here, they are full of it as well.
I also have no requirement for others opinions of what I should do, I am open to suggestions but I don't take directions.
I understand how the charging circuit works and how I am using it and why. If anyone see's anything I say as false then speak up and quote me in context with the complaint.
I'm not here to make friends and I didn't start the thread to continuously explain myself in posts. I made this thread to document the principal so that the people who are interested to use it or try it can do so with some help and info. And I'm here to develop novel and useful ways of using my free solar energy, My motor has been running for many hours already and I have not paid one cent for the input energy. That's free energy being used efficiently, I'm happy with that, I don't require any miracles.
When I am ready I'll post a basic drawing as I said I would.
The operation of the charging circuit is clearly defined although many people still do not understand it fully so that they can use it efectively. There is no need for any special oscillation ect. it works as it does and that is that a "de-q-ing" diode is a big improvement to the resonant charging circuit but in some cases where people may want some energy to return to the supply at certain frequencies the "de-q-ing" diode might be no wanted, also in some cases where the input current may not be compatible with a semiconductor diode it might be better left out. The basic purpose of the charging circuit is to provide an increased charge for better effect, all else is gravy.
I use a resonant charging circuit for my Tesla coil primary circuit, it has a large inductance because it is needed. I understand what I am doing Mags I explained the benefits of the large inductance for the charging circuit in the Tesla coil primary in the one or two of the Threads about Tesla coils.
I will use as much inductance as I need, this prototype has compromises made in several area's, one of them is the coils. I already explained that.
This thread is not about the ignition coil patent itself or the ignition coil application of the charging circuit, the patent just explains the charging circuit principal and shows where the idea was patented. Nothing more. I'll use the charging circuit however I please and unless I speak what you see as lies then there is no need to argue about it. IF you have a problem with something I say quote me in context and say so clearly what the problem is then I will address the issue in whatever way is applicable.
Why fill up the tread with pointless argument and misunderstanding ? That is a kind of suppression, be it intentional or not.
Cheers
P.S. Here's a suggestion guys, go work on your own projects and report on your progress where ever it is you are reporting on your progress.
To reiterate I am open to suggestions but I don't take directions. I am open to valid discussion but have no desire for people to try to tell me what I want to do. When I want help I'll ask for it, but I don't mind something in particular being pointed out to me if it is relative to what I'm doing. If I feel people are being underhanded and casting aspersions or making vague statements of a false or confusing nature I will speak out. And I will usually do so with quotes and links to references.
I expect the same, quotes and references please or it didn't happen.
Cheers
"I'm not asking for help I'm showing what I'm doing. I have no desire to discuss Bearden or the Orbo. I'm not here to answer vague questions either."
No problem.
"A perfect example of what annoys me is when I mentioned to Mags that a possible good use for a pulse motor is for a fan and a water pump to raise water from a ground level tank to a raised tank. Then Mags starts to try to tell me what I will need too do, what a joke."
Hmm. Sorry. Seemed like you were looking for solutions at the time. I was wrong.
"This thread is not about the ignition coil patent itself or the ignition coil application of the charging circuit, the patent just explains the charging circuit principal and shows where the idea was patented. Nothing more. I'll use the charging circuit however I please and unless I speak what you see as lies then there is no need to argue about it. IF you have a problem with something I say quote me in context and say so clearly what the problem is then I will address the issue in whatever way is applicable."
Carry on then.
"To reiterate I am open to suggestions but I don't take directions"
Never gave directions. That MH's job. Ill stay out of this. Good luck
Mags
People should be aware that in some cases during certain operational conditions that some current will bypass the capacitor and be supplied to the motor coil directly, as does happen in most charging circuits to some degree. It's not all that important as long as it's not too much and the increased charge is secured and the phase delay in the charging coil remains compatible. This happening should be obvious and the shoot through current can be calculated for a given situation. At this point that is not all that important either, but the effect is already explained in the videos, and before in posts.
Cheers
P.S. I've set up an analogue current meter to measure the magnitude of the current pulses in amperes that are produced and how often when the coil discharge energy is taken out of the system and applied to an external load via a load switching arrangement. It can dump energy in the range of 0 to over 10 Joules per pulse resulting in several amperes of current through the battery (or load) in pulsations, The energy being dumped can be calculated and multiplied by the frequency to get "roughly" the energy dumped in joules and/or the power in Watts applied to the battery as a result of doing so. ;D Side note is that the effect on the battery seems very beneficial and a fairly efficient charging method as well. Another point is, it's another way to demonstrate that when the energy is removed from the system it has an effect on the way the motor runs.
..
QuoteNever gave directions. That MH's job. Ill stay out of this. Good luck
You seem to enjoy taking pot-shots at me Magluvin, but I am not your punching bag. So stop taking pot-shots at me please. Whatever anger or frustration you have direct it elsewhere, not at me.
Luck is not required when working within reality and with proven technologies. Perseverance and understanding is all that is required.
Cheers
When the motor is running efficiently in "pulse mode" where the currents all return to zero and there is minimal to no shoot through current, the input power matches very closely the power switched through the motor coils by both measurement and by calculation (minus some small loss), using the potential energy in a capacitor formula (I use electronics assistant) the energy switched from the caps through the coils can be easily calculated. Also the energy dumped through the load with the load switching can be easily calculated, the energy dissipated by the LED's and the resistors can also be easily calculated fairly accurately being that that power is almost Smooth DC.
The results are that all energy is accounted for well. The only thing I am at odds to measure as a meaningful value is the mechanical work done by the shaft/rotor with the fan or other mechanical load, I guess the some of the work done on the generator coils is partially mechanical as well being that there is tuning capacitors and "relatively" significant energy is oscillating all the time there.
The main losses at the moment are in -
1) Vibration due to cogging and rotor not well balanced ect.
2) Copper and core losses (mainly in the high resistance generator coils)
3) Noise. (also vibration I suppose)
3) some radiated losses from the boost converter coil ( I kept the frequency fairly low though) (boost converter coil does get slightly warm at higher input power levels/duty ) not the mosfets though.. Not applicable when not in use (except for the diode voltage drop and DC resistance which is very low).
Not much waste heat is produced anywhere in the circuit to speak of at low and medium power levels.
The measured power and/or the calculated energy switched through the motor coils matches very closely the measured input power. And the work done for the input is very good as I see it. If I could measure the mechanical work done in a meaningful value I could fully gauge the motor's efficiency to do it's work. :)
Cheers
P.S. If others are doing something similar with a motor they are most welcome to share here. :) I just want to share what I'm doing and keep it real with minimal unnecessary argument. And without needing to feel as though i must keep justifying myself due to vague dismissive comments. People who post here with good intentions are most welcome and I will support them. I also welcome people to say so if they disagree with me, if it is relative to the point in context and done in an "up front" way. Everyone has the right to their own opinions. But I would appreciate them given as such and without vagueness or innuendo. Fairs fair. It's an open forum. I don't want to give the impression that I don't want anyone not to agree with me or some such thing. I just see the importance of things as being very relative to the situation. Blanket statements ect. don't always cover.
..
The mechanical power dissipation of a small rotor on good bearings can be very low. Here is how to measure it with fair accuracy and precision.
First, you need to know the rotational Moment of Inertia of your rotor. The MoI can be calculated by accurately measuring and weighing the individual components of the rotor and doing a little computation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpsFcV13uY8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpsFcV13uY8)
Next you need accurate means of measuring the angular velocity (ie RPM) and time. A chart recorder comes in very handy here, but isn't really necessary.
The energy of a rotating object like a flywheel or motor rotor in Joules is given by
E = (Iw2)/2
where I is the MoI from part 1 and w is the angular velocity from your RPM measurement (translated into radians/sec).
So now you know how many Joules your rotor is storing when it's turning at any given RPM.
So you run your rotor up to a given RPM however you like, remove the power and start the clock. (Actually you would power to something above your start RPM, remove power and start the clock as the rotor slows through it.) Allow the rotor to run down to another known RPM and stop the clock. The rotor will have dissipated the difference in energy, during the difference in start and stop times. The figure you get is the average power dissipation during the interval. Make the interval shorter and shorter and you approach the true instantaneous power dissipation but you will find it harder and harder to measure precisely.
dE/dt = power in Watts
Often the power dissipation vs RPM will be nearly linear over much of the rotor's speed range, but since aerodynamic drag goes as some higher power of RPM the faster you go the harder it gets and the more power the rotor will dissipate, and departures from linear will happen. SO for fast and/or very light rotors you would want to take a lot of data to make a good plot of power vs RPM.
So.... if your rotor is turning at a constant RPM under power, you look on your graph from the above, determine the mechanical power dissipation at that RPM, and then you know with fair certainty that the rotor is receiving that much power from your source. The difference between what the rotor receives and what you are inputting will give you an efficiency figure.
TK:
Wow that clip had real integrals! (X-squared becomes 2X or X-squared becomes X-cubed over three. That's your survival pack!) lol
I have mentioned some ways to measure the moment of inertia of a pulse motor rotor before but it's a bit complicated. Just tonight I finally came up with a friendly way to do it, or at least a sketch of how to do it.
Imagine you have your pulse motor on a table. On the rotor itself there is a tiny extra wheel that acts as a guide for some thread. The thread connects to a small pulley wheel so that it takes a 90-degree bend from horizontal to vertical. You attach a weight to the end of the thread.
So imagine your weight is 25 cm above the floor and the thread is under tension. You are holding the rotor to prevent it from turning. You release the rotor and measure the RPM of your rotor with your optical tach when the weight hits the floor. Or perhaps you do it with more precision, perhaps using a microcontroller as an example.
And that's it!!! The only measurement to make during the actual experiment is the tach RPM reading and then crunch the numbers! Easy as pie!
The energy supplied by the falling weight is MGh. That becomes the energy put into the rotor. Since the weight hits the floor, you have very sharp "thread tension on" and "thread tension off" "signals" that torque the rotor up to speed and put energy into it.
I think that's a real damn good moment of inertia test that most pulse motor makers should be able to do.
MileHigh
Thank you very much Tinsel, I think you might have tried to help me understand what you're saying before, I can only apologize I haven't soaked it in yet. However with your last post I will study it and see what I can do.
Couple of specific questions. Should I also stop the motor switches from switching during the run down or should I just cut the power (to the coils) ? Also should I allow the motor coils to charge the capacitors or not ? because in reality when the motor is running the transformer action is likely not happening because of the applied potential to the caps from the supply. Which could mean the rotor is seeing more load when running down than what it must overcome to run while powered. Which is kind of confusing me, I could conceivably fudge the result one way or the other in a couple of ways, if you know what I mean. I want to take those things into consideration, but was not thinking totally along the lines of investigating it till now.
I'll study what I need to do in your post and have a think about it while taking the circuit behavior into account, then I might be better able to explain what I "might" see as a way of the result being fudged. At first glance there would seem to be some things might need taking into account. Maybe I'm just over thinking it.
I'm certain you or others could then tell me if it is a consideration or not when I get to that point.
Cheers
P.S. Ahah, maybe if I cut the power to the switches and the coils promptly then the capacitors will remain charged and so rule out any transformer action form the motor coils themselves. I can test that roughly and fairly easily to see. Maybe.
..
Quote from: MileHigh on June 02, 2013, 10:33:46 PM
TK:
Wow that clip had real integrals! (X-squared becomes 2X or X-squared becomes X-cubed over three. That's your survival pack!) lol
I have mentioned some ways to measure the moment of inertia of a pulse motor rotor before but it's a bit complicated. Just tonight I finally came up with a friendly way to do it, or at least a sketch of how to do it.
Imagine you have your pulse motor on a table. On the rotor itself there is a tiny extra wheel that acts as a guide for some thread. The thread connects to a small pulley wheel so that it takes a 90-degree bend from horizontal to vertical. You attach a weight to the end of the thread.
So imagine your weight is 25 cm above the floor and the thread is under tension. You are holding the rotor to prevent it from turning. You release the rotor and measure the RPM of your rotor with your optical tach when the weight hits the floor. Or perhaps you do it with more precision, perhaps using a microcontroller as an example.
And that's it!!! The only measurement to make during the actual experiment is the tach RPM reading and then crunch the numbers! Easy as pie!
The energy supplied by the falling weight is MGh. That becomes the energy put into the rotor. Since the weight hits the floor, you have very sharp "thread tension on" and "thread tension off" "signals" that torque the rotor up to speed and put energy into it.
I think that's a real damn good moment of inertia test that most pulse motor makers should be able to do.
MileHigh
I like it very much. ;) If I do the test can someone help with the calculations ? I think I've got pulleys and everything I need, also then it can be compared to the other method.
Cheers
Sure and I will do a quick rundown on the calculations.
You know from the previous postings that MGh = Iw2/2
Working it..... 2MGh = Iw2
Then..... I = 2MGh/w2
You can see from the formula that increasing the size of the weight M or the drop distance h will be met with an increase in angular-velocity-squared in the denominator.
As a suggestion for all, if you took the average of several measurements you can expect to have a more accurate measurement. For example, you might want to average out three runs of two different weights for a total of six measurement runs. I only mention this because it's a practice that you don't see very much on the forums.
MileHigh
P.S.: TK, thanks for the "w2" I am a font illiterate see! ;D
@Farmhand: I thought about your situation and I think you have several "baseline" conditions to compare, not just two. I would view the reed switch as a mechanical load and the coils and cap as an electrical load on the rotor. So I'd run the rotor with the reed switch in position, but the coils removed and of course the rest of the circuit disconnected. This will give you the straight mechanical power dissipation vs rpm curve, from bearings and windage and the reed flipping around etc. Then you can add the coils physically in position but not yet hooked to the circuit and make another dissipation curve which should be a little steeper because of eddy losses in the coils even when they aren't hooked up. Finally, all up but not yet under power. So really you have three baselines: straight mechanical, mechanical + eddys in the coils, and finally mechanical, eddys plus generating and charging. Then when you flip the switch, you are in a position to say with some confidence just how much of your input applied power is going where: some is going to strictly mechanical moving stuff, some is going to heat from eddys in the coils, and some is being picked off to charge the cap or other load on the generating coils.
Now I'm getting excited because I think I'm about to learn something new and very useful. I just hope the calculations needed for a usable result are not beyond me. I have a fairly serious chronic neck issue ( bad fusion from disc removal) and the problem is the pain medications I must take at some times makes my ocular vision not so good, especially with text, and focused concentration is difficult. Luckily I'm not badly afflicted all the time. When I watch the video I get some parts of what he's saying but most of it is like a foreign language. :-[
Tinsel I get what you're saying and will do. No probs. But there is no reed, it's a photo reflector for the motor so it's not much load from that, I can remove the gen coils and stuff easily enough ect. By the way I got the Allegro hall sensors and they are tiny which surprised me. Something else new to do.
Still haven't made the basic drawing yet. I need to do that soon. However I'll setup to do these tests as well as I can.
Cheers
Ok Awesome, It'll take me a while to set up the apparatus so I can do all tests both ways in some kind of a series to keep some order. Once set up the actual tests shouldn't take too long and I ought to be able to fit them onto a video clip that is short enough not to be painful to watch. :) That way I can collect the raw data (or at least some runs) on video so any problems might be seen.
The rotor with the "squirrel cage" pulley "add on" weighs about 580 grams, but a lot of the weight is near the shaft, i'll get accurate weights as well. The rotor actually has another smaller squirrel cage on the shaft that the plastic part with the magnets in butts up to for support and spacing as well as some flywheel weight.
MileHigh, with relation to the pulley method you describe I have a question about how much weight am I looking at using, with respect to the construction of the pulley support ect. How much force would I need to get from the weight relative to the rotor, or how fast do I want it to be spun up to for the pulley method ? Is more "spun up rpm" going to be much more accurate, or maybe be a cause of possible error causing problems ? I might need to turn up a couple of nice sized plastic pulleys to use, they will be handy anyway, I can insert the bearings into the pulley and the weight will be minimal but they'll be strong, a couple of scooter/skate wheels without the hard tyres and some bolts would be perfect, which is probably what I'll make. I did find some pulleys but they all look to weak, no good.
While digging around I found a long stainless steel 8 mm shaft from a printer, it's 430 mm long, which I was looking for for a new motor. I can use the long shaft to have several "sections" along the one solid shaft enabling direct driving of stuff in sections. Printers have lots of handy tinkering stuff in them. :)
Couple of posts happened out of sync or order back there, seems like. No matter.
Cheers
Farmhand,
To get the most accurate result I think you want to reduce the effects of friction on your measurement. So my thinking is that a shorter stronger tug on the rotor would be the way to go. If you can make the pulley wheel that's mounted on the rotor that receives the thread medium or large in diameter that would be preferable. Also go for a larger weight. In my mind's eye I envision the drop would take a short time, perhaps less than two seconds. You might only apply torque to the rotor for 2/3 of a turn.
I will assume that the moment of inertia for the pulley wheel that gives the thread a right-angle bend will be very small relative to the moment of inertia of the rotor and won't affect the measurements.
You also asked about the RPM. I would think something like five revolutions or more per second might be a good start. So that's 300 RPM.
If your rotor has a fairly slow spin-down that takes tens of seconds then you figure that the 1-2 second delay before your optical tach "syncs up" to the rotor and gives you a reading will not be too significant.
The fun part is you could if you wanted try different arrangements of weight, drop height, and rotor pulley diameter and evaluate them for yourself. They should in an ideal case all give you exactly the same result.
Here is the equation again: I = 2MGh/w2
You will notice that the more energy drain you have from friction, your final "w" will decrease. Decreasing "w" or angular velocity will artificially increase your measured value for "I," the moment of inertia. So the more "disturbance" friction you encounter, the more energy you remove from the dropping weight, and the slower the final RPM relative to the ideal RPM.
Final comment, I think that with a good set up, the friction-induced error for the measurement will be very low, less than 1%. However, it's still fun to contemplate it, and you could make inferences about it by doing multiple runs with different weights, etc.
MileHigh
I wasn't able to use the power tools last night, so I'll make time during the day today to make the parts.
Last night i done some run down tests and recorded the results. The run down is not as long as I thought, must be since the second motor coil was added.
To properly weigh the rotor parts and calculate that way would not be so difficult, but still not easy either. It would just be the calculations for solid cylinders of different sized and radial distance from the shaft. and the shaft as a rod. I'm kinda inclined to pull the rotor out and do it, and I guess I will but I'll wait till after I try your method.
The run down times without generator coils and with the load switching happening by cutting the coil power and leaving the motor switches switching are all around 36 to 43 seconds even for very different starting speeds which I find a bit odd. To get the setup to run at the required speed I either adjusted the timing or the pulse width slightly if I had to. The best (or worst) however it goes is 40 seconds rundown from 1800 rpm which required 6.5 Watts to hold at 1800 rpm or 43 seconds from 2000 rpm which required 11.5 Watts to hold at 2000 rpm.
For with the return circuit in place the result is different and that is because when the power is cut to the setup with coil discharge energy going to the load switching the power is cut but the caps don't dump and just keep the voltage which is double the supply but with the return circuit the energy is released back through the system after every cycle and so without and voltage on the caps transformer action tries to charge them. I haven't found a reliable way to cut the switching off completely and suddenly, the shutdown signal doesn't work as it should for some reason, and only reduces the pulse width to nearly nothing but still there is switching. Cutting the power to the board allows the signal to continue while the cap drains. Pulling the wires to the sensor module allows spurious signals from floating pins.
The results are all very similar from cutting the coil power with the return use, and I can see that when close to stopping the retriggering causes the rotor to stop quicker at the end due to the coils fighting each other, at such a low rpm, the phase is too far out. To get a steady state speed at a predetermined speed with the return circuit in use requires that something is changed as compared to when the load switching is used to deal with the coil discharge energy. I either need to retard the timing a lot or reduce the pulse width which both cause less than optimum running.
Running down from 2000 rpm takes 36 seconds and requires 6.2 Watts to hold at 2000 rpm and at the other extreme I can run the rotor at 2800 rpm with 11.5 watts and it takes 37 seconds to run down. So the return circuit and the transformer action ect. is causing the run down to remain the same regardless of the speed it runs down from. I think it also fudges the run down time with the coil discharges sent to the load switching but to a lesser degree.
To me it is obvious that I cannot get a valid run down test because of all the capacitors and how they are charged from the turning rotor, with or without the switches still switching, the only way I can see would be to disconnect the coils from the capacitors and such so that the cogging drag is all there is. That requires a lot of de-soldering ect.
The same problem will arise with the second method you came up with, the motor sees more drag when the power is cut due to the capacitors and the transformer action as well as the switching of the generated energy at the wrong time when the rotor runs down to low speeds.
All these things are a factor that fudge the results and any calculations as valid as they are will be invalid because of it. When the power is cut to a regular pulse motor the switching stops and there is no transformer action to speak of as I see it, no caps being charged and no energy switched at the wrong time so as to fight the rotation when the rotor runs down to very low speed.
I refuse to do the test as a valid result with a possible built in handicap in relation to the run down behavior. I need to solve that issue or find a way around it first.
I think the best way is to disconnect the coils from the caps and use the MleHigh method with the pulleys and the weight. But it is a major drama to do, I have to de-solder all the connections so that the rotor does not see more drag during run down than it must overcome when running, I think it's vitally important to getting a valid result to meet that requirement.
I can see it's a problem for the tests.
Cheers
This is where the problems arise, all the complicated calculation in the world cant give a valid result if what's happening won't allow the collection of proper raw data, it can't be ignored, that's unscientific, not recognizing it would be not taking notice of whats going on and ignoring it is just plain ignorance.
I need to find a solution or see good reason why it's not an issue, I can see it is, at least it seems logical that the run down behavior will not give proper raw data.
...
MileHigh could you explain what the letters all mean in that formula ?
I = 2MGh/w2 . 2M I see as 2x mass whats the Gh/w2 mean ? I did not lean calculus ever. I'll have to learn as I go. If I have the formula and it expanded explanation of what all the letters mean and the calculating procedure I can work it out. :) ie. from memory I think some times the squaring is done first then the multiplying, or does that require brackets.
It's kinda like asking a race car driver to calculate the physical characteristics of his car, that's the engineers job. He would need to sit classes to learn how to do it and that would interfere with his driving practice. Although any good driver knows by intuition what is happening, they just can't explain it in engineer language because they never learned the language. That's why you see drivers mover their hands and bodies in certain ways to explain things of reality to engineers. And if given the tools and time a driver can build a very good race car because he knows what he needs to go fast and what is benfecial to his driving style, if not he's not a good driver. The best professional crews are ones that can communicate properly so the engineers can make happen what the driver wants or needs, while having talent at the same time. One without the other is less than optimal. And people can spread themselves too thin or suffer burn out from taking too much on themselves.
Imagine a motorcycle rider trying to explain the physics behind how he can ride on his back wheel at 160 kph and take corners pass cars ect. He can't explain it but he can do it. The engineer can explain but can't do it, I know which is more fun and exciting. :)
Basically I struggle with the calculations because it's all new I have almost zero experience with calculus. But I can wheel stand powerful motor cycles and drive cars fast and sideways. :) I did give it up after having a child and some accidents though.
When doing it it's a kind of melding of man and machine, pure understanding, no thinking required. The thinking usually happens after, sometimes before. I feel the same thing with my electronic devices, I get into the machine kind of thing and "get the feel", use and understanding not on a purely electrical level.
That being said, without engineers the world would be chaos, roofs would cave in regularly, the power would go out all the time ect. I have a lot of respect for educated learning.
It's vital for some to take it on. I did but not in this field. And the education I was provided was only just enough to ply my trade.
Cheers
P.S. I honestly can't even work out if a long run down is better or worse for efficiency, the way i see it a long run down with a large input power from a low speed would be bad.
A short run down from a high speed with a small input would be good.
I can make different results repeatable with the same setup adjusted differently, so something is not right and there is a fudge factor at play. If I was underhanded I would just make it work so it worked out good for me. But I seek the truth not what looks good for me.
I wouldn't discount others fudging results like this so it looks better for them. Too many contributing factors.
I just need to determine how much work the rotor can output as work done, like a dyno setup.
The idea with the small generator as a dyno is good if a direct drive is used and the base load of the generator taken into account, Ohms law could give raw data.
Any dyno with a belt, like a pony brake suffers from friction value changes due to heat in my opinion.
There must be an easier and more accurate way to measure the work output done by the shaft without the parasitic load of a generator, or fudge factors at play.
..
..
Farmhand,
Note there is no calculus here, just a straight multiplication and a division, and you do the squaring in the denominator first before you do the division.
You are correct and "M" stands for the mass in kilograms of the weight.
The "G" is probably the wrong case, I think that they use "g." That's the acceleration due to gravity constant and people normally use 9.8 meters per second-squared. You can look up the value if you want for more precision. It's the average acceleration due to gravity on the Earth at sea level.
Note when you multiply "M" and "g" together you get the SI unit for force, the Newton. The Newton is the real unit for force that's in common use for scientific calculations.
"h" is the height that the weight falls in meters.
"w2" is really "w^2" or "omega-squared." Omega is the lower-case Greek letter that's used for the angular velocity of the rotor in radians per second. The Greek letter omega looks a lot like a "w." A radian is a measure of angle and it's about 57 degrees. To calculate the angular velocity in radians per second you simply take your frequency in Hertz and multiply by 2 X Pi. So, omega = (2 x 3.14159 x measured frequency in Hertz.) In the common short form you say, "omega = 2 x Pi x f" So one rotation per second is 6.28 radians per second.
The "omega-squared" is calculated first. There is no squaring of anything in the numerator.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhoHmiiXdc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhoHmiiXdc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V--pS7Is4P8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V--pS7Is4P8)
OK Thanks I'll try to digest that and perform a trial calculation with arbitrary figures.
I think your method will give a valid result if certain procedures to gather the raw data are followed, but I'm not sure what they should be just yet. I just don't want to overlook anything and make a big boo boo.
Much appreciated.
When I think about it both methods are the same but just done a bit differently, so a valid result should be assured if it's done correctly and calculated without error. I'm still excited ! ;D
The way I see it for weighing the rotor parts I could do it like as follows, with reference to the links..
Link to the Engineering Toolbox "Flywheel Kinetic Energy"
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flywheel-energy-d_945.html
Flywheel shapes
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moment-inertia-torque-d_913.html
1) the magnets can be calculated in total ( added together) as a hollow cylinder.
2) the squirrel cages can be calculated as solid cylinders
3) the plastic rotor plate can be calculated as a solid cylinder or maybe a hollow cylinder due to all the holes in it. :D
4) the shaft calculated as a slender rod.
So all that seems it would be easy enough.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on June 03, 2013, 08:52:47 PM
When I think about it both methods are the same but just done a bit differently, so a valid result should be assured if it's done correctly and calculated without error. I'm still excited ! ;D
The way I see it for weighing the rotor parts I could do it like as follows, with reference to the links..
Link to the Engineering Toolbox "Flywheel Kinetic Energy"
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flywheel-energy-d_945.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flywheel-energy-d_945.html)
Flywheel shapes
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moment-inertia-torque-d_913.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moment-inertia-torque-d_913.html)
1) the magnets can be calculated in total ( added together) as a hollow cylinder.
2) the squirrel cages can be calculated as solid cylinders
3) the plastic rotor plate can be calculated as a solid cylinder or maybe a hollow cylinder due to all the holes in it. :D
4) the shaft calculated as a slender rod.
So all that seems it would be easy enough.
Cheers
Exactly. I forgot about engineeringtoolbox, that is a great site with lots of useful formulae. I referred to them a lot during the Mister Wayne days.
So since your rotor is symmetrical and made of regular shapes, it's straightforward, if not exactly "easy", to figure the MoI from measurements, weights and a good sketch or two.
It would be really interesting, I think, to compare the straight geometric method with the more empirical approach that MH suggested. I'll bet the answers will be really close. Validating measurement methods concurrently is always a good idea! We often take for granted that our tools are working properly but sometimes they aren't.
"Radian" measures always confused me until I realized that a "radian" is what you get when you take a line the length of the circle's radius, and wrap it around the circle's circumference. It takes 2 x pi or 6.28 "radiuses" to wrap all the way around the circle, so if you divide 360 degrees by 6.28 you get a bit over 57 degrees. It's the SI standard "derived" unit of the amount of rotation or angular measure, so if you use radians instead of degrees or RPM or something in the physics equations, your other SI units like Joules, Watts, seconds, kilograms and so forth all work out properly without needing extra constants of proportionality.
Hows this look for a setup ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYCGAUF5mQ
The rotor as used weighs 626 grams, the power was disconnected completely and the generator coils were there but no loads.
Just a test of the test setup. Seems to work well, I'll find a better weight, fairly consistent results too.
Cheers
Farmhand:
That looks pretty good to me. If I can make one comment it would be that this is a "pure" measurement of the moment of inertia of the rotor so things like pick-up coils and anything that might affect the rotor should be moved away (if possible.)
If you do work with this data and then start doing things like using the moment of inertia to determine rotor power at a given RPM like TK said, then you will be a pioneer among pulse motor testers blazing new trails for others (hopefully) to follow.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Farmhand:
That looks pretty good to me. If I can make one comment it would be that this is a "pure" measurement of the moment of inertia of the rotor so things like pick-up coils and anything that might affect the rotor should be moved away (if possible.)
If you do work with this data and then start doing things like using the moment of inertia to determine rotor power at a given RPM like TK said, then you will be a pioneer among pulse motor testers blazing new trails for others (hopefully) to follow.
MileHigh
Yes, looks good to me too. Hopefully you can also compare to the straight calculation method too.
But.... it's not exactly completely unexplored territory!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJavCZX_-PI
Yeah MileHigh, I see, so do I leave the motor coils in place also ? I would remove the generator coils before testing but I would have left the motor coils there but maybe not connected, not really sure, it's a lot to try to take in for someone in my position. I'm understanding better as I go along, keep coming with the suggestions if you think of any gentlemen. I need all the help I can get, but please be patient also. I think this is something important to learn and useful, I get the feeling it is anyway.
Tinsel, I hope you wear those "dislike tags" as badges of Honor ;) That's how I think of them, every one means I peeved someone or spoke truth enough to upset some faker or some such other dishonorable person. :) You ought to get a lot more badges than me considering your high work rate. :D
I'll be going back and rereading posts for a while as I work through things, but I'll speak up when I get stuck on something.
Cheers
Ok using the formula I = 2MGh/w2, with 0.120 Kg falling 0.750 meters producing 404 RPM. I recorded 5 runs and averaged three run results after disregarding the highest and lowest. Not much point to the averaging because after disregarding the high and low result the others were the same save for fractions so I just disregarded those as well.
Frequency in Hz meaning RPM/60 I guess.
I get a value of I = 0.00098655969
Question what does the number stand for ? :-[ Once one "gets" into the calculation it is actually easy when we have the computer type calculators to do the actual calculating for us. If I did the correct thing or not is another matter.
That is with no generator coils, the power disconnected and the motor coils negatives disconnected from the mosfets but with the return circuit in place, (as it would run down with no power and no switching). Side note is that with the generator coils in place the speed is higher because the cogging was less to begin the rotor to turn, I had to go to more weight when I removed them. ;)
If I'm wrong I can show on my sketch pad what I did and find out why.
Now to pull out the rotor and carefully measure and weigh it while referring to the engineers toolbox pages. ;) I'm a serious cheater, but the meaning is understood.
Getting there. The help is dearly appreciated, to get it for free is very fortunate.
Cheers
Farmhand:
With respect to the motor coils, in theory the magnets on the rotor interacting with the "dead" motor coils will not have any affect on the rotor. The fly-by is energy neutral, the rotor speed up on approach (assuming the rotor magnet is attracted to a drive coil core) is counterbalanced by the rotor slow-down on departing for a net energy change in the rotor of zero.
However, we know this causes a type of cogging. The assumption is that the cogging is stressing the rotor bearings and that's adding some friction. In theory if you had ideal bearings for the rotor there would be no friction due to the cogging. Also, I am not a bearing expert but for sure there are high-quality bearings out there that will remain silky smooth and barely induce any friction due to the cogging. In reality, you probably have 100 times more experience in this stuff than I do.
So if you don't feel the presence of the two drive coils is adversely affecting the speed-up of the rotor while the weight falls then don't remove them. It looks to me that it would be an unreasonable amount of work to remove the drive coils from your setup. I am really guessing because I haven't watched all of your clips and I am not too familiar the build details of your motor.
Think of the bearings in an in-line skate. They are designed to withstand thousands of pounds of radial and "roll/pitch/yaw" type stresses and work fine. To get that extra strength you might have to make a trade-off and live with a bit of friction. Compare that with the silky-smooth bearing inside a hard drive. The hard drive bearing is not really designed to handle excessive amounts of stress and it's not designed to handle any type of load itself, just the "load" of the platter. It's designed for ultra long life and very very low friction. I am just talking from my common sense here, I haven't changed bearings or ever really read about bearings.
MileHigh
Yes I understand that, when I think about it you are correct of course the cogging is drag neutral logically. But it does make the first fraction start slower with the generator coils not there, but it is probably only due to the circumstance of the position of the cog right on where I wanted to start the rotor, I probably should have started it between cogs.
No matter, the result turned out to be very consistent either way and very similar to each other anyway.
Did I make the calculation correctly ? If not just say so and I'll try again.
What do I call that bit the "MOI" in "???" Kilograms ?
Cheers
Farmhand:
QuoteQuestion what does the number stand for ?
The number is telling you how much resistance to change in speed the rotor has. So you apply torque to the rotor with the falling weight and put a precise amount of energy into the rotor. If the rotor has a lot of resistance to a change in speed then it won't be turning too fast after the weight falls.
This is related to but not directly connected to the mass of the rotor. You can have a 10 Kg rotor made like a long cylinder with a small diameter and you can have a 10 Kg rotor made like a thin flat disk with a very large diameter. The two rotors will have greatly different moments of inertia.
What you are measuring is the mechanical inductance of the rotor. I know that I have droned on about this before but it's true. You will note that electrical inductance is a measure of the resistance of the coil to a change in current flow. From above, "The number is telling you how much resistance to change in speed the rotor has."
Perhaps this will ring a bell:
The energy stored in an electrical inductor: 1/2 L i-squared
The energy stored in a mechanical inductor: 1/2 I w-squared
Look familiar?
MileHigh
Yep I see so it's just the MoI value, similar to an "inductance" value. Makes sense I guess.
Does it seem correct though ? I'll find out later I guess.
Thanks.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 05, 2013, 03:55:14 AM
Farmhand:
Perhaps this will ring a bell:
The energy stored in an electrical inductor: 1/2 L i-squared
The energy stored in a mechanical inductor: 1/2 I w-squared
Look familiar?
MileHigh
Familiar and similar.
Ahah, yes I see now, "the light's just came on, the door flung open and the cool breeze hit me", then I heard the bell ring. :-[
This takes me back to reply #20 from Tinsel. E = (Iw2)/2 , E= 1/2 I w-squared , E= 1/2 L i-squared, neat.
I'll do some more calculations for the practice now to see how I go then I'll weigh the rotor parts in the dead calm of after midnight.
..
Umm
E = (Iw2)/2. So where I = 0.00098655969 and
where w = 230.2666 then E = 26.155 @ 2200 rpm
Where w = 157 then E = 12.1588 @ 1500 rpm
And where w = 104.6666 then E = 5.4039 @ 1000 rpm
Need more data now.
...
MileHigh, It looks like your method is spot on or very close to the calculation method.
For your method I get the figure I = 0.00098655969
And by calculation I get the figure I = 0.00091038461
And when I measured and calculated I did make a compromise because of the shape of the squirrel cages ect. Still very close and I'm inclined to go with your methods result because of the calculation compromises would increase the calculated figure, and the consistency of the results I got from your method.. Awesome stuff.
Now to put it back together and run some timed run down tests that should give me meaningful results. Oh but first I'll do some more drop tests to confirm the result better, I've got more weights and whatnot.
Cheers
Farmhand,
I am glad that you are having fun. As a reminder, anything that you can do to reduce the friction and/or cogging that results in a faster RPM after the weight falls is going to reduce your calculated moment of inertia. That's a good thing and should give you more accurate results. As long as it's passive and does not add any active power or energy to the spinning rotor you are fine.
About your first round of results:
QuoteFor your method I get the figure I = 0.00098655969
And by calculation I get the figure I = 0.00091038461
Note that these results are "satisfying" in the sense that the dropping-weight method shows a larger MOI, and we can suspect that unwanted friction might be the main cause of the higher MOI measurement. So it's reasonable and could be expected that the dropping-weight MOI measurement should be larger than the other method. If it was the other way around and the dropping-weight MOI was smaller, then the first round of measurements would not "smell right" which would merit further investigation.
MileHigh
I happy to have the fun. I'am also happy to have been able to demonstrate your idea for the drop method to determine the MoI, and that it worked for me, I hope in some small way that it might help make up for my previous emotional outburst towards you ;), it was uncalled for and I apologize. I did feel as though I was being deliberately dismissed and "misunderstood", "just how I felt" but I hope that can be water under the bridge as my misunderstanding of the situation.
I'm having a relapse of my neck problem so i'm struggling to focus at the moment in both ways my eyes and my mind.
I am having difficulty to get an accurate measure of the rpm during a run down event between two rpm points like 2500 rpm to 2200 rpm, the tachometer jumps too many numbers at once.
I'm thinking it might be time to work on the control circuit and maybe change over to the hall sensors and the Arduino, I've got the halls but they are tiny small, the Arduino I kind of could not decide what I wanted to get. I think I'll go with the one Tinsel recommended, The thing I like about the picaxe system is the small chips like the 08M2 and 014M2 chips which can run a circuit or part of a circuit by programming the chip then inserting it in the circuit. Or they can use the USB to audio socket on the board to program in circuit. For simple or moderately complex tasks that I can program for they work well.
If I get the Arduino and set it up properly I should be able to use that to read the RPM/frequency accurately, my issue is I lack the programming skills to do anything with the picaxe except what I can learn from the PDF manual or work out using logic, so my code is simple and primitive, till I learn more.. But the picaxe is still very useful even for people who can't write code for bananas. Very useful controllers.
Cheers
Farmhand,
Apology accepted and it's water under the bridge. I am not perfect and have done a few outbursts myself. Just for your knowledge, my real interest these days is to debate the "professional" free energy propositions. So I debated with John Rohner of Inteligentry infamy on PESN as an example. I could tell that he was full of crap, and was basically a criminal. Other contribtors on PESN like Mark E. could see through him just like me. (If you want to observe someone that really knows his stuff in "action," try reading Mark E. on PESN. The guy is brilliant.) About thee months ago the FBI did a raid on Inteligentry for fraudulent solicitation for the selling of shares in his company in violation of US Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The FBI report also mentioned that he was making false claims about his alleged "PAPP engine."
So that was fun and I got a kick out of that. I view that as doing some good for the community at large. These types of "professional" free energy propositions get some coverage on OU from time to time and sometimes the real players will post here. It's fun to get into a debate with the actual people that are in a high-profile professional looking proposition. Sometimes I can spot a fake quite quickly because it becomes apparent that they are bluffing and don't know what they are talking about. This is especially true when talking about electronics because of my background. It's important to state that I am no genius in electronics by any means. I was never a big analog electronics fan. However, for most of the analog electronics discussions you see around here I can pretty much grasp what is going on. I am not qualified at all to do serious "real" analog design work.
As another high-profile example, on the "Delayed Lenz" thread I looked up Magnacoaster and just discovered that the web site was revamped into a medical quackery web site. Richard Willis of Magnacoaster is another person that is a fraud. To bad he didn't dare come here himself to drum up business, because myself and others would have justifiably made mincemeat out of him. I can tell that he is bluffing when he talks about his electronics circuits. The Magnacoaster systems have apparently vanished and now he is Doctor Quacko and his Magnetic Belts Inc.
With respect to the goings on here OU, I tend to get lightly involved in the occasional thread for fun. I don't get deeply involved simply because I have read and commented on many threads in the past so the novelty wore off a long time ago. So I am glad you are having fun and learning as you go along. I hope that your neck problem goes away or is at least bearable when it gets bad. I have had two back operations from a crushed disk and I know how bad it is when there are problems with your nerve system.
I wrote assembler language programs for the 8088 and the 6502 back in the day. I know nowadays that you program microcontrollers with a high-level language. There is a kind of "nerd thrill" when you write in assembler because you have full control and have "taken over." Assembler also runs blazingly fast.
So carry on and have fun!
For even more fun, you might want to look up "The CMOS Cookbook" by Don Lancaster. That book excited and spawned a whole generation of electronics hobbyists way back when. You can probably say that it's part of the "Nerd Collective Unconscious." lol
MileHigh
Yes a noble pursuit to out the scammers, I like to pick the scammer then learn what I need to so I can demonstrate their "so called OU effects" myself. I think because I am not a electrical engineer and never formally trained in electronics if I can show for example, the speed up effect, and repeat it with different setups and transformers then I think that shows it is nothing special or OU and not is result of what Thane says or thinks, it is explained by known physics. I can pick the "full of it" OU claimants as well (basically look for an OU claim and you've found another one) . It goes to show that the gullible people don't do the tests the guru's claim certain results from. The hover magnet of UFO's was a doozy, he claimed there was a current and magnetic field reversal when the coil was pulsed which caused the magnet to hover. I knew it was rubbish I argued with him he got nasty, so I waited for a few months and many more were sucked in because they thought he had won the argument and was correct. When the time was right I showed the magnet hover with smooth DC and so his theory was completely crushed, he had no choice but to eat crow and admit he was mistaken. All the gullible who allow him to fill their head with rubbish ought to be able to see it by now.
Many people ought to be charged with fraud, But the hard core free energy zealots will see that as an indication of suppression not of criminals being punished.
I challenge anyone to show OU, meaning exactly more energy out of a system than the system contains or more energy out of a system than goes in if no battery is used. We won't see that because it's impossible, any extra energy out of a system compared to what "we " put in is a different matter and the extra energy must come from somewhere. And as soon as the source of the extra energy is identified and quantified the result would be exactly the same as the energy collected in other ways such as wind or solar energy.
Quite frankly I'm tired of the micro power devices and the oscillations of minute amounts of energy, also the anomalous measurements are tiresome, the fakers doing Kapanadze fakes. And the people who just link stuff and cry OU all the time bemuse me.
Cheers
Tinsel I'm ordering the Arduino Eleven you suggested as a good board http://www.freetronics.com/collections/arduino/products/eleven#.UbBap_nPVqA
And I was wondering if you though it a good idea to get the 16 x 2 LCD Shield for Arduino. http://www.freetronics.com/collections/shields/products/lcd-keypad-shield#.UbBjMPnPVqA
I kinda like the idea of the relay shield as well maybe for motor circuit input power on/off switching or other control switches, battery swapping maybe, things like that. I'll check that out and buy it later maybe.
Couldn't resist, so I got he LCD shield as well. Thanks for the tip on the board it looks very good for what I want to play around with.
Cheers
I was wondering if someone could tell me if I would really need a pull up resistor with this hall sensor circuit, if I modify the existing optical sensor circuit design and use a CMOS inverter chip with the hall sensor so I get both non inverted and inverted outputs, would the output (of the Hall sensor) not just go low when the magnetic field exceeds the threshold and then go high when the field is not exceeding the threshold ? Why the need for the pull up resistor ? The data sheet says I need a suitable pull up resistor.
QuoteWith suitable output pull up, they can be used with bipolar or CMOS logic circuits.
Also says this.
QuoteOPERATION
The output of these devices (pin 3) switches low when the magnetic field
at the Hall sensor exceeds the operate point threshold (BOP). At this point, the
output voltage is VOUT(SAT). When the magnetic field is reduced to below the
release point threshold (BRP), the device output goes high.
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/55092/ALLEGRO/A3144.html
..
Oh MileHigh, I've had the CMOS cookbook for some time now. ;) I occasionally recommend it myself.
I've made some CMOS logic chip oscillators that can reach stable frequencies of over 5 mHz with just a cheap CD4001, the better inverting chips can do better, CD 4049 I think.
It's all layed out in the cookbook, it's an awesome resource, SeaMonkey recommended it to me a year or so ago.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on June 07, 2013, 02:09:02 AM
I was wondering if someone could tell me if I would really need a pull up resistor with this hall sensor circuit, if I modify the existing optical sensor circuit design and use a CMOS inverter chip with the hall sensor so I get both non inverted and inverted outputs, would the output (of the Hall sensor) not just go low when the magnetic field exceeds the threshold and then go high when the field is not exceeding the threshold ? Why the need for the pull up resistor ? The data sheet says I need a suitable pull up resistor.
Also says this.
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/55092/ALLEGRO/A3144.html (http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/55092/ALLEGRO/A3144.html)
..
Oh MileHigh, I've had the CMOS cookbook for some time now. ;) I occasionally recommend it myself.
I've made some CMOS logic chip oscillators that can reach stable frequencies of over 5 mHz with just a cheap CD4001, the better inverting chips can do better, CD 4049 I think.
It's all layed out in the cookbook, it's an awesome resource, SeaMonkey recommended it to me a year or so ago.
..
The Allegro sensor that you have chosen doesn't really have an "output", unless you provide it with an "input". It is an open-collector-output device. You treat its Pin 3-Ground output like the Collector-Emitter portion of a NPN bipolar transistor that can sink 25 mA. So you just treat it like a normal bipolar transistor in your circuit, with a suitable pullup chosen to keep the current below 25 mA when the transistor turns ON from the magnet passage. The value of the pullup will depend on the voltage at the positive rail and the downstream device you are switching.
In other words you can't get a logic "high" signal value out of it unless you provide it with a "high" voltage value to switch.
(ETA This makes it really easy to interface with microprocessor boards like Arduino. The same sensor circuit can be used with photodiodes, phototransistors, photoresistors or just about any other thing that acts like a switch when stimulated.)
Allegro also makes 2-wire Hall sensors that act just like a reed switch in a circuit (except without all the problems with reeds).
So in your schematic above, you need a pullup resistor between the collector of the Hall device and the +5v supply. Then when the Hall senses an event and turns on, the voltage at the input gate of the inverter chip will go from Hi to Lo. The value of the resistor will be >= to the supply voltage divided by the max current sink ability of the Hall sensor, which is 25mA, so a 220R should do the trick, but you should go as high as possible here, consistent with triggering the inverter, to limit current thru the sensor to the lowest value that gives consistent triggering.
I think. You should also place a 0.1uF 50V ceramic cap right at the Hall chip across the V+ and Ground pins, and the same for the inverter chip at its supply and ground pins.
(ETA: the way you've depicted the Hall sensor in your schematic makes it look "almost" like a bipolar transistor with its Base connected to the positive supply. This might be a little misleading, since it implies that there might be some Base-Emitter current happening like in a normal NPN transistor... but in the Hall chip there isn't. It's just a switch, between the collector side and the emitter side, so in your present circuit it is just going to open and close a connection to ground, and the inverter chip will just sit there going... huh?)
ETA2: A 7404-type chip might be easier to use, too. At least there are only two connections per gate that you have to make.
Quote from: Farmhand on June 05, 2013, 05:30:19 AM
Umm
E = (Iw2)/2. So where I = 0.00098655969 and
where w = 230.2666 then E = 26.155 @ 2200 rpm
Where w = 157 then E = 12.1588 @ 1500 rpm
And where w = 104.6666 then E = 5.4039 @ 1000 rpm
Need more data now.
...
Heh... not to be too harsh or anything.. but _significant digits_ only, please! You cannot expect me to believe that you have measured your current or the values that go into calculating it to the degree of precision that a number like 0.00098655969 implies. You are here saying that the actual value of the current is 0.00098655969 amps, and NOT 0.00098655968 amps or 0.00098655970 amps.... or any other value. So I say to you that your current value is wrong! I could not say this if you had cited your current value as 1 milliamp, though. You would then be right! because the 0.001 value represents the degree of accuracy of your measurement. If you had given it as 0.001000000, you would once again be wrong.
The answer of any computation cannot legitimately include more digits of precision than the _least_ precise value that goes into the calculation. Those extra digits are just fantasy; the odds of them being exactly correct are smaller and smaller the more of them there are.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2013, 03:19:13 PM
Heh... not to be too harsh or anything.. but _significant digits_ only, please! You cannot expect me to believe that you have measured your current or the values that go into calculating it to the degree of precision that a number like 0.00098655969 implies. You are here saying that the actual value of the current is 0.00098655969 amps, and NOT 0.00098655968 amps or 0.00098655970 amps.... or any other value. So I say to you that your current value is wrong! I could not say this if you had cited your current value as 1 milliamp, though. You would then be right! because the 0.001 value represents the degree of accuracy of your measurement. If you had given it as 0.001000000, you would once again be wrong.
The answer of any computation cannot legitimately include more digits of precision than the _least_ precise value that goes into the calculation. Those extra digits are just fantasy; the odds of them being exactly correct are smaller and smaller the more of them there are.
Umm What current ? That's not a current calculation. That is the energy in the rotor. I did the calculations and those are the figures I got as the result. I don't understand what else I could do except leave off some numbers, which would surely give a less accurate result, that's all it can do. Can you explain to me how I could do the calculations without getting decimal points ?
The hall sensor I realize it's an open collector device, and it will be supplied 5 volts to the supply pin of course, (as the drawing shows) I couldn't expect it to work without any input. The CMOS chip has a high impedance so I don't see how much current will flow to require the pull up resistor.
I don't get the replies, but that's OK because I can work on alone. No problem.
Don't worry about being Harsh, as long as it is said when I am misunderstood I don't mind at all.
I mean to say you provided me with the formula, can you show me then how I should have calculated it without all the decimal points ?
I don't understand what it is that I didn't show that was so confusing ? The formula is there. Are the calculations correct or not ? Please say so either way.
QuoteUmm
E = (Iw2)/2. So where I = 0.00098655969 and
where w = 230.2666 then E = 26.155 @ 2200 rpm
Where w = 157 then E = 12.1588 @ 1500 rpm
And where w = 104.6666 then E = 5.4039 @ 1000 rpm
Need more data now.
You also spoke of a reed which I don't use, so I can only assume you are not taking much notice of what I post.
If you don't want to help then fair enough, just say so and I'll stop wasting time asking questions here and go elsewhere. I won't be offended, you are busy with debunking, I know.
MileHigh has bowed out and said he no longer wants to help, which is fair enough. He's not here to help us only to debunk, that is clear now.
I'll just use a solderless board and spend time working things out for myself.
Cheers
.
Quote from: Farmhand on June 07, 2013, 04:39:35 PM
Umm What current ? That's not a current calculation. That is the energy in the rotor. I did the calculations and those are the figures I got as the result. I don't understand what else I could do except leave off some numbers, which would surely give a less accurate result, that's all it can do. Can you explain to me how I could do the calculations without getting decimal points ?
Sorry, I thought I was looking at a current calculation. The "I" confused me. But the point still stands. You calculated that MoI figure somehow. From measurements and weights, and somewhere in there you made a measurement that is only precise, to say 3 digits. Like 0.756 grams or something, or 0.625 millimeters. This means that any calculation you do with that measurement can't be more precise than that. And I used the rounding to 0.001 in your example as the extreme case. You probably can round to three sig digs. Please look up "significant digits" or figures in the Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures)
Quote
The hall sensor I realize it's an open collector device, and it will be supplied 5 volts to the supply pin of course, (as the drawing shows) I couldn't expect it to work without any input. The CMOS chip has a high impedance so I don't see how much current will flow to require the pull up resistor.
I think you are misunderstanding how open-collector devices work. The power supply pin to the Hall chip does not produce a "high" signal at the open collector output, it only supplies the chip's sophisticated electronics inside. The presence or absence of a triggering event closes or opens the collector-emitter channel of the sensor's output transistor. That is all. Just like the block diagram shows. The CMOS chip that you are driving will not consume much current at its high impedance inputs, and so you can raise the value of the pullup to limit current flow thru the Hall open-collector output transistor to the minimum value consistent with triggering. When the sensor is not sensing, the collector-emitter channel will be open, and so the voltage at the junction of the collector and the pullup resistor will be at the positive rail voltage (logic HI). When the sensor triggers, the channel closes and so the voltage at the collector-resistor junction falls to near the negative rail voltage (zero, logic LO). It is a bipolar transistor in there, wired as the block diagram shows! You have to provide a voltage for the transistor to switch, there is no internal connection to the collector. Open collector. Just as if it were a photodiode or phototransistor with no base lead at all.
The emitter pin is of course shared by the bipolar transistor output and the chip's power supply ground.
Quote
I don't get the replies, but that's OK because I can work on alone. No problem.
Don't worry about being Harsh, as long as it is said when I am misunderstood I don't mind at all.
I mean to say you provided me with the formula, can you show me then how I should have calculated it without all the decimal points ?
I don't understand what it is that I didn't show that was so confusing ? The formula is there. Are the calculations correct or not ? Please say so either way.
The calculations are "correct" but wrong, and hopefully you will understand after you read up on "significant digits". Just because your calculator has all those digits doesn't mean they are always meaningful.
Quote
You also spoke of a reed which I don't use, so I can only assume you are not taking much notice of what I post.
I spoke of Allegro 2-wire Hall sensors, which function like reed switches in that they only need two wires, instead of three, to produce a signal. Your schematic would be usable directly with one of these sensors, probably. I can only assume that you are looking deliberately for ways to misunderstand what I'm telling you. I thought you had enough electronic knowledge to know right away how a bipolar transistor is used in a circuit, and how to read Allegro's data sheet for your sensor. Sorry, my mistake.
Quote
If you don't want to help then fair enough, just say so and I'll stop wasting time asking questions here and go elsewhere. I won't be offended, you are busy with debunking, I know.
How do you possibly get "you don't want to help" out of my trying to explain to you how to use your sensor, in direct response to your question?
That is going to take some explaining for me to understand.
Quote
MileHigh has bowed out and said he no longer wants to help, which is fair enough. He's not here to help us only to debunk, that is clear now.
I'll just use a solderless board and spend time working things out for myself.
Cheers
.
Have fun.
I honestly don't see any need for the drama. The issue of significant figures is something I didn't mention to not break the flow. I am going to guess the accuracy of the measurements is about one in 50 or thereabouts. So that's one and 4/5 significant figures. This issue of significant figures should always be a "background process" running in any experimenter's head.
Okay so you add the pull-up resistor. In your CMOS Cookbook they tell you in the very beginning that CMOS inputs can't float. The input is just a capacitor plate. There is a perv analogy here. Without the pull-up resistor you are floating there is a good chance the output will go crazy with the slightest 'twitch' of the input.
As an ex hardware guy with my eyes closed I would use a 10K pullup resistor. I would still read the Hall sensor datasheet through, because the last time I read one was probably in 1982. So 10K with confidence and due diligence. ha ha Then some due diligence with your scope.
As a generic comment, if you use a project board and have long wire leads flying in the air then you have to check for ringing at the destination. You have to put your scope ground on the receiving chip's ground so you see what the signal looks like from its perspective. Let's assume your setup is powered by a battery so no ground loops. If there is a lot of ringing that could flip the input gate of the receiving chip. The usual solution is the magical 50-ohm series resistor at the source. Sometimes tiny capacitors help if you have a pesky signal. In this particular setup there is just one chip so you likely won't have to worry about ringing when connecting the CMOS gates to each other.
For me here is what the nitty-gritty would be all about: First you establish what your pull-up resistor is going to be. Then I would be very curious to see how the Hall sensor responds to various magnetic field stimuli so I would have to play with that for a while. So moving magnets around and looking at the collector waveform to see how it switches on the scope. The key questions being how fast is the signal gradient and what is the sensitivity vs. distance and angle like for various magnets. I would need to do that to develop an innate feel for how this particular model of Hall sensor responds. I would be tempted to change the pull-up resistor value and see if that can pull out some extra sensitivity. Doing that might not necessarily be desirable because I am guessing you might see heightened noise. So it would just be exploratory.
The truth is that the slew rate is not too important because you are driving a CMOS input and the CMOS amp output will switch very fast.
Then after all this crap you settle back and end up using a boring old 10K pull-up resistor (no point in wasting milliamperes) and you know that in your setup the switching at the CMOS NAND gate output is clean and sharp like a knife like it should be and everybody is happy. lol
The little 100 uF cap should be right by pin 14 of he 4011 chip to supply the teeny spike of switching current when called upon to do so.
Once perfected, seal the thing up in a big thick black gooey and oily mass of potting compound from hell and start a crowd-funding project! ;)
P.S.: Not A and Not B = Not (A or B) 8) 8) Muhahaha...
I'm just playing with youse, I know how the open collector output works, I've been using SG 3524 and TL494 chips for some time now a couple of years. I was just demonstrating how frustrating some people can be.
I keep being misunderstood. It peeves me.
I asked you MileHigh several times for my calculation results to be checked, no response on that.
Never mind. I'm Busy.
..
QuoteI keep being misunderstood. It peeves me.
I asked you MileHigh several times for my calculation results to be checked
I can relate to that about being misunderstood.
QuoteThe issue of significant figures is something I didn't mention to not break the flow.